"No Child Left Unmedicated" Legitimate Governance or Bush's Payback to Drug Companies

[host]

Before this Orwellian plan of compulsory mental health testing and mandatory
medicating of all Americans diagnosed as having mental health "disorders"
actually becomes law, what is your opinion about the appropriateness of this?
(Apologies for all the information displayed here, but it is a serious issue and
it requires study if one's goal is to make an informed decision.)

"The Labor HHS appropriations bill contains block grant money that may be used by the States for a number of different programs at their discretion. Some critics are concerned that states will use this money to implement some form of mandatory mental testing program for all students throughout the school system. This concern stems largely from recommendations of New Freedom Commission on Mental Health, a non-policy making body created by President Bush in 2002 to propose ways of eliminating waste and improve efficiency and effectiveness of the mental health care delivery system. The Commission went far beyond their mission and recommended that schools be used as the means for discovering mental health problems.

The Commission's report does not specifically recommend screening ALL students. However, one could foresee how the recommendations in the report might lead to the mandatory screening of every child. For example, the report stresses that a major problem comes from undiagnosed children. They also suggest that "schools are in a key position to identify the mental health problems early and to provide a link to appropriate services." Any proposal that would lead to mandatory testing is dangerous and clashes with the principles which govern a free society.

Keep in mind, this commission has no legislative or executive power. Congress legislates and the Department of Health and Human Services implements policy.

The House and Senate HHS appropriations committees have appropriated $20 and $40 million respectively which could technically be used by each state to implement some form of mental health testing. This wouldn't be much more than $600,000 per state which is far short of the money needed to implement a mandatory system.
<a href="http://www.thelibertycommittee.org/update11.22.04.htm">Congressman Ron Paul (TX-14)</a>and others are currently working on committee report language that would require parental consent before any mental testing could occur." <a href="http://www.hslda.org/docs/news/hslda/200411/200411170.asp">http://www.hslda.org/docs/news/hslda/200411/200411170.asp</a>

No Child Left Unmedicated <a href="http://www.townhall.com/columnists/phyllisschlafly/ps20041123.shtml">http://www.townhall.com/columnists/phyllisschlafly/ps20041123.shtml</a>
Phyllis Schlafly

November 23, 2004

Big Brother is on the march. A plan to subject all children to mental health screening is under way, and pharmaceutical companies are gearing up for bigger sales of psychotropic drugs.

Like most liberal big-spending ideas, this one was slipped into the law under cover of soft semantics. Its genesis was the New Freedom Commission on Mental Health created by President George W. Bush in 2002.

The commission recommends "routine and comprehensive" testing and mental health screening for every child in the United States, including preschoolers. The president has instructed 25 federal agencies to develop a plan to implement the commission's recommendations.

The commission proposes using electronic medical records for mental health interrogation of both children and adults for mental illnesses in school and during routine physical exams. The commission also recommends integrating electronic health records and personal health information systems.

It recommends "linkage" of these mental examinations with "state-of-the-art treatments" using "specific medications for specific conditions." That means prescribing more expensive patented antidepressants and antipsychotic drugs.

Illinois became the first state to jump on board........

IL launches compulsory mental health screening for children and pregnant women

Monday, July 19, 2004

By The Leader-Chicago Bureau

CHICAGO -- This week, a series of public forums on a program requiring all pregnant women and children through age 18 years to be tested for mental health needs is being held this week in five different locations statewide.

One group of parents learned about the state's plans to proceed with this program and on Monday issued an alarm asking for parents and citizens concerned about the new program to voice their opinions at the forums.

"We're moving toward social training over academic training with this program," Larry Trainor, a Mt. Prospect parent of four children and a contact for Citizens Commission on Human Rights, based in Los Angeles, said today.

"Since psychiatric involvement in education, SAT scores have gone down for the past few decades. Evaluating mental conditions is not based on scientific evidence, it's subjective," he said.

The $10 million plan for the setup of the Children's Mental Health Act of 2003 is being considered at this week's public forums starting Monday, July 18 in Champaign.

Signed into law, the bill passed the Illinois General Assembly last spring, sponsored in the House by State Representatives Julie Hamos (D-Evanston) and Patricia Bellock (R-Westmont). State Senator Maggie Crotty (D-Oak Forest) and Susan Garrett (D-Highwood) shepherded the legislation through the Senate.

