Writings in: The Long-Term Psychological And Medical Effects Of Child Abuse 

A New Health Psychology and Medical Science (short version)

By Philip Alberto              

TO CONTACT THE AUTHOR FOR ANY REASON PLEASE WRITE TO:

Philip Alberto P.O. Box 51055 Boston MA. 02205-1055

MSTCLInst tel # 1-339-221-6000

philipm.alberto@gmail.com

                                                            MSTCL Inst.

                                                            Boston Ma.

Published 2013, 2008, 2005, by author

Social And Scientific Theories Of Child Development And Human Liberation; A New Health Psychology And Medical Science (short version). Copyright @ 2005 by Philip Alberto. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise, without prior written permission by the author, except in the case of brief quotations embodied in critical articles and reviews.

  Inquires should be addressed to the author; Philip Alberto, MSTCL Inst. P.O. Box 51055 Boston, MA. 02205-1055

Library of Congress No. (original book) 14687266 (Short version) 1-553512638      

TO THE READER; These writings are not intended as an alternative for traditional medical treatment at this point in time. So if anyone does unfortunately develop a serious condition I want them to find the best recognized treatment that exists for the condition.

Espero que le vaya bien.

PHILIP ALBERTO

                                                                     CONTENTS

1) New Introduction to Name Change 2013                                                               1

2) New Introduction to Medical Edition 2012                                                            2

3) The Problem With Giving “Instructions” 2012                                                      7

4) My Definition of Stress                                                                                           10

5) Micro-Nano-Camera Images of The Brain                                                             12

6) New Introduction and Brief Statement 2008                                                         

     And 1st Book; short version 2009                                                                           13

 7) “Erich Fromm’s Introduction”/ Sexual & Emotional Development                      18

 8) Emotional Conflict and Overeating

      Framingham Heart Study Revisited                                                                       25   

9) Bird’s Eye View of Child Abuse on World Wide Web                                           26 

10) MSTCL: Definition Of Early Childhood Freedom                                                 26

11) Reasons For An Interest In Primal Theory                                                              27

12) Primal Theory Revisited                                                                                           

       1st Book; Introduction to MSTCL                                                                           28

13) MSTCL: A New Medical Science                                                                           30

14) The Biology of Love, womb Life and Childhood Freedom                                    36

15) Notions of Critical Periods and Subclinical States                                                  38

16) Type A and Heart Disease/Origins in Infancy and Childhood                                 38

17) Childhood Origins of Disease/A New Medical Science                                         41

18) Gynecological Disorders; Gyn-STCL                                                                     42

19) Early Childhood Origins of a Healthy Pregnancy                                                  44

20) Other Emotional-Distress-Linked Disease States                                                  44

21) References: Behavior and Heart Disease                                                                47

22) References: Maternal state and fetus                                                                       48

                 POPULAR MEDIA GENETICS FOR THE GENERAL POPULATION,

                 VERSUS THE LONG-TERM EFFECTS OF EARLY ABUSE.

     It is often convenient, some would say essential, for any area of science that expects billions or trillions of dollars of government funding, to get themselves infused in the popular media, to arouse as much interest and excitement as possible in the general population who after all ultimately will be “footing the bill!” Not that this is necessarily bad, especially if great human benefit comes out of it for the world. But just getting the population interested and excited by itself does not mean that every claim in the particular area of research is absolutely true! The “new genetics” has accomplished great media attention by linking up with human health issues in particular. For example there has been some media attention by some health science journalists in newspapers like The New York Times, Wall Street Journal, Boston Globe, etc…about experimental work being done on so-called “gene switches” as an explanation of many major disease states and discussion on how the “future of medicine and medical practice” will supposedly focus on these issues more with the use of advanced digitalized technology. See for example The New York Times, Sept 5, 2012; “Bits of Mystery DNA, Far From ‘Junk’ Play Crucial Role,” by Gina Kolata, (also on the internet).. Again billions, maybe a trillion dollars or more has gone into this general type of research. Really nothing has gone into the type of research I have been advocating in my writings. This is a good time to change what can only be seen as an extremely and really outrageously lopsided picture in the medical sciences to date I believe. Of course every significant area about human health should be explored to the fullest degree possible. But the simple fact is that the issue of significant early pain being placed in the neurological-emotional system of the fetus, new born, infant or child is going to have its impact on the future health or the individual. And regardless of whether, billions, trillions or “zillions” of dollars go into “gene switch” or any other genetic theory with the improved technology that is developed for the task, the fact of early emotional pain and its effect on life-long health is not going to go away one iota! And no genes, or “gene switches” put that early pain there in the individual’s system. It is put there by the abusive practices of far too many abusive or neglectful “adult care givers.” In fact even a mother who has intense negative feelings toward her developing fetus will possibly have a negative impact on the development of her unborn child. Some would even say that it is certain to have some such impact. And a mother’s negative feelings and thoughts about the fetus concerns her own psychological and social background and not some group of genes. I am not trying to claim that more funding (within reason) into genetic research will not advance our knowledge of important biological functions of the living cell. Of course it will, or that certainly appears to be the case. But at the same time such research cannot make other important realities in biological and human functions simply disappear. In some “academic parallel universe” it might work that way, but not in this one! Besides, no area of scientific research should be used to try to cover over another area!

     Those academics who might want to believe that some areas of genetic theory are going to some how make the facts of early emotional pain of infants and children due to adult practices, and its effects on later health go away, then they really are tragically mistaken! For a trillion dollars to be spent in hopes of avoiding a scientific truth is like trying to blow down a large mountain with a gentle breeze! Again it is not that I believe that they should not look at “genetic switches,” etc… It is just that I know that the key positions I take in MSTCL are in fact scientifically true, even though much more needs to be known on these issues!

     Unfortunately genetic theorizing-or whatever it was-has been often used in the past to try to obviate the necessity of the seemingly impossible task of actually understanding how trillions of nerve cells create all thoughts and feelings of an individual. Indeed it seems to be a simplistic response to simply use what is actually or believed to be known in genetics and extend it to claim that it can explain these very complex human functions; thoughts, emotions, actions, etc… Once the individual has received early significant levels of abuse and it starts the poisonous processes in their emotional system then no amount of genetic theory is going to change that one iota!

     In fact by using genetic theory against my key positions in what I call MSTCL one is only doing what the major religions did in the past by using religious beliefs or theory to prevent scientific progress considered a “threat” to the particular religion!

     It has always been extremely poisonous for societies to religiously claim that it is a “holy right” for any parent to do whatever they see fit to a child/infant no matter what the actual damage might be to that child’s life! Like Western Europe, and nearly all other societies throughout most of the globe, this is precisely how this society has operated throughout its centuries and decades. And to a very great degree this has been the case even under the advent of so-called modern psychiatry and child development theory. The academics, “professionals” in these fields are not the “gods” that some have actually attempted to portray themselves to be-and this is so no matter how many academic degrees any one of them may have!          

     Again it is not that I am trying to claim that there is “nothing” to genetics. That of course would be ridiculous for anyone in science to state. There is a lot that is still not known, and that’s likely an understatement I’m sure! However, some academics have attempted to ignorantly use genetic concepts in the past as an “intellectual weapon” against positions similar to my own. It is possible that a century or so from now it will be realized that a lot of the “medical genetics” to explain certain areas of human health was greatly incorrect. That is a possibility! Those in so-called “medical genetics” of course could say the same about my own positions. But I do find it extremely difficult to believe that adult care givers can abuse and neglect infants and young children all that they want and there will never be any consequences to them both emotionally and health wise. It makes no sense what-so-ever to say that these abuses will have no effects on an infant. There will always be some effects. But one will find a scary number of “academic professionals” still pushing the idea, or some similar ideas! Genetic research has received billions and billions in funding and will more than double that in the future. The positions that I am discussing, haven’t received anything yet! What that really means is that the ignorance of these positions in medicine is really quite massive! The ignorance of how many have likely died because of these issues has to be quite great as well. The world really can’t afford to continue with a “que sera, que sera” approach on these issues. It would be completely illogical for those in the medical research community to want such ignorance to continue.                                     

     And I should finally note that for billions of dollars to go into any scientific area of research does not “prove” anything. The billions of dollars by itself is not really “science,” it is just a large sum of money! And no amount of money can ever actually buy “scientific truth.” Only the actual facts can do that! And having a large body of media attention does not by itself make something true either. In the end it is just a large body of print media. Actually in fact what needs a large amount of media attention are the positions here, in my writings, and not so much what goes on in the biological laboratories that are engaged in doing genetic research! This is so as every adult in the world should be acutely aware of what types of parental adult treatments can be harmful for infants and children, and what is ultimately developmentally health promoting. Those interested in genetic research can go to the text books and journals on this specialized area!  

                    GENETICS, MSTCL and HUMAN HEALTH

     In fact it is the same with cardiovascular issues. We know that an adult individual with constant anger and who is highly ‘Type A,” smokes, drinks and is greatly obese is very likely going to get some form of early cardiovascular disease as a result. And it is extremely unlikely that there are going to be any genes in such individuals that are going to consistently be repairing the damage on a cellular level! The system may be able to cope with such “assaults” for a given period of time, and some may likely be more capable than others to do so. The later is probably due to both biological (genetic) and psychological reasons. But eventually every single individual with these factors working against their health becomes affected regardless of what their genetic constitution might be. In fact just aging alone can be seen as a real form of significant stress on the physiological systems of all higher life forms, animal and human. Presently there is no higher life form that I am aware of that is impervious to this effect! Nor has there ever been-that I am aware of. I should note that those who stayed with significant forms of emotional distress through out most of their lives, it is expected that this would have the effect, certainly in most, of speeding up the aging process also. So if the individual with a life time of unresolved pain does not sub come to some significant medical condition earlier on than average, such as heart disease, etc…, then certainly they will not likely escape the effects of early aging! Again it is not my intention at all to even attempt to get in the way of any field that might very well give us some important knowledge concerning human health. But I would think that the same would also apply as well to those who focus on the relation of genetics and human health. The fact remains that the living systems of higher organisms are not neurologically, immunologically etc…, to be forever impervious to significant forms of continued stress, or emotional distress! Only a system that is robotic would have any chance of this. And who knows that may be coming! But such will never be human, certainly not in the sense that such is presently understood.

GENETICS, MSTCL AND HUMAN HEALTH; THE EFFECTS OF UNRESOLVE EMOTIONAL DISTRESS AND ITS EFFECTS ON LONG-TERM HUMAN HEALTH. 2013

 .   All nerve cells do have certain common functional properties even with morphological differences in different areas within the body and this is so across species. So these cells, (the nerve cells) although processing some physical differences in different parts of the body, do carry out pretty much the same functions throughout the nervous system. And this is so regardless of what genetic variation might exist between people!

     So the nerve cells making up the different parts of the nervous system, particularly in the human (and animal) that are strongly involved in the “stress response” and eventually start to produce the hormones of the stress response at toxic levels, given a continuous high level of stress, are all biologically designed to do exactly the same things in every higher system, human and animal. And there really is no living system, normally, that is completely absent of that response. And it is also the same thing with the immunological system of the human and all lower species on the evolutionary scale as well. And it has been very clearly demonstrated that continued stress does down-regulate important functional aspects of the human immune system necessary for maintaining good health. And this is so for all higher species. There really is no higher living system, that I am aware of, that is radically otherwise. And basically these are pretty strict biological principles. There really is no higher biological system that has a nervous system that is totally impervious to being bombarded with continued significantly high levels of distress. Likewise, there is normally no higher system, human or animal, that has an immune system that is totally impervious to the continued bombardment of high levels of emotional distress, as indeed the field of psychoneuroimmunology is well aware of! In fact the only system that could possibly have such an ”impervious” neurological and immunological system would have to be robotic! And there are no genes that can produce such a robotic system! Any living biological system that is constantly bombarded with a significant form of distress is always going to have a greater significant possibility of eventually breaking down earlier due to the constant bombardment of this constant distress, and this includes constant emotional distress due to early dysfunctional development of the infant and child at the hands of emotionally dysfunctional adult parents.

     An immunologist can be, and certainly most always are, very interested in genetics as applied to the area immunology and immune function. Genetics does appear to have had some successes in explaining some cellular dysfunctions. These cellular functions/dysfunctions are usually simple direct processes that are carried out in a more mechanical manner themselves. For example, some basic cellular immune functions that went wrong were/are believed to be tied to certain gene markers. For example, the famous case of the fruit fly. That is; the “Toll gene” originally identified by the 1995 Nobel Laureates Christiane Nusslein-Volhard and Eric Wieschaus and colleagues in the fruit fly “Drosophila melanogaster in 1985. This led to further developments of the so-called “Toll-like receptors” (TLRs) believed to play a key role in the innate immune system. While these issues may very well give us important information, as is believed by many in immunology, I do not really see any of this as obviating the effects of early long-term distress may have on the human immune system. Really, many of the conditions strongly tied to genetic factors tend to show up earlier on, as do many of the developmental problems. Actually some of these things are now suspected to be due to physiological damage that can occur during fetal development that is not genetically determined as such. For example see; “More Than Genes,” by author Dan Agin, who is a Molecular Geneticist himself. It has been clearly shown that emotional pain can affect important aspects of the immune system, and hence, immune functions in humans.  Hence, any immunologist could just as well be very interested in the issue of how constant high levels of distress, including emotional distress, affect immune functions, as indeed are those in the field of psychoneuroimmunology are. Or in fact one could be interested in how parenting styles affect long-term immune function by way of early development. In fact I even call this “PNI-MSTCL!” And I am absolutely certain that the later group of immunologists will be finding out very important facts about human health. I do not believe that any immunologist can only consider genetics in human immunological function, and completely discard the issue of early emotional developmental and issues of emotional distress experienced early in the individual’s system and believe at the same time that they have the “full picture” of long-term human health! Although foolishly many seem to unfortunately be doing this!

     Any infant/child that is placed under constant emotional and physical assaults and neglected, disciplined like an animal, constantly made to feel inferior, shamed, etc…, that child will suffer because of the distress constantly involved. No mistake should be made about this! That child will suffer in terms of his or her emotional development. And over time that child’s health will suffer. Those in the medical community who want to ignore these serious issues need to come out of their delusional state. They really should take advantage of these writings here! And there are not going to be any genes that will be able to make any young person impervious to such constant and systematic abuse and neglect!  

      If there is anyone at all in the area of genetics who wants to suggest that high amounts of abuse and early neglect of children will never have any effect on later health, then they are simply operating in a “make believe world” of their own construction and the rest of us in the scientific community should not take such claims seriously.

ABUSIVE REARING PRACTICES VERSUS PURELY GENETIC FACTORS IN EARLY DISEASE STATE FORMATION.

     The early digestive problems of an individual due to constant chronic stress and anxiety that he or she carries that later might lead to conditions like illiitis colitists or chron”s disease etc…, was far more likely due to early damaging experience by abusive care givers who likely hurled some significant level of abuse on the individual possibly going back a decade or more! It could have been at any time during fetal periods, infancy, early childhood, etc… Certainly in the vast majority of these cases there are no particular gene(s) that one should first conclude are to blame, especially if there was some significant abuse in the individual’s early life, or given that the parents were in fact abusive. That in fact should be considered first over the possibility of pure genetic factors! So in the majority of such cases it may very well be that had the individual been raised by non-abusive and loving parents he or she would never have developed such levels of anxiety and stress leading to such medical health conditions later in life. The nerve cells and glands that produce the stress hormones are ultimately coded for by particular genes and unravel during embryological development. And those are facts of general biology. But how these nerve cells and glands actually function over time, what they actually do year after year, is determined by what the individual’s early life and development has been like. Those experiences can not be ignored in favor of some “magical gene” activity! These conditions are greatly determined by the rearing practices of the parents. That’s what determines if an individual is going to later be constantly overwhelmed with anxiety and stress. An individual’s early experiences in fact act very powerfully in setting up the operational links and neurological circuits between the emotional regions of the brain and the nerve cells and glands that produce the stress hormones, etc… Any individual that has a later adult life of constant stress, there is indeed a very likely possibility that this is strongly related to the person’s early developmental period!  It is the same for the individual with intense anger and rage who later develop heart disease. Or people who intensely engage in any self destructive behavior that eventually leads to heart disease, hypertension or some other cardiovascular disease state! So it is not an issue of; “only if the individual did not have a particular “genetic predisposition” to such later health problems but rather; “only if the individual did not have such abusive parents that left him with such anger or intense stress and anxiety” that he or she later developed such a condition. So those who want to insist that my positions carry no real “scientific truth” and that all the highly stress linked disease states can only be caused by purely genetic factors have the obligation of convincing themselves that very abusive parents, or the decades of constant nonstop anxiety, distress, intense anger, that they can easily leave in their children has no effects what-so ever on long-term health. And that really is quite an obligation for anyone seriously in the health field to have to maintain. This is especially so given all the evidence that exist of the harmful effects of intense continuous stress and anxiety.

     The simple fact is, if millions or billions just go into genetic research on these issues and any attempt to look at the parents and early experiences of the individual is avoided like it’s a religion to avoid doing so, which is exactly what it is, then the “science” really is quite lopsided on the issue. For the millions of cases where genetic factors are not the real cause, then it will never really be proven what the actual causes are. That’s the price of letting religion dictate what science is allowed to look at and what it is not allowed to look at. Hence, science has to always be open to complete freedom of thought-always!                     

                                                                                                                                                                  Page 1

EW INTRODUCTION FOR; “WRITINGS IN; THE LONG-TERM EMOTIONAL AND MEDICAL EFFECTS OF ABUSIVE FORMS OF CHILD REARING” 2013.

     Due to unfortunate but still powerful backwards and conservative forces in academic  psychology and psychiatry I have decided to change the title of these writings here from; “Writings In: Social And Scientific Theories Of Child Development And Human Liberation; A New Health Psychology and Medical Science (short version),” to the newer title of; “The Long-Term Psychological And Medical Effects of Child Abuse, A New Health Psychology an Medical Science.” Of course there are well intentioned men and women in psychology and psychiatry who have offered deep and important insights on the issues discussed here. But unfortunately there are still a significant number of individuals who continue to pollute the field of general psychology and psychiatry with different degrees of backwards conservative and destructive positions. Positions that are intimately tied to many of the horrors and destructive modes of child rearing of the past. What the psychoanalyst Alice Miller called “poisonous pedagogy.” For sure this is a separate discussion in its own right. But given the fact that many of my own positions here do definitely have a significant amount of scientific evidence supporting them, and will have much, much more in the future, I do not see these individuals as being an overwhelming problem, hopefully! The problem is simply their continued ability, unfortunately, to distort the truth to various degrees with what amounts to “psychobabble.” Hence, I will try not to waste too much time here on those who have been and still are dedicated to denying and distorting the truth for their own disturbed reasons. However I do mention this ugly history from time to time, mostly in trying to better clarify a point. But for sure, by far the main focus of these writings are on the long-term emotional and medical effects of abusive forms of child rearing, just as the new title states, and some but certainly not all of the supporting scientific evidence is discussed. There is simply far too much of such supporting evidence to come even close to discussing all of it, as the reader should clearly see ahead. But at any rate I do, I believe, lead the reader, and researcher, in the right direction. I also ask that the medical research community seriously look at these issues, as important health issues are definitely involved. I believe that just this fact by itself easily justifies what I call, “my research approach,” on the issues in these writings. Or at least where such an approach is possible to promote the health of the individual. Some may bring up ethical concerns with my advocating such an approach on these “intensely human issues” and that is fine as I of course have no problems with this. Such types of research should be done in an humanistically ethical framework. If it were up to me, no infant or child would ever suffer any unnecessary abuse or neglect any way. But that unfortunately is not possible and far too many infants and children are subjected to such abuses globally, and unfortunately it will continue! And it seems to me that the “adult world” should know all the negative consequences of such abuse and neglect. So I would like to emphasize that it seems logical to me that, given the importance of the issues of long-term emotional development and human health, that focused scientific research on such issues is a key way to obtain ever greater understanding of such things.

     I should note to the reader right from the beginning that much of these writings are from what is now considered a radical perspective (but hopefully not in the near future). So those who have been intensely indoctrinated by many of the traditional conservative perspectives in psychology (as many academic psychologists have been) may not be comfortable with these writings. The more indoctrinated individual may actually prefer something that regurgitates more of the same, what I call “psychobabble,” instead of these writings. There is certainly a lot of the other backwards conservative literature out there, as it is by far the majority perspective. But it of course is not intended to go anywhere significant. But many academics are more comfortable with that! Neill’s writings and work with children goes back nearly a century to the 1920’s! But it was never really accepted. Instead a mountain of essentially “non-sense in the field” was chosen as “offering great insights” instead! 

     Another good reason for a title change is simply because few are really familiar with some of the deeper issues raised in my writings as implied by the earlier title. Given the influence of A. S. Neill and the concepts of “responsible childhood freedom,” and in particular my understanding of the concept as described and discussed in my own writings, it is also a position of mine that any systematic denial of early authentic freedom to develop under is a definite form of abusive infant/child rearing, and further will have an impact on early emotional development, and hence, on later long-term health in some significant way(s). But for sure it is a clear certainty that “greater” forms of early abusive modes of infant/child rearing, (that go beyond not allowing early freedoms that are often not allowed traditionally anyway), will have a higher probability of doing the same and therefore should, in its own right, be seriously considered by, well, in fact every human being. But given that there are certainly a number of those who have greatly lost much of

                                                            New Introduction 2013                                                               Page 2

their humanity, including in some academic circles, there will be those not interested, and even those who will desperately want to attack my positions. But there is not much that I can do about the evil that has developed in some individuals early on. However at any rate with the new title of these writings on the emotional and long-term medical effects of child abuse it should certainly be quite clear exactly what a main concern is of these writings with not getting bogged down in arguments over issues of authentic forms of early child freedom in infant/child rearing. But just for the record, when dealing with say an older child/early teen who had already been significantly damaged in terms of his or her early development and will mostly “want to” act out in dangerous and destructive ways towards himself or others, then I would never advocate simply allowing her to do so! But those who are interested in an extended discussion on responsible authentic childhood freedom, and what it really means, can go to the main writings of A. S. Neill. One can also obtain a copy of my earlier writings under the original title: “Writings In; Social And Scientific Theories In Child Development And Human Liberation,” by writing to: Philip Alberto, MSTCL Inst. P.O. Box 51055 Boston MA. 02205-1055. Again in these writings I will focus on the later emotional and medical effects of abusive child rearing practices.                             

NEW INTRODUCTION TO MEDICAL EDITION OF THE “WRITINGS IN SCIENTIFIC AND SOCIAL THEORIES OF CHILD DEVELOPMENT AND HUMAN LBERATION.” September 2012

    Although the origins of these writings, certainly to a good degree, are significantly tied to the works and writings of A. S. Neill and Arthur Janov, over the course of time I have in fact made significant changes reflecting my own thinking and need to present concepts that will be more acceptable to a still conservative society clearly reflected in the “superstructure” (to barrow a term from Marx) presented in a mountain of archival studies and writings in academic psychology and psychiatry. One could even go back to Sigmund Freud himself, but in fact Neill and Janov did make significant challenges to many of the later Freudian positions. However, to be sure, certain key concepts such as the clear and simple fact of the unconscious and its life long effects and power over the life of the individual did greatly remain intact in the thinking and writings of Neill, Janov and myself. Hence, with the recognition of the power of the unconscious over much of human behavior, I would have to say that a good part of the origins of my own positions, certainly in the beginnings, are significantly tied to the works and writings of A. S. Neill and Arthur Janov, and perhaps to a lesser degree to individuals such as Wilhelm Reich and Alice Miller, etc…This is certainly so given their strong focus on the power of the emotional development occurring in early infancy and childhood and how this is intimately tied to the infant/child rearing practices of adult parents. However, I definitely do not consider my writings  to merely be a “re-writing” of Neill and Janov’s, or that of any other author. Of course, ultimately, the idea is always to try to move forward with these important concepts. And so I would like to note that although society presently is not prepared to move forward in truly protecting the true rights of children, I have not let that fact stop me, and I have in fact moved forward with the use of the existing relevant scientific and other information (in psychology, etc…) already present. So as you read through these writings, you can consider them well enough self-contained as they can in fact certainly stand by themselves. However, for those who do want a deeper understanding of the earlier origins of my positions, aims, etc…, I would suggest that you at least look at the writings of such great people as Arthur Janov, A. S. Neill, and even individuals as Alice Miller and the earlier writings of Wilhelm Reich on early character formation and development of the neurotic state, etc… However, again, I would like to note that these writings here can be considered self-contained as I have made significant changes and that ultimately the intention is to move forward in the practice of raising emotionally healthy children to the greatest degree possible.

