Smart Drugs and Down’s Syndrome: Part 1
Smart Drugs and
by Steven Wm. Fowkes and Ward Dean, M.D.
If you listen to scientists who specialize in academic research into Down’s syndrome, or to the Down’s Syndrome Association, there is basically
nothing a parent can do to prevent the profound mental deficits and impaired growth of a Down’s child. But if you listen to Dixie Lawrence, a
devoted adoptive mother of one Down’s child, or to Dr. Jack Warner, a California pediatrician with a ten-year history of treating Down’s children,
there is plenty that parents can do. In fact, this small group of motivated parents and dedicated practitioners has succeeded in doing what the
authorities have decreed to be impossible — the normalization of Down’s children’s growth rates and mental abilities. Down’s children treated
with this new smart-nutrient and/or smart-drug treatment program are now being mainstreamed into public schools on a routine basis. Their growth rates
are equivalent to those of normal children, and the IQs of those children started on the program early in life are comparable to normal children.
One 5-year old Down’s girl even has a documented IQ of 140!
Smart Drugs and Down's Syndrome
Comment: Now the philosophical question is about IQ, if a Down's Syndrome Kid at five years age reaches 140, then what would an ordinary otherwise
median 100 IQ kid do? Say sample the average earlier siblings and relatives for IQ, and nurture the younger ones with smart drugs or smart nutrients?
Well in the above cited case, since Down's syndrome is supposedly genetic, environmental factors appear with a compelling argument. It is not
necessarily nature alone, but a wide margin of difference for the better in nurturing. Now IQs 130 and above qualify for MENSA, a genius level. If the
otherwise least smart ethnic group in such a study is no less than 130, then who cares about dredging the diminishing further edge of the bell shaped
curve for other ethnic groups? Other statistically significant results comparable in any way to the results of Down's syndrome kids would be
favorable as well.
But then again think about the Miracle in Wisconsin
our apathetic brain dead politicians only know how to take bribes from the huge pharmaceutical companies for Ritilin, with a "New Freedom," styled
Orwellian plans, programs and projects. There would also be have deeply offended junk food peddlers trashing their election chances. So instead of
taking care of the future, our kids, they feed already fat pigzillas with mega dollars. If ignorance was bliss, only a fool would want to be wise.
Meanwhile guess who is footing the bill? Yup you guessed it a future population earning less because it is "not smart enough." Hey do you really
want to make things change, then tell these people something like "we might lose a future war," because of these disastrous policies preferring
ignorance. Unfortunately the only things that matter to these people are the next quarterly profits statement, and the next election.
I am making a strong case for the difference in nuture, and in such a view the reason for positive action. Because of the wide significance of Down's
syndrome kids getting the right nurturing, my argument is that differences in the nature, or ethnicity are far less statistically significant than in
the absence of such a strong argument. My criticism politically is that such a thing as a positive development for Down's syndrome kids, as well as
for erasing prejudements on the basis of race or gender, should not be ignored as a solid basis for solutions.
I see no reason to delimit further conversations here. There is no donneybrook here, only a voice favoring reason. This is probably my last edit.
[edit on 16-3-2006 by SkipShipman]