Back to Eclub Navigator

Schools Receive $400
For Every Child Diagnosed With ADHD
Posted by: CULTURESHOCKTV.COM Mon Jan 6 15:11:30 2003


BREAKING DOWN THE MAIN CRIME

Tom De Weese, writing in NewsWithViews.com, marks the moment when ADHD took a quantum leap forward as a government-sponsored "disorder."

In 1991, fed rules were adopted which granted US schools $400 for each child diagnosed with ADHD. (I'm trying to determine whether this program extends to all or only some US school districts, and whether there is additional state aid involved.)

Also in 1991, the US Dept. of Education issued a formal recognition of ADHD as a debilitating condition and ordered state education departments to screen students and give ADHD cases special services.

So numbers of children with ADHD shot up.

The guiding principle here is pretty simple: that which the feds give money for becomes plentiful. If the government will offer funds for every chipmunk with blue teeth, you can be sure people will find them in the woods. All over the place. And no one will worry about the fact that, before the $$ offering, such chipmunks were non-existent.

In the case of ADHD, there has never been a diagnostic test which locates a chemical or biological root cause for the so-called disorder. That means there is no proof that ADHD, as a distinct clinical condition, exists.

"Well, my son definitely has a problem. He can't sit still, he wanders all over the classroom, he talks out of turn, he can't concentrate. So don't tell me ADHD doesn't exist."

I get this all the time, and all the time I point out: having problems is real, but that doesn't mean ADHD is real.

Here is a partial list of factors that can cause a child to have these "ADHD problems": chemicals and dyes in food, excess sugar intake, vaccines, med drugs, heavy metals, poor teaching, failure to grasp basic subjects (e,g., reading), head injuries, parents who aren't home, parents who don't care, unsafe schools, street drugs, poor nutrition.

Beyond any of this, if the government keeps giving money to schools for the identification of handicaps, then that is what school officials will focus on.

I see no government programs that hand out bonuses for each student who passes standardized tests with flying grades. I'm talking about A's.

Actually, the whole grant-bonus system is flawed, no matter which way it's applied, because the school officials will cook the books in any old direction to get those fed funds.

"Oh, they're giving $600 for every A student? Let's set up special study groups where we drill the kids on past standardized exams, so they pass the new tests without really knowing how to do anything except parrot answers."

Money isn't the determining factor in making education work. Teaching is.

On a related front, let's look at how government medical honchos certify that a new vaccine is effective. It's pretty much: the vaccine causes the production of antibodies? Good, it's effective.

On this basis alone, all sorts of government validation flows into the arena of vaccines for the kiddies.

Therefore, vaccine manufacturers, seeking government approval for a new vaccine, do nothing except develop vaccines that produce antibodies, everyone is happy, and all sorts of trouble ensues---because, the truth is, production of antibodies is not an accurate test for what a vaccine is supposed to do: give immunity from disease.

The immune system and its responses are a far more complex situation than this.

The government must stamp its approval on every new med drug or vaccine before a doctor may start churning out prescriptions. If the government says a new drug must produce blue teeth or orange noses or purple fingers, the drug companies will find a way to create new drugs which do these things. And everyone---except the patient---will be happy.

Another illustration: As drug companies turn out new and newer chemo drugs for cancer, the government, when all is said and done, applies a single standard for approval: does the drug kill cells like crazy? I'm not talking about cancer cells. I'm talking about any and all cells.

Because chemo drugs are sheer cell poisons.

And drug companies are happy to market new cell poisons, if the government only asks for cell death as the standard.

So if the diagnosis of ADHD is sloppy and subjective and no one really cares who gets slapped with a label, and if the government is willing to award schools $$ for such diagnoses, the money machine will run. And run. And little Jimmy, who eats junk food and tons of sugar every day and can't sit still, becomes another pawn in the money game. No one is going to worry about the actual causes of Jimmy's problem. It only matters that he fits the general criteria for an ADHD diagnosis.

And then, on top of his sugar and junk-food problem, he gets Ritalin. That drug, which is a cheap form of speed, gives the appearance of focusing his concentration---for a certain time---and then the Ritalin flattens out his emotional responses to life and starts to produce a speed crash---slow or fast---at which point, Jimmy may become morose. This situation is then diagnosed as clinical depression, and Jimmy is given Prozac or Paxil. (Do keyword search on my archive for many pieces on these drugs and their effects.)