The legislation passed the House with a 107 to 5 vote, and the Senate unanimously.......... <a href="http://www.illinoisleader.com/news/newsview.asp?c=17748">http://www.illinoisleader.com/news/newsview.asp?c=17748</a>

<h3>Just Say No to Bush's Drugs</h3>
October 02, 2004
By: Melissa Carr

A little-known initiative by President Bush is quietly creeping through the United States. The proposal is based on recommendations from the New Freedom Commission on Mental Health. It is part of the broader New Freedom Initiative for the disabled. The Commission convened in April 2002 and released its report with recommendations on July 2003. Although this proposal has been largely overlooked by the mass media, it plans to impact every American citizen in a very frightening way.

The report points to the Texas Medication Algorithm Project (TMAP) as a model on which to base the national mental health agenda. TMAP was a pilot program under then-Governor Bush that standardized certain medications for certain mental illnesses in a flow chart fashion. The report also recommends that every citizen in the United States should be screened for mental illness, including children. It states, “Each year, young children are expelled from preschool and childcare facilities for severely disruptive behaviors and emotional disorders.” It then suggests early detection is paramount in mental health and “schools can help address mental health problems.” Beyond the classroom, the report suggests screenings should be addressed in primary care “throughout the lifespan.”

So, the commission has determined that everyone should be tested for mental illness and a flow chart determines which medication should be used to treat it. Sound alarming? It should, especially upon hearing what Allen Jones has to say about it. Mr. Jones was employed as an investigator in Pennsylvania’s Office of Inspector General. He was investigating corrupt activities involving pharmaceutical companies offering honorariums to state officials. The OIG manager told him, “Drug companies write checks
to politicians—they write checks to politicians on both sides of the aisle,” and changed his assignment.

Jones decided to continue his investigation on his own time. And he discovered that TMAP, which Pennsylvania adopted in 2002 under then-Governor Tom Ridge, was in fact driven by pharmaceutical companies who were lavishing Texas politicians, as well as making sure their most expensive patented drugs (some with potentially lethal side effects) were listed as the designated treatments on the algorithms. Jones released a 66-page whistleblower report about the scandal in January 2004 and was subsequently fired by the OIG.

Included in his report is background information on each member of the New Freedom Commission on Mental Health, offering valuable insight on this group of individuals who decided all citizens should be screened and possibly medicated for mental illness. Among them you will find Michael Hogan, whose research institute relies heavily on pharmaceutical company grants. Another is Norwood Knight-Richardson, a Texas college buddy of Bush Sr. whom he appointed as then-Governor to the Texas drug and alcohol council during the establishment of TMAP. Knight-Richardson is also the director of a pharmaceutical delivery company that has significantly profited from contracts in post-war Iraq.

The Bush family has direct pharmaceutical connections as well. According to the British Medical Journal, Bush Sr. was a board member at Eli Lilly Pharmaceuticals, and Bush Jr. appointed Lilly’s CEO, Sidney Taurel, as a member of Homeland Security Council.

One might have been able to write off Allen Jones’ stunning report as a conspiracy theory, if it weren’t for the lawsuits of Dr. David Franklin and Dr. Stefan Kruszewski. Franklin, a former Warner-Lambert (now part of Pfizer) employee, was “paid to lie to doctors” about prescribing the drug Neurontin in cases where it was neither clinically safe nor effective. Pfizer pleaded guilty to criminal fraud and agreed to pay $430 million in fines. That amount pales in comparison to the $2.9 billion in annual Neurontin sales.

Dr. Kruszewski was hired as a psychiatric consultant for the Pennsylvania Department of Health and Human Services. In his current federal lawsuit, he alleges he was fired after he uncovered corrupt relations between Pennsylvania politicians and pharmaceutical representatives. Allegations of fraudulent medication billings to the United States government were also voiced. Even more disturbing, however, is his allegation that four children and one adult died while under the state’s care, and all were prescribed lethal combinations of anti-psychotic drugs. He was denied access to the autopsy records and later fired.