     Here, in this particular edition of my writings, I have attempted to focus more on the medical issues in what I have come to term MSTCL. MSTCL is a deeply rooted “health psychology” concerned with the way that children are raised and how this might be related to the life long health of the individual. I have attempted to stick to what I would consider the more “hardcore” scientific side of psychology and the biological sciences! And hence, here I try to keep the seemingly endless general psychological discussion to a minimum to the degree possible. However, at the same time, I do make mention of these issues

                                                 New Introduction/Medical Edition 2012                                                Page 3

throughout other writings that I have done that go deeper into the general psychological discussion and give the reader the option to explore these as well.

     I should also note that while there is much discussion of continued new findings in relevant areas of medicine, general physiology, etc…, the key positions that I have presented as MSTCL cannot be reduced to simplistic issues along the lines of, for example, whether or not some group of nerve cells, at some discrete brain location, secrete a particular biologically active product or not. In fact the core positions that I have presented here are supported by many decades of solid research and studies which have consistently shown a relationship between continued ‘distress’ affecting an individual’s physiology and emotional life along with the general down-regulation of his or her over-all health status. It has been clearly shown in many studies and  research that subjects (animal and human) with long-term emotional distress are more prone to certain disease states than those without such distress. And again this general position has been significantly strengthened by studies with animal models in various types of research looking at the effects and changes in different, but related, physiological functions. I do absolutely anticipate that continued research in the relevant areas of medicine and physiology to offer grater scientific support to this position as well as my own general positions. But the complexity of the issues involved logically dictate that more likely than not, “new discoveries” will most likely only be a small part of the over-all picture, and so continued studies must be anticipated. Nonetheless, many more relevant advances will be made and they will more likely than not support my key positions here in these writings.

      However, right off I do want to state to the reader that although more future relevant research is anticipated to strengthen the position(s) discussed here, academic critics in psychiatry, and unfortunately even medicine, who may try to claim that some single study in some laboratory (perhaps on the moon) “disproves” the key positions in MSTCL, is simply being ridiculous and likely trying to distort the truth for whatever emotionally dysfunctional reason! These types of attempts will always simply be incorrect. In fact despite what any academic critics in psychology, psychiatry, etc…, state about my positions, the simple fact is that the general core positions that I have presented in my writings are correct. Hence, despite what any academic wants to claim about my writings, I can absolutely guarantee the reader that if he or she takes the time to look at them it will absolutely not be a waste of their time! In complete confidence I can make that statement! In fact the wasted time would be to spend too much of it with the academic critics who claim that my key positions are incorrect! At this point in time we do know that long periods of significant adult unhappiness, stress, anxiety, depression, etc…, much more often than not have to more likely than not be related to harmful events in early periods of emotional development. We also know that the continous experience of such negative states will very likely have some types of effects on the individual’s long-term health. To be sure there are many different ways that this can occur. In fact really I would say that this is a certainty! And any physician who wants to claim that such is not the case is really doing a huge disservice to the medical health of humanity! There are a countless number of ways that human health may be affected by such states over long enough periods. As Janov would say in regards to unresolved early pain (which is the same thing); “ leaving one person more vulnerable to the early development of heart disease and another to some forms of cancer, diabetes, etc… “ To those academics in psychology, psychiatry, etc…, who are still confused, I would like to remind them that there is never any “good” continuous unhappiness, emotional distress, depression, etc… And given that they are all of early origin that’s what they will always be, continuous! This is certainly so if such states remain mostly unresolved to significant degrees. I would argue that all of them do to some degree, in everyone! Hence, this opens the way to the medical/physiological part of the discussion. 

     There are definite limitations I believe in the psychological discussion. Most parents simply do not have the ability to raise infants and children non-abusively. Certainly not in the manner, or to the extent, that someone as A. S. Neill could. To my knowledge there are no places where one, or anyone, can learn these things. Some will do so better than others. This will undoubtedly be greatly related to the levels of abuse that they themselves were put through in their own early developmental periods. But the simple fact is most parents are going to engage in some level of significant abuse at least at various times when dealing with infants and children. This is one of the reasons why I believe that engaging in the much larger psychological discussion in attempting to give “instructions” to parents will always be greatly limiting in bringing about any really significant changes in the way children are treated. Likely many or possibly most parents will simply choose to ignore such “instructions” as it will be their prerogative to do so! And hence, they will simply repeat some version of the abuses that they themselves received early on. In fact this will be especially so for all those parents who have been “emotionally structured” by their own dysfunctional

                                                  New Introduction/Medical Edition  2012                                              Page 4

early development to carry out some “program of abuse” on their children. That’s simply the present reality and society presently has no ability to effectively deal with this reality! Therefore, at this point in time it seems that it would be much more fruitful to concentrate and discuss the long-term medically related issues to significant forms of early abuse. And to further propose possible and humane forms of research and studies on the issue. Although of course the “psychological issues” should not be completely ignored either. But given the present reality and situation such discussions appear to have certain significant limitations, and hence, usefulness right now. Hopefully that situation will change as more becomes known. Anyway, helpful general ideas that can guide parents in raising children are, I believe, well enough spelled out by authors such as A. S. Neill, Arthur Janov, Alice Miller and myself, etc… But I should note that a “well read” adult could look at these writings and continue being significantly abusive anyway. Perhaps for emotional reasons they themselves are not aware of. Ultimately, using techniques that are authentically and systematically non-abusive have to be a major “guiding light.” It would of course be much better if society were actively involved in protecting the true rights of children but presently they are only willing to do so to a significantly inferior degree than is minimally necessary as much more definitely needs to be done on the issue. Speaking globally that’s an understatement! So to a large degree, it can only be hoped that more parents will be more personally willing and determined to raise children with authentic modes of freedom and systematically be non-abusive in their approaches with their children. It is my position absolutely that the medical scientific community should be working on effective ways to research these issues, in an accepted humane way of course. I do echo these ‘sentiments’ throughout my writings, perhaps more times than is necessary! But that merely reflects the strength of this conviction and belief in these concepts.

     As to the critiques of my positions, I believe that the reader should keep in mind that extremely large parts of our own, as well as most all other, populations have definitely been affected, to different degrees on the individual level, by an endless assortment of early abusive parental practices. I do not have exact numbers of course, but one can simply look at things like the massive crime statistics, in this or any other society. One may also consider issues like the massive substance abuse, or the massive use of various types of psychotropic drugs through out the population, and many other

types of social statistics that clearly reveal massive levels of dysfunctional and self-destructive modes of behaviors. For example, it has been noted that  just in 2000, 227 million antidepressant prescriptions were dispensed in the United States, which was more than any other class of medication; see, “Comfortably Numb, How Psychiatry is Medicating a Nation” (hardcover) by Charkes Barber. Such drugs as: Lithium, Haldol, Thorazine, Prozak, Paxil, Zoloft, Risperdal, Clozaril, Zyprexa, and many others have been astronomically distributed through out the population. In various places throughout the entire country criminally oriented youth gangs have taken on the appearance of large armed militias, and presently it appears that they are never going to go away! And there are many other social facts that clearly show a massive level of dysfunctional behaviors in the population. For example, the nonstop violence against women, rapes, sexual harassment, etc… And one can even consider those societies that have completely collapsed or nearly so through out the World. Within the framework of my positions here, it is a very logical conclusion that all these numbers do very greatly reflect the issue of early conflict and pain that has remained unresolved for a vast number of individuals. Societies can not simply afford to continue pretending that these things have nothing to do with the issues discussed here, when in fact they have everything to do with them! The conservatively backwards academic circles in psychiatry and psychology, etc…, who have always supported the status-quo are simply holding society, really all societies, intellectually hostage on these tragic issues and facts. As the medically oriented research community is brought into the discussion with a “more real scientific approach” it will break the grip of those who would prefer to hold the population intellectually hostage. So these writings are absolutely a form of intellectual defense against these forces, both for the population and the scientific community as well! I believe that it was Marx who once stated that: “history repeats itself, first as tragedy, second as farce “ Well for any academic group to claim to be “professional” and at the same time to support the “old religion” in child rearing that insist that parents have the “holy right” to do what ever they want with children, regardless of the actual consequences, do indeed want to take the world well beyond “farce” at this point in time!  

      For me it is not an issue of simply agreeing with everything Neill said or did in practice. Neill did have a tremendous amount of success with his systematic removal of abusive practices with children at Summerhill. So really the issue is to recognize abusive behaviors of adults and discuss the most effective ways to avoid them. That’s an important and absolutely essential issue. Therefore I hope that it is understood that I do not use Neill’s writings or his decades of work with children because I am insisting

                                             New Introduction/Medical Edition 2012                                                    Page 5

that everybody caring or dealing with children must exactly copy everything that A. S. Neill did or said as if it were the Bible! In fact Neill did say essentially the same about his own writings. Personally I do feel that I understand what Neill was doing and do see his writings and work with children as very useful. Again my view of what Neill was always attempting to do amounted to the systematic avoidance and elimination of all significant abusive practices in raising children, abusive practices that would much more likely than not leave long-term emotional scars. And it is my position that such scars will have long-term medical consequences in the lives of likely nearly all individuals who suffered significant forms of abuse early on. To me it appears that Neill stayed with this approach of systematically avoiding any significantly abusive practices with children. So to clarify, most of all, I am advocating that approach. So if other people look at Neill’s early and later writings because of me, then I think that it is good that they do so. But again, what I believe is important here is the concept of systematically avoiding and removing any significantly abusive practices on children which will likely leave lasting pain and anguish in their lives and worst negatively affect their emotional development.  Really it is the same concerns I believe that Arthur Janov, Alice Miller and many others have had and continue to have. So I would direct people to look closely at the writings of these great authors, especially the works of Janov, in particular; “Why You Get Sick, How You Get Well, The Healing Power of Feelings,” and, “The Biology of Love,” as well as his other significant works. But I am not at all insisting that these be followed like absolute “instruction manuals!” In fact I do not believe any of these authors themselves claimed that they were writing “instruction manuals” on raising children! In fact a key focus of Janov’s writings is on primal psychotherapy and its impact on his patients. My position is not by any means any form of “psychotherapeutic treatment!” For my purposes the main usefulness of Janov’s writings are on the insights he offers on how early abusive events leave lasting scars and the neurophysiology behind such things. It is my position that authors such as Neill, Reich, Janov, Miller, etc…, do have very important and useful ideas. But it is not my intention to try to make these ideas into “biblical teachings.” And I can not walk on water either, not yet any way! If there is any “instruction manual” from me, it is the concept of the importance of avoiding any consistent significantly abusive practices in raising children that will likely leave unresolved emotional scars. And likewise that would be my “Bible!” Really it seems like a “no-brainer” and I can’t see how one can lose with such an approach! I frame it this way so as to try to avoid being pulled into the mountain of “psychobabble” that already exist in the literature! I advocate that proper and humane research be done on many of the key issues that I discuss so that the scientific community and general population understand that the issue is real and important and not just some discussion about the existence of some “Parallel Universes” to our own! Much of the mountain of academic “psychobabble” was created by academics who were merely interested more in maintaining their own careers than anything else. It is my hope that the issues discussed here will not devolve into a mountain of endless academic psychological theories themselves but instead will bring about important and useful needed changes for children everywhere. There is really no sane reason why anyone should have problems with this, but unfortunately there are people in the academic community who will oppose my position and even some who will want to sabotage it some how! So one really does have to be “on the alert” on what peoples’ real intentions might be. But for those who want to advance this cause, they are of course completely welcomed and appreciated by me. It is always for the children of the future. Whether or not we ever actually meet them is not the important thing. What is important is that they have the real opportunity to have healthy lives, emotionally and physically.

       I should note to the reader that any controversies that may be associated with Reich, and to a lesser extent with Neill, on issues of child “sexuality” and/or adolescent sexuality does not really apply to my own positions on issues of child rearing. A main position that I am taking on the issue of sexuality is that with the successful and systematic removal of abusive practices in child rearing will very effectively eliminate the development of all later self-destructive acting out in the sexual realm as well as in other areas of the individual’s behavior throughout their lifespan. I absolutely stand behind that position. So the only legitimate critique of my position on these issues will have to be on disagreement with my position of the importance of “systematically removing and avoiding significant abusive practices in child rearing.” Any and all self-destructive behaviors in the realm of sexuality, or other essential areas of any individual’s life, can more likely than not be related to some significant level of earlier abuse(s) that the individual likely received at some point. I will even go further and say that all cases of homosexual development in male and female children, in their later lives, must have came exactly from this! Had they instead been successfully raised in an earlier environment without any forms of significant abuse then they would not

                                                    New Introduction/Medical Edition 2012                                             Page 6                                        

have chosen a homosexual life style. With this I am absolutely not saying that all homosexual men are “bad people.” In that sense they are likely no different than any other group where there are a greater munber of “good intentioned people” and a lesser number of “bad intentioned people.” But all homosexual men are definitely “unfortunate individuals!” This is the only logical conclusion that can come out of MSTCL! With this it can be said that homosexuality is really never a “choice” of the individual’s but is something that has been forced onto him or her through early damaging events, and in fact it has to be the case that that is the only reason it has existed throughout human history in the first place! No other position in psychology today (with the exception of those of Neill, Janov, etc…) holds this position! However, this is clearly structured in my own positions and is a logical conclusion from them. However, this is only an issue of early emotional development and therefore I absolutely have no intention of advocating the denial of anybody’s human and civil rights, which is a political issue! Nor do I want, in any way, to be associated with advocating the denial of any body’s social rights simply because I am stating what I believe to be the truth!

     Now to claim that my positions are guided and fall into the realm of real science, and they do, then I do have to accept that they are open to being critiqued by what is seen as the academic community, and others. And in fact I do-even though the critiques will all be incorrect, certainly any critiques of the core positions of MSTCL. But if some academic grossly distorts my actual positions, as I expect some number of them will, then they are not really critiquing my actual positions but instead some distortion of them that they themselves manufactured. (In that case I gladly will join them, as those distorted versions of my positions are certainly incorrect!) I bring this issue up because that’s exactly what many members of the academic community, especially in psychology and psychiatry, did do to a bizarre degree in the past! This is especially so in the case of both Janov and Neill. Often it seems that they would create some distortion of say Janov’s positions in Primal Theory. Then pretend that it really was his position, and then critique it! So I do believe that I have good reason to expect a similar type of “academic circus.”  So again I do invite any academic in psychology or psychiatry, etc, to debate my actual core position; that is, that the systematic removal of any significant abusive practices in child rearing will promote a much greater possibility of greater healthy long-term emotional development.  And further, this will, far more often than not, guarantee long-term medical health as well. It will do the later by helping the “health promoting physiological systems” naturally present in the body to better function in maintaining long-term health. And it is my position that this can be shown to be so through the use of the correct biological measurements presently available for this purpose! Again, I do not know of any other area of psychology similar to my own positions. I do not claim to possess any great literary elegance, or be plush with the latest academic clichés or “code terms,” unfortunately often used to judge the value of a given work. The real significant value of my writings is simply that they are correct! And that is exactly the reason that they will stand the “test of time” in issues of child rearing and development. And this is so whether or not they may be popular with any particular academic institution(s)!

      I should also note that although my more scientific positions may sometimes appear to being presented in a more “black and white” framework, I do not mean to ignore the concepts of the importance of love and affection towards the child, and the effects that the lack of such things may have on a child. One of the problems of getting into that discussion, however, is that it has to a significant degree already been polluted with all sorts of pure psychological concepts, positions, which can be debated endlessly etc… Although of course there have been some useful concepts, the mountain of literature goes in all imaginable directions and much of it is simply wrong, what has in fact often become known as “pedagogic nonsense,” or “psychobabble” and sometimes even dangerous. So I am trying to avoid being dragged into an essentially endless psychological discussion of what exactly constitutes “love,” how it should be given to a child, etc… So what I am doing instead is saying, “well, anything that is significantly abusive to a child should be avoided and will have, certainly in most cases, long-term emotional and medical consequences.” So of course, if a mother shows absolutely no affection, or extremely little affection, or love for her infant, I would logically expect that that would have long-term effects on emotional development of any individual. But it also has to be noted that if the mother has a distorted version of what constitutes authentic “love” and consistently “showers” the child with her perverted form of “motherly love” that too is going to certainly have adverse effects on emotional development. So it can not simply be assumed that because a mother “tightly holds” a child nearly around the clock insisting that she “loves” the child but is also doing a host of other behaviors that are significantly dysfunctional and destructive toward the child, and hence are

                                                    New Introduction/Medical Edition 2012                                             Page 7                    

significantly abusive, then obviously, this type of “love” is not going to help the child in his or her emotional development. So yes, the issue of early love for the  infant, and the impact that this may have on                     

the long-term health of any child absolutely should be carefully looked at and studied. But also, all types of significant abuses and neglect have to also be looked at as well. Of course the most common types of destructive abuses have to be considered. Here one very common type of abuse that needs to be considered, I believe, is any consistent denial of freedom for the infant and child to develop, in a healthy manner. A mountain of literature and studies has been done in, for example, “attachment theory” that I believe unfortunately often holds a significantly and/or very conservative conception of what constitutes “love for the infant” ignoring any issues of early freedom, etc… That’s because the former is far too often more acceptable in traditional conservative academic psychology, which unfortunately often dominates in university psychology departments, while the later oddly is not even considered legitimate discussion. So I feel obligated to avoid the conservative version of the ”attachment theory” or any other nonsense in academic psychology, what I often call :”psychobabble.” In fact if those academic psychologists who are involved in “attachment theory” (as they see it) want to include discussion of what I call “authentic responsible childhood freedom” as legitimate, then I have no problem with that version of “attachment theory.” But if some academic group is going to try to use their version of the theory, or any other theory, to attack my positions, then of course I will have to reject this! In fact I really don’t see much of this area looking at issues of long-term health anyway! Ultimately, what needs to be considered are the effects of “authentic early love with freedom” on the emotional development of the child compared with its significant denial in the lives of infants and children. It is my position that the early absence of significant abuses with authentic love and freedom will absolutely greatly enhance early healthy emotional development, certainly in the vast majority of cases.

THE PROBLEM OF GIVING “ABSOLUTE INSTRUCTIONS” IN CHILD REARING AND THE USE OF THE “CATEGORY OF DESTRUCTIVE AND EMOTIONALLY DISTURBED CHILDREN” AS AN ACADEMIC’S EXCUSE TO DENY ALL CHILDREN AUTHENTIC FREEDOM. 2013

     Personally I do believe in offering emotionally healthy children a high degree of freedom as the best approach to guarantee that they will remain emotionally healthy. But there are a large number of academics with “high credentials” in “psychobabble” who have long opposed this position. I believe that they have done so with the main interest of “protecting their careers” and their yearly income. It is not my intention to get bogged down with them in a nearly endless debate in “psychobabble” which is a common intellectual weapon they use for their own perceived intellectual protection and ultimately career goals. They are not actually interested in the actual truth, not if it does not serve their career goals. It is not that I can’t handle them. That task is made easier given that I in fact do have the truth on my side, and they don’t. But my focus, at least here, is on the issue of the long-term emotional  and medical effects of abusive forms of child rearing. A discussion that I believe is well beyond the “academic credentials of psychobabble!” For those interested in a deeper discussion on the issues of responsible early freedom for children, etc, can go to the main writings of A. S. Neill. However, I would like to make it clear to the reader that if an individual child, as old as say 11 or 12 years old or older, who has already been significantly damaged emotionally from earlier abuse then any benefits of offering any great degree of freedom to such a young person could very possibly be significantly limiting. And I would certainly never suggest giving complete freedom when it would be greatly irresponsible to do so. For example, let’s say that some child or adolescent is full of a significant amount of unresolved early emotional pain and as a result often engages in lighting fires in buildings, etc... There are a very large number of dysfunctional behaviors that such a pain filled individual can turn to. But becoming an arsonist would certainly make such an individual quite dangerous. Obviously giving such an individual older child or teen complete freedom to do what ever he or she wants, may not necessarily be the best thing to do! The individual may burn down a small town, or just your house, etc… Given such significant pain that it would drive an individual to such destructiveness obviously needs immediate attention in the form of some effective treatment. Any young individual who may be carrying

                                                           Problems of Giving Instructions                                               Page 8

overwhelming emotional pain that they would be driven to dangerous destructive or self destructive behaviors can not really be given a great level of freedom as an emotionally healthy child can. This is

certainly so if the only thing that giving a great level of freedom is going to lead to is going to be a dangerous level of destructive or self-destructive behaviors. In my writings, the interest is very great in avoiding such pain to begin with, and importantly the healthiest ways to raise children. Not in having them be greatly self-destructive and/or dangerous etc… And so with that stated, again I do agree with the use of responsible early childhood freedom as Neill described it and beyond. But again as Neill clearly stated himself, this freedom is always best with children who were allowed to develop in emotionally healthy ways from the fetal stage up to early infancy and beyond. But even if a young enough child has been unfortunately left with some level of emotional conflict, I would still advocate allowing such a young child significant early freedom with the hope that this would permit him or her to at least get the bulk of the pain out of his or her system just as Neill practiced in the years that he ran Summerhill-actually allowed the children there to run it! In fact it even goes back earlier to Homer Lane at the “Little Commonwealth.” But that’s my position! But like any greatly detailed discussion of the use of early responsible freedom, this is really another discussion. I have in fact gone deeper in this discussion in other writings. Such a discussion does bring one significantly deep into more psychological issues, which I am trying to avoid here as already stated. But my own opinion aside on the issue of responsible early freedom, I do not see where this issue would in any way prevent the medical research community from looking at the issue of the long-term consequences of significant early abuse. I have no doubt that it is a serious long-term health issue, so it really has to be seriously considered. So while here I do want to reach as much of the general population as possible, one of my main goals is to also reach those in the medical research community. So with that I am not so much insisting that “everyone copy this or that mode of child rearing” as I am trying to create awareness of the fact that early abusive rearing practices that do significantly impact early emotional development will certainly have some impact on ones later health as well.     

     In fact for someone in the medical or even general academic community to insist that no research or in-depth studies need to be done on the long-term impact of significant early abuse or neglect, that it is not that important, that everything is just fine as it is, would be like someone in the medical community of the 1950’s to early 60’s insisting that there is no reason to take seriously or look closer at the ‘”new claims” that cigarettes can be harmful to ones health! That the claims that they may be harmful to ones lungs, heart, liver, or even cause cancer, etc…, should not be taken seriously! In fact something like that actually happened because groups like Philips Morris had the financial means to buy out various academic scientific research groups and prevent the information from getting into reputable medical journals, see for example; Ashes to Ashes: America’s Hundred-Year Cigarette War, The Public Health, and the Unabashed Triumph of  Philip Morris,” by Richard Kluger, etc… That in fact is what will be repeated here if it is decided not to seriously look at the issues that I have presented in my writings.     

      I believe that reading the key writings of Arthur Janov does give very deep understanding of the ways that early pain may operate on the human system. Although my writings in MSTCL are not a theory of psychotherapeutic practice as is the case for much of Janov’s works in Primal Theory, it is definitely my position that reading Janov, especially such works as, “The Biology of Love,” etc…, does offer deep insights into what unresolved pain can do to the human system slowly over time. One can come to the same conclusions or certainly similar conclusions from other writings in psychology and psychiatry. But it has been my choice to give emphasis to the works of Janov as I feel that he has been the clearest on these issues. The simple fact is that a child living with a great amount of psychological pain can not really be “normal” at the same time.  Again, the idea, absolutely is to always avoid the development of significant pain in the child’s system. That is an absolutely key position of my writings. And it is my position also that there can not really be any compromise on that issue. It should especially always be a key position in parenting and education, etc...

     For any one in the medical community to take the position that the early infant/childhood emotional pain at issue in my own writings does not have any significant effects on human health over time is really nothing short of tragic and does work against a true and fuller understanding of human health. And this is especially so if the person is in a position that they are listened to! The only real debate can only concern the many different ways that this may occur or the different possible brain/physiological pathways that might lead to this inevitable outcome. 

