Award winning scientist Shane Ellison talks about the inner workings of corporate drug making (and dealing). My most important lesson: Not all drugs are bad. Some are really bad. Take the so-called antidepressant Prozac as an example.

My friend, Tina Turbin, will be on two LIVE radios interviews on Wednesday, August 5, 2009.

Tina Turbin is a published children’s author, writer, humanitarian and researcher. Besides Tina’s “Danny the Dragon” series, Tina has strong interest working and writing on topics relating to family, children, the role of parenting and its importance. She is quite involved with child nutrition and education, research and writing on gluten-free sensitivity and eating as well as Celiac Disease, an auto immune disease.

1:00PM EST on Lynn Serafinn’s Garden of the Soul at BlogTalkRadio.com

She addresses community leaders and others who are actively making a positive and inspirational impact upon the world.

She will be discussing children’s literature, our responsibility as parents and leaders and will offer a tip-sheet for anyone with goals in writing children’s books.

Then at 6:00PM EST this same day the “Single Again! Now What?” Talk Radio Show- www.SingleAgainNowWhatRadio.com.

She covers many issues to help others and this title is misleading, as it is not just for single parents.

In the interview she will be talking about children’s literacy, children’s literature, schools and family.

She will be offering a different tip-sheet for this show.

Her new book series, “Danny the Dragon” will be a topic in both of these shows!

Again, these  two “Live” shows will take place on Wednesday, August 5, 2009 @ 1:00PM and 6:00PM EST.

If you listen to them, write a comment or send me an e-mail and let me know what you thought.

When it comes to kids and ill-mannered behavior, who is to blame? Is it the family, school or is it them. I recently had my eyes opened to another look at this while attending a library reading given by Tina Turbin on her new “Danny the Dragon” (http://DannyTheDragon.com) series of children’s books. Tina Turbin is not only a children’s author (she also wrote “Show Biz Kids”, http://ShowBizKids.com), but is also a researcher and humanitarian. While listening to her read to many local school children and home-schooled children, I realized that there is a good solution to raising well-mannered and responsible children.

This children’s author, Tina Turbin, got my attention while I sat amongst the other 96 attendees at her reading. After getting familiar with the large audience of kids, she conducted a remarkable questions and answer period. Her responses were honest and she addressed these young children with respect and honor. At one point, she also spoke to the parents. It’s what she said to the parents that really impressed me. This woman may just be onto something.

One child asked her when she had started writing children’s literature. To be honest, I was in the back and could not hear that reply, but then she started addressing us adults a bit after this point. Speaking louder to the back of the room, she stated what the importance of a parent or adult is to a child. She said that we should treat a child with respect, listen to the child’s goals at an early age and nurture these goals. She went on to say that children could possibly change their minds a few times but so do us adults. She also pointed out that many adults are not really living their dreams and asked if this is what we want for our children.

I realized then that she may be onto something. If a child is on his or her own goal and given some simple support and guidance, as Tina mentioned briefly, I can only assume that that child would be less distracted by peer pressure, feel more loved and have his or her own thrust in life. The result would be a happier child and most definitely a happier stable adult in later years.

The adults and children alike were fixed on her story to the end while Tina read her book, “Danny the Dragon Meets Jimmy” with all the life, charm and imagination that her book imparts. Not only does her book convey acts of kindness in the subtlest of manner to children, Tina Turbin’s approach to writing as a children’s author and to her audience was a sheer pleasure for us all.

After the reading, she conducted an exciting activity time for the kids. I had the pleasure to meet Tina and ask a bit more about her interests and background. She is very pleasant, with a sincere care for children and families and a love for writing. She is going strong at her goal in these areas.

I am sure we shall see and hear much more about this woman. I can see through her efforts why she is deemed a humanitarian as well as a popular children’s author already. She uses her knowledge and background to help those around her through her research and she writes in a manner that easily speaks to both the young and young at heart.

Is it possible that strangers could step into another person’s life and take it over completely? Could they gain the legal right to dictate where another person will live and what medical treatment he will be given? Could they then cause that person to be lost for years, or even a lifetime, in an abyss of mental hospitals and board and care facilities?

Could this really happen in spite of the fact that the person continuously states, even in court, that he does not want these strangers to make decisions for him? Could these strangers still be given the legal authority to decide where the person is housed, when he is sedated, and if he is to be institutionalized?