Illinois has been the first state to adopt the New Freedom Commission’s proposal. All children ages 0-18 and pregnant women must undergo mandatory mental health screenings. Iowa is moving towards adopting the proposal. On September 15, Congress voted 95-315 against a bill to cut federal funding for school mental health screenings............ <a href="http://www.independent-media.tv/item.cfm?fmedia_id=9214&fcategory_desc=Under%20Reported">http://www.independent-media.tv/item.cfm?fmedia_id=9214&fcategory_desc=Under%20Reported</a>

Pfizer Pleads Guilty to Illegal Marketing of Neurontin

The Pfizer Settlement

Journal News Editorial May 16, 2004

Perhaps the scariest thing about Pfizer Inc.'s decision to pay a jaw-dropping $430 million in fines to settle charges of medical fraud in the promotion of the best-selling drug Neurontin is that the hefty sanctions just might not be enough to deter such common, dangerous, profit-driven deceit.

Manhattan-based Pfizer on Thursday pleaded guilty to criminal fraud and agreed to the fine, which includes a $240 million criminal fine, to account for the marketing abuses of drugmaker Warner-Lambert, purchased by Pfizer in 2000, three years after the case began. Another $152 million in civil fines will be shared among state and federal Medicaid agencies, $38 million will go to state consumer-protection agencies and nearly $27 million will go to a former Warner-Lambert employee who blew the whistle on the objectionable practices.

When will the kind of fundamental reforms and transparency that changed marketing practices on Wall Street visit the pharmaceutical industry? Patients and honest doctors are very often left to the mercy of the ethically bankrupt, whose advice is informed by personal gain and profit, without any regard to patient well-being...........<a href="http://www.namiscc.org/News/2004/Spring/PfizerGuilty.htm">http://www.namiscc.org/News/2004/Spring/PfizerGuilty.htm</a>

News
Bush plans to screen whole US population for mental illness
Jeanne Lenzer BMJ.COM (British Medical Journal).

New York

A sweeping mental health initiative will be unveiled by President George W Bush in July. The plan promises to integrate mentally ill patients fully into the community by providing "services in the community, rather than institutions," according to a March 2004 progress report entitled New Freedom Initiative (http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/ne.../toc-2004.html). While some praise the plan's goals, others say it protects the profits of drug companies at the expense of the public.

Bush established the New Freedom Commission on Mental Health in April 2002 to conduct a "comprehensive study of the United States mental health service delivery system." The commission issued its recommendations in July 2003. Bush instructed more than 25 federal agencies to develop an implementation plan based on those recommendations.

The president's commission found that "despite their prevalence, mental disorders often go undiagnosed" and recommended comprehensive mental health screening for "consumers of all ages," including preschool children. According to the commission, "Each year, young children are expelled from preschools and childcare facilities for severely disruptive behaviours and emotional disorders." Schools, wrote the commission, are in a "key position" to screen the 52 million students and 6 million adults who work at the schools.

The commission also recommended "Linkage [of screening] with treatment and supports" including "state-of-the-art treatments" using "specific medications for specific conditions." The commission commended the Texas Medication Algorithm Project (TMAP) as a "model" medication treatment plan that "illustrates an evidence-based practice that results in better consumer outcomes."

Dr Darrel Regier, director of research at the American Psychiatric Association (APA), lauded the president's initiative and the Texas project model saying, "What's nice about TMAP is that this is a logical plan based on efficacy data from clinical trials."

He said the association has called for increased funding for implementation of the overall plan.
<h3>
But the Texas project, which promotes the use of newer, more expensive antidepressants and antipsychotic drugs, sparked off controversy when Allen Jones, an employee of the Pennsylvania Office of the Inspector General, revealed that key officials with influence over the medication plan in his state received money and perks from drug companies with a stake in the medication algorithm (15 May, p1153). He was sacked this week for speaking to the BMJ and the New York Times.</h3>

The Texas project started in 1995 as an alliance of individuals from the pharmaceutical industry, the University of Texas, and the mental health and corrections systems of Texas. The project was funded by a Robert Wood Johnson grant—and by several drug companies.