     So again there are a good number of young children, and more so teens, who have already been “programmed” by all kinds of possible “categories of earlier abuses” to act out in many different ways,

                                                                                                                                                                  Page 9

sometimes to even possibly do horrible things given the right conditions or opportunities to do so. Neill himself did write that he would allow troubled children a certain level of freedom for “therapeutical

reasons” to act out the pain in their system, and hence, to attempt to get it out of their lives. At least to the degree that it no longer overwhelmed them to act out unconsciously and destructively. But Neill noted that the attempt was to do it within reason so for example such a child might break something, (like a window or piece of furniture at Summerhill, etc) or make a loud noise, etc… Something that before they would normally receive a beating or endless scolding for, etc… But to my knowledge Neill never allowed such an individual child the chance to burn down Summerhill, rape or kill someone or engage in activities that put the child him or herself, in real danger of being seriously harmed. Nor should he have. Admittedly this can be a tricky business. But the focus in my writings is to prevent such pain from becoming the “soil and environment” from which any infant or child should develop in. And so again, given that such pain does occur, then of course the adults in charge should want to get some form of effective treatment for the young child before it is too late. But such psychological treatment is not really the main subject or issue of my own writings, here, and therefore is really another discussion. The point that I am interested in making here is that really these are the categories that individuals will fall into or come under who will not really fit in a situation were they can be allowed the levels of early freedoms discussed in my own writings. Or at least that is what I believe. Maybe some of these young people can be greatly helped with such freedom. This is a difficult and complex issue. I certainly would not intend to discourage anyone from exploring possible approaches to helping young individuals who are in overwhelming or significant pain.

     I would also like to note that I do not believe that it is the case by any means that my positions are really “just weakened” or “watered down versions” of “responsible childhood freedom” as it was practiced at Summerhill, or any where else. If it is the case that young children should be given even greater amounts of freedom than is suggested in my writings, then I really have no reason to have a problem with that. The simple fact is that the concepts like “responsible childhood freedom” and other positions in my writings are either correct or not, and it really does not matter what the conservative academic psychologists, or their abusive fanatic religious allies, or even myself, think or feel about it! The truth is simply the truth! And it certainly does not need me, or the backwards conservative academic psychologists, to exists. Scientific truths about human functioning continue on by themselves regardless of what any “King” or “President” or anyone else thinks about it. Maybe the head of the psychology departments at Oxford, Harvard or Yale, etc…, do not like my positions. Well they can think whatever they want about them, given that they are correct, it is quite irrelevant what they think about them! I believe that the concept of responsible freedom, when carried out correctly, does in fact promote a healthy emotional development of the child, certainly in the greater majority of cases. I would not be writing about it otherwise! I believe that if these ideas are simply looked at honestly and more closely that it will be clearly realized that they are of great benefit to the development of children. They don’t need to be presented in any “great academic framework” to be of useful value, they only need to be the truth! It is only a question of putting the needed resources and and energy behind them. Besides, society should be willing to do all that it can to protect the children of the future and produce the best opportunities for their emotional and long-term physical health. On the issue of sexuality and early development, maybe the concepts and positions that Wilhelm Reich advocates in his book; “The Invasion Of Compulsory Sex-Morality,” mentioned a bit later, are correct! Then I would have no logical reason to have problems with that truth, unlike my “counterparts” in conservative academic psychology and psychiatry. Again, it is not my intention to give a “watered down version” on the ideas of Neill or Reich or anyone else whose concepts I may point at in my own writings. It is just that I believe that the important key issue is the systematic avoidance of any early abusive treatments of infants or children that will impact their early emotional development. If it is the case that what Reich, Neill, or anyone else for that matter, is stating, is the truth on the issues of concern here, then I will of course support them! But unlike those in conservative and backwards areas of academic psychology, I have no reason to fanatically maintain some “status quo” position, regardless of whether it is correct or not, so as to “protect” or maintain my “career goals!”          

     Quite frankly, I seriously doubt that you will ever hear the complete actual truth from likely a majority, or a good number of academic University psychologists. Whatever one hears from at least a good number of them, I honestly believe that it will often be mixed with a certain amount of the “academic politics” of the particular area in psychology! There is most always, or certainly quite often, a certain level of “self interest” that comes with just entering the field! Hence, to some degree the whole field is corrupt! And this is so whether one in the field is aware of it or not! 

                                                                                                                                                                Page 10

                                       MY DEFINITION OF STRESS

    For those who want an “exact definition” of what is meant by the “abuse of the infant/child” or “causing significant damaging levels of stress of the infant or child” I of course can only be as exact as the present state of physiological knowledge permits, or perhaps a bit beyond! But I believe that that “state of knowledge” is more than suffiicient presently to draw some important conclusions on these things. There will be those “clever academics” in “psychobabble” who will say something along the lines of; “oh, well one can never tell what is stressful to one individual and “not to another,” etc…, or something similar. Well first I should note that the concern in my writings is with infants and children and not adult professional NFL football heroes or heavy weight boxing stars, etc,… Although I am certain that the later go through tremendous stress, at times all the way to various types of brain injury and trauma and on to conditions such as early parkinsons disease, dementia, etc…, see; The Boston Globe, 02/29/13, “A $100m Harvard focus on NFL.” It is the position here that not only physical beatings and such are both damaging and stressful to an infant or young child, harming their emotional development over time, but also the constant belittling, ridicule, scorn, shaming, and all other negative verbal assaults, etc, on a child in fact will always do the same or similar developmental damage. In fact, generally any early oppressive and/or other type of early “poisonous environment” will do the same or similar early damage to a young child. It should be obvious that constant physical assaults on a child will cause significant emotional conflict and be damaging in the long run. We still remain significantly ignorant as to how exactly “poisonous psychological manipulations” or verbal assaults on an infant or child would prove to be stressful and abusive in the life of the child, and the extent to which it may be damaging to each individual infant or child. However, mere ignorance can not be a logical point of proof, and on this issue, it does not seem “clever” to me at all that one would use it as their key position against me! But the position here is that one can not constantly belittle a child, constantly shame a child, constantly verbally assault an infant or child and at the same time assume that it does not harm their development etc… And in fact it is the position here that these things are absolutely associated with the physiological stress response in the human system. And in fact how these things operate can be studied in the animal system experimentally, as was done with, for example, the “Harlow type maternal deprevation studies” and in psychoimmunological studies today etc… And further, when assaults to emotional development are done early and with enough intensity they will affect brain development and even set-up a lasting physiological response pattern that will much more often than not be damaging to the individuals’ health in the long run. However, I do recognize that these issues are more complex (psychological abuse, shame, etc…) than visible physical assaults in causing actual physical harm to the body via physiological stress responses. But even though there remains some ignorance in the area of psychological abuse, etc…, I do take the position that there are sufficient measuring techniques that show that such is harmful, certainly for infants and young children, and this is so even with the “state of ignorance” that presently exists on these extremely complex issues! Besides, again mere  ignorance does not strike me as a valid point of proof against me, and as these are important issues it does not seem “clever” to me at all that one would use it as their key position against the positions that I am taking in my writings, what I call MSTCL. Although I am certain that such will be done! I do not know if this clears up this complex issue, but I certainly hope that at least for most it does. If I do find some other way to clarify the issue I will certainly do so in future writings as I have every expectation of continuing these discussions. I know that many in the scientific community are not really interested in long drawn out arguments that go on paragraph after paragraph, and chapter after chapter, but simply want to see actual relevant physiological data on a mere few pages with a neatly placed introduction followed by a summary abstract and ending with a relatively short concluding statement, etc… Like those in the biological scientific community, I too have marched through an endless number of experimental and research studies. And so I do understand that and do try to include such relevant studies that are clear enough scientifically without a large number of long drawn out nearly endless discussions. Compare for example, Daniel J. Siegel’s; “The Developing Mind, How Relationships And The Brain Interact To Shape Who We Are,” or Jerome Kagan’s; “Galen’s Prophecy, Temperment In Human Nature,” to Martin E. P. Seligman’s; “Heplessness: On Depression, Development, and Death.” All three are very intelligent authors but scientifically I would say that the later does seem clearer in data presentation, although at least Siegel does

                                                                                                                                                              Page 11

discuss issues significantly relevant to my own writings! But again I do anticipate that more of such supporting evidence to the positions that I have taken here will definitely appear in the future, and I am truly hoping that the relevant scientific/medical communities will find acceptable ways of looking at the issues discussed in my writings. I am sorry that the issues that I have chosen to discuss are so complex. But they are also very real issues, and they really do have to be looked at. For all those in the relevant fields who might reject my positions because they supposedly are “too weak” scientifically, really need not worry as I completely anticipate that future evidence will absolutely be forth coming. That really is just a logical conclusion based on the scientific history that already exists on these same issues. 

                                          NO “GOLD STANDARD” IN CHILD REARING-YET.

     I wish that I had a ‘gold standard” in child rearing that I could give parents. There are simply too many different situations that presently exist, too many children that do already have different levels of emotional pain in their system for me to claim that there is a “gold standard” that every parent should follow in raising a child. The problem could stem from some damaging event in the womb, at birth, in infancy or early childhood. So given a child already greatly damaged, one can not be sure how effective any approach will be. That is really something for the correct future research to determine. I focus on A. S. Neill and his works and writings with and about children because he was clearly a figure in the history of child psychology and education who insisted strongly on the systematic non-abusive approach in dealing with children on such a consistent basis. Really, if there is a “gold standard” on these issues, the only one that I can think of is that of systematically making sure that no child has to suffer any significant abuse, physically or psychologically, that is going to affect their early development in any negative and lasting ways! I choose the concept of childhood freedom as Neill developed it further from Homer Lane because logically that is what it is. That is, it is clearly the systematic removal of significant abuse from a child’s life, given that it is done honestly and in an authentic and reasonable manner. Children are not normally these constant self-destructive machines that will automatically turn to such behavior when given freedom to possibly do so! The only children who will actually turn to such destructive behaviors when allowed greater freedoms to do so are those who already carry significant pain from earlier abusive events. The world of infant and childhood should not be held hostage to the idiotic destructive practices of some adults who are incapable of raising emotionally healthy children! But as far as there being a “gold standard” in child rearing, it is that which I have developed in my writings. And that is; for parents to create a non-abusive environment for infants and children to develop in, in both the home and in education, and any other significant areas of their lives. And the ‘gold standard” in the greater understanding of these things for the future is for the relevant academic communities to carry out the studies that I have outlined throughout my writings.

     In the history of ideas, concepts in working with children, Neill was only a single individual, who historically only worked with children for a relatively short period of time. But his work was certainly significantly important enough, I believe, that it still should be at least given serious consideration. The world should certainly be, I believe, grateful for his sacrifices and efforts. But to be sure it is certainly not the only thing we have to give us an idea of how one might go about in providing the best circumstances that will promote the greatest possibility for the healthy emotional development of new borns, infants and young children, etc… I do not see my own role in these extremely important efforts in simply brining up Neill’s earlier work with children at Summerhill. But rather I see my role as looking at what I consider to be the best information that can guide the world in a better direction in rearing infants and young children and how this might affect medical health through out the life span, or the greatest part of it! And importantly, point in a direction that the medical scientific community and psychology can go in, to obtain a greater understanding of these issues. Much or a good part of this world may choose to ignore me now! There is really nothing that I can do about that! But given that what I am saying is the truth, and I have no doubt that it is, then sooner or later there will be little or no choice but to move in the directions that I have outlined here. It is certainly better, I believe, for the children of the future, that it be done sooner rather than later!            

                                                                                                                                                                Page 12

                                              MICRO- NANO-CAMERA IMAGES OF THE BRAIN.

     Janov once stated to the effect that only if we could actually look into the brain when an infant or child is denied love for the first time, or is put through some sort of significant abuse, neglect, or both for the first time, and see the developmentally damaging and dysfunctional changes that begin to occur from that point on. Well in a way we can in fact do that because when such events do happen, and continue to occur, changes do take place. And at some point these changes set themselves up to become more permanent. So while we can’t see the exact moment that these things happen, we can see at least some of the after effects! And that’s what I have been trying to show through out my writings. That is, such things as the effects of high levels of stress hormones being released into the abused individual’s system and the accompanying brain and physiological changes, or immunological suppression etc… These are certainly some of the significant known events that occur (or start to occur) at the moment of significant abuse and neglect of the individual. And it has become increasingly clear that the effects of these events do in fact linger on in the system. And it is my position, as the more advanced people in the field would certainly agree, if such abuse or neglect  occurs with enough intensity, then the changes will very likely stay in that system to a significant degree. New emotional arrangements will occur, and remain in the individuals system. This is what I call “emotional conflict of an early origin.” Right now as I write there is, I believe, significantly sufficient neurological evidence that strongly supports this position. For those who want a clearer view of this position I would suggest looking at some of Arthur Janov’s later writings such as: “Why You Get Sick. How You Get Well, The Healing Power Of Feelings,” or also; “The Biology Of Love” etc… Although for sure one could also support the same general position(s) by looking at the relevant studies and research work scattered through out the relevant psychological/psychiatric and scientific-biological archival literature. There is certainly more than enough of it there to sufficiently support my positions! It is not simply information that is only in Janov’s writings. It is after all, scientific information that is relevant to the issues disc

discussed! But personally I like the way that Janov has always articulated these things. And I believe that he has done a great service by doing so. But in the end, early abuse is early abuse, and is going to have various effects on early emotional development and long-term health of the individual regarless of whose particular writings on the issue that one looks at!    

     So again I would argue that we do in fact have what amounts to having “nano-microcameras” in the brain! The “picture” that already exists can be obtained by looking correctly at the relevant neurophysiologic data that is already presently in the scientific literature. The reasoning is as such: The changes that occur due to high levels of abuse and neglect, the reason that they are significant is because they are lasting. In fact, most studies on the effects of long-term stress on biological systems, animal, human, cellular, etc…, are relevant to these issues. Certainly, at least to a significant degree, it is pretty clear what some of the “bad changes” are from “good” or healthy changes. For example, a child who is loved and given all kinds of confidence, and never has to experience abuse, is most likely on average going to be healthier throughout his or her lifespan than the child who experiences early lost of love, or never experiences any authentic early contact as an infant, and suffers early significant abuse throughout infancy and childhood, etc… Or another way to put it, perhaps a clearer way, is to state that the child who was always given early authentic love and never suffered significant abuses throughout infancy and childhood is certainly in the majority of cases going to be emotionally healthier than the child who was never given authentic early love and was constantly under the weight of significant abuses. And the position of MSTCL is that such levels of emotional dysfunction do affect medical health over time. And that is already, I believe, well supported in the relevant literature and data. The child with the high abuse and neglect is definitely going to be left with “permanent marks” in the form of “emotional scars.” Those “permanent marks” have to come from the effects on the child’s dysfunctional emotional development that took place at the time of the abuse and neglect, or certainly to a good degree. So since we can to some degree measure stress and many of the other things that go along with it, such as immunological suppression of some important aspects of immunological function, high blood pressure, and so forth, we are in fact looking inside the brain and physiology of the individual. These things do leave a “picture.” Such research has never really been systematically done but a significant amount of data does already exist that supports these positions. So much so that in fact I would consider it quite tragic for any society to simply ignore such abuse and neglect of its infants and children. And worse that members of the medical community do the same. Really it is just an issue of being truthful with one’s self I believe.               

                  A New Introduction and Brief Statement Of Changes: To The Reader 2008                     Page 13

     For good reasons in this first writing I have decided to focus more on the science and research end of what I term MSTCL, or; “Medical-Social Theory of Child Liberation,” instead of the psychological side of the discussion. In the theoretical framework of MSTCL the two are inseparable anyway. I am simply coming in from the more biological side of the discussion, which I completely anticipate continuing in the future anyway. Those interested in a more lengthily discussion of the “psychological side” can look at the writings of authors such as A. S. Neill,  Arthur Janov, Alice Miller, etc…Ultimately the core position of MSTCL is based on the statement that: “The Best Way Newborns and Children should be Raised is Non-Abusively to the Greatest Degree Possible.”    

    In other writings that I have done, (which this is a shorter version of), I have gone into much greater detail of “childhood freedom,” especially as it was practiced at Summerhill under A. S. Neill. This task required going into significant detail of the many daily activities of children living under such conditions as A. S. Neill described in his writings. To a good extent such a detailed discussion appeared necessary to me given the great degree of ignorance in our culture (and more so in many other cultures) of what an environment of authentic responsible childhood freedom would look like, and how it could be effectively carried out. This is essentially what A. S. Neill himself discussed in his classic book; “Summerhill A Radical Approach To Child Rearing,” and in the several other books of his as well. I absolutely advise all readers, and certainly all perspective parents, to look at this book (as well as my own writings) closely to gain a better understanding of what an environment of authentic childhood freedom should actually look like! Most can not really know what this might actually be like given that they, themselves, as-well-as the vast majority of the population, most likely never experienced anything like it in their own childhoods’. Let me warn the reader right now that many of those in the so-called “professional world” including in academic psychology, who oppose such an approach, really rely heavily on the great level of ignorance that exists on the issue, both in the general population and especially in academia as well. Many of the more fanatics amongst them rely on such ignorance in their outright distortion of the position of true childhood freedom practiced responsibly. They will often attempt to create a picture of total chaos with bizarre images of children in total anarchy burning down their homes, towns and worse! This is actually rather humorous because the position of MSTCL is that absolutely, the only children who would ever want to burn such things down are those children significantly denied control over their own lives (or mistreated in some other manner to a significant degree) and certainly are therefore abused and with various levels of emotional pain driving them to act-out so destructively! To the contrary, and as shown here, children who were actually given responsible freedom early and essentially raised non- abusively never desire to resort to such dangerous and destructive behaviors. Always, the true origin of such destructiveness in any child or individual is an emotional system loaded with early and unresolved pain. The distracters of the author’s position will insist that childhood freedom could never work despite the fact that it has already been shown to work, and work very well! Of course just about any idea that is carried out in a distorted manner is likely going to fail! No individual with average intelligence should have any problem understanding that statement! In fact what has never really worked is the opposite of the positions that I have proposed in these writings, what I have generally come to call MSTCL. The opposite of authentic and successful childhood freedom does not work! That’s because abusive forms of child rearing have never worked, no matter how they may be carried out! And they never in fact will work. The human emotional system is simply not biologically set-up that way. The relevant areas of both academic and clinical psychology would do well to finally start recognizing these facts.   

     For the interested reader, the Summerhill website is a good source of information on this and other relevant issues. The reader can certainly go there for a better understanding of this issue.

     Here I would like to list some of the core principles of authentic and responsible modes of childhood freedom as Neill attempted to put into practice. One can find essentially the same outlining of Neill’s core principles in Erich Fromm’s introduction that he wrote, and was published in Neill’s classic book; Summerhill A Radical Approach To Child Rearing.” And then I will proceed to the more medical health related issues with an emphasis on its relation to unresolved early conflict in the individual’s system, how such emotional conflict might affect the individual physically over the long run! On this later issue I look closely at the writings of psychotherapist Arthur Janov who I feel has been one of the most insightful individuals on such issues. I have found especially helpful the way

Janov has articulated these issues over the decades. The manner in which he has insightfully merged the early emotional life of the individual with the neurological and later medical!                     

                                                              New Introduction 2008                                                            Page 14

     I advocate a research approach to what Neill defined as “authentic” and “responsible” early “childhood freedom.” The words “authentic” and “responsible” refer to the fact that the concept of “freedom for children” did not in any way include allowing a child to do absolutely anything he wanted no matter how destructive that it may be to others and to the child him or herself. Obviously that would not be a good approach to child rearing! Neill discussed these important issues in greater detail in his own writings. By “research” I generally mean using and discussing the types of measurements that psychotherapist Arthur Janov, (author of; “The New Primal Scream,” and “The Biology Of Love,” etc…), has always discussed for over four decades now in his many books and writings in regards to looking at the effectiveness of Primal Therapy-along with other relevant approaches that I discuss through out my writings. Hence, the issue of research also includes any approach, scientific, observational, etc…, that would prove relevant to the issues discussed here. These measurements can also be used to indicate the damage that emotional conflict does to the human system over time. And importantly they are important indicators of level of emotional and long-term medical health. This concept of measurement is crucial I believe. It is only a logical conclusion that it can also be used to reveal how non-abusive approaches in early child rearing and education will greatly enhance the emotional and medical health generally of the individual over the long run. I go into some detail in all of these issues ahead. I am confident that honest future research will show that the non-abusive raring of infants and children as discussed here will show great developmental benefits for the vast majority of children when used correctly and successfully. And further many aspects of these benefits can be

scientifically detected to a significant extent! So as the reader reads on I hope that he or she realizes that there is certainly a lot here that should be taken serious and can be developed further.

     I do not by any means think of this as a “great literary” piece or anything like that! Nor was I even attempting for anything along those lines! But rather this is a long over due discussion of issues that should

be of importance to parents and those in the various fields of psychology and especially medicine. Hence, I take the position that the great human importance of the issues discussed ahead is by far what makes these writings worth looking at! But although I may have used much from others, primarily of course, A. S. Neill and Arthur Janov, I also feel that there are some significant differences as to how I have used some of the key positions and ideas of these great authors, and have merged them with important concepts of my own. And there is certainly nothing wrong with that! Additional ideas that I am advocating are the various long-term health issues that logically must be intimately tied to non-abusive child rearing practices, compared to abusive practices and the total physiological measurements of infants and children not in conditions of abuse and oppression compared to those who are, etc… I do not in any way envision infants and children being forced into locked cages in a scientific research laboratory in some “hidden location” to be studied and “shocked!” And anyone intelligent enough to do appropriate physiological measurements and relevant medical studies to the issues discussed here, should certainly also be intelligent enough to develop strategies to get such measurements without causing any harm what-so-ever to young participating individuals! Unfortunately, there are far more than enough individuals to make comparisons with given that the majority of children certainly have been, and still are, being raised under various levels of abuse or oppression anyway. This is definitely so when measured against the standards and concepts discussed here on non-abusive forms of child rearing. Likewise, there are also a massive number of women with different and significant levels of their own emotional problems of early origins who are either conceiving or will be doing so at some point in their lives, an important issue in these writings. And I should note that the fact that this is the reality is hardly the fault of the author! And this horrible reality will certainly continue on a significantly massive level here and elsewhere throughout the globe until the medical sciences and related scientific community give powerful enough reasons for it to be changed on a larger social scale. I do make these statements with serious human medical concerns in mind. Therefore, I do absolutely consider them legitimate concerns. So really the true burden is on the “general medical community” and not the author or similar messengers! I maintain that regardless of whether the position that child rearing practices might be related to long term health issues is popular or not, the medical community is completely obligated to research the possibility given that there are significantly strong indications that this must be so-and that absolutely is the case. And “they” are certainly obligated to conduct such research honestly! And this is so regardless of the extent that this might be the case. In fact the position here is that this is massively so! And when the medical research community in fact does do honest and unbiased research on the issue of child abuse and its impact on long-term medical health this will be revealed to be the case. MSTCL represents the first truly conscious push for this type of medical research to be systematically carried out.

                                                              New Introduction  2008                                                           Page 15

      Hence, I believe that I definitely offer a significant contribution in the areas of child development, early education and child rearing generally along with important discoveries in long-term medical health, etc. And so again these writings are not in any final book form, but are more of an on going discussion. In fact in a general way I see this book as similar in structure and concept as the now classic; “Our Bodies, Ourselves,” by the “Boston Women’s Health Book Collective.” That is, I definitely hope to not only continuously improve these writings in terms of mechanics and style, (especially in any areas where that may help clarify important issues), but also to give deeper insights into the ideas and issues presented here, as new information comes out in the relevant fields of psychology, physiology, medicine, etc... 