Could a judge allow these actions without ever asking for all the facts? Could such disingenuous and destructive practices actually happen and be implemented all in the name of help? And, could this happen to someone you know and love?

Fiction, you say? Drama? Not possible. In a civilized society this could never happen.

Look again.

Only by confronting something as it actually is, can we learn how to take responsibility and then become able to do something about it.

Mr Chabasinski, appeared by teleconference in US District Court for the Eastern District of New York, on January 3, 2007, before Judge Jack Weinstein, on behalf of MindFreedom, a non-profit human rights organization, in response to a motion by Lilly basically filed to keep the incriminating information hidden, to defend the public’s right to know the contents of the secret Lilly documents concerning Zyprexa.

Mr Chabasinski told the judge that the documents are evidence of Lilly executives’ “”criminal behavior”" and “”willingness to kill people for profit.”"

The court granted MindFreedom ‘s request for more time to respond to Lilly’s motion, and another hearing is set for January 16, 2007. Meanwhile Judge Weinstein said that he was taking “”no position”" about those people who were not named but who already have copies of the Lilly files on Zyprexa.

Prior to the hearing, in a letter to the judge, Mr Chabasinski pointed out that while the underlying case in which the documents were under seal is civil, the documents reveal criminal behavior on the part of Lilly’s executives. “”They have chosen a course of action,”" he told the judge, “”lying about and hiding the real effects of Zyprexa, that they knew would lead to the injury and death of literally thousands of people.”"

“”If this isn’t criminal,”" he stated, “”I don’t know what is.”"

The company documents also show that Lilly engaged in a massive illegal off-label marking campaign to get primary care physicians to prescribe Zyprexa for uses never approved by the FDA to increase profits.

The whole saga began when Dr David Egilman, MD, MPH, revealed the documents to Alaskan attorney, Jim Gottstein. Dr Egilman reviewed the documents and learned of Lilly’s illegal conduct a few years ago when he served as an expert in a lawsuit. However, the case was settled out of court, and Dr Egilman was effectively muzzled when the judge granted Lilly’s request to keep the documents secret with a court order.

To settle the lawsuit, Lilly agreed to pay close to $700 million to roughly 8,000 Zyprexa victims or their family members, with the provision that each person would sign a confidentiality agreement not to discuss Zyprexa or the terms of the settlement agreement in return for the money.

Being Lilly obviously planned to keep the information about Zyprexa a secret, as a physician, Dr Egilman likely found himself between a rock and a hard place. If he did not find a way to warn the public, at best he would be guilty of negligence, and at worst considered complicit in Lilly’s elaborate scheme to use the court system to keep the information hidden so as not to effect the booming sales of its top selling drug bringing in over $4 billion a year.

Mr Gottstein obtained the documents for use in another lawsuit, and after seeing that Lilly knew 10 years ago that Zyprexa caused drastic weight gain and diabetes and realizing the extent of the off-label marketing of the drug, he turned the documents over to the New York Times, obviously in hope that the Times would warn the public and medical professionals who were prescribing Zyprexa for every ailment known to mankind, without knowledge of the serious health risks associated with the drug.

Since the New York Times’ articles were published, Lilly’s legal team has been working day and night right through the holiday season trying to use the court system to muzzle the messengers and get the incriminating information back under seal.

In reviewing all the legal paperwork including letters, injunc tions, and motions flying around on the internet, its worth noting that not once do Lilly attorneys, or the judges handling the case, refer to the underlying illegal conduct disclosed in the documents that Lilly is working so hard to keep hidden.

The drug maker has been able to obtain injunctions ordering Mr Gottstein to return the documents and requiring him to provide the names of all persons and organizations that he provided them to or discussed them with. The injunctions bar further disclosure and specifically name individuals and organizations who are believed to have copies of the documents.

Mr Chabasinski is representing author, Judi Chamberlin, and MindFreedom International, who are both named in a December 29, 2006, temporary injunction. “”As everyone is aware at this point,”" Mr Chabasinski says, “”there are thousands of copies of the documents in question circulating on the Internet and in the hands of innumerable people.”"

He says Lilly knows full well that any attempt to recover the documents is a “”futile gesture”" and there is no way to keep them secret. “”While the injunction purports to be an attempt to recover the documents,”" Mr Chabasinski wrote in the letter to the judge, “”it is clear that its real purpose is to intimidate Lilly’s critics, and the court should refuse to cooperate with this.”"