Mr Jones told the BMJ that the same "political/pharmaceutical alliance" that generated the Texas project was behind the recommendations of the New Freedom Commission, which, according to his whistleblower report, were "poised to consolidate the TMAP effort into a comprehensive national policy to treat mental illness with expensive, patented medications of questionable benefit and deadly side effects, and to force private insurers to pick up more of the tab" <a href="http://psychrights.org/Drugs/AllenJonesTMAPJanuary20.pdf">http://psychrights.org/Drugs/AllenJonesTMAPJanuary20.pdf</a>
<a href="http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&sa=G&q=%22psychrights.org/Drugs/AllenJonesTMAPJanuary20%22"><h3>click here for google.com text version of above .pdf lnk</h3></a>
Larry D Sasich, research associate with Public Citizen in Washington, DC, told the BMJ that studies in both the United States and Great Britain suggest that "using the older drugs first makes sense. There's nothing in the labeling of the newer atypical antipsychotic drugs that suggests they are superior in efficacy to haloperidol [an older "typical" antipsychotic]. There has to be an enormous amount of unnecessary expenditures for the newer drugs."

Drug companies have contributed three times more to the campaign of George Bush, seen here campaigning in Florida, than to that of his rival John Kerry

Olanzapine (trade name Zyprexa), one of the atypical antipsychotic drugs recommended as a first line drug in the Texas algorithm, grossed $4.28bn (£2.35bn; {euro}3.56bn) worldwide in 2003 and is Eli Lilly's top selling drug. A 2003 New York Times article by Gardiner Harris reported that 70% of olanzapine sales are paid for by government agencies, such as Medicare and Medicaid.

Eli Lilly, manufacturer of olanzapine, has multiple ties to the Bush administration. George Bush Sr was a member of Lilly's board of directors and Bush Jr appointed Lilly's chief executive officer, Sidney Taurel, to a seat on the Homeland Security Council. Lilly made $1.6m in political contributions in 2000—82% of which went to Bush and the Republican Party.

Jones points out that the companies that helped to start up the Texas project have been, and still are, big contributors to the election funds of George W Bush. In addition, some members of the New Freedom Commission have served on advisory boards for these same companies, while others have direct ties to the Texas Medication Algorithm Project.

Bush was the governor of Texas during the development of the Texas project, and, during his 2000 presidential campaign, he boasted of his support for the project and the fact that the legislation he passed expanded Medicaid coverage of psychotropic drugs.

Bush is the clear front runner when it comes to drug company contributions. According to the Center for Responsive Politics (CRP), manufacturers of drugs and health products have contributed $764 274 to the 2004 Bush campaign through their political action committees and employees—far outstripping the $149 400 given to his chief rival, John Kerry, by 26 April.

Drug companies have fared exceedingly well under the Bush administration, according to the centre's spokesperson, Steven Weiss.

The commission's recommendation for increased screening has also been questioned. Robert Whitaker, journalist and author of Mad in America, says that while increased screening "may seem defensible," it could also be seen as "fishing for customers," and that exorbitant spending on new drugs "robs from other forms of care such as job training and shelter programmes."

But Dr Graham Emslie, who helped develop the Texas project, defends screening: "There are good data showing that if you identify kids at an earlier age who are aggressive, you can intervene... and change their trajectory." <a href="http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/full/328/7454/1458">http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/full/328/7454/1458</a>

Whistleblower charges medical oversight bureau with corruption
Jeanne Lenzer BMJ.COM (British Medical Journal).

New York

Dr Stefan Kruszewski, a psychiatrist hired by the Bureau of Program Integrity in the Pennsylvania Department of Public Welfare, filed a law suit on 1 July in a federal court in the Middle District of Pennsylvania, charging that he was fired on 11 July 2003 after he uncovered widespread abuse and fraud in the bureau.....<a href="http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/full/329/7457/69">http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/full/329/7457/69</a>

[MSD]

Screen everyone you can for disorders. When you claim to find evidence of a disorder, hand out a treatment that only you can sell. Is it just me, or does this sound suspiciously like the brainwashing process of the Church of Scientology?

[Paq]

two words
F'd up....

seriously, i know i probably would have been flagged at some point during school as having some form of mental illness ranging from mild depression to schizophrenia to ADD to you name it...the only thing is that i'm perfectly normal and those just happen to fall within my personality...i'd hate to imagine how much money they would make off me by prescribing drugs to make me more...conformist..

this really is some scary stuff

[tecoyah]

This gives me great fear.......

Guess I need drugs.

WTF are we doing to our society.

[guthmund]

"Oh brave new world, that has such people in it."