     Again I should note to the reader that Summerhill is still operating as a boarding school. In fact the school’s main figure head (the last I checked) is/was Neill’s daughter, Zoe Redhead. The school can be visited on the internet under, “A. S. Neill, Summerhill,” (that seems to usually work) or www.summerhillschool.co.uk. etc… It is noted that there have been some changes made in the way the school operates today from the time Neill was in charge. I do not know how much the school differs from 

when Neill ran it when he was alive. But it is stated that the main philosophy of the school remains the same. I would like to make it clear that Summerhill is in no way linked to myself or the field of MSTCL. So actually I do not know how those there today would react or feel about my positions. So I am on my own-actually on these issues so is the world, including the medical community! But really I do not see this as a problem, the fact that I am not, or never have been, tied to Summerhill! Neill did what he did in his time period, a very oppressive time period to be sure. But now it is time to move forward on these and other issues and that’s what I am doing. I certainly hope that those at Summerhill today would agree with at least most of the positions I have taken in my writings. I have no reason to believe that they would not agree with me-that seems logical. Perhaps I will be finding out soon! I do consider my positions, writings, and goals to be of significant value to the health sciences and relevant fields such as child development, etc... Again I take the position that early non-abuse and authentic early love will have an impact on early emotional development and later long-term medical health of the individual. And further that well done and honest research on these positions will verify their truths.

    Ultimately some massive research studies will have to be done on such complex issues linking infant/child rearing with long term health of individuals. For example, studies of fetal development occurring in the emotionally healthy woman compared to that of the fetal development of the significantly emotionally disturbed woman. And to follow the long-term health of such children into later adulthood. Perhaps studies should be done along these lines to create the type of data presented in J. M. Tanner’s “Fetus into Man, Physical Growth from conception to Maturity.” And not only should every single aspect of the “physical side” be carefully looked at, but the emotional as well, especially from the framework discussed here. Also studies along the lines of the famous  “Framingham Heart Study,” and the “Type A Behavior and Heart Disease research” etc…should be carried out within the framework discussed here.                           

     It should be clear enough that I have been attracted to many of the key concepts of Primal Theory as Janov has developed it over the decades. And also key parts of Reich’s earlier writings on the early development of character structures and neurosis, and the effects of these on healthy and unhealthy early sexuality, and on general emotional and physical health. And I have also found much of interest and importance in the writings of individuals such as Alice Miller, not to mention the large array of studies looking at the relationship of physical and emotional distress and disease state formation as mentioned above, etc… Given our present scientific level of sophistication and understanding in areas of endocrinology, immunology, neurology, cardiovascular physiology, general physiology, and the stress and disease linkage research etc…, we can right now definitely get very clear verification of the very significant long-term health benefits, psychologically, emotionally and medically, in the systematic treatment of children as advocated here. That is, the systematic removal of any early abuse and in offering authentic love and freedom to develop under. Logically as time passes and relevant advances are made, the “very clear verification” of these issues will themselves advance closer to being “crystal clear” as our understanding of these things accordingly increase. And that is a certainty. Will we know absolutely everything about these issues then? Of course not! That’s a struggle that will likely go on continuously! But in fact we do know a lot now and it is a certainty that we will know much more as time passes and much more additional research on relevant issues to this brings more conclusive results, ever increasing our

                                                               New Introduction 2008                                                           Page 16

understanding of these things. Now we need only start looking at these issues in the framework that I have presented. And in fact I have no doubt that this framework, and research that it generates, if correctly and successfully carried out, can be greatly utilized to guide a more successful practice of childhood freedom, and importantly the best ways to promote an early healthy emotional development. Personally I like and feel comfortable with the way that Janov conceives of important issues of emotional health and how neurotic pain becomes embedded into the general physiological-neurological systems starting at an early point-in fact at the fetal period and onward! But there are of course various other approaches one can take in psychiatry, medicine, etc…, to look at these very complex issues. It is not my intention to claim that I have a complete monopoly on these issues. Only the most crazed academic would attempt something like that. My message is one of hope. But in the end, whatever approach is taken, they should ultimately arrive at the same conclusions! The position here is that the healthy system is not riddled with neurotic conflict and pain. And there are no genes that put that conflict and pain there-given that it is in fact there as in deed it far too often is! In the greater majority of cases it develops in the relationship between the child and those who have control over his or her early life. And the healthy system does not, at a much earlier period than should be the case, start breaking down with one or two of the major disease states! Janov makes it abundantly clear that he strongly feels the same way. With the science and level of understanding of such complex issues there are always frustrating “dark areas.” We all know this! But given that there is a very large amount of information relevant to these health issues then logical conclusions will flow naturally. There is no sense in being “guided” by only the “darkness,” the “unknown,” given that other options exists. And in fact they do! I have found that those in academic psychology, etc, who will often insist that only “darkness” exist on these key important human issues, most usually have “another hidden agenda!” What I hope to do is to start a systematic process to begin to “nail these things down” if you will. And in fact one of the things that will come out of such efforts will be a new and developing area of medical science and practice. I am confident of that! Right now the short version of this “new area of medicine” I call M-STCL for “Medical-Social Theories of Child Liberation.” The longer and clearly more torturous title is M-SSTCDHL, for "Medical-Social and Scientific Theories of Child Development and Human Liberation!” With MSTCL it is understood that it is on a scientific footing to the degree possible. Hence, I could say, or write, MSSTCL! My writings essentially intend to transform the whole planet and humanity that inhabits it, clearly it is not a small issue! Quite frankly I wish it were a small issue. Then it could be accomplished much more easily! Actually given the complexities involved, in all honesty, I am not really sure if it can ever absolutely actually be accomplished, and to what degree! But it is a simple fact that societies have to try.

     What I am actually doing is significantly greater, I believe, than what any psychiatrist has probably ever tried to do. But ultimately those who carry out the research and practice will make it actually work. I am asking for a mass based social revolution on issues of child rearing and protecting the emotional and biological rights of infants and children, ultimately on a global scale. In regards to the U.S. and Europe I am demanding that the state itself push this revolution through-the only ones with the power and resources to do so! And although I do my share of attacking certain members of the University’s academic community (mostly of the U.S. and Europe), I am asking for the support of the scientific and psychiatric community. I have to ask for their needed support, for they can effectively pressure the state to do what it should be doing! I trust that the more open minded in the scientific academic community will understand these criticisms of mine which I level on them generally. And understand that these contradictions can’t be helped at this time. It is simply how things have evolved! But work can be done to change that too for the better.

    Also it should be noted that I have every expectation that a system designed to protect the rights of children be workable! So that means that on the issue of protecting children I do not mean to imply that every time a young child falls off his or her bicycle and scrapes a knee, or some equivalent to that, that it become a major legal issue or such a child be rushed off to the nearest medical center for an MRI, along with a nearly endless series of neuroendocrine and immunological stress testing. It was an accident, the child fell off her bicycle. Hence, there is no reason to make anything out of it. This situation is radically different than if a father runs at a child, punches her in the face and then she falls off the bicycle. Needless to say we have to be very interested in the later. That’s the sort of thing that ruins a child’s life later on. If a child is in a continuously abusive home, whether it be continuous emotional or physical abuse, the schooling system, and other agencies, should have trained people who can perceive that something is wrong compared to the non-abused children. Then at least initial concern can begin. If a pattern of

                                                                                                                                                               Page 17

psychological and physiological emotional distress appears in say close observation and relevant testing, then further investigation can continue. Obviously at that point some sort of dialogue of concern has to begin with the primary care givers. That is one logical approach I would think. Each place and group will have to decide how to best proceed on these issues with the resources they have in which to do so. That’s the “social revolution part of what I call MSTCL. In the meantime the medical and psychological research part should be “raging on” as science always does anyway!

                                                            New Introduction 2009                                                            

      It is a simple fact that many parents today are in bad shape and far too many don’t even have the emotional capacities to perceive when they are using significant abuse on a child. And that’s just this society! The system is going to have its hands full if it systematically attempts to protect children from such damaging abuse. The last thing it needs is to get tied up with every child who accidentally falls down in  

play and scrapes his knees etc… The system has to be authentically concerned with “real” significant and damaging levels of abuse and the most effective ways to detect it and have a good idea of its level and possible effects. And importantly how to go about changing such conditions.                                                          

      I do not imagine a system that hurls every abusive parent in a jail-cell with hardcore criminals and  serial killers! (Undoubtedly something I will be accused of advocating). Instead I see a humane system that will do what it is supposed to do and do everything possible in attempting to re-educate the abusive parent and protect the child in some workable manner. Again, it is certainly an understatement to say that at first the system will have its hands full! The focus has to be on reasonableness and hence, on what will work. There will be plenty of abusive parents who will say, “oh, the child is a brat, he’s spoiled, almost a hard core criminal, so I have to beat him at least once a week!” And there will even be some “professionals” in “child development” who will spin off theories to support the beatings! Well that type of child abuse simply should not be tolerated. 

     Children will learn non-abusive parenting by not being abused themselves, and being offered authentic early freedoms. They learn such by not being beaten or neglected as a continuous destructive parental response to “resolving” minor conflicts that often arise between child and parent. In the present situation, unfortunately, one of the easiest things for many parents to do, is to rationalize why they should use abuse as a way of dealing with a young child! It is, on the other hand, destructive and wrong that they actually act through with such rationalizations and carry out their destructive program of abusive “child rearing.” Perhaps I did not put a lot of focus on the more mundane day to day issues in child rearing. One must admit that, given the goals articulated here, that I have embarked on a rather large project! So I encourage the reader to look at Neill’s work and that of other similar authors, like Arthur Janov, Alice Miller etc...

      And I should mention that I do not believe that this proposed “safety net of child protection” will “save” every child! That seems hardly likely, certainly in the beginning given the outrageously large number of abusive adults in the world. But I would expect that it would in fact increase the chances for a higher level of healthy emotional development for at least the majority of children so protected. And this by itself more than justifies the proposals here! I would logically expect that the practice of protecting children’s rights would always improve as time passes once it is in fact seriously embarked upon.

                                   Short Version, Erich Fromm’s Introduction                                                                           

    In the introduction to A. S. Neill’s “Summerhill, A Radical Approach To Child Rearing,” the famous psychoanalyst and book author, Erich Fromm, notes how throughout recorded history there has been a slow but consistent movement towards the use of less force generally by adults placed in charge of children. Really a change of approach in the use of authority over children. Fromm referred to the changing approaches as, “Overt Authority,” the use of clear physical force, versus “Anonymous Authority,” a significant replacement of force by increasing psychological pressures on children’s lives.

     It has been estimated that before, and up to this time period, nearly half of Europe’s population was literally wiped out in infancy or childhood because of various types of damaging early abuses and neglect, (see psychologist Lloyd DeMause; “The History Of Childhood,” and “Emotional Lives of Nations)! Before

                                                        Erich Fromm’s Introduction                                                          Page 18

and up to the end of the eighteenth century, by far, the predominant form of authority generally used was the more physically sadistic overt authority-that is, children were simply beaten along with being subjected to other brutalities, including even sexual rape by the adult male, and sometimes even murder. In fact, consistent with a Marxist’s framework, Fromm notes that it was the massive change in socioeconomic organization that allowed anonymous authority to increasingly replace the harsher overt forms of authority, I believe that this history supports my position of the “Adult addiction to abuse children” or those in a weaker position socially. It is any ones guess what massive tragedies in this realm had occurred in other parts, such as Africa, Asia, the Middle East, etc… Certainly the horror stories are endless and continuing! Very likely even larger numbers of infants and children perished in these parts of the world from various forms of neglect and abuse than the estimates for Europe, etc… Of the very many books that Fromm wrote, two major ones are; “Escape From Freedom,” and “The Sane Society.” The reader should note that the situation has been “a bit more diabolical” when one considers that it has been increasingly revealed (and continuing) by a large amount of relevant research-most of it primarily over the last three decades and continuing-that it has to be the case that female children should never be subjected to any significant level of abuse. I believe that an effective approach to this goal would be with a system of “responsible freedom” successfully carried you..That is, a system of child rearing in the absence of any early abusive or hurtful treatment, as I understand the concept. This is so as female children have to be completely emotionally healthy to be able to easily withstand the emotional stress of pregnancy later in young adult life. The issue is the nature of the internal biochemical package that a given mother delivers to the developing fetus. While it is always true that it is necessary that the young woman be physically healthy before becoming pregnant, it has become increasingly well recognized that she has to also be emotionally healthy as well. So if a woman eats only expensive organic health foods and exercises regularly, if she is to a great degree emotionally unhealthy then this will still significantly affect the biochemical package that she continually delivers to her developing fetus, increasing the possibility of significant damage to it. I am not claiming by any means that everything is known on this very complex issue. But in fact a significant amount of recent information increasingly verifies my position. And as more becomes known I anticipate that the position will be scientifically strengthened. Hence, women raised early on as advocated (without early abuse), will always later on have healthier marriages along with being more emotionally healthy themselves. This will guarantee lower levels of physiological stress throughout their lives. There is really no substitute for this fact. These women will absolutely be better able to offer real unconditional love to their fetus (biochemically), newborns and infants, etc. So again, the position here is that a system that at least minimizes, to the greatest degree possible, any significant abuses, should be an effective way that will allow young female children to maintain emotionally healthy development throughout their lives. And beyond that, it is further the position here that a system of “responsible childhood freedom” is an effective way to accomplish this goal, given that it is done honestly and correctly. Given that one accepts that position, as indeed the author does, then it becomes clear that really it has to be the case that all throughout human history the vast majority of women have been unconsciously and emotionally harming their newborns to various degrees due to unresolved conflict. For humanity, maybe it is time that we should be thinking how we might change this tragic picture? I believe that I am doing my part here!             

    The level and types of damaging effects though become more difficult to recognize as increasingly more abusive psychological manipulations are used in place of the use of more openly sadistic physical force, as in overt authority. Just the term “psychological damage” in its own right has its inherent difficulties, to say the least. But that some levels of damages do occur in both circumstances there is no doubt, as many have already recognized. There are in fact different ways to look at these things with both biological and psychological measures.

    Neill forcefully advocated a system of child rearing and education devoid of any threats, fears, punishments, psychological manipulations etc…Fromm noted that one of Neill’s most central positions and

often made statement concerning the philosophy of Summerhill was that, “freedom works.” An accurate reinterpretation of this statement would be to say; “non-abusive ways of treating children works.” And in

fact, one could add that its opposite does not work-that is, if society wants to remove neurotic struggle and later early disease development from the lives of children, and the later adults they become!

      Fromm listed ten basic principles Neill considered as essential in raising and educating children. Of these essential points, I will focus on those that I see as most essential to fostering healthy emotional development for children within the framework discussed. I do not of course simply agree with everything Neill, or Janov, Alice Miller and Reich, etc, state. The important point is that we move forward in a deeper

                                                       Fromm’s Introduction To Summerhill                                            Page 19

understanding in how adults can offer the greatest possible opportunities to infants and young children for the healthiest emotional development and later better and longer health that is possible. Scientifically and otherwise these are the goals and primary interest in these writings. Others may have other approaches. Ultimately these positions have to be reasonably proven to the highest degree possible.  

      Of the ten principles noted by Fromm, first Neill always maintained a “firm faith in the goodness of the child.” Neill saw the child as having the strong potentiality to love life and want to fully engage in it. And for Neill it was always just a question of allowing the child to realize fully this potential in life.

      And second, Neill saw that the primary aim of educating (and parenting) and life in general, is to “be able to find enjoyment and happiness.” The idea of “happiness of the child” is a theme that Neill brings up constantly throughout his writings, and was central to his approach towards dealing with children. It was his core reason for consistently using and advocating a system of responsible freedom as the healthiest means of raising children. And the results at Summerhill appear to have clearly verified this! But such results have unfortunately been ignored by much of the world and many of the “professionals” in elite academic psychology. But in fact what we now clearly realize or should realize, thanks to the work of people like Arthur Janov, is that for the development (in the child) of the capacity to successfully be able to achieve joy and happiness on a consistent basis, actually takes a firm and solid period of time of healthy emotional development and is far from something that can be taken for granted, certainly not today! The whole thing should be nothing more than a natural process. It is not my assertion that this is an exact science, it is far too complex for that to be the case now. Given that the child is not really able to achieve real happiness then it does not seem likely that healthy emotional, and therefore physiological, development can really occur! It is clear that Neill believed that a more complete healthy development does not occur in the absence of real authentic happiness. I absolutely agree with this position! It should be logically clear that early healthy development in this realm is not an option and therefore neither is a solidly firm childhood environment of responsible freedom as was the clear goal of A. S. Neill’s Summerhill. I believe however that we can in fact always improve upon healthy techniques and non-abusive ways of raising children. Knowledge of the strong link between long term emotional and medical health and ways children are raised has to be a concern to the relevant areas of medical research and practice. And in fact I believe that we are morally obligated to do so given its relationship to emotional and medical health. Here, with good and honest research, we can look at and talk about: immunological suppression; the physiological damage by high levels of glucocorticoids, constantly released in the body under emotional conflict and pain; the steady accelerated damaging of the cardiovascular system; the possible beginning of carcinogenic processes; the elevated blood pressure and accompanying tissue damage throughout the organism that always goes with these processes, etc…but unfortunately this research has not even started yet! Certainly not in the frame work discussed here.    

      Fromm notes that another core central position of Neill’s, was that education should be both intellectual and emotional. And this was always the arrangement of education at Summerhill. Fromm noted that in modern society there is an increasing separation of intellect and feeling. And Fromm added that the separation which has occurred between intellect and feeling has led modern man to a near schizoid state of mind. As did Neill, I also believe that as far as early education goes, it should never be the case that healthy emotional development be sacrificed in the pursuit of increasing intellectual development. I believe that when adults fanatically pursue the development of the intellect, at the expense of healthy emotional development, here is where we find high levels of solid neurosis and worse, even the development of sexual perversion, and an endless list of other emotional disorders with a large number of later medical disorders, etc…

     Another “Neillian principle” was to avoid using any forms of harsh discipline and punishment. Fromm noted that dogmatically imposed discipline and punishment creates fear and hostility in the child. (It should 

be noted that the later has been significantly linked in medical research to be powerfully cardiopathic to the individual). Fromm makes an understatement when he says that the resultant hostility created by harsh

discipline “may not be conscious and overt.” Fromm noted that extensive disciplining of young children is destructive to emotional development. And now it is firmly established that the depression or hostility it sooner or later creates is in fact strongly associated with the later development of heart disease, as noted above, among other things, such as some types of cancers, etc…                  

      Fromm noted that Neill’s primary focus was always to rear children who would become happy. Fromm noted that Neill always made a point of the fact that “freedom did not mean license.” This concept refers to

                                                                                                                                                               Page 20

the fact that the respect the adult shows for the child should hopefully be mutual. Fromm noted that in the realm of education the teacher should not use force against the child. And at the same time the child does

not have the right to use force against the teacher. Fromm noted that being a child did not give the child the right to constantly pressure the adult. The discussion that “freedom does not mean license” is an important and significantly long discussion which can be found throughout Neill’s main writings. 

     It is certainly desirable that there be a smooth mutual respect between adult and child. And given that an emotionally healthy child lives in an environment that successfully provides authentic early love and responsible freedom for her to develop in, then that should be the case. But given that there are deviations from such ideal circumstances, then there will very likely be various types and degrees of problems.

      However, Fromm believed that Neill often overstated the significance of sex in the development of the child. Fromm noted that those heavily influenced by Freud tended to often do the same. Wilhelm Reich was greatly influenced by the original studies by the anthropologist Bronislaw Malinowski of the Trobriand Islanders. In particular Reich was influenced by Malinowski’s book: “The Sexual Life of Savages.” Reich noted how the liberal attitudes of the adult population of the Trobriand Islands toward sexuality produced a healthy HETEROsexual development (a strict sexual interest for the opposite sex) in the adolescents and adults of the part of the Trobriand Islands so governed. And importantly Reich noted the complete absence of any violence (rape etc…) and perversion in the sexual lives of the Trobriand Islanders. Neill was also influenced by Malinowski’s studies. Both Neill and Reich felt tha

the healthy heterosexual development that there was in the Trobriand Islands was directly tied to the freedoms allowed children and adolescents by the Trobriand parents. However, I believe that the central fact of prime significance in Trobriand society was the noted absence of any significant forms of adult abuses of the Trobriand children. Neill was always very concerned with the issue of a healthy sexual development of children as they moved on into adolescence and onto adulthood. This is of course a very serious issue as is more than crystal clear today with all the violence in sex along with a massive pornographic culture everywhere. Neill always made sure that he never did or said anything that might give a child a bad conscious about his or her body functions. Neill saw those adults who gave children a bad conscious about their bodies and body functions as being massively destructive to the child’s emotional and sexual development. I take the position that with high levels of early abuse in a child, there can never be healthy sexual development, or this will certainly be so for the majority. In fact it is crystal clear that on an absolutely massive scale there is unhealthy sexual development, both in our own society and most everywhere else! We see this absolutely everywhere! With males it is easier to spot as they tend to more openly act out this glaringly dysfunctional part of their lives. As the massive Global statistics on the sexual harassment and rape of women by men clearly shows. In women, it is usually better well hidden and tends to only reveal itself in actual “intimate” relationships with the opposite sex. Hence, the absolutely massive number of women incapable of finding a lasting or even truly healthy relationship with the opposite sex throughout much of their lives. Unfortunately, I don’t know of any attempts to try to actually measure this as it exist, let alone to try to understand how this unfortunate inability has its roots in early childhood, and how a system of early non-abuse in child rearing and later responsible early childhood freedom is the best resolution to this personal and social tragedy. I should note that any controversies that might be tied or associated with Reich, or even Neill, on the issue of “childhood or youth sexuality” does not really apply to my own position. My position is very clear I believe. If children are raised non-abusively with authentic early love and freedom, and hence, carry no unresolved emotional conflict from early periods, then there really is no reason that sexual deviant behaviors will ever develop later on. It is as simple as that!  

      There is a mistrust today of male teens. The belief is that if they could many of them would engage in a self-destructive non-stop “hypersexual” activity, hence, putting themselves and young female partners at risk of early pregnancy and worse HIV/AIDS, etc… Given the massive level of unhealthy sexual-emotional development that is present everywhere today I can understand this concern. But what is clearly missing from this interpretation is any understanding of the true origins of such dysfunctional and self-destructive sexual behavior. Current observation of many young people, especially of males, does have the appearance of supporting this “out of control” position. However, it should be recognized that truly emotionally healthy adolescents would simply not be capable of entering anything remotely like nonstop, high risk, hyper-  

sexual activities which would be self-destructive to themselves and others. They would not even find such activities desirable!

     One significant problem is the fact that far too many of the adults themselves often have significant levels of emotional disturbance, especially in regards to sexuality. So the real issue is whether there are

                                                       Sexual And Emotional Development                                            Page 21 

enough parents in the population generally who have the ability to raise children who arrive at the point where they are emotionally healthy on these issues and will not engage in a self destructive way in these intimate and personal parts of their lives! Parents who were not given the opportunity themselves to develop healthy attitudes towards human sexual issues are not likely going to be able to create the conditions for their own children to be healthy in these regards. I believe that those who will be attacking me on these issues, and their will be an army of them (literally), are quite confused on these facts. And of course they are! What every society needs are adults who are capable of providing the early conditions that will foster the greatest degree of healthy emotional development for infants and children! I once heard a female comedian state that she had originally planned to be a pornographic star, but her parents did not abuse her enough for her to be able to go through with “the plan!” Of course the comedian made the comment/joke to get a laugh. But in fact there is some definite insight in this “dark humor.”  Given children who have reached a high level of healthy emotional development and I would not expect that a single one of them would show up in such films. The origins of these things are some significant degree of emotional disturbance-pure and simple! In the end I am fully confident that good and honest research will clearly show that the truth is on my side and not with my attackers in much of a “backwards conservative academic psychology and psychiatry,” etc….             

      The psychiatric and medical communities really need to be absolutely clear on the fact that the child with a high level of emotional health (in the framework discussed here) is actually a new specie! He or she does not really exist yet in the population in any great numbers. Once I came across a statement supposedly once made by Neill himself. The statement was that “an erection has no conscious!” And for an enormous number of males in the population that is certainly so! But the position really accords very well with what Janov calls the “eroticizing of pain” acting like a powerful drug! Janov saw this disturbed process in quite a few Primal patients. In the movie; “Lord Of War,” with the popular actor, Nicolas Cage, there is a beginning scene where Cage walks into a restaurant supposedly owned by his immigrant Russian parents according to the movie script. In this scene another actor playing Cage’s brother, Jared Leto, is cooking in the restaurant’s kitchen. Cage looks at a sign on the kitchen wall that states; “Beware Of The Dog,” and Cage states; “Beware of the dog? We don’t have a dog! Are you trying to scare people?” And the “brother” answers; “It’s to scare me, (it’s) to remind me to be aware of the dog in me!” And continuing the “brother” states: “the dog that wants to fuck everything that moves,” etc…! Like the statement, “an erection has no conscious,” this is a good example I believe of the “eroticization of pain!” The immediate desire to have sexual contact with just about any individual that moves! With the heterosexual eroticizing of pain, that means just about anyone of the opposite sex! With the homosexual eroticization of pain, with anyone of the male sex! In fact the later is really nothing more than the eroticizing of pain gone completely out of control. These are the types of emotionally disturbed behaviors that I would absolutely never expect to develop in truly free children and adolescents who obtained a high degree of emotional health. It is here I believe where there is often the greatest degree of confusion with those who will attack my own position on the issue! They look at the population of youth today, which they have failed to see is greatly disturbed in their sexuality and attitudes to begin with. The healthy population I have in mind actually does not really exist yet! Certainly not in any high numbers!