As for Lilly’s payment of $700 million to settle the lawsuit, Mr Chabasinski told the judge, “”when a company is making billions of dollars from some drug, a few hundred million
dollars is simply a cost of doing business.”"

“”But if drug company executives know they may face long prison terms for their willingness to kill people for profit,”" he states, “”they will think more than twice about what they do.”"

“”If executives can go to prison for stealing their companies’ money,”" he told the judge, “”surely those who steal people’s lives deserve at least the same fate.”"

Mr Chabaskinski says Lilly’s biggest worry is that the documents will be reviewed by some prosecutor and that the real purpose of the injunction is to frighten people into giving up their First Amendment right to petition the government for redress of grievances, “”which in this situation,”" he says, “”means putting these documents into the hands of as many potential prosecutors as possible.”"

He points out that Lilly has created a massive public health problem by convincing doctors to prescribe Zyprexa to many thousands of people, whose drug-caused disabilities will now drain the public health system for years to come. “”It is not in the public interest,”" he told the court in the letter, “”to keep documents secret when it will have the effect of making it much more difficult to prevent the disability of thousands of people.”"

The pursuit of Mr Gottstein by Lilly attorneys could almost be likened to being chased around the country by a group of terrorists. Lilly wants the court to charge him with criminal contempt compl ete with sanctions.

Their conduct is clearly an abuse of the legal system, funded by the ill-gotten profits of Zyprexa, to run up costs for Mr Gottstein, by harassing him and anyone that he may associate with. At the court hearing on January 3, 2007, Lilly attorneys asked the judge to issue an order requiring Mr Gottstein to travel to New York City for a deposition within 5 days, and:

“”Requiring Mr Gottstein to immediately produce … copies of any and all documents and information including, but not limited to, all computer(s), hard-drives, other electronic storage media, hardcopy documents, emails, e-documents, text messaging, instant messaging, phone records and voice mails, that refer or relate to Zyprexa”".

And talk about chilling the freedoms of the First Amendment, Lilly wants the court to force Mr Gottstein to produce: “”Communications he had with anyone relating to these documents, including but not limited to, his dissemination of or discussions relat ing to the documents”".

Lilly also asked for the order to include individual reporters and the top experts on psychiatric drugs in the US, in demanding that Mr Gottstein’s disclose his communications with “”any person, organization or entity who received these documents including, but not limited to, Terrie Gottstein, Jerry Winchester, Alex Berenson, Dr. Peter Breggin, Dr. Grace Jackson, Dr. David Cohen and Bruce Whittington, Dr. Stefan Kruszewski, Laura Ziegler, Judy chamberlin, Vera Sherav, robert Whitaker, Steve Shaw, Will Hall, Singeha Prakash, or anyone associated with the Alliance for Human Research Protection or MindFreedom; and his efforts to retrieve these documents from the individuals to whom they were improperly disseminated.”"

Lilly is also requesting that if anything responsive to their request has been deleted or destroyed in computers, that Mr Gottstein be required to haul “”any and all relevant computers”" to New York City for the deposition, and permit “” forensic examination and recovery of such documents.”"

In addition to the big bucks being made by thinking up ways to harass Mr Gottstein, Lilly attorneys at the Pepper Hamilton Law Firm are making money hand over fist by scouring the internet looking for more people to harass. On December 30, 2006, they were apparently working overtime on the Saturday of the biggest holiday weekend of the year, when they began threatening a private citizen, Eric Whalen, in emails ordering him to remove the Lilly documents from his web site stating:

“”You are facilitating the violation of a Federal Court order. Please immediately remove the link to the file “”ZyprexaKills.tar.gz”" (or its mirror), including all cached materials, or we will take further legal action against your website.”"

In another email, they told Mr Whalen, “”You have been on notice now for several hours that you are operating in violation of a Federal Court Order, and you have thus far, refused to assure your com pliance.”"

“”You must take the link down immediately,”" they wrote, “”or we will take further legal action to shut down your website, and seek all available remedies.”"

In his own defense, Mr Whalen replied to the emails and stated: “”The documents linked to on my website were downloaded from an anonymous source. As far as I know I’m not under any court order. Dissemination of the contents of the documents is clearly in the public interest. Is there a legal basis for you[r] request?”"