But who cares? The school received its government money for the original diagnosis of ADHD. And as long as the school continues to zero in on government money as its desired goal, the basic criminal enterprise continues.

Make no mistake, the government-school money embrace is a RICO case, ongoing, and if the law allowed for it, it should be prosecuted as such.

In Nazi Germany, in the 1930s, citizens looked the other way as the new government began to turn the whole nation into an armed camp geared up for mass murder. In the US, the ADHD RICO conspiracy is based on the same practice: everyone looks the other way and takes the money.

"We didn't know."

"The psychiatrists said it was a good drug."

"The doctor assured us that ADHD is a real disease."

"We are told that mental disorders should carry no stigma."

"We're just trying to do the right thing. Share and care."

"These kids are out of control. They need a drug."

"The government wouldn't give us money unless we were doing the right thing."

"Maybe we were just failing to see that chipmunks with blue teeth were everywhere."

"If the government develops standards for aid, we have to follow those guidelines."

"If we tried to eliminate sugar-powered vending machines from school, we'd lose money."

"The kids would go crazy if they couldn't drink Coke during the day."

"You have to be reasonable about these things."

"The government would never approve a drug that could harm my child."

"I have to put my faith somewhere."

"I'm not a medical doctor."

"I can't be responsible for a medical decision."

"The government is just trying to help my family. Why would they offer help if it were dangerous?"

"If I reject my doctor, then where do I turn?"

And on the basis of these and other rationalizations, parents and teachers and government functionaries and school officials push kids down the vortex into misery, toxification, and ruination.

The machine I'm describing is not hard to set up. You just establish standards and you feed money into the front end of the apparatus. The rest takes care of itself.

Now, once you see the machine for what it is, you have to ask yourself, could it have been created as some kind of overall strategy? Could the machine have been invented to achieve the deleterious effects it produces?

Shall we say that the machine was put together as a gigantic blunder, one stupid piece after another, by errant and basically misguided people---or, from the very top of the control ladder, was it designed to make use of the compliant worker ants below in order to bring about great damage?

If you and I can view this machine in toto, we can be sure someone else could have too---before it was created. And this is where the rubber meets the road. This is where world views are made. At the crux, where designers with precise goals lay out structures that will debilitate populations.

Do you see how easy it is to mask the true aims of a machine? How easy it is to gain support from the workers who keep the infernal device running?

In the case of ADHD and other such "mental disorders", the very ant-workers who play such a great role in keeping the machine in good working order, the psychiatrists and psychologists, have no wisdom from their own disciplines to fall back on so they can see what is really being done in the name of "treatment".

What wisdom am I talking about?

A missing pillar of knowledge that informs them about how dupes are made.

You see, real psychology would recognize, from the get go, that making a dupe is a basic cause of what they call "mental illness" in the minds of the dupes.

If a shrink could treat a patient by illuminating all the ways in which that patient had bought into becoming a dupe---well then, we would really have something. Then, psychology could stand tall and proud and say, our business is deconstructing dupehood. That's what we do. We free people from the illusions they have bought, from the illusions which lead them to conclude that the authorities are looking out for their well being.

I assure you, this basic illusion is well understood by the elites that create it. And the true role of psychology should be revealing that illusion, instead of harming children.

But it turns out that soon after it began, psychology was invaded and hijacked (and, yes, funded) by the very people who know that the making of a dupe should be a verboten subject of study. After all, if you come to understand that process, you suddenly and instantly re-write all of history, to say nothing of the present and the future.

You begin to free those drones who run the Machine. They see what's what, and they walk away from their designated posts. They opt out. They speak up. They even, God forbid, reject the inducement of money.

A healthy and fertile chaos ensues. A chaos in which great things, great beginnings can occur.
By Jon Rappoport Friday, January 03, 2003 www.stratiawire.com

Jon Rappoport has worked as a free-lance investigative reporter for 20 years. He has written articles on politics, health, media, culture and art for LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, Village Voice, Nexus, CBS Healthwatch, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe

Recommended reading on this subject:
The Mind Game by Phillip Day
Available through www.credence.org