     Examples of this “out of control-hyper sexuality” in males really occurs in a very large number of young men in this and most all other societies throughout the globe. From time to time certain cases do get wide media coverage in the U.S. For example just recently a case was just legally concluded on March, 17, 2013. The case actually went back to August of 2012. This case involved two Ohio high school star football players of Steubenville Ohio. The two players, aged 16 and 17 years old, had raped a 16 year old girl after she had gotten drunk and was incapable of resisting the attackers at a school party. Evidently many other kids at the party witnessed the rape but did nothing about it. The media had reported that the case itself had “divided the community amid allegations that more students should have been charged and led to questions about the influence of the football team,” considered a “local source of pride,” The Associated Press, 03/17/13. Evidently images of the rape had been made and placed on the internet!

     More than two decades earlier a similar but more diabolical case occurred in Glen Ridge New Jersey. Many of the details of the case were later published in a book; “Our Guys,” by Bernard Lefkowitz. In March of 1989, a group of teenage boys lured a retarded girl into a basement in Glen Ridge and gang raped the young girl who they had actually grown up with! Again the rapists were the local star high school athletes. This case was also reported to have significantly divided the community. Although many of the adults in the community had known about the rape, it had not been reported to the police for quite some

                                                 Sexual And Emotional Development                                               Page 22

time after it had ocurred. The case, according to author Lefkowitz, raised the issue of “unrestrained adolescent sexuality” of the majority of young males all across the country! Lefkowitz did predict that this sort of sexual sadism would simply continue over and over again throughout the country well into the future. And of course that proved to be, and still is, absolutely correct! But I do not believe that it is so much an issue of “unrestrained male adolescent sexuality” as it is a case of a very large number of young male children that were significantly harmed in various ways affecting their early emotional development. And this emotional dysfunction and pain is simply carried on into the period of later sexuality and sexual development. Then it takes the form of “eroticizing of pain,” taking on more sadistic forms of behavior over time. So actually what it is, is the “unrestrained adolescent sexuality” of individuals who simply did not have the early chance of developing in an authentic healthy manner. Really there will actually even be academic psychologists themselves who will not comprehend this! And it is not “lack of intelligence” as these individuals have Ph.D’s in the field. It is really other issues that have unfortunately evolved over time! But in fact the type of behaviors that may come under the concept of “unrestrained adolescent sexuality” as recognized by Lefkowitz, is the very definition itself of early dysfunctional development. It actually gave raise to the entire “woman’s movement” of the later 1960’s and 70’s! It prompted authors like Susan Brownmiller to write books like; “Against Our Will, Men, Women And Rape.” It was just not recognized for what it has essentially always been. But this is not too surprising given what conservative backwards academic psychology has mostly developed into, much of it actually being worthless!        

     Another book of interest; “Predators: Pedophiles, Rapists And Other Sex Offenders,” by Anna Salter, looks at the massive problem with such sexual predators that exists all over the country. Again these sorts of facts reveal the level of deep emotional sickness in the society.

     One could even go back further to the male captors of the Nazi concentration camps, and the “unrestrained” sexual assaults of Jewish women by the Nazi soldiers there. In fact a recent book just came out on this subject titled: “Sexual Violence Against Jewish Women during the Holocaust,” by Sonia Hedgepeth and Rochelle Saidel. Here the sexual humiliation and torture were at a maximum, often all the way to murder, an interesting conclusion to “unrestrained sexuality.” This of course is the extreme in disturbed early emotional and later sexual development in the individual. In fact sexuality in the individual male who was never allowed to develop early on emotionally in a healthy manner quite often gravitates to having a significant sadistic component to it. Those willing to look close enough should be able to see this. At the different levels of this type of dysfunctional sexuality the “human dignity part” is most always curiously missing to various degrees. In fact it is often considered inconceivable by such individuals that “sexuality” itself could ever exist along side true human dignity. This is exactly what it was for the “star athletes” in Steubenville Ohio and Glen Ridge New Jersey, and in fact all over the country! In the more extreme cases as in the Nazi concentration camps, “sexuality” and murder were a “perfect match!” So again, many look at the population of youth today, which they fail to see is greatly disturbed in their sexuality and attitudes to begin with. And again, the significantly healthier population that I have in mind actually does not exist yet in any significantly “large numbers!”      

      There will be those who will be quick to use this as a point of attack on my position! But let me remind the reader that the healthy population of mine is a population that is desperately needed! The one that actually exist is not really working out too well, to put it quite mildly! And the truth is that the human cost has been quite enormous, socially, politically, economically, psychologically and medically, etc…, to continue producing them! The truth is that the world cannot really afford to continue with them. Really it never has been able to! I believe that these facts should be included in any judgment of my key positions!                    

     To clarify the issue I should note that it is the position of MSTCL that the vast majority of cases of deviations in adolescent sexual development, from emotional healthy sexual development, if not all cases, have to be closely linked to harmful emotional experiences that the individual’s parents, or primary care givers, put him or her through during the early stages of development. Deviations from healthy sexual development would include; one acting out violently in their sexuality, for example, engaging in rape, or in pedophilia, etc… Ultimately the position of MSTCL on the issue is that only heterosexual relationships have the possibility of being truly healthy relationships, although unfortunately not all “heterosexual relationships” are healthy ones. For example, the cases mentioned above of; Steubenville, Glen Ridge Ohio and the Nazi camp guards, which were all presumed to be examples of heterosexuality gone “terribly wrong!” There of course can never be any other conclusion about something as diabolical as forcible rape, followed by murder, than that it is anything other but a very deep level of emotional sickness in the individual that must be rooted in early development. But any case of adolescent or adult sexual

                                                Sexual and Emotional Development                                                      Page 23

development that would have the chance of being healthy would have to be a heterosexual one. It is not my intention what-so-ever to attack any group of individuals with this statement. But in fact I am morally obligated to speak the truth on such a serious issue. I do support everyone’s social rights, as indeed everyone should. I do absolutely abhor the behavior of any adult that might destroy a young individual’s chances for healthy emotional as-well-as sexual development. In fact making sure that healthy development in both spheres does occur is absolutely what MSTCL is about! It would seem to be a logical conclusion that any significant early abuse, whether at the fetal, infant or early childhood stages of development, carry the very real risk of thwarting not only emotional development but possibly sexual as well! To put things in historical perspective in terms of the numbers and seriousness of the issue consider the possible numbers of individuals with various degrees of sexual deviations going back many centuries! This is a sad and tragic history. To get at least some idea of this tragic history, the interested reader should see authors such as psychoanalyst Alice Miller and psychologist Lloyd DeMause (“The Histroy Of Childhood” and “Emotional Life of Nastions”).  For a deeper discussion on these issues from an MSTCL perspective again the reader can write to: Philip Alberto, MSTCL Inst. P.O. Box 51055 Boston MA. 02205-1055.             

     Fromm recognized that a large number of parents use pressures on children without even recognizing it. I think that this is actually an  understatement of Fromm’s. That was certainly so when he wrote the introduction to Neill’s book, “Summerhill,” but unfortunately remains so today to a very significant degree as well! When it reaches more sadistic levels I call this activity against children, “The Adult Addiction to Abuse Children.” Calling it an “addiction” refers to the fact that to some extent the adult who is acting out the abusive behavior toward the child is actually getting some form of twisted psychological (sometimes even physical as well) release from carrying out the abuse! I do not believe that it is just coincidence that abusive adult behaviors have been massively occurring across the planet and throughout human history in every culture and language, without there being some general driving force behind it. There has to have been some very powerful human biological force driving this seemingly timeless abuse of children by so many adults. I would like to note here that in the original writings, which are greatly condensed here, I have outlined some possible neuro and biochemical mechanisms behind the adult addiction to use abuse on children.

     Again, for a much extended version of these discussions the interested reader can contact me at: the address listed above. 

      Fromm noted that ideally freedom for children would come with real healthy parental love and approval. And this is certainly so. But I believe in fact that many adults are simply not capable of this as a good majority have their own emotional conflicts.  Many of them may believe that they are offering such things. But on  closer look this is not completely so. I believe that even with this character weakness on the part of the adult, that by successfully offering children responsible forms of freedom, which amounts to non-abuse really, that this will go a long way in making up for this lack. (The reader should note that this is by no means a small point as it applies to a very large number of adults). I do not say that it will completely do so in every case. But it will have a large effect in promoting healthy emotional development in many children that would likely never occur without such freedoms. As Neill himself would say-offering children responsible modes of freedom works. As Fromm noted, Neill always showed a radical negation for the use of force on children. Also as Fromm noted, Niell recognized that such children reared with responsible modes of freedom will develop within  themselves the ability for healthy reasoning,  to love, take care of themselves and others and true integrity. Fromm noted that if an environment of responsible freedom could be offered at Summerhill then it could be done everywhere, and he added, “once the people are ready for it.” Well I certainly believe in the first part. But in regards to, “the people being ready for it,” in fact it is simply so that the vast majority of adults are simply neurotic to different degrees. That’s a simple fact! So it is unlikely that “all the people” are ever going to really be “ready for it” on a larger scale socially. So in

fact what has to happen is that both the fields of psychology and science (medical science in particular) have to show that this is not merely an option but that it is in fact a necessity, both in terms of healthy

emotional development and in terms of out right medical health concerns. It is in fact a medical issue as well as one of emotional health!

     I believe that the best ways of raising infants and children can always be improved upon. A central concern in my own writings is; what are the healthiest. and hence, most non-abusive ways to treat and raise children, that it will give the greatest opportunity for healthy emotional development and a significantly greater possibility for good and long-term physical health that always goes along with such development?

                                                                                                                                                                Page 24

     Other important books by A. S. Neill are; “Freedom, Not License,” “For And Against Summerhill” and Neill, Neill Orange Peel, An Autobiography.” And also for the interested reader, books written about Neill by other authors are; “A. S. Neill, The Permanent Radical,” and “A. S. Neill, Children’s Freedom.”

      Again I would like to clarify that the important point from the perspective of MSTCL is not in being in total agreement with everything that Neill did and said throughout his professional career but in his consistent approach of dealing with children non-abusively. And this does have medical consequences whether the medical research community fully recognizes it or not!  

     Neill noted that Summerhill, especially in the beginning had all kinds of “problem children.” So admittedly a good number of the children who were at Summerhill from its beginning were already children with emotional pain and conflict to at least some degree. So the job of Summerhill was to reverse the damage that had already been done to these children and have them attempt to continue their emotional development in an environment that would give maximum opportunity for healthy emotional development, or at least that was the real goal of Summerhill! Among the types of  “problem children” at Summerhill that Neill lists, in general there were; incendiaries, thieves, liars, bed-wetters and bad tempered children. That this was so would clearly indicate that such children had already accumulated significant levels of pain in their systems. So it should be remembered by the reader that when Neill mentions those few cases of children who were generally considered “failures” by Summerhill standards, the above facts should be kept in mind. That is, that some children were simply too far emotionally damaged before arriving at Summerhill! In fact that is an important point within the framework presented in MSTCL. There really are no “miracles,” at least not yet any way! So say if an individual were too far damaged emotionally, internally, etc…, at say the fetal stage of development, and then later in early infancy. Then raising him or her by the “non-abusive” approaches discussed here may not then be able to reverse much of the early damage(s). I really have no strong basis to take the position that the approaches advocated in MSTCL, can reverse all the damage(s) no matter how severe they may be. Although it is my position that given that an approach along the lines of MSTCL is practiced correctly for a given individual case, then the chances will be high that it will very likely reverse at least a significant amount of the emotional damage that was laid down before. There are indeed logical reasons for me to take this position! Hence, some children were simply too far damaged, unfortunately, to get greater benefits from the Summerhill environment of non-abuse. As for those children at Summerhill who were more emotionally healthy, they of course logically must have received the greatest benefit from the school. 

     It should be noted that in a society greatly against the concepts of responsible early childhood freedom I would anticipate that there will be many who will insist that without the concept of responsible childhood freedom, which many will claim is too extreme anyway, that in fact they are “nice” to their children, and therefore “non-abusive” toward them. This will often be the approach by those who see themselves as “more liberal.” While it is certainly better that parents act “nice” towards their children than simply be mean, and therefore openly abusive, the position here is that the denial of a true and responsible form of early freedom is a form of abuse in its own right, whether recognized or not! That’s what the research discussed here will show-if it is done honestly, without “hidden agendas!”

     Neill went further and showed his deep insight stating that “un-freedom” likely begins at birth and in fact likely begins in the womb of the repressed woman who bears the child out of a rigid, neurotic body. Neill states “…who can say what effects the maternal rigidity has on the newborn baby?” By recognizing such possibilities, Neill clearly anticipated many of the positions on such issues, later discussed in Janov’s own writings on “fetal imprinting,” etc… In fact we now know that this can very well be the case. But just as in Neill’s time, much more research needs to be done on the issue. Neill noted that it is likely no exaggeration to say that all children throughout civilization and in our own time have been born in an emotionally damaging, “life-disapproving atmosphere.”  As a matter of fact this has become even more supported by a new and significant volume of scientific research and studies. For example, one can look at Janov’s recent writings; “Imprints, The Life Long  Effects Of The Birth Trauma” and “Why You Get Sick, How You Get Well, The Healing Power Of Feelings,” and “The Biology Of Love.” Another book of interest on the issue is; “Ghosts From The Nursery, Tracing the Roots of Violence” by Robin Karr-Morse and Meredith S. Wiley and much more! So far there are really no Journals that I know of, that are exclusively focusing on issues such as the effects of the neurotic state on fetal development and its lasting impact on the emotional and medical state of the individual. But there certainly should at least be some. In fact we need research Institutes to exclusively study such issues. Research Institutes similar to that of say

                                                                                                                                                                Page 25

the Whitehead Institute in Cambridge Massachusetts along with the available scientific talent there, etc! It is certainly of interest that those who have become talented in various relevant scientific fields are not in fact doing this type of work in higher numbers than is presently the case!

SIGNIFICANCE OF EMOTIONAL CONFLICT IN OVEREATING AND THE MEDICAL PROBLEMS Of OBESITY

     It is now well recognized that obesity leads to a host of later medical problems for the obese individual. And it has further been well recognized that a very large number of individuals in our own society, and

others as well, are considered to be obese to various degrees. Hence, a very large number of individuals in our own society overeat. This fact has received massive attention in the U. S. media generally, and most                  

likely in the media of other countries as well. Various reasons have been given by “experts” in the media why this is so! However, none of them have looked closely at how overeating may be strongly tied to the way that infants and children are raised in this and other countries. It is the position of MSTCL that most all cases of child and adult overeating are very strongly tied to levels of emotional pain that individuals who in fact overeat are dealing with. And hence, overeating in most cases has to logically be greatly tied to unresolved and painful events experienced during infancy and early childhood. In fact it may also likely be tied to various stages of fetal development where various forms of damage to the individual’s nervous or emotional system occurred. Arthur Janov has in fact taken the same position scattered throughout his own writings over the decades.

    It is also of interest that Neill does note that Summerhill offered the children there a high degree of freedom in issues of diet practice and food selection. And Neill did note that the children of Summerhill most always appeared to make healthy selections in their eating habits.

     Well, whatever the case was at Summerhill, the position here is that any child who is raised under a system of non-abuse with unconditional love and who has never had any significant level of emotional pain in his or her system is not likely going to be driven to greatly overeat, certainly not by issues of unresolved emotional conflict. And this would be the case even if she or he had access to large amounts of food! So the position here is that the drive to significantly overeat that is clearly in a very large number of individuals in the population, has to be intimately tied to levels of significant unresolved conflict from childhood,     

     On the issue of food Neill took the same “self-regulatory approach” as he did with other issues concerning children. This was especially so when it came to the natural functions of infants and children.

Honest research should be done on all forms of obvious types of early abuse or neglect in relation to health related issues such as; later overeating, adult substance abuse and all other self destructive behaviors.

Again, Neill allowed his own daughter, as well as the children of Summerhill, much freedom and control in selecting their own foods. Contrary to what many have been trained to think, Neill noted how he never observed any signs of unhealthiness in the children, including in his own daughter. Neill notes that in fact they always appeared healthier than most children. Note that this makes perfect sense. It seems logical that children who have integrated into freedom are always happy children with no great pain load or conflict driving them to engage in destructive behaviors. So why would they eat in unhealthy ways, which is pain based anyway? The real issue is whether or not children are always in contact with their “true” feelings. I believe that this can only truly happen under an authentic non-abusive environment! 

     As a matter of fact, Janov very clearly recognized that psychic pain drove a good number of neurotic individuals to overeat. This makes sense that they would do so. Stress (emotional distress) does make                              

many people overeat. Overeating gives the body an over-supply of energy, as body resources (proteins, fats, sugars, vitamins etc…) is rapidly depleted by a continuous heighten metabolic rate that in turn is driven by a general state of neurotic stress. Plus a large food intake should set off a type of hyper-release of so-called “pleasure hormones” which come about in acting out different types of “addictive behaviors,” (such as smoking, substance abuse, constant promiscuous sex, overeating, etc…). This is a logical conclusion and does have significant support in the relevant biological research literature. And so this has to often be the case for someone in constant conflict and pain. And this can be the case whether they consciously realize it or not! In fact it is most always not recognized consciously, as it is typically unconscious behavior. So such struggling people must eat constantly so that the stress response can continue in full gear. Janov himself recognized that by overeating many of these individuals can kill any discomforting states from such stress and conflicts.

                                                                                                                                                              Page 26

    Looking at Neill’s approach to most all the issues in dealing with newborn infants and young children, it is clear, I believe, that his approach was to systematically remove all significant forms of abuse. We clearly see this in his approach on issues of discipline, academics, bodily functions, toilet training, feeding, etc…             

Although Neill did not articulate it this way, it seems clear to me that at the core of his approach to producing the conditions which would allow a child to develop by the principles of self-regulation, was the

systematic removal of all abusive practices. At least that is how I interpret his over all approach. Again, it is not a question of agreeing with every thing Neill said or did. It is that approach that I agree with!

     The world famous Framingham Heart Study Group that started in Framingham Massachusetts, noted earlier on that obesity was associated with pathological health issues, particularly heart disease. Their collected data and studies maintain that long-term overeating and resultant body weight gain is one of the “biggest factors” in the eventual development of heart disease later in life. So for them it is never the emotional conflict and pain that develops to different degrees as a result of parental and adult abusive treatments of children, but just the behavior of overeating by itself. In fact the later abusive treatments have never even once been an issue by the world famous Framingham Group. There is never even the slightest hint that such issues should be part of the discussion-and perhaps, sadly, never will be! According to the Framingham Heart Study Group excessive weight gain by itself is the only health issue and the explanation stops there! Never do they look at overeating as an emotionally based behavior most likely rooted in infancy, early childhood, or possibly even at the fetal stage, or any combination of these. Many academics grab at genetics. In their world that looks “more professional.”  But in fact, I believe that good and honest research will show that emotional conflict is the usual basis for overeating. But this obvious fact goes into complete oblivion by all the academic researchers over the decades and essentially takes the same fate by the Framingham Heart Study Group. In fact, really it seems that never, in all medical history, have emotional issues, (especially in the framework presented here)  been taken seriously as a significant or main factor in dysfunctional eating behaviors. Mentioned, yes, but really only more recently. Especially taboo in relation to medical and psychological health, as mentioned above, is any focus on parental behaviors in raising children.

                             Getting A “Birds Eye View Of World Wide Child Abuse” On The Internet  

     I have found it very useful to use the internet in getting a “bird’s eye view” of the extent of child abuse worldwide today. One will find such websites on Africa if they for example logically search under “Child Abuse in Africa,” etc…To be sure there are many ways one could word it, depending on what they are specifically looking for. I choose Africa because of the massive and tragic AIDS epidemic there. A massive level of child abuse is at the core of the epidemic. One could also easily look under “UNICEF statistics on child abuse in Africa.” Again there are many ways one could word it. With UNICEF’s statistical data base presented on their website on these and other related issues one can go country by country throughout the African continent. In fact one can do the same throughout much of the world! UNICEF’s numbers throughout the African continent at least appear to be significantly large on the issue, but in fact I believe that they only scratch the surface of the iceberg on the extent and level of adult emotional sickness and destruction of children’s lives there. One can do the same for the Middle East, Asia, etc… Aside from those numbers on the extent of child abuse worldwide offered by UNICEF, there are now a large number of independent studies on the issue. One can also look on the internet at studies of rape in society generally,

which always is completely based on significant degrees of child abuse of the male. One can look at the issue of “rape in Japanese society,” or “rape in Saudi Arabia,” or “rape in South Africa,” or in the United States, etc… the sickness is really everywhere and in every culture. But one has to keep in mind that looking at these issues has essentially just only begun ‘yesterday’ in the vast majority of the less developed and hence backwards societies unfortunately. For them this has really been a massive tragedy and they should seriously consider changing it. Also see the writings of Lloyd DeMause for a historic view of child abuse in Europe on the internet, etc..                                        

                                               MSTCL; Definition Of Early Childhood Freedom                                                                                                                                                                                

     If I had to give an operational definition of something as complex as childhood freedom, as I myself understand it, again I would say that it is the; ‘complete absence of any psychoemotional conflict and pain being placed into the child’s system.’ I believe that this pain has to have some relationship to the pain that

                                                                                                                                                               Page 27

Janov has been talking about in his own writings on Primal Theory. The simple fact is this: if the child is struggling with any significant level of psychoemotional conflict and pain or unhappiness, then he or she can not be experiencing any real joy in life and that may certainly limit the extent that such a child could

benefit from the goals and objectives of childhood freedom. Given of course that it is even offered to the individual at all. And he or she can not be having a high degree of emotionally healthy development. True childhood freedom can only occur in the absence of any emotional conflict and pain or unhappiness for the child. This is how I understand the concept by-way-of Primal Theory and other relevant positions! Again it seems clear enough to me in reading A.. S. Neill’s writings that he had every intention of removing all practices, in dealing with children, that would leave any traces of emotional conflict or pain. What else could he have meant when he said happiness in early childhood was the most important thing to him, in his goals and objectives in dealing with children? And that belief, I believe, must have dictated how he conducted himself at Summerhill. (Note that these were not just concepts at work but required a fairly good amount of discipline). Neill himself admits to failures. But it should be recognized that Summerhill was never completely the arrangement Neill wanted. It is a fact that every child who came to the school, except for Neill’s daughter Zoe, only did so because it was the decision of their adult parents to allow it! And to what extent did these adults believe in the objectives and goals of Summerhill, and for how long? And to what extent were they themselves capable of treating their children in accord with these principles? Who trained them how to do so? It is unlikely that they came from such backgrounds themselves. I believe that these are all very important issues and questions. This is especially so if one really wants to be able to reasonably judge outcome results. Perhaps some of the parents were very conscientious, as Neill himself said he believed some were. But for a majority of parents of these children, it is any one’s guess how they themselves treated their children? And so most all of these children clearly had other experiences that deviated to a lesser or greater extent than what they would have been at Summerhill. And that includes from the womb to the day until they entered Summerhill! Neill himself often commented that practically every child who came to Summerhill had some level of conflict and pain developed in his or her system from such earlier experiences. And he often noted how these conflicts had to be worked out to the greatest extent possible at Summerhill. And so it was almost always a reparative process, attempting to reverse some level of earlier damage from what went on before in their lives.