To avoid having my name added to the dastardly list above and the risk of being subjected to the harassment tactics of Lilly attorneys, I hereby declare for the record, that I did not receive copies of the Lilly documents from Mr Gottstein.

Evelyn Pringle
evelyn-pringle@sbcglobal.net

Evelyn Pringle is a columnist for OpEd News and investigative journalist focused on exposing corruption in government and corporate America.

“The tightened rules were put in place last year after NIH found dozens of scientists had run afoul of existing restrictions on private consulting deals that had enriched them with money from drug and biotechnology companies.”

“Outside income from such companies is now banned. NIH also is placing greater restrictions and disclosure requirements on employees’ financial holdings.”

“Employee job satisfaction was high overall, the survey found. But 39 percent of the scientists researching disease and cures — known as tenure and tenure-track scientists — said they actively were seeking new work or considering leaving NIH because of the rules.”

“Among all NIH scientists, only 18 percent said they were trying to leave or considering it. Those who are not in the tenure group typically do not conduct research themselves and instead manage outside research conducted with NIH money by universities and other nonfederal entities. They are less likely to have private consulting opportunities.”

The Creeds and Codes of Scientology
http://www.whatisscientology.org/html/part14/chp40

The Creed of the Church of Scientology
http://www.whatisscientology.org/html/part14/chp40/pg0728.html

The Auditor’s Code
http://www.whatisscientology.org/html/part14/chp40/pg0730.html

The Code of Honor
http://www.whatisscientology.org/html/part14/chp40/pg0732.html

Code Of A Scientologist
http://www.whatisscientology.org/html/part14/chp40/pg0734.html

The Supervisor’s Code
http://www.whatisscientology.org/html/part14/chp40/pg0736.html

The Credo Of A True Group Member
http://www.whatisscientology.org/html/part14/chp40/pg0737.html

The Credo Of A Good And Skilled Manager
http://www.whatisscientology.org/html/part14/chp40/pg0739.html

The Axioms Of Dianetics And Scientology
http://www.whatisscientology.org/html/part14/chp41

For more information regarding Scientology, go here:
http://www.whatisscientology.org

Originally published September 11 2006

Prescription drugs are connected to school shootings and other violence, yet more drugs are touted as the solution
The United States is gaining a reputation around the world for raising children who go on school shooting rampages. Earlier this year, we had another one with 16-year-old Jeff Weiss, who went into his school on an Indian reservation and blew away 10 friends. And guess what? He was taking the antidepressant Prozac.

Once again we see the link between antidepressants and violent behavior. I was raising the alarm about this in 1999 following the Columbine schools shootings. At that time we knew that those students were on antidepressant drugs, but the rest of the world didn’t take any notice of it. The rest of the world said, “”These drugs are completely safe. They keep these kids happy and in a normal state so they don’t feel depressed.”" What they actually do, though, is detach these kids from reality to the point they can go on shooting rampages and not even have a clue that they’re affecting the lives of real people. It basically transforms the world into a video game that these kids play out.

It makes it very easy for them to cross that threshold and begin to display violent behavior. We’ve seen this in the studies and finally, after years and years of pounding this issue, some of it has started to come out in the popular press. We’re seeing a lot of warnings now about antidepressant drugs and their ability to cause violent behavior. We’re seeing some of these drugs pulled off the market. And slowly we’re beginning to see the general public recognizing the link between antidepressant drugs in our youth and violent behavior, including school shootings.

Back in 1999, they blamed guns. So if the students had picked up knives and stabbed people to death, it would have been a knife problem? Give me a break; it’s not a knife problem, or a gun problem… it’s a medication problem. These schools are supposed to be drug-free zones, and yet half the kids are doped up on antidepressants and Ritalin. How is that drug-free?

If you’re going to alter the brain chemistry of these children, you had better be prepared for the results. The result we’re seeing now is mass killings. Elsewhere around the world, where children aren’t doped up on all these drugs, we don’t see this kind of behavior. This is what happens when you change children’s brain chemistry; you get these results.

Now, you can talk about other factors that may be involved. We can talk about violent video games, for example, and how some of these first-person shooter games are potentially training simulators for violent and aggressive behavior. However, I think you can only push that argument so far. If a child can distinguish between a video game and reality, then he’s not going to be running around shooting people in the real world just because he played a video game.