Reminds me of the old travelling snake-oil salesman pitch. Everyone has problems. Your kid has problems. I can see it, but there is a solution. I just happen to have it and I will be happy to sell it to you.

Thank god, we have great companies like Pfizer, Bristol-Myers Squibb and Eli Lily willing to step up to the plate and help America medicate herself properly. Not to mention all the good folks in the state and federal legislatures who are willing to put aside partisanship in the pursuit of the almighty dollar and in search of the blessed kickback.

[ObieX]

Its nice to see bribrey is still alive and kicking in our government. Oops, did i say bribery? I meant lobbying.. yea that's it....

This whole idea is flawed on so many levels. What % of students wouldnt "benefit" from some form of medication? That kid is shy? Lets pump him full of drugs. That kid talks in class? Pump him full of drugs! Those two kids don'tlike eacher? Hell, they need some drugs! "oh! oh! oh! Teacher! I know the answer!" ... "Now, now, Billy... you didnt raise your hand... time for you to go down to the nurse's office to get pumped full of mind altering drugs!"

Any kind of drug that is used on a child to effect their "mental health" is bad in my opinion. ADD.. depression.. hyperactivity.. these are things that ALL children experience to some degree. I have an idea, instead of talking to the child and asking what could be wrong, and trying to deal with it that way, lets pump "tested" drugs into their body that have a chance to kill them. If they're dead they'll nolonger have any problems witht heir mental health - problem solved!

[Bill O'Rights]

You will conform to our standards of normality, one way...or another.
You may pick up your khaki Dockers, Timberlands, polo shirt and cardigan sweater from the third blue eyed blonde on your left, on your way out.

Ladies and Gentlemen...will the last one out please turn off the light and lock the door. We're finished.

[JohnnyRoyale]

The first part of the original post:
The Commission's report does not specifically recommend screening ALL students
The first add-on:
The commission recommends "routine and comprehensive" testing and mental health screening for every child in the United States, including preschoolers.
Third add-on:
The report also recommends that every citizen in the United States should be screened for mental illness, including children.

Can someone explain how it went from it doesn't recommend something, to it does, and now it's for every person, not just kids?

[Locobot]

This is just the sort of big-government liberalism I've come to expect from the Republican party.

[Averett]

This can't be serious.

Umm... somebody please tell me this is a joke

[prb]

Probably no proposal in the report for kids to receive medical marijuana.

[roachboy]

gee, i seem to remember that during the cold war one of the main critiques of the soviet psychiatric system was that they would treat all forms of deviance with drugs.

i am not clear at all--at all--about how the same kind of result would not be obtained by using schools as screening systems.

when i was dragged into trying to help my nephew a few years ago--he was having trouble in a nj public school system (it is an extremely complex story)--it became obvious right away that the school he was in was making no distinction between types of "deviance" and were warehousing kids with behavioural problems (insufficient "respect for authority") with those who had other types of developmental disorders--and the principal of the school was quite up front about it.

if you combine this with how, in the wonderful world of hmo-dominated "health care," psychotropics are too often used not as a supplement to other forms of therapy, but as a functional replacement for them.....if this story were to translate into policy, what would then matter is how the category was defined and who fell into it--because from within the system there would be little chance of appeal, little feedback.

god only knows what types of repression would develop out of this kind of logic merging with a conservative sense of the world---what types of opinion management would dovetail with the pathologization of all types of "social deviance" if the right gets to control the definition of deviance.


i do not see a single good side to this, and a hope that this proposal remains a sketchy paranoid fiction.

[Ustwo]

We screen children for vision, hearing, and other diseases. I recall standing in those lines in grade school.

If mental health IS a serious disease then its easy to argue in favor of such screenings.

I think the 'shut up and study!' method works better.

[Bill O'Rights]

Oh just quit wasting time, and lobotomize everyone. Oh...wait, that procedure only had a 30% success rate.

[host]

Originally Posted by roachboy

.........i do not see a single good side to this, and a hope that this proposal remains a sketchy paranoid fiction.

Eleven replies so far......no one has anything positive to say about compulsory
mental health screening of all children.......plus pregnant women.....plus adults
who work in public schools. According to this link, <a href="http://www.illinoisleader.com/news/newsview.asp?c=17748">http://www.illinoisleader.com/news/newsview.asp?c=17748</a>
Illinois has already implemented this progtam.