                                               Reasons For An Interest In Primal Theory 

     Certainly, one of the main reasons for my strong focus and interest in Arthur Janov’s Primal Theory rest on the fact that Janov himself focuses intensely and articulates a theory of psychogenic or emotional                                          

pain laid down in early childhood, infancy or at the fetal stage. This early pain, as Janov notes, does not just disappear but in fact to a good extent remains in the system acting against both emotional and physical health, very often for decades. Primal therapy seeks to resolve, and hence relieve, the earlier pain and

conflict. I do not know to what extent Primal is successful in removing the underlying emotional conflicts that give rise to such pain in patients. I logically assume that the quality of success depends on emotional factors of the individual undergoing Primal Therapy. Unfortunately, certainly to some degree, these conflicts become structured into the dynamics of the personality of the individual. Janov’s clinical observations very strongly suggest that an individual who carries significant pain in his or her system will never be able to find real happiness in life. The individual will just neurotically struggle with such pain from day to day through out his life. And such unresolved conflict will down-regulate the individual’s health, probably in countless ways! Again, MSTCL is not a psychotherapeutic practice or procedure for adults emotionally damaged in early childhood as Janov’s Primal psychotherapy is. My position, MSTCL, is more an attempt to prevent such damage from occurring in the first place and to more fully understand its effects on the emotional and health systems alike of individuals.

     I should note that some may very well charge that I am trying to “push Primal Theory on everyone” which will certainly be a contentious issue to different schools of psychology. I do take the position of course that Janov’s writings are closer to the truth, and hence I have chosen them over other positions in academic and clinical psychology. Of course others in the field do write about the same issues. But I would like to state that the scientific facts exist in and of themselves without Janov, myself, or anyone else in psychology, etc… The truth also exist in and of itself and has to be known at some point anyway. I do believe that I am going in the right direction.

                                                            Primal Theory Revisited                                                       Page 28                                               

          First Book; Introduction To STCL/MSTCL: A New Child Psychology And Medical Science.

      Janov’s original position, when he first introduced Primal Therapy to the public in his classic work; “The Primal Scream,” and a position he still maintains today, is that Primal therapy is the most effective cure for neurosis out of all the other psychotherapeutic approaches. (This may very well be so, and I                                                                                             

think that it is, but as the reader will see this statement, considered contentious by  other schools of clinical psychology, does not directly concern my own positions in STCL/MSTCL). For the most part all of the above on neurosis also holds true for many of the positions I take, what I call STCL/MSTCL. However, one notable exception to this being that STCL/MSTCL is not a psychotherapeutic practice or procedure. But I feel that I can legitimately say that STCL/MSTCL is “the most effective way of preventing the beginning development of the neurotic process in the first place!” In fact this is certainly one of the reasons that I am pushing the position-other than the fact that it is a medical science in its own right!

     I would like to note that in STCL/MSTCL, I am not of course strictly bound on a theoretical level to all of Janov’s positions 

on the origins of the neurosis.’ That is, to a theory of ‘Primal Pain’ as Janov articulates it in his writings on Primal theory. However, I do consider Janov’s ideas on Primal Pain as being the origins of the neurosis extremely useful in the understanding of some of the important ways that emotional conflict is laid down during early stages of development. Janov has of course his own strict definitions of ‘Primal Pain;’ what it is, where it comes from, etc…, that has developed over the decades with his own clinical experience with patients. I find the insights that he has to offer into such human issues to be very deeply penetrating. I am particularly interested by the way Janov and his patients show how tragic events in early infancy and childhood have worked their damaging effects on the individual for sometime into their future, theoretically  as long as a life time, given that there is no real effective attempt to resolve them to the degree possible.                                                                                                                                                                

     It is not my intention here to describe Janov’s “exact position(s)” in what he sees as “significant primal pain” and where it comes from, how it developed, etc… The position of MSTCL, my position, is clear enough I believe. And that is that any significant abuse or neglect in an infant or child’s life is going to be destructive to different degrees, period! And also it is my position that these issues do have significance in the long-term health of the majority of individuals who are, or have been, subjected to them. And therefore the medical scientific community is obligated to take it seriously. It is not my intention to put myself in the position to insist that the positions of Neill, Reich, Janov, etc…, must be accepted completely. It was my choice to look more closely at their work because as I have stated, I personally like the way these men have articulated these important issues and have found their work and ideas very useful. The reader has to understand that scientific truth is just that, the truth! It exist in and of itself, and humanity’s only real choice is to find it out and save itself, pure and simple!  

     Janov states that what he calls “Primal Pains” can derive from any number of sources of early abusive treatments, and this includes whether they are experienced by the fetus, new born, the infant or young  child! And such abusive treatments may even include things like surgery or some other medical procedure or practice as well as psychological and/or physical abuses or some form(s) of neglect and any combination of these that occurred at an early time period in emotional development. For some four decades Janov has been listing hundreds of studies and research in support of his positions in regards to Primal Theory generally and Primal Pain specifically. At this point in time I believe that many of Janov’s positions have sufficient support given what is presently available in the relevant literature, and of course by the decades of clinical experience accumulated at the Primal Institute by Janov himself and others. As I understand, Janov states that the central element of these pains originate from ‘a lack of love.’ Central is the fact that the event from which Primal Pains arose contained more pain than the individual’s system could integrate at  the early period of its introduction (possibly fetal period, birth, infancy or childhood). In Primal Theory such early events neurologically force the individual’s system to repress a significant part of each painful event. This repression can occur as the human nervous system has the biological capability to store such painful events within its own networks and tissue, and at the same time keep it out of conscious awareness, even though it continues to have significant effects on behavior. One can argue against this based on the simple fact that all of the neurology is still not completely understood-and it may never be, certainly not completely. But nevertheless the position is, I believe, very logical as much available research clearly

                                                                                                                                                                Page 29 

support at least many of the central positions of Primal Theory and other similar positions. Again it is not my intention to have an extended discussion of everything Janov has written on the issue of primal pain, etc… The interested reader can go directly to Janov’s main writings or books, and I definitely would

suggest that everyone do so. It would certainly not be a waste of time at all. There will be critics of this idea in conservative backwards academic psychiatry and psychology! But I believe that the only wasted time would be to listen to their nonsense! Also there is the Primal Therapy website of Janov’s Primal Institute in Venince California, in Los Angles. The important point here is that all kinds of early abusive events in the individual’s life will affect his or her early development. The neurology of these processes can always continue to be debated as more information is brought to light on them. But I believe that at this point in time it is in fact very clear that something like this has to be occurring-what ever the actual neurology might be! In fact I would have to say that one clear example that early pain is stored in the individual’s system that drives his or her later behavior is seen in “symbolic acting out!” and one can see the same in all kinds of self-destructive behaviors which can take many different forms. It is not “happiness” that drives these things! People can sometimes die because of self-destructive behaviors. These things are clearly being driven by early repressed pain-that is a logical conclusion I believe. Again one can debate the neurology of these things. But it is clearly occurring whatever that neurology might be. And again we may never know absolutely every detail. But even now I believe that the existing neurophysiological evidence supports the position to a reasonable degree that logical conclusions can be made. And there is every anticipation that much more future evidence will be forth coming.        

      Again, Primal Theory is clearly tied to the psychology of unconsciousness and in this respect Primal Theory has this major similarity to at least some core parts of early Freudian psychology-minus other areas of Freudian thought such as the psychic impact of the role of infant/child “sexual experience,” etc… Janov does not believe that a real “infant/childhood sexuality” is possible. However, Janov does adhere strongly to the notions of the existence of the unconscious and its importance as a significant determinate of human behavior. Hence, the mechanisms of repression as a key factor in maintaining a high load of pain in the system, processed unconsciously, is an important concept in Primal Theory. However, many Freudians have put forth the position that ‘infant and childhood erotic sexual experiences,’ remaining unconscious, play a central role in every individual’s life long personality, emotions and behavior. Janov refers to these observations of Freud and his followers simply as resulting form pain and does not see the infant as having significant sexual feelings, if any at all, for physiological reasons, or lack of! And when such pain is acted out in a sexual way in adult life, Janov sees it as the “eroticizing of pain.” So on the issue of say sexual perversion, including homosexuality, while Freudian theory looks at “infant/child erotic experiences” and how these supposedly shape a complex web of conceptualized interpsychic arrangements and dynamics, (mostly described in “ego-psychology” which is seen as psychic processes that drive these actions for decades or possibly more), Janov sees it as the acting out, in the sexual realm, of early pain, usually resulting from an early lack of love along with other possible painful early experiences.

     Janov maintains that the major source of Primal Pain is prolonged unfulfilled need early in life. In Primal Theory, at a certain key point in time, unmet needs for love, shelter and protection turn into pain, which in turn demands repression, which again by necessity is an unconscious process. Importantly at these periods, where pain arrives from unmet needs, the created unreal and painful self continues to act out on

the basis of the unmet needs. In Primal Theory this is the, ‘symbolic acting out,’ as the individual tries to obtain fulfillment in symbolic ways. These ‘symbolic ways’ of ‘acting out’ can take any number of forms as recognized in Primal Theory. This aspect of Primal Theory I consider very important in understanding

all the different forms of self destructive behaviors that are driven by early unresolved emotional conflict and pain, including those behaviors that often lead to HIV infection. But it is my position that such acting out comes from lasting emotional conflict, whether its source be such unmet needs or some other forms of abuse or neglect that leave lasting emotional scars on the individual’s early development. Again, the interested reader can see Janov’s main writings for an extended discussion of the origins of Primal Pain, what they are and how primal psychotherapy attempts to deal with them, etc…

     Here I want to focus more on the biological and medical aspects of long term emotional conflict rather than go into an extended discussion of Primal Theory itself. That’s something that Janov of course does himself quite well anyway. I should also inform the reader of the more subtle psychological manipulations that abusive parents may often use on their children can, I believe, have significant effects on early development as well! Such things will surely poison both the parent-child relationship (whatever it may be) and living environment generally. Psychoanalyst Alice Miller has, I believe, done some interesting and

                                                                                                                                                               Page 30

useful analysis on such things. I am not aware of many medical oriented studies of such psychological abuses. Undoubtedly this is because of the difficulty of giving a more clear definition to them. But such issues should also be considered in the framework discussed here for the more recognized forms of abuse.

Books by Alice Miller include: “For Your Own Good: Hidden Cruelty In Child-Rearing and the Roots of Violence;” “Thou Shalt Not Be Aware: Society’s Betrayal of the Child,” “Breaking Down The Wall of Silence,” and many others. All of these books are definitely worth looking at.     

    Whatever one might want to believe, I might remind the reader that the simple fact is that the vast majority of individuals who were badly damaged in early emotional development remain scared into adult life. So in the end, on a statistical level, the effect is the same-aspects of early abusive damage of either a psychological or physical nature, never completely goes away. This inability to completely reverse certain aspects of  early emotional damaging processes can also be seen with certain disease states. Say for example coronary heart disease. Lets say the process went far enough to cause a significant zone of necrosis of heart muscle where blood flow and therefore O2 (oxygen) and nutrients could no longer nourish some particular area of the heart muscle. Well with the proper medical treatment the person’s life can be saved (maybe) but the necrotic tissue is going to change to scar tissue and the dynamics of the younger and healthier heart will very likely be changed forever. Hence, because of the small zone of newly created fibrous scare tissue in place of the former healthier cardiac muscle tissue the heart will never be exactly

the same again! Well in psychological and emotional scars which have occurred early, I believe that it has to be the same way, certainly to some significant degrees. This is logical given the long period of physiological disruption acting most everywhere in the body throughout early developmental processes. More clearly put, the significant forms of damage that adult parents bring onto children will, to some degree, stay forever-continuously affecting the health of the individual in various ways and to different degrees.

     Janov notes: “We now know a great deal about pain and how pervasive it is, even among those who would never believe it exist inside of them. We know more, too, about the process of repression, how it works and where. Science has moved along in the past twenty years, and so has Primal therapy,” Janov continues; “Thus we are able to see how recent discoveries in the fields of brain science, immunology, pain, repression, endorphins, weeping, and cancer are related to our work. What used to be hypothesis is now established fact. What was supposition is now demonstrable,” (The New Primal Scream,” Jan, 1, 1991, p. xx).                                                                                                                                               

                                                 Primal Theory Revisited: A New Medical Science                           

      In fact over the last two decades there have been a good number of studies linking emotional stress to many different types of disease, including all the major “number one killers.” Such studies and decades of clical observations have prompted Janov to note that: “The number one killer in the world today is neither cancer nor heart disease. It is repression…neurosis (is) the real hidden killer.” Janov continues; “Repression, a stealthy, hidden, intangible force strikes many of us down. It does so in so many disguised forms-cancer, diabetes, colitis-that we never see it naked for what it is. That is its nature-diabolic, complex, recondite.” And this is my own position in regards to the thousands of ways that infants and young children may be mistreated; how such things are truly damaging in terms of an individual’s chances for emotional health and happiness. And it leads one down the road to so many possible disease states. And as Janov states: “that is its nature-diabolic, complex (an understatement!) and recondite.”                                                  

       Janov notes that it has now been verified that ‘the birth trauma’ is coded and stored in the nervous system. In his later writings (i.e., “Why You Get Sick, How You Get Well, The Healing Power Of Feelings” and “The Biology Of Love.”) Janov discusses the many different ways early events may literally become imprinted in us. I am certain that what is presently known now in regards to the mental and physical damage that can later result from early mistreatment is only the tip of the ice-berg. And this is so for both the fetal and infant stages of development. Janov notes that early abusive events and the internal environment they shape never completely leave us. As Janov notes; “They remain embedded in the system forever.” Such “imprints…seriously dislocate the functioning of so many organ systems.” Janov also notes that almost every sexual deviation that exists is underlied and caused by early pains forced onto children. Certainly in fact early abusive treatment of children may well set them on a course of sex-perversion. All examples of sexual deviations are very well accounted for, I believe, by the concept of the “eroticizing of pain.” Such deviations are truly examples of “acting out symbolically” in the relm of sexuality. no doubt this is a powerful way for the emotionally disturbed individual to at least temporarily mask-over-or literally

                                                   M-STCL: A New Medical Science                                                     Page 31

‘anesthetize’ the emotional pain in his or her system. In fact in my earlier writings I have developed a theory of the true origins of homosexuality on this line of reasoning-which I still maintain to being the closes to the truth; “The Depression Theory of Behavior,” the interested reader can go to my post office

address above to obtain copies of these writings. So hence, my position is that most all cases of sexual perversion, rape, pedophilia, etc… absolutely have to have something to do to what was done to the individual early on, some significant abuse. All of this has profound significance for the present HIV/AIDS crisis now plaguing the entire Globe. Janov notes that when early mistreatment becomes imprinted in various ways, it in fact becomes a constant internal source of distress for the body, which will act constantly to destroy the individual. My position is; in the majority of cases, whatever the natural life-span of the individual might have been normally and given whatever the individual’s genetic constitution may be, with this source of continuous distress working on his whole body, it’s a logical conclusion from what is known in stress research that his health and life-span will very likely be impacted.  Hence, looking at any significantly large population who were subjected to significantly damaging early maltreatment in infancy or childhood, their life-span will always be shorter generally, as their quality of emotional life will decrease, compared to those individuals and populations who did not receive such levels of abuse.

     And again one does not need Janov’s positions to come to this conclusion. It can in fact be supported by using all the relevant brain and biological stress studies. The very useful thing that I find in Janov’s writings is recognition that early emotionally damaging events do not just happen during fetal periods, at birth and early infancy etc…, and nothing comes of them. They are in fact neurologically registered in the individuals emotional system. Scientifically the position could be criticized because the neurobiological sciences still have not determined “exactly” all the ways that this occurs. There are still “dark areas,” the “unknown.” This in fact is the case in many of the more complex areas of the biological sciences generally anyway! One could settle for that as a “final critique” of the position, and some will. But in fact if one honestly looks at the evidence that does support the position that abusive or neglectful early events do in fact have a significant lasting impact on the person’s emotional life then it does, I believe, become sufficiently clear that something like this has to be happening given the evidence that in fact it is. Really I believe that it is just an issue of whether those in the relevant scientific areas are being open minded and truly honest with themselves on these issues! For those who are in this area of study (like Janov) it is crystal clear that there is going to be a continuous large amount of new future evidence supporting this position. One could consider the opposite logic to this position. That would go something as such: “it is healthy for one to suffer fetal trauma or continous significant distress.” Or in terms of early development to state; “it is healthy for early development that one have some significant birth trauma or experience continuous significant neglect or distress through out infancy and early childhood, etc…” I can’t even imagine that there is anyone in psychiatry, psychology or medicine who would seriously contemplate such positions! Historically Janov simply stumbled on some important truth of human significance, and was insightful enough to quickly recognize it and had the couage to stay with it!     

     Janov notes that regardless of how calm the individual’s “living” circumstances may appear, neurotic stress will continuously act to destroy the individual’s emotional/physiological system nevertheless. Janov

notes that such stress will surely kill us far before our time, and hence the great importance that it be well understood. This is particularly so as the damaging processes will be unfolding almost always, slowly and on a completely unconscious level. Janov notes that although neurosis, via successful mechanisms of repression, escapes our awareness, it in fact acts with the force of a sledgehammer on us, on a long-term basis. The “sledgehammer force” is the decade or more of accumulated emotional conflict and pain which Janov sees as being at the core of mental as well as many physical illnesses. Janov notes the contradictory fact that the neurotic individual can superficially appear “strong” and ‘well-encased,” and even “highly functional” on a social level. But then at the age of fifty-seven he has a coronary. And even then it is never recognized in medicine what the real roots of the disorder have been. Janov notes that the hidden forces of accumulated neurotic pain must always take time to do their damage. Hence, its true diabolical nature! 

      To give an idea of the power of neurosis over the individual’s life, Janov notes that the neurotic individual can spend his entire life desperately seeking resolution from his neurotic pain. And Janov

continues; “If he doesn’t get that resolution he will have exactly the same need at fifty that he had at five and with the same force.” And he notes, “nothing that happens in later life can weaken that force one iota.”

Again; to some degree I think that pain simply remains with the individual becoming part of his or her life. Such is the damage parents can do to children, as it acts on their emotional as well as physiological systems throughout their lives.                                             

                                                       M-STCL: A New Medical Science                                                 Page 32

    Quoting from researcher James McGaugh, it is noted that; “Intense feelings triggered by a stressful or emotional event help preserve memories of that experience, in large part by activating…[adrenergic] stress hormones responsible for storing emotionally charged information. Also, McGaugh writes that emotional memories “spark the release of adrenergic hormones which strengthen memories of those events,” (Janov; “Why You Get Sick…” p. 28).

     Neuroscientist Daniel Alkon notes that; “Memories in childhood…become doubly imprinted in the brain.” They would not only be stored in networks already present in the child, but also they would actually be stored in the network designs they helped to create and structure, “Memory’s Voice,” by D. Alkon. To this Janov adds; and hence, early memory can actually change the patterns of brain networks. Janov notes that the “observed corollary of this is that the stronger the memory the more it effects emotional and physical health in the long run. Thus, the memory can be strong, but also strongly repressed and totally out of consciousness. Janov notes that brain scientist J. E. LeDoux corroborates this perspective in a Scientific America article stating; “The emotional memory system…clearly forms and stores its unconscious memories of [traumatic] events, “and LeDoux adds; “trauma may affect mental and behavioral functions in later life, albeit through processes that remain inaccessible to consciousness,” (“Why You Get Sick…” p. 28).

     Janov notes abundant research that shows that oxygen lack forces the fetus and newborn to go into a state of alert, driving up heart rate and blood pressure, and it also drives up stress hormone levels. Such events cause early destructive neurological imprinting in the young individual, particularly when affecting the centers concerned with emotionality and hence making healthy emotional development impossible, even starting at this fragile stage of development.  This will always be acting on the individual at an unconscious level for a life time, harming both emotional and physical health throughout the life span, ultimately even controlling the length of life expectancy.

     In fact the serious issue of mental retardation of the newborn is undoubtedly related to these issues, at least in a good number of cases. Mental retardation is an issue that no one in the medical research community, as far as I know, even has an approach to working on it! It is simply considered a “life time sentence” that the individual must live with! And it seems that there really is nothing anyone can presently do about it. Well I wonder how many actual cases of MR are linked to the emotional disturbance of the pregnant woman herself or birth complications during delivery, etc… Maybe certain events were supposed to “unfold” during early embryological development but because of various physiological reasons could not! I further wonder if it may not be possible to scientifically produce the physical conditions of the fetal environment, to scientifically bioengineer it? Perhaps at least some cases of lower levels of MR could be at least significantly reversed with some approach with this? Perhaps something along the lines of “rebirthing,” can be used, only done in a completely safe manner. The author does in fact work with this population and there is little doubt that a large number of cases must be linked to some stages of fetal development. That seems easy enough to see if one looks close enough! 

     In both, “Why You Get Sick….,” and in “The Biology Of Love,” Janov discusses the issue of oxygen lack during fetal development and at birth, and its possible long-term effects. This is of course a very serious issue and much more research has to be done on this very serious issue, just as we absolutely must learn more about any chemical toxicity effects on the fetus. And that includes the dangers of any prescription or non-prescription pharmaceutical substances. I can’t even imagine that anyone in the medical health field would ever be opposed to such research. While this has to be a serious concern, I am interested in seriously considering all the possible effects on fetal development of the emotional state of the carrying mother. To looking at the possible harmful effects of the “neurotic state” of the significantly emotionally disturbed pregnant woman, on fetal development. Really this would be similar to looking at the effects of significant states of “emotional distress” on fetal development. But by putting it in the theoretical framework of the “neurotic state” the concern clearly shifts to the early periods of the mother herself (at least within the positions of my writings) which I consider important. I really don’t know of another area of psychiatry or psychology, except for Janov himself, that gives such intense focus of such concerns!           

     Janov notes that research has revealed significant and life long damaging effects of birth trauma including oxygen deprivation. (p, 32). Janov list some very important research in this area, and he list some

                                                   M-STCL: A New Medical Science                                                     Page 33

important findings which mothers (and fathers) should be very concerned about. First, a study carried out by L. Salk and colleagues, printed in the famous English medical journal, The Lancet, found that

respiratory distress lasting more than an hour at the time of birth is significantly correlated with increased risk of later teenage suicide. It is also interesting to make note of the fact that a number of research findings

have shown that a significantly high number of violent criminals and suicide cases experienced serious birth trauma. Again I believe that such things must be much more likely to occur with pregnant women who themselves have unresolved emotional conflict from abusive early childhood’s, (including abuse experienced in infancy, birth and fetal periods). Also looking at researcher Sarnoff A. Mednick it has been revealed that among a study group of 2000 Danish males born in the same year, of the sixteen men who committed violent crimes, fifteen of them “had the most difficult conditions at birth…and the sixteenth had an epileptic mother.” Janov further notes, concerning the effects of significant birth trauma on issues of psychosocial development, another study published in the American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, revealed that among 1,700 nine-year-old children studied, one-fourth of those who had been breech-born had flunked at least one grade in school and one in five needed remedial help. And other studies reveal that individuals who experienced cesarean births became more emotionally disturbed later on, showing more fear and restlessness and simultaneously more passive in response to stimulation than babies born normally. I would like to make note of the fact that logically women with significant emotional distress generally and during pregnancy in particular are much more likely to have various types of damaging complications.

   Again those interested in a deeper discussion of “Primal Theory” can go directly to the many writings of Janov himself, including the Primal Therapy website. Certainly no one is better qualified to discuss Primal Theory than Janov himself! Again central works of Janovs would include such works as; “ The Primal Scream,” and “Why You Get Sick, How You Get Well, The Healing Power Of Feelings,” along with, “The Biology Of Love,” and many other works exists as well. It is not my intention to get bogged down in “pure psychological theory.” I believe that it can not be said enough times that all forms of significant early abuse at different time periods are going to be damaging to the early emotional development of the individual. And other approaches do articulate the same concern. But again I personally like the insights that Janov has to offer on these issues. I find that they are more penetrating than those offered by other areas in psychology. There are not only going to be long-term damaging psychological implications to such abuse, which can be debated nearly endlessly, but there are going to be long-term health issues to all young people everywhere as well. And again it is my position that the medical research community should take the issue as being significantly important enough to look at seriously. What I am offering with my own positions is a framework in which to look at these issues. One may call it a “theoretical framework” if they are more comfortable with that term, but quite honestly I think that at this point in time it is more than just a “theoretical framework,” and it is certainly not a “weak position!”