That doesn’t mean these video games are healthy. I would certainly prefer that children played something a little less violent, but I don’t think you can blame the video games for this behavior. You’ve got to go to the brain chemistry. It’s when you alter the brain chemistry that bad things start to happen.

Boosting brain health with nutrition
Now, are there healthy ways to alter brain chemistry? Of course there are. Fundamentally, this is actually a nutritional problem. If a child is depressed, or if he or she is suffering from so-called ADHD — which is a completely fictional disease, by the way — you can resolve the vast majority of these issues by making changes in their diet.

As much as 80 percent of children diagnosed with ADHD can be completely free of the “”disease”" in a matter of weeks just by taking certain metabolic disrupters out of their diet — most notably, refined sugars and refined grains, such as white flour and artificial food colors. Imagine how healthy children’s nervous systems could be if we fed them good nutrition. What if they had some supergreens or just some basic vitamins, minerals and whole food concentrates? What could we do for the health of their brains?

They would have stable moods, they would have non-aggressive behavior, and they would be more creative and more willing to learn. We could raise a whole generation of healthy, intelligent children if we started with nutrition, because the brain and nervous system are physical organs. People forget that. The brain is a physical organ, and just like any physical organ in your body, if you don’t give it the right nutrients, then it won’t function properly.

Trying to raise a normal child without nutrition is akin to running a car without oil
It’s sort of like trying to run your car without any oil in it. I know that’s a crude metaphor, but some people get the point that way. You have to have good nutrition for the brain; that means B vitamins and lots of minerals — magnesium, zinc, calcium and the trace minerals as well. You have to have the phytonutrients, the pigmentation in these foods — the blues in the berries and the reds in the tomatoes and peppers, the orange in carrots and so on.

The colors of foods are actually potent phytochemicals, and these colors have highly protective effects on the nervous system. They also boost immune system function in the body and can help reduce arthritis and inflammation. They have a lot of beneficial effects in the body, yet children today are growing up on mostly processed foods and junk foods.

You probably remember what you ate as a teenager. It’s an atrocious diet. I know mine was a terrible diet. I can’t believe I made it to the age of 25 based on what I was eating then. But some kids aren’t making it, and they’re not making it because they lack the basic nutrition they need to have healthy functioning nervous systems.

So what does this organized medicine and psychiatry do to combat this problem? It doses teenagers up on prescription drugs as if drugs are the answer to every problem. Then they have another answer when these kids go out and shoot each other. The answer, then, is prison time. “”We’ll lock these kids away because they’re dangerous to society.”"

Instead of spending a few dollars on nutrition to raise a healthy, balanced human being with a functioning nervous system, we spend hundreds of thousands of dollars, if not millions of dollars, over the life of this person to keep them incarcerated. We build more prisons. We put them on more drugs, and we do nothing to create a productive member of society.

It only takes a few dollars worth of nutrition each month to support a healthy child. Of course, there’s more to it than just nutrition; there are things like good parenting, a great living environment, a challenging learning environment and so on. But in terms of the nutritional aspect, it only takes a few dollars. Nutrition doesn’t have to be expensive.

Investing in the health of our children is a bargain
To cover the nutrition basics only costs a few dollars a month, and that investment would pay off so much in our society. It would be returned many times over very quickly because every kid that we can save from the prison system and give a new opportunity, in terms of being able to learn and take on a skill and have real job opportunities out there, produces a windfall of returns for society. That child is going to grow up and be a productive member of society. He or she is going to pay taxes, possible raise a family and be part of a community. Instead, we put them in prison, dose them up on drugs and blame them for their actions when I believe they’ve actually been instigated by the prescription drugs and toxic chemicals in their foods.

The don’t need to be punished as mush as they simply need to be nourished. I know this stands at odds with the current “”incarcerate everybody”" mentality that dominates the culture here in the United States, the land of prisons — but it’s the truth. Why are we the country with the greatest prison population in the world? It might be the same reason we are the nation with the worst health problems in the world. They are connected, you know. People who are unhealthy are unhappy, moody and can display aggressive, violent behavior. Change their diets and you can turn many criminals into normal people. Not all of them, of course, but a large number.