Ustwo......as I recall, you live in Illinois. I am surprised that you have not weighed in on this thread....yet.

In edit.......Ustwo beat me to the punch, while I was writing this. At last,
support for this program....or is he being sarcastic ?

[roachboy]

maybe i should be clearer--the problem is in how the categories woul dbe defined that informed the screening. given that, like i said above, i do not see much in the way of calirty on this matter in programs already underway in the schools, and i see nothing in the above that talks about defining the categories tightly, i assume that they would piggyback on existing institutional logic--and therein lies the main problem.

[gondath]

After reading about this, I have another reason to move out of Illinois, except that the screening will probably be in every state before too long. This is a seriously bad idea. Public schools have a bad enough track record measuring academic achievment with standardized testing. The theme here is laziness. Schools will take the easy way out and just drug any kids they deem fit to instead of trying to understand the differences and variations in student behavior. I believe psychotropic drugs should be used as a weapon of last resort against mental illness. Most of them are not even proven to be effective against the disorders they are prescribed to treat. I predict the mental health questions will be peppered with items relating to students behaving the way the system wants them to behave and having nothing at all to do with the mental well being of the students. No good is going to come of this at all.

[ObieX]

What puzzles me is that schools are already low on funds, where has all this money come from all of a sudden? Couldn't it be used for something better? Like providing things like books, paper and chalk?

[MSD]

Originally Posted by Ustwo

We screen children for vision, hearing, and other diseases. I recall standing in those lines in grade school.

If mental health IS a serious disease then its easy to argue in favor of such screenings.

I think the 'shut up and study!' method works better.

I would agree that ADD/ADHD is the most overdiagnosed ailment in the country, but I can tell you from first-hand experience, it does exist, medication does help if you're willing to give it some effort (they aid you, they're not miracle drugs,) and you can partially grow out of it as you mature and your brain finishes wiring itself.

[guthmund]

Originally Posted by ObieX

What puzzles me is that schools are already low on funds, where has all this money come from all of a sudden? Couldn't it be used for something better? Like providing things like books, paper and chalk?

That's the beauty of the system, my friend!

Once mental health screenings become compulsory the sky's the limit. We simply say that every child has a "problem" and drug them appropriately. Can't find a problem? Say they have ADHD, that's easy enough to "diagnose." Fuck the kids who have real problems, fuck actually dealing with those problems and fuck the non-pharmacological solution. There's no money there, neighbor. We can just drug up every kid in America with with "solutions" that mask the symptoms so it looks like they're actually working, collect parental accolades (along with their money....) and sit back and wait for the profits to roll in.

Once the plan is in effect, we'll actually be saving the educational system money. No need for books, paper, chalk or qualified teachers to educate our children as they will all be sitting in a mind numbing haze. In fact with enough "screenings" we could probably cut out everything but the four walls, floor, ceiling and maybe some sort of guard to make sure the kids get their medication. Imagine the savings!

[maypo]

They make it all sound so reasonable, as if some wise doctor will be handling your care. There is already a massive problem with patented (read more-expensive) drugs that are nominally or less efficacious than generics being sold in ads to the public and physicians that this just seems like an evil extension. Can't put my finger on it right now but there is some interesting information on who mostly pays for drug development( suprise: you do, through your government) and drug companies use the expense(yours) to justify the high cost of drugs.

[pan6467]

2 Things jump out at me on this:

1) I wonder if this is another reason to limit lawsuits against doctors and medicorps. After all a misdiagnosis or overmedicating a child or medicating with a drug that the USDA passed thru without much research and wham bam it starts causing serious childhood chronic health problems. Limit liability raise the prescription rate.

2) I wonder if it will remain all kids or just "kids in public schools or recieving public monies (which could be those nice little $500 "tax refund"checks that Bush send out to families. He can claim tax rebate, but remember as with corporate America if you take federal aid (and a rebate is aid in a way) the government then OWNS you.) Therefore only the lower classes are susceptible to this and it hopefully takes away the desire and awareness to argue for government fiscal responsibility and class envy.

[pedro padilla]

It would be interesting to hear what exactly will constitute mental illness or deviant behavior. I´m afraid I would probably get drugged or interned immediately. As would probably a good percentage of you dangerously informed thought criminals.