     If others take a different approach to showing how damaging child rearing practices can have damaging long-term effects on early emotional development and health then it certainly should also be given serious consideration. But personally I believe that I have chosen the most effective approach to these issues. But I do not insist that it is the only approach. Really I believe that it is a question of honesty in pursuing the truth.                                  

   On the issue of genetics and later behavior, in fact just recently a study was completed by a group of researchers at McGill University strongly indicating that some individual victims sustained significant genetic damage due to earlier adult abuse. It was reported that the research was the first to show a link

between early psychological trauma and genetic function in humans, (Promoter-Wide Hypermethylation of Ribosomal RNA Gene Promoter in the Suicide Brain, McGowan et al). A Boston Globe article noted that the study strongly supported the position that; “Traumatic childhood experiences such as child abuse can alter the structure and function of genes that control (the) stress (response), which could increase the risk of suicide in adult victims,” (02/23/09).                                                                                                                                                    

    That all these different destructive physiological events should slowly emerge out of an early history of child abuse should not really be surprising. Whether we consider its possible effects in relation to endocrine or immune functions, cardiovascular, or just about any other body system, we can find the negative effects

of unresolved emotional conflict slowly taking its toll. And so now they are even beginning to see damage to gene functions with such abuse! There really is no reason to believe that any thing good could possibly come out of the early abuse of the infant or young child! If the denial of early responsible freedom is intense enough, it may be that this too can affect aspects of gene function-among other negative effects!                                                                                                                                             

                                                M-STCL: A New Medical Science                                                     Page 34

    A large number of studies using many different species of animals have consistently shown that significant levels of stress to the pregnant female will lower the immune strength of her offspring. This

appears to be especially so during critical periods of immunological development as has been shown in studies in the new field of “psychoneuroimmunology” (PNI).

     Essentially the same has even been shown to be so with stress to the pregnant human mother as well

     Also studies have found that stress to the mother during pregnancy can alter the actual way embryonic nerve cells express their genetic potential. An intermediary role of hormones has been clearly implicated in the above change. In accord with this Janov notes that trauma received in early life may have the biophysical force to change the unfolding of the genetic blueprint. Janov further notes how any force which can alter genetic potential will significantly affect the individual’s biology, psychology, behavior and health.

     Research has noted that the typical birth process in most hospitals amounts to some level of imprinted trauma! During the strain of birth the fetus is typically flooded with stress hormones. Echoing this position are medical researchers, H. Legercrantz and Theodore Slotkin, who state in one of their studies on the issue; “The human fetus is squeezed through the birth canal for several hours, during which the head sustains considerable pressure and the infant is intermittently deprived of oxygen (by compression of the placenta and the umbilical cord during contractions).” And the authors note the typical abusive handling of the new- born that occurs immediately after that, adding even more stress to the process.                                           

     Lagercrantz and Slotkin further noted that; “Nearly every newborn has an oxygen debt akin to that of a sprinter after a run.” Janov notes that this has been observed over and over again at the Primal Institue with Primal patients during the reliving of the birth trauma.              

      It has been noted by Vom Saal et al, that maternal stress changes the concentrations of male and female sex hormones of the fetus according to studies in mice. Researchers Bolon and Omer discovered that additional hormonal changes of the mother in fact actually affect such structural factors as neurotransmitter development in the fetus and “define the organization of brain pathways” and further that “alterations in maternal, fetal and neonatal biochemistry during critical periods (of development) may irreparably alter the

circuitry and thus postnatal behavior of young animals." In the case of the hormonal chaos that may very likely be occurring in the pregnant mother who has her own significant unresolved emotional conflict, I call this the “hormonal abuse of the fetus.” I further believe that this may be at the core of at least some cases of  homosexual development in males. This could possibly interact with later damaging events in the individual’s life as well. Again I consider it a logical conclusion that such complications are more likely in women who suffer with significant unresolved emotional conflict that would likely be greatly aggravated by the pregnancy itself.

       Stress research supports the fact that the high levels of stress of the neurotic pregnant mother will always change her hormonal patterns to an abnormal pattern marked by high levels of stress hormones. This in turn can have the strong possibility of altering brain circuits of the offspring in a permanent way. Janov notes research that shows that at least in some cases, these very early changes are likely the equivalent to hard-wired neurocircuitry and are likely irreversible. As Janov himself notes, biological and emotional damage can begin early on in the womb. I must add to all of this that I believe that these things can also happen in early childhood given that the trauma is sever enough and nothing is done to resolve it. Such things can only be better revealed with “honest research.” conducted in the proper framework, as discussed in MSTCL.                                       

     In addition to the discoveries of the neurochemical responses mentioned above, developmental scientists have shown that the various sensory modalities are also neurologically operational at various fetal stages of growth. For example as Boston Globe science writer, Gareth Cook, writes in the the Boston Globe

magazine, Oct 14, 2001; that scientists have confirmed that the newborn already recognizes its mother’s voice because of hearing it while still in the womb. In fact, upon hearing about this fact years earlier, it has led me to believe that an abusive woman with an aggressive tone to her voice, will transmit this verbally abusive character style to her unborn child, acting as both a physical and emotional pre-birth form of abuse. In fact there are very likely specific neurochemicals in the system of such a 24-7 angry mother that very likely transmits to the developing fetus, possibly affecting even brain development. Again more desperate research is needed. In extreme degrees I believe that this can possibly act as a trauma, along with other                                                                                                                                                     

emotionally disturbed features of such a woman, such as muscularly armored jerky and aggressive body movements, etc… recognized by Reich many decades back. Hence, this may be one of the main biological reasons for the (usual) softness of a woman’s voice and less body muscle mass in comparison to that of

                                                                                                                                                                Page 35

men! That nature should provide the basis of femininity to enhance the healthy development of the fetus and young infant seems only logical to me! (In the framework of this view, the reader should note that the

typical male characteristics, along with the accompanying physiological factors, would likely be extremely damaging to the development of the fetus if it were to be subjected to such conditions). Also there have been similar findings with taste as Cook and others have written about. It appears that the simple fact is that most every aspect of the pregnant woman has the real possibility of affecting her developing infant. This is so in regards to her emotional state and, any chemical substances she may ingest such as drugs, cigarette smoke, alcohol, etc…So what she eats, how she speaks, moves, just about everything likely transmits to the developing fetus to different degrees. Even her very thoughts, hence, if she harbors significantly negative thoughts and feelings about the pregnancy, the developing fetus, etc…, it will in so many ways be transmitted to the fetus. And this will very likely impact the developing fetus in a damaging way given that it provokes a continuous physiological response of distress in the fetus. On the contrary, if she has an emotionally healthy form of love for the fetus then this will be transmitted to the fetus and enhance healthy development. This is one very clear reason why the woman who was successfully raised with authentic early love and freedom and/or in the absence of any early abuse, will always be capable of providing a healthier internal womb environment for the fetus than those females raised in a more oppressive and abusive environment. 

      Over the last decade, scientists have discovered that the immune system is in fact massively innervated by cells of the nervous system. They have discovered that throughout the immune system there are receptors for neurotransmitters sitting on the surface of cells of the immune system, and with this it was realized through many studies and actual experimentation that significant stress could in fact significantly down-regulate important functional aspects of the immune system and hence eventually be harmful to the

health of an individual who was under emotional distress over a given significantly long period of time. And again it is a logical conclusion that the pregnant woman with significant emotional conflict is much more likely to pass on a far greater amount of immunological suppression to her developing fetus. (In my own position of course, this is the individual who was consistently denied early freedom along with all the other abuses that such an individual likely received from strict dictatorial parents). Such facts as above gave rise to what is now a mountain of data-eloquently verifying the clear link between  continued significant stress levels and immunological suppression. And again from such data a new field of health science was recently given birth to, linking psychological and emotional state to over all health in the long run. This new field took its title from three interdisciplinary sub-fields; psychoneuroimmunology, or just “PNI.” Researchers in PNI found that emotional states could even have hormonal mediated affects on the immune system from minute to minute, enhancing or suppressing it. In fact I contemplate that the constant stream of negative thoughts of the pregnant woman with significant emotional conflict could not only have a negative impact on her own system generally and on her immune system specifically, but also on those systems of her developing fetus as well.

    Neurosis (here seen as primarily originating from significant consistent denial of early freedom along with all other accumulated early emotionally damaging treatments) can justifiably be seen as a source of

permanent nonstop stress, day and night, on the immune system as well as other health maintenance body systems. This is due to the fact that at some point early abusive treatments (which occurred over the appropriate amount of time) become increasingly structured into the neurological system of the individual. (Given that it is structured neurologically then it is not likely to disappear, even during the state of sleep! In fact this is significant as it must be adversely affecting normal sleep patterns. Recent research has shown that the shortening of the eight-hour sleep period greatly increases the risk of heart disease. And this is probably also the case of the fetus of the emotionally disturbed pregnant woman. Hence, the pregnant woman who does not sleep in a healthy manner because of neurotic or emotional conflict has to be affecting the physiology and health of her developing fetus in the direction of early disease state formation.) In fact unconscious memory of past abusive experiences suppressively affect the immunological system of humans. The physiologically massive complexities and complex anatomical structure making up the immunological system is itself very plastic, and in fact long periods of stress (emotional distress) maintained over time most likely affects the operational patterns of the immune system, eventually on a permanent basis, just as occurs in brain-neurological structures as noted above.                                                                                                                                                     

Again given these facts it should be clear that the pregnant woman with significant emotional conflict is going to affect the level of health of her fetus’ immune system functions and its over all health generally.

                                                                                                                                                          Page 36

And again this makes perfect sense given the large increase sensitivity to pain of the fetus and later infant. In fact studies have supported this idea by showing that experimentally stressed pregnant female animals

give offspring with significantly weakened immune systems. And note that importantly in the case of the human fetus and young infant we are talking about  essential and critical developmental periods.

     Another line of clear evidence indicating that emotional factors have to be closely looked at, comes from the fact that today even many of the major medical textbooks on cardiology have to include the psychological factors that many studies have found to possibly be causal in the development and/or worsening of already existing heart disease. One such textbook; (Heart Disease, A Textbook of Cardiovascular Medicine, Edited by E. Braunwald, D. Zipes and P. Libby p. 2244, Psychiatric and Behavioral Aspects of Cardiovascular Disease), noted that: “Clinicians dating back to Sir William Osler have realized that a large number of coronary heart disease (CHD) patients seem to be compulsive, fanatically driven, “unable to relax” and carry significant amounts of anger.” And then the author of this section (A. Barsky) goes on describing the much later medical research of Friedman and Rosenman on the cluster of traits that make up the well known “Type A” behavioral pattern, discussed later. Barsky notes how this work continued into the 1970’s and 1980’s by such groups as the “Western Collaborative Group Study” and various individuals who were publishing on these things. Barsky also noted that other more refined studies on the cluster of behaviors making up “Type A behavior” patterns focused increasingly on those behaviors defined as clearly showing “hostility.” These later more focused studies included the associated physiological and biochemical responses to the state of hostility. Such research included the studies looking at the relationships of behavior, emotion, and heart disease up till even the 1990’s. Barsky also notes that even more recently, going right up until today, research has even been looking at another psychological state, depression, as a possible causal factor as either worsening a pre-existing condition of heart disease or even possibly creating the hormonal and biochemical conditions for its development. The experimental evidence and clinical studies have strongly supported the position that a clinically significant degree of depression can act powerfully in bringing on eventual heart disease or even increasing the percent mortality in heart disease populations.

     As mentioned above, many of the recent textbooks in cardiology have at least one chapter on the role of emotions in the treatment and development of heart disease. It is highly advocated in many of these books                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               

that significantly psychologically depressed heart patients be treated with anti-depressive drugs. And what is this other than the art of psychology, in making a judgement in determining the force of the psychological state of helplessness and prescribing drugs to treat it as part of the overall treatment of heart disease? So DSM IV becomes part of the treatment protocol of heart disease patients defined as clinically depressed in association with, and acting on, the disease state. Well I believe that there is very good reason here to bring in issues of early childhood freedom, along with the importance of an early non-abusive environment and creating the ability for the child to find early happiness, central in child rearing as Neill was fully dedicated to. Hence, making Neill the earliest “preventive medicine cardiologist.”

                                                     The Biology of Love, Womb Life

     In the “Biology Of Love” Janov stated: “Whenever deep pain is ignored it is tantamount to denying our physiology.” I believe that this could be reworded to: “Whenever the early abusive treatment and/or neglect of the infant or child are ignored that “it is tantamount to denying that child’s right for healthy emotional and physiological development.” I even go further than this as I also believe that whenever responsible freedom is ignored for a child during his or her early years of development, it is tantamount to ignoring his or her healthy emotional and physiological development.

     In the physiological system of the woman with early emotional conflict there will be biological limits to the quality of love that she will be able to give the developing fetus and later Infant. Or more precisely there are psychological and emotional limits on the quality of love that such women can offer an infant and child as these women are significantly overwhelmed with their own emotional conflicts and struggles. (And this is so in the male as well). Hence, such limitations have both biological and psychological underpinnings. So given that a woman is essentially crippled emotionally to a significant degree, then indeed we can logically assume that in such a woman that there are bioneurologic limits to her ability to 

                                       The Biological Limits to Love and Childhood Freedom                                Page 37                           

offer authentic love, especially unconditional love, to a child. This I consider a strong statement of support that children raised under a true system of responsible freedom will be massively more capable themselves, in return, of raising emotionally healthy children. And the female child raised under a true system of responsible freedom and non-abuse will be emotionally more healthy and hence will promote healthier fetal development during pregnancy, in her own system biologically. I believe that these are the types of things that will become glaringly obvious when honest research actually begins on the important issue of the health effects of offering children true responsible early freedom along with unconditional love, that is, a system of non-abuse. If the research is done really badly (as if by someone who actually wanted to sabotage the concept) then the link may not appear to be very strong, if at all. And if the research is done reasonably well, then a link will appear. And if the research is done very well and honestly, then the link will be glaringly obvious. And I should say, it will be one of the very few times that “psychological theory” will actually be doing something really important!

     I envision some very well funded research institute like the “White Head Institute” in Cambridge Massachusetts. There are these scientific research institutes all over Europe  and The United States receiving trillions in funding to genetically design a better ear of corn or bigger carrot and meatier cow, etc… I don’t see why society can’t have a “White Head” type scientific research institute with some talented scientists dedicated to looking at all the harmful effects of  early abuse and neglect on the emotional development of the infant and child, and all their possible later medical consequences. This strikes me as being maybe a little more important than a bigger carrot or ear of corn!                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    

       Of the many issues that Janov notes in “The Biology Of Love,” are that “The chemical environment during gestation is just as important as the social environment after birth, indeed, more so.” And also that “A hyperactive mother may imprint that state into her baby so that later, after birth and in adolescence, the

child may need downers to feel “normal” or “relaxed.” And; “If there were a universal unconscious it would be the hypoxia and anoxia we often suffer during birth… It is engraved into the system with an incredible force. We have only to observe the reliving (often filmed when the patient turns red, struggles for breath, and seems to be dying).” In this regard  Janov notes: “This is not a theory I concocted; it is an observable fact, day in and day out…” (p. 208-209). And also that; “Prenatal life can determine the rest of one’s life in the most profound of ways. Deviation of the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis (HPA) can suppress immune system function and cause immune deficiencies later on. According to M. Weinstock, who has studied the HPA circuit, “Prenatally stressed human infants show the following long-term problems: Attentional deficits, hyper-anxiety, disturbed social behavior, impaired coping in stressful situations, and a general dysregulation of the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis.””  And again Janov states: “If a carrying mother drinks 4 to 5 cups of coffee a day over several days during the critical period of synaptogenesis in the fetus, the possibility is there for an imprint which will change the set-points of the baby for a lifetime,” (p. 209-210).                                            

     Also in “The Biology Of Love” Janov states; ‘Now let us turn our attention to what love is made of. It is not some ethereal concept existing in the air; it is something concrete and can be accounted for by the levels of certain hormones in one’s body and by the correct functional operations of specific structures of                                                              

the brain,” (my additional clarification). And Janov continues, “…pain has something to do with changing the levels of love. We can try to be loving and warm to our mates but there are biological limits to                                                             

overcome,” (p. 91). And so the parent with significant problems can try to be loving to a child but there are certain biological limits to overcome as I have noted above. And again, the woman who is successfully raised in true childhood freedom and unconditional love, with neither abuse or significant neglect, will naturally ”overcome” these “limits” to the greatest degree because her biology will never be greatly suppressed by any significant level of pain or neurosis. To begin with, her nervous system will develop in the complete absence of the need for significant repression of any kind. So she is capable of freely loving her child well beyond the point of the un-free mother with emotional conflict. And so the child who receives such love with responsible freedom always has healthier brain development. This has to be logically so, certainly to a good degree.

     The truth of the matter is that what we are dealing with everywhere is the fact that there are “massive” limits on the part of many “adults” (everywhere) to offer children real authentic love! The limits are both                                      

                                                                                                                                                               Page 38

biological and psychological. They can give them something, but it too often falls significantly short of being “authentic love.” Certainly to its greatest extent possible, or indeed even anything approaching that point. That’s a simple reality that many in the field are not willing to bring up. This is not what many adults

want to hear-that they have been made emotionally crippled to various degrees themselves. They far too often prefer their illusions, and feel too strongly that it is their right to have it that way!        

     Many “adults” who have an obvious inability to offer authentic love to a child will very often insist that in fact everything that they do towards their child is “out of love!” One main reason that such adults invoke this four letter word so often, I believe, is because they figure that by doing so no one is going to try to more deeply analyze what is actually going on. They believe that by invoking the word “love” that no one will dare look under the surface of their actions. “How dare one do so!” “We ‘love’ our children.” Well given that we are concerned about the emotional life of children and how it affects the rest of their lives and                                                                                                         

humanity as a whole, and the significant medical issues as well, that is why we “dare do so.” To the contrary, “how dare” any adult, or professional, etc…, anywhere, seriously harm any child’s chances of finding happiness in life!

                                           The Notions of Critical Periods and “Subclinical States.”                                                                        

      In relation to dysfunctional physiology with its origins in earlier emotional struggle Janov mentions the quite interesting concept of “subclinical states,” the physiological deviation toward the pathophysiological. Hence, Janov states; “It appears to be a biological law: that traumatic events in the womb can be exceptionally deleterious and cannot be made up later on.” And Janov continues; “Here is where, for

example, slight alterations in thyroid output can begin so that later in childhood we may find hypothyroidism or insulin deficiency. It is in the womb that so many biological set-points are fixed deviating the system in slight, often sub-clinical ways that do not become apparent perhaps for decades.”                                              

                                   Type A and Heart Disease and Early Emotional Development                                  

        Now I would like to look at the history of the famous “Type A Behavior” and heart disease research and studies and the changes it went through up to the “present time period.”  The reader should know that there are several sources on this history, including by some of the leading medical scientists involved in this research themselves, such as; Ray Rosenman, Meyer Friedman, Redford Williams, and others, and much information is on the internet as well. Personally I used the information from these original researchers, along with a fairly popular “Mind-Body Medicine” book; “Mind/Body Health; The Effects of Attitudes, Emotions and Relationships,” by Hafen, Karren, Frandsen, and Smith,” I  personally feel that these authors did a good job on this history and research up to the present period and are definitely worth looking at. But again other sources do exist on this famous research. It is not my intention here to go through the details to any great extent of the decades of the Type A research. Here I just want to present the general facts. Actually in fact it should be noted that I consider my own criticisms of the Type A Behavior research and concepts to be very important, especially to the medical research community. Already a very large amount of time and funding have been used up, likely by now many billions have been spent! Since time is an important factor, especially now, I will waste none of it and say right out that really much of the Type A behavior research must actually be done over! My position is that it is important to look at the issue of behavior patterns and heart disease. But also at the same time there has to be a new focus in future research on the issue of the way adult parents treat and raise children, and how under early emotionally damaging treatments, such child rearing practices can lead eventually, in late adolescence and adult life, to so many possible self destructive behaviors and ultimately to possibly heart disease among other disease states such as various types of cancers etc…                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   

     The original Type A Behavior research was started by cardiologist Ray Rosenman and Meyer Friedman  over some sixty years ago! And eventually the so-called “Western Collaborative Group” was formed to continue the Type A research. Interestingly much of the Type A research occurred in a time period roughly parallel to when A. S. Neill was running Summerhill starting some 75 years ago and onward.

     Essentially Type A Behavior consisted of the behavior patterns of people who can not relax. Generally they are very often neurotically driven into various compulsive modes of stressful behavior patterns. It was Reich who I believe first linked such things up to causing actual disease states. In fact the interview process devised by Friedman and Rosenman, to be employed in their Type A research, actually looks like significant “plagiarism” on Reich’s “Character Analysis,” and other concepts of his. I believe that a                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      

                                                      Type A and Heart Disease Revisited                                               Page 39

background of true responsible childhood freedom, when successfully incorporated developmentally, will always be the most effective way to prevent such behavior patterns from developing to begin with. As the original research had clearly shown, Type A’s, and especially extreme Type A’s, believe that such patterns are necessary to make it through each day “successfully.” Such an idea would be anathema to an emotionally healthy individual.

     The actual behavior “originally” described by Friedman and Rosenman, making up the typical Type A pattern, is nothing more, certainly in the vast majority of cases, than behavior that is always without exception, being driven by early neurotic conflict and pain. The true origins of such behaviors, more often than not, have to be significantly laid at the feet of those who acted as the early care givers of such individuals. And this is absolutely something which the medical research community has to start looking at. Type A behavior has been described as behavior coming from individuals who are compelled to consistently react “to the environment with characteristic gestures, facial expressions, fast pace of activities, and the perception of daily events and stresses as challenges, all leading to an aggressive, time-urgent, impatient, and more hostile style of living.” Rosenman and Friedman defined Type A personality as being “an action-emotion complex that can be observed in any person who is aggressively involved in a chronic, incessant struggle to achieve more and more in less and less time, and if required to do so, against the opposing efforts of other things or persons.” Type A’s see themselves as being trapped in

the world with the perceived necessity to “create a chronic struggle against time, and against other people.” Friedman contended that it was such a frantic struggle that eventually leads to the physical damage in the body and in particular to the cardiovascular system. Generally speaking Type A personalities are seen as being far more hostile, competitive, and impatient, among other neurotic traits, than the “average

individual.” Among the traits listed as making up Type A personalities are; time urgency, relentless drive for achievement, free-floating hostility, anger and inability to relax. Again, the reader should keep in mind that these personality traits, as described by Friedman, Rosenman and others, are carried out to a consistent degree of intensity by the Type A individual one would not see in the “average” or so-called “normal” individual. Really these behavior traits are carried out to a degree that can only be seen as driven by early emotional conflict. For a more in depth discussion of all the observed behavior patterns that make-up Type A personalities generally, the reader can go to the book that I have mentioned above; “Mind/Body Health…,” or the writings over the decades of Friedman and Rosenman themselves or even to those of Redford Williams and colleagues, and many others as the concepts of Type A and heart disease have greatly become a good part of popular “Mind/Body Health” concepts generally. If the reader does so and also looks at the general clinical descriptions of neurosis by people like Janov, Reich and even individuals like David Shapiro (Neurotic Styles) and others, they will see that my own position on the issue is in fact well supported!                           

     Again, it seems very clear to me that in just looking at the Primal psychotherapeutic clinical work by Arthur Janov, as described in his books, it really seems quite unlikely that anyone becomes a Type A personality, as described in the original literature, without first being forcibly subjected to significant amounts of early abusive treatments of some type(s) that leave permanent emotional scars on the individual. Thus driving him or her in the direction of neurotically acting out! Hence, I believe that all the so-called “Type A Behaviors” are nothing more than a small cluster of possible behaviors that are used by neurotic individuals to act out their conflict and pain! Maybe the individual who is hypersexual or even perverted, etc…, more successfully releases some of the neurotic tension through various types of disturbed sexual practices instead of it being more directed at the cardiac or other health systems! It has been the misfortune of Type A’s that they have “chosen” a mode of acting-out that more directly goes to eventually damaging the cardiovascular system.

     I want to also note that by calling it “Type A Behavior” Meyer Friedman and colleagues avoid issues of psychological and emotional causes that are rooted in early childhood. The term “behavior” makes it

appear as an issue of “Behavioristic Psychology,” devoid of emotional content! Perhaps it should have been described as something along the lines of, “cardiopathic behavior patterns linked to emotional conflict of early origin,” or some similar term that indicates the very likely possibility that such unresolved states can lead to heart disease and that it has a clear emotional origin in early development.

