Additional Titles










The Leipzig

Sept. 11: Hold Government

An Economic Assault on
African-Americans and Others in The US

Why The 28-Page Gap?


More Cuddy







Part 22




By Dennis L. Cuddy, Ph.D.
December 5, 2005

In previous Parts of this series, I have warned of the dangers of some psychiatric drugs used for "mental health." Recently, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) had been implementing a new plan requiring companies to conduct "long-term studies" of new drugs before allowing them on the market. By "long-term" was meant only up to 6 months. Unfortunately, toward the end of October 2005, a "panel of experts" recommended the FDA abandon this requirement as being too long. According to THE WASHINGTON POST article, "U.S. Alters Test Policy on Psychiatric Drugs" (October 26, 2005), among the reasons the panel gave was that "the policy would cause drug companies to scale back on developing new drugs because of the potential increase in expense and risk."

In some seemingly good news, on November 16, 2005, the U.S. House of Representatives by a 407-12 vote passed the Child Medication Safety Act (CMSA, H.R.1790) sponsored by Rep. John Kline of Minnesota. The purpose of the bill is "to protect children and their parents from being coerced into administering a controlled substance or a psychotropic drug in order to attend school." In a November 15 speech, Rep. Kline noted that "in some instances, school personnel freely offer diagnoses for ADD and ADHD disorders and urge parents to obtain drug treatment for their child. Sometimes, officials even attempt to force parents into choosing between medicating their child and allowing that child to remain in the classroom. This is unconscionable. Parents should never be forced to medicate their child against their will and better judgment in order to ensure their child will receive educational services."

The reason I said this is "seemingly" good news is that in the last session of Congress, the U.S. House passed the same bill by 425-1, but Sen. Ted Kennedy tied up the bill in the Senate. According to Jessica Vascellaro's column, "Kennedy ties up drug bill" (THE BOSTON GLOBE, July 2, 2004), Sheila Matthews of New Canaan, CT, "said that she has frequently contacted Kennedy's office about the bill and believes his appeal for research is a cover for his support for health and pharmaceutical groups. Since 1999, Kennedy has received $171,601 in campaign contributions from health professionals and $97,050 from the pharmaceutical and health-product industry, according to the Center for Responsive Politics." Therefore, it is not clear whether Sen. Kennedy will tie up H.R.1790 in the Senate this year as well.

Today, many pediatricians are coercing parents into giving a large number of vaccines to their children. Some doctors have even reported parents for child abuse who do not agree to have their children vaccinated. In the last 20 years, the doses of vaccines given children in the first 5 years of their lives has doubled, with autism or neuro-developmental problems increasing as well. In 1970, autism effected only 4 in 10,000 American children. But today, the Centers for Disease Control reports that 1 in 166 children is autistic, and 1 in 6 is developmentally delayed. Is this just coincidental?

Perhaps it's worth remembering here that former Planned Parenthood International medical director Dr. Richard Day on March 20, 1969, addressed the Pittsburgh Pediatric Society. According to Dr. Lawrence Dunegan in attendance, Dr. Day said concerning population control: "Everything is in place, and nobody can stop us now," and he related that hard-to-cure diseases were planned to be created, cures for nearly all cancers were being hidden, and euthanasia would be more accepted.

Why is it that veterinarians are cutting back on the number of vaccines they give animals while children are being given more vaccines? Why in the 1970s was "mercury-free" eye contact solution promoted, but then a mercury-based preservative was put in children's vaccines? Like mercury, aluminum is also toxic, so why are they now advertising "aluminum-free" deodorant while still including aluminum in children's vaccines? And why do they give the Hepatitis B vaccine to newborn babies when there has been a 300% increase in Multiple Sclerosis among nurses who take the vaccine? After all, Hepatitis B is basically transmitted sexually and is prevalent in IV drug users, plus immunity from the vaccine lasts only 7 years. So why give it to infants?

In a January 14, 2005, letter from the Government Accounting Office (GAO) to a Congressional Committee on Human Rights, the committee members were informed that the number of children diagnosed with autism served under the IDEA (Individuals with Disabilities Education Act) program has increased by more than 500% in the last decade. Despite the concern that autism may be linked to vaccines, the HARTFORD COURANT (October 27, 2005) reported that "Congress is considering a bill that would allow the government to order that vaccines be given to every U.S. citizen in a national emergency, even if a vaccine has previously harmed some people."

The legislation which Congress is considering is The Biodefense and Pandemic Vaccine and Drug Development Act of 2005 (S.1873). According to Evelyn Pringle in "Pharma to Republicans---Time to Pay Up Again" (OPEDNEWS, November 23, 2005), "The bill establishes the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Agency (BARDA) as the single authority for the advanced research and development of drugs and vaccines, and grants the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services the sole authority to determine whether a drug maker violated drug safety laws. In addition, the Act specifically bars citizens from challenging the Secretary's rulings in court. BARDA will be exempt from the Freedom of Information Act and the Federal Advisory Committee Act to ensure that no evidence related to injuries caused by vaccines classified as 'countermeasures' will become public."

Barbara Loe Fisher, president of The National Vaccine Information Center (NVIC) remarked: "This proposed legislation is an unconstitutional attempt by some in Congress to give a taxpayer-funded handout to pharmaceutical companies for drugs and vaccines the government can force all citizens to use while absolving everyone connected from any responsibility for injuries and deaths which occur." Fisher told United Press International: "It means that if an American is injured by an experimental flu or anthrax vaccine, he or she is mandated to take, that citizen will be banned from exercising the Constitutional right to a jury trial even if it is revealed that the vaccine maker engaged in criminal fraud and negligence in the manufacture of the vaccine." For more information on vaccines and government mandates, see the report "Profits, Not Science, Motivate Vaccine Mandates" by Kristine Severyn, Ph.D., director of the Vaccine Policy Institute.

� 2005 Dennis Cuddy - All Rights Reserved

Order Dennis Cuddy's new book "Cover-Up: Government Spin or Truth?"

Sign Up For Free E-Mail Alerts

E-Mails are used strictly for NWVs alerts, not for sale

Dennis Laurence Cuddy, historian and political analyst, received a Ph.D. from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (major in American History, minor in political science). Dr. Cuddy has taught at the university level, has been a political and economic risk analyst for an international consulting firm, and has been a Senior Associate with the U.S. Department of Education.

Cuddy has also testified before members of Congress on behalf of the U.S. Department of Justice. Dr. Cuddy has authored or edited twenty books and booklets, and has written hundreds of articles appearing in newspapers around the nation, including The Washington Post, Los Angeles Times and USA Today. He has been a guest on numerous radio talk shows in various parts of the country, such as ABC Radio in New York City, and he has also been a guest on the national television programs USA Today and CBS's Nightwatch.

E-Mail: Not Available











The purpose of the bill is "to protect children and their parents from being coerced into administering a controlled substance or a psychotropic drug in order to attend school."