Modern society is addicted to drugs
Someday historians will look back on this era and wonder with great bewilderment how we could poison our children with such toxic chemicals, how we could poison an entire generation with prescription drugs and how we could keep all our senior citizens in a zombie state, dosed up on mind-altering drugs. They will wonder, “”How could we do this as a society? Were we insane? Were we completely out of our minds? What was wrong with this society?”"

At that time, society will have moved way beyond chemical-based medicine. We will be focused on disease prevention, and we’ll have electro-medicine. We’ll be using non-local medicine, for example, to help people stay healthy. We’ll have outstanding nutrition available at a very reasonable cost in formats people can enjoy taking. Someday, nutrition will be recognized as the number one way to prevent disease and keep people healthy.

Belief in chemicals as a cure-all is just one more sign that we are living in the dark ages of medicine
Today, however, we’re living in the Dark Ages of medicine. We’re still living in the chemical-based medical society where everybody says that chemicals are the solutions to health problems.

“”Does your head hurt? You need a chemical. Blood pressure too high? We have a chemical for that, too. Do you feel nervous speaking in front of groups? We have a chemical for that one. Having trouble with your relationships? Chemical. Got a little bit of joint pain? Yup, there’s a chemical for that.”" Then they’ll tell you, just in case, “”We have chemicals for stuff that you haven’t even experienced yet. We have chemicals that you can take to make sure that you never have pain or heart disease. You should take all these chemicals right now, just in case, and keep taking them for as long as you live.”"

How’s that for a con? The con of pharmaceutical-based medicine is the biggest con ever perpetrated on the American people. That con has effects in our schools, and unfortunately, some of those side effects are fatal.

The silent holocaust of pharmaceutical deaths
Let’s look at this in perspective: We’re talking about 10 children being killed in this particular incident, and there are a lot of headlines about these 10 children being killed. Certainly, it is a tragedy. None of those children deserved to die, and it didn’t have to happen if only we were able to actually take care of our children and feed them right in the first place. But let’s compare those 10 deaths to how many Americans have been killed by prescription drugs this year alone. Even the Journal of the American Medical Association says in a peer-reviewed study that prescription drugs cause 100,000 deaths a year in this country.

Ten children die in this school shooting, and it gets a lot of attention. Why? It’s violent; people pay attention to violence. Meanwhile, we have 100,000 Americans (and that’s a conservative number) dying every year just from prescription drugs side effects, and it gets no attention. Why? It’s not violent. These 100,000 people die separately, and they die quietly. They die in homes or in hospitals. There’s no fiery crash, there’s no late-night footage for the news, there’s no big explosion and there’s nothing to report to the tabloid papers. It’s just 100,000 people dying silently.

Also, more than 16,500 deaths a year are caused by over-the-counter pain medications. Non-steroidal, anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) kill more than 16,500 people a year by gastrointestinal bleeding. Then the COX-2 inhibitors, which were supposed to be safer than the NSAIDs, came along, and according to studies by chief drug researcher Dr. David Graham at the FDA, they’ve caused more than 144,000 heart attacks, more than 40 percent of which have been fatal.

So what are we talking about here? We’re talking about drugs killing more Americans than the entire Vietnam War. We’re talking about it happening every year — twice a year, in fact. You want to talk about a war; this is war on the people, and it’s being waged by the pharmaceutical industry. They’re willing to trade your life for their profits, in my view. They can get away with it because, again, there’s no big event. People are dying separately and quietly, and many of the people who are dying were in their old age anyway, right? They figure no one will blame the drug.

We have a disturbingly drug-addicted society here, folks. We’ve got to get back to health and basic nutrition by raising children with healthy, functioning nervous systems. If we don’t do that, no amount of chemistry is going to save us. In fact, these chemicals are already responsible for untold pain, suffering and death in our society.

The solution is not more chemicals. The solution is to change the paradigm and get back to nutrition, healthy foods and disease prevention while getting the poisonous ingredients out of our food supply. If we don’t do that, we’re going to continue to be a society of violent criminals and degenerates — a society of people who don’t have good cognitive function and who are chemically dependant on a system of medicine that is actually killing them at a rate that makes the Vietnam War look like a Boy Scout skirmish in the woods.

That’s the truth about modern medicine today. It’s a crime against our own children, and if we are to have any real hope of surviving as a nation for another generation, this practice must be stopped.