     As to the question, approximately how common is Type A Behavior, I find the answer given by researchers in the field to be quite interesting. The authors of “Mind/Body Health…” note that one conservative estimate advanced by one researcher is that about 40 percent of the American population have significant Type A traits! Another researcher concludes that possibly as many as half of all men can be

                                                      Type A and Heart Disease Revisited                                               Page 40

classified as Type A and also noted that the Type A personality, to different degrees, is becoming increasingly more common among women in the work force. Meyer Friedman himself once stated his

belief that three fourths, 75 percent, of all urban men are significantly Type A.  Friedman also notes that more and more women can be classified as Type A.  (The reader should note that the interpretation of these

numbers here is that nearly, or more than, half of the population of men, and increasingly women, in this society have a good possibility of a much earlier death due to the different levels and forms of early abusive  childhood treatments that they were subjected to. And that includes treatments that have been traditionally accepted and in some unfortunate cases ones beyond that point to various degrees-that they have been subjected to!).

    The numbers in all have to be quite staggering. And how quickly we are willing to forget them! In fact a more recent study released by the Framingham Heart Study at the end of 2002 (published in the journal “Circulation” 11/05/02) noted that “one in five” individuals will suffer from one major form of heart

disease known as “congestive heart failure.” This is considered to likely be the best estimate to date. Again, clearly a very high number taking us into a “new cardiopathic millennium!” But again, even with the “best studies” of a “new age,” there isn’t even the slightest hint of issues of early non-abuse and the offering of true childhood freedom compared to its opposite with its eventual effects on the cardiovascular system. In

all truth, it is as if such issues are not even close to being “in the cards” at this time. But you can certainly be sure that cardiopathic disease states of most all kinds are in fact “in the cards,” and will continue to be so in massive numbers as the ways of the old, well disguised, marches into a “new era.”  

     Studies have also shown that children, too, can have Type A personality and behavior problems. And it has also been noted that the same children later on end-up with a significantly higher rate of heart disease.

These traits must be more difficult to detect in young children-but they are there as active time bombs, in some cases literally racing toward an earlier death in adulthood. Serious medical researchers of the future need to understand that it is primarily parents and the others in the education system given power over the lives of children that produce the emotional structures that finally give rise to early Type A Behavioral patterns in them. Genetic research today has proven itself utterly incapable of coming to this correct conclusion! If the research were honest in the first place it would have been able to arrive at this correct conclusion! Or at least not lend itself to obscuring this truth. As it stands now “genetic thinking” is often being used as an ideological weapon, in essentially a non-explanatory way, against this truth! This does not strike me as a good way to do future medical research on these serious issues!  

     There appears to be a significant amount of research showing that young children who exhibit Type A traits carry these behavioral reactions into adulthood. Research reported in Science News has indicated that “the Type A pattern of aggression and competitiveness shows up early in life and can persist, perhaps putting the individual at risk of heart disease as an adult.” Some fairly large studies have shown that a large number of Type A children stay that way through out the years. What the studies don’t discuss is what happens to those who supposedly don’t “stay Type A.” Well if they were driven to Type A by early abuse (which has to be the case anyway), then it does not just “disappear.” Perhaps it becomes carcinogenic (or cardiopathic by another route-or both) as the individual falls into states of later helplessness or out-right depression etc…                                   

     Well what did our ever-vigilant researchers find out about the early Type A driving factors? Well one group of researchers with the Department of Psychiatry at the University of Pittsburgh found that at least Type A boys had “Type A mothers and fathers,” hence, suggesting early modeling of Type A behaviors in boys. Also the University of Pittsburgh researchers, along with several others involved in independent research, found that parents and teachers “tended” to encourage the Type A or similar behaviors. Specifically noted was the demand for “a fanatic drive for high (academic) achievement, and (an abusive) speedy task completion.” As one might expect, three very important operational concepts are missing from these  “tireless” research scientists, and they are; “parental abusive treatments,” “responsible early freedom” and “pain.” They can document modes of the former and measure the later! Going by the descriptions generally given, all Type A individuals without exception seem to be quite unhappy. How does one conclude otherwise? How is it that issues of early development and happiness are so systematically ignored? Especially the issue of early childhood experiences. Should that not be the most looked at, along with the relationship to the parents. Is health science based on protecting something other than the health and ultimately life of the individual?

     Several long-term studies have indeed been done on “Type A children.” In general they have found significant similarities of “Type A children” with that of Type A adults. Among these similarities were;

                                                      Type A and Heart Disease Revisited                                               Page 41

high scores on hostility and anger and suspiciousness. And interestingly the same studies have noted that most Type A children had higher achievement test scores and classroom grades, both of which have

appeared to be the direct result of a neurotic drive state to obtain them at all cost (which is really always the case). And Type A children have always been found to be more aggressive in their interactions with others. Again, the fact that Type A Behavior should be seen in children should hardly be surprising, after all, that’s where it always comes from in every adult!

     Another group of researchers, Dr. Karen Mattheus and colleagues at the University of Pittsburgh, conducted studies which strongly indicated that an important factor was parenting in determining later Type A behavior development. They noted that such cardipathic parents were more likely to make critical

 remarks, to always push their children to work increasingly harder, even if it were the case that the children were already doing very well at a specific task. Also many of the mothers of Type A children were noted to be less likely to make any positive remarks about the children’s performance. Interestingly and much to his credit, Friedman, who did the first studies on Type A, believes that “the failure of the Type A person, in his infancy and early childhood, to receive unconditional love, affection, and encouragement from one or both of his (or her) parents” played a significant role in the development of aspects of Type A Behavior. Such individuals find themselves emotionally trapped in the continual desire to obtain approval, they continually fear failure at whatever task.                      

         Unfortunately, the Harvard researcher Redford Williams argues that it is essentially genetic influences that act as key factors of Type A Behavior. This is interesting because Redford himself did a lot

of the research that developed the ideas of the so-called “Toxic Core” of Type A personality and behavior. That is; a hyperstate of anger and hostility, which is now considered the most potent factor in Type A personalities in bringing about heart disease. Redford William’s famous and popular account of this is in his book titled; “Anger Kills.” It is easy enough to see that a continuous state over a long period of time of hyper-anger and hostility will eventually kill via cardiovascular disease. In fact, if the individual with such reactive states does not get heart disease first, he will in fact likely get something else, like cancer, diabetes, hypertension, stroke, etc… However, it is very unlikely that any individual develops such states because of some vague gene(s). The complexities of the human nervous system, particularly in regards to human behavior, continue to elude a more complete scientific understanding. So it is far easier and tempting to “intellectually” grab onto some vague gene theory! The only way an individual gets a full fledge state of hyper-anger and raging hostility is through large enough amounts of accumulated emotional conflict forced on them during crucial periods of early development. There are no genes that cause such levels of anger and hostility. Individuals may differ to degrees in regards to coping abilities, with the pain and conflict laid down by abusive childhood experiences, with some experiencing more anger and hostility than others. But there are no genes that determine that a given individual will have such levels of permanent anger and hostility that it reaches the level of measurement to constitute a “Toxic Core” and lead eventually to heart disease as a likely outcome.

     Further references on some of the research on the link between behavior and heart disease are listed at the end for the interested reader. See page 36-37 (References: Behavior And Heart Disease)

                                       Childhood Origins of Disease; A New Medical Science                                                                                                                                                                                   

      Here, instead of focusing more on the possible emotional side of disease state on-set, in particular heart disease, I will just name the many different types of heart problems. I have already debated the emotional side sufficiently above, which unfortunately is, to a good degree, still seen as being merely theoretical. I have selected those heart disease states that I believe may in fact have long-term emotional factors in their background, or at least a good number of them very likely do. Or another way to look at it would be to state that some cases more so than others. And then after the cardiovascular conditions I would like to move onto the gynecological conditions that long-term unresolved conflict also likely plays a significant role in their early development, to various degrees. I do not think that there is any question that research on these issues, in the framework discussed here, definitely needs to start now! The reader should note that this is a much condensed version of the original writings of the “Childhood Origins of Disease: A New Medical Science.” For the much more extended version the reader can write me at the address listed above.

                                                                                                                                                              Page 42                                                                                                                                                            

      Hence, in the case of the cardiovascular conditions first there are the so-called congenital acyanotic defects. These include Ventricular Septal Defect, Atrial Septal Defect, Coarctation of the Aorta, and Patent Ductus Arteriosus. And continuing there are the congenital cyanotic defects which include Patent Ductus

Arteriosus and Tetralogy of Fallot. And next are the acquired inflammatory heart diseases. These include Myocarditis, Endocarditis, Pericarditis and Rheumatic Fever and Rheumatic Heart Disease. And the valvular disorders of the heart include Valvular Heart Disease, Mitral insufficiency, Aortic Stenosis,                       

Pulmonic insufficiency, Pulmonic Stenosis, Tricuspid insufficiency and Tricuspid Stenosis. The Degenerative Cardiovascular Disorders include Hypertension, Coronary Artery Disease, Myocardial Infarction, Dilated Cardiomyopathy, Hypertrophic Cardiomyopathy and Restrictive Cardiomyopathy. And the so-called cardiac complications include; Hypovolemic and  Cardiogenic Shock, Cardiac Tamponade and the Arrhythmias.  A further break down of some of the different major arrhythmias include; Sinus Arrhythmia, Sinus Bradycardia, Sinus Tachycardia, Sinoatrial Block, Premature Atrial Contraction (PAC), Parocysmal Atrial Tachycardia, Atrial Flutter, First Degree AV Block, Second Degree AV Block and Third Degree AV Block and many others. Other cardiac disorders include Thrombophlebitis, Raynaud’s Disease, Buerger’s Disease and Arterial Occlusive Disease. Many of these conditions in fact are ultimately considered to be of “unknown origins” in traditional medical science! That in itself seems to me that they should finally start looking at issues of long-term emotional conflict in the framework discussed here in

MSTCL! I believe that many of these conditions listed, at least for a significant number of unfortunate individuals, may in fact have significant long-term emotional conflict in their backgrounds. However, I must warn that any person who does have anyone of these conditions, I would not at all suggest that they not seek out treatment for such serious conditions from traditional medical practice. But everyone has the right to know the truth, or what may very well be the truth, about these things, whatever that might be.

Maybe something along the lines of Primal Therapy along with traditional treatments might be an effective approach for such conditions given the real possibility of involvement of early emotional factors? But the reader should note that these writings are not a substitute for needed traditional medical treatment.                                              

                                                      Gynecological Disorders: Gyn-MSTCL!                                                                                                                                                

     Next are the Gynecological Disorders. These include Premenstrual Syndrome (PMS), Dysmenorrhea, Vulvoaginitis, Endometriosis, and Female Infertility. The more “open-minded” health writers are increasingly recognizing the possible role of emotional factors in gynecological disorders such as infertility. One such author is Christiane Northrup, M.D., who wrote the popular book on women’s health issues; “Women’s Bodies, Women’s Wisdom.” On the issue of infertility Northrup notes that over several

decades quite a few studies have shown, or at least strongly indicated that psychological factors can initiate the physiological deviations causing infertility in women. For example, some of the many references she                

notes in this regards are: P. Kemeter, “Studies on Psychosomatic Implications of Infertility: Effects of Emotional Stress on Fertilization and Implantation in In-Vitro Fertilization,” Human Reproduction, vol. 3, no. 3 April, 1988; And, Therese Benedek and Boris Rubenstein, “Correlations Between Ovarian Activity and Psychodynamic processes: The Ovulatory phase,” Psychosomatic Medicine, ol. 1, no. 2 (1939);  and, A. Mayer, “Sterility in Women as a Result of Functional Disturbance,” Journal of the American Medical                                                                                                                           

Association, vol. 105 (1935); and F. Facchinetti et al., “An Increase Vulnerability to Stress Is Associated with a Poor Outcome of In Vitro Fertilization-Embryo Transfer Treatment,” Fertility and Sterility, vol. 67, 1992; and also, Therese Benedek et al., “Some Emotional Factors in Infertility,” Psychosomatic Medicine,                                                                                                                                        

International Journal of Fertility, vol. 3 (1958); and, H. R. Cohen, “The Psychosomatic Factor in Infertility,” International Journal of Fertility, vol. 16 (1961); and also, A. W. McLeod, “Some Psychogenic Aspects of Infertility,” Fertility and Sterility, vol. 15 (1969), and many others. And undoubtedly there are many other studies pointing in this direction which are in the literature and on the internet, etc…, for any

one who is interested. Here my main interest is to make the reader aware of such studies that support my wider position. That is, the position that those women who were successfully raised as infants and children with responsible childhood freedom and non-abuse will always be, beyond average, healthier emotionally and hence have a significantly greater chance for a superior general physiological health status affecting reproductive functions as-well-as all other body processes than those women who were unfortunately not                                                                  

                                                                                                                                                             Page 43

offered the same health promoting opportunities in their early developmental periods. And these facts will have significant consequences in many areas of long-term health generally as well as here in issues of good fertility versus infertility. I am, as far as I know, the only writer who looks at these issues in this context!

     The statistics are that up to 15% of all pregnancies and approximately 30% of first pregnancies end in spontaneous abortion (miscarriage).                                                                                                                                 

      Again it is becoming increasingly more recognized by more modern health writers today that                                                                                                                             

psychological and emotional factors have been strongly implicated in miscarriages as well as other women’s health issues. for example again author Christiane Northrup notes several studies on miscarriage

in, “Women’s Bodies, Women’s Wisdom,” that strongly implicate emotional/psychological factors as a possible significant contributor or even cause!

     Hence, Northrup states: “Several studies have indicated that in women who have repeated (three or more) miscarriages, there may be an interplay between emotions and the hormonal systems involved in

pregnancy. Dr. Robert J. Weil, a researcher on the emotional aspects of infertility, and C. Tupper writes: ‘The pregnant woman functions as a communications system. The fetus is a source of continuous messages

to which the mother responds with subtle psychological adjustments. Her personality, influenced by her ever changing life situation, can either (1) act upon the fetus to maintain its constant growth and development or (2) create physiological changes that can result in abortion.’” Thus see; Robert J. Weil and

C. Tupper, “Personality, Life Situation, communication: A Study of Habitual Abortion,” Psychosomatic Medicine, vol 22, no. 6 (1960).

      Northrup continues stating: “The ways in which a woman’s body modulates her feelings about her pregnancy are diverse, but all are mediated by the immune and endocrine systems. Thus, studies have shown that there are endocrinological imbalances resulting from emotional stress in women who habitually miscarry (known as “habitual aborters,” in medical circles) and in those who have what is known as an “incompetent cervix,” a cervix that dilates too quickly so that the uterus cannot hold on to a baby.”      

      Northrup notes that even behaviors such as heavy smoking and drinking large amounts of coffee (due to the caffeine effects) will increase their risks of miscarriage, see Dr. Claire Infante-Rivard of McGill University of Montreal. In fact others have noted the same and many other health risks in heavy environmentally polluted areas!

     Some relevant studies noted are E. R. Grimm, “Psychological Investigation of Habitual Abortion,” Psychosomatic Medicine, vol 24 (1962); And also; R. I. Vanden Bergh, “Emotional Illness in Habitual Abortions following Suturing of Incompetent Cervical Os,” Psychosomatic Medicine, vol 28 (1966).

      Also United States Department of Health, Education and Welfare, the National Center for Health Statistics, Wanted and Unwanted Births by Mothers 15-44 years of Age: U.S. 1973, National Institute of  

 Health, Inst. Of Child Health and Human development, (Nov. 1992, NICHD office of Research Reporting Bldg. 31, National Inst. Of Health Bethesda, MD, Tel. No. (301) 496-5133. And M. D. Muylder et al., “A Woman’s Attitude Toward Pregnancy: Can It Predispose Her to Preterm Labor?” Journal of Reproductive Medicine vol. 37 no 4 (1992).

     And also see R. Newton and L. Hunt, “Psychosocial Stress in Pregnancy and Its Relationship to Low Birth Weight,” British Medical Journal vol. 288 (1984). And Ronald Meyers, “Maternal Anxiety and Fetal Death, Psychoneuroimmunology in Reproduction, (Elsevier/ North-Holland Biomedical Press 1979, pp555-73).      

     I also encourage the reader to investigate the issue of “psychogenic or emotionally induced miscarriage” on the internet, psychological, psychiatric, and medical literature respectively. For example one research                                   

article that I found of interest on the internet (under “psychological stress and miscarriage”) was titled “Stress and immune mediators in miscarriage.” The study was done by P. C. Arck, M. Rose, K. Hertwig, E. Hagen, M. Hildebrandt, and B. F. Klapp, and published by “Human Reproduction,” vol. 16 no 7, 1505-1511, July 2001, European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology, 2001. In the abstract the

authors of this study note that; “Stress is thought to be abortogenic and psycho-neuro-immunological pathways have been suggested to be involved in triggering miscarriages.”

     Other gynecological disorders include; Ectopic Pregnancy, Hyperemesis Gravidarum, Pregnancy-Induced Hypertension, Placenta Previa, Abruptio Placente, Cardiovascular Disease in Pregnancy,

Premature labor, “PROM,” Cesarean Birth, Puerperal Infection, Mastitis and Breast Engorgement, Galactorrhea, and many others.       

      Returning to the issue of miscarriage I have no doubt that there have been plenty of women who have had miscarriage after miscarriage, and that these were related to the internal emotional conflict that they

                                                                                                                                                               Page 44

had in them from early infancy and childhood due to the different abusive treatments that they were subjected to at those vulnerable periods. Again the reader should remember that such conflict has been acting to deviate the individual’s physiology since it was introduced, and that could be at some critical fetal period on to childhood! From my position on this issue, to say that the way female children are raised will

have “no real consequences” on their health or pregnancy later in life, is the equivalent of saying that whether or not one smokes something like three packs of cigarettes a day for a decade or two will have “no

significant effect on their health!” Hence, again I have no doubt that the female successfully raised in authentic early freedom, and non-abusively, will not only be a better parent later in life, but she will also

have the greater capacity to offer a healthier fetal environment to her developing unborn infant than the female child without this advantage!                                                                           

      In relation to gynecological problems and health and its possible relation to early childhood traumatic experience in females see, Heim, C., et al., (2000), “Pituitary-adrenal and automatic responses to stress in women after sexual and physical abuse in childhood,” JAMA 284 (5), 592-596.      

     It can increasingly be shown that the mere thoughts and perceptions individuals have can significantly influence the biochemical processes in their bodies. So it would be logical to assume that a significantly emotionally disturbed pregnant woman is going to have her physiology deviated to some degree from what

would be considered medically healthy. And undoubtedly such a situation would be compounded by the natural difficulties of pregnancy itself!

     Further references on studies concerning various degrees of damage done to the fetus due to maternal stress are listed at the end of the book. I hope that the interested reader will find these of interest. 

                                    Early Childhood Origins of a Later Healthier Pregnancy                                                                                      

     In regards to a study by Rosengarten E Friedman and A. J. Friedhoff, Janov quotes these researchers as stating: “It is conceivable that maternal neuropeptides, maternal hormones [as a result of psychological states] and maternally transmitted environmental chemicals (air pollutants, etc…) could mediate such alterations.” And Janov goes on noting: “the chemical changes in the carrying mother due to her moods, say of depression, become corresponding changes in the fetal system. And Janov goes on noting how this fetal imprint “primes” the later infant to continue responding to the same state in the mother when she becomes depress later on. Hence, keeping the later child in a depressed state over and over throughout his

or her early life. (Rosengarten, E. Friedman, and A. J. Friedhoff, “Sensitive Periods to the Neuroleptic Effect of  Halperidol to Reduce Dopamine Receptors.”)

     Janov notes how the neurotic mother turns her states of intense anxiety into a “hormonal languish” which can be transmitted to the developing fetus, imprinting it in his unconscious, possibly “permanently.”                         

Any emotionally dysfunctional women is going to have a dysfunctional physiology which has to have its destructive effect on the developing fetus, whatever it may be! It seems to me that the only reasonable position to take is to ask “at what point does it become a significant issue?”

      As Janov himself notes in “The Biology of Love,” (see chapter 17), as the neurotic pregnant woman has a toxic womb environment, the emotionally healthier woman has a neurochemical and hormonal profile that is growth promoting for the developing fetus. Janov refers to the few such biochemicals that are known

as “the hormone(s) of love,” focusing primarily on the pregnancy hormone “oxytocin.” But serotonin is

recognized as well. It is logical that it should be this way, that the emotionally healthier woman would have some significant physiological difference to the neurotically anxious woman. And no doubt there are other factors that we still do not yet know about, that there are probably many other health and growth promoting factors that the psychologically healthier woman has to offer her fetus. That this is so is again only a logical conclusion. Relevant references on the issue are listed at the end, see pages 37-38.                                                                             

                                            The “Other” Emotional Distress-Linked Disease States                                     

      As I have already mentioned above, in this shorter version of the original text/discussion I have eliminated discussion of many conditions because of space limitations. Here I would just like to name some

                                                                                                                                                                Page 45 

other conditions so that the reader can be aware of them. One can find good descriptions of these from a traditional perspective in most any general medical text of pathophysiology. Hence, to begin some of these are: “The Neoplasms.” In particular these include; Thyroid cancer, Gastric carcinoma, Esophageal, Pancreatic, and Colorectal cancer. And in relation to the male and female genitalia/reproductive systems, which of course are powerfully linked to the hormonal/endocrine systems of both groups, include; Prostatic, Cervical, Uterine, Vaginal and Ovarian cancer. And also one may consider, cancer of the Vulva

and Fallopian tube cancer, etc… The literature is quite large in relation to linking long-term emotional factors to the eventual development of various types of cancers. Here I include those that this most likely

applies to, although others may fit the category as well. But again because of space limitations I do not include these others here!          

      Another group of conditions with possible emotional links-or significant contribution to their eventual development-are the “respiratory disorders.” I do not mean to imply that other factors may not be significantly involved in some of these, such as environmental ones, but only that long-term emotional conflict may also play a significant role in many as well. Especially in those systems listed here. And so some of these include the so called, “Congenital and Pediatric disorders” such as; “Respiratory Distress Syndrome, Sudden Infant Death Syndrome, Croup, and Epiglottists, etc… These disorders, as with the

others of this category, are traditionally considered to often be linked to, or caused by, various types of bacterial and/or viral infection. It is well documented that significantly strong emotional factors can create 

susceptibility to such infections through out the body generally. In this regard one may for example consider the relatively large volume of research in PNI (psychoneuroimmunology) and other related areas. Other Respiratory disorders one may view in this theoretical framework are the “Acute Disorders.” These include; Acute Respiratory Failure in COPD, Adult Respiratory Distress Syndrome, Pulmonary Edema, Cor Pulmonale, Atelectass, bacterial related Pneumonia and many others.                                                          

      Other conditions that have a strong possibility of emotional factor involvement are the “immunological disorders.” These include for example categories under “autoimmunity” such as: Rheumatoid Arthritis,

Juvenile Rheumatoid Arthritis, Psoriatic Arthritis (bacterial related), Sjogren’s Syndrome, Lupus Erythematosus, Goodpasture’s Syndrome, Reiter’s Syndrome, Progressive Systemic Sclerosis, Vasculitis, Chronic Fatigue Syndrome and many others. Also there are the Gastrointestinal Disorders such as; Gastritis, Gastroenteritis, Peptic Ulcers, Ulceritis Colitis or Ulcerative Colitis, Irritable Bowel Syndrome and many others. And again even when bacterial factors have been identified emotional factors may be involved as in the case where significant emotionally linked immunological suppression over long-term

periods may occur among other things. And there are the Endocrine Disorders, many of which may obviously have emotional links, including the two different forms of diabetes which affect significantly

large numbers of individuals. This is especially so of the more prevalent Type II, non-insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus.

      And there are the “Musculoskeletal Disorders.” These include conditions such as Osteoarthritis, Osteoporosis, Paget’s Disease, Kyphosis and many others and various conditions affecting muscle and connective tissue. It would be a logical conclusion that some of these conditions are likely related to decades of muscular armor that is linked to early psychological conflict. Again something that Wilhelm Reich wrote on.

    And also there are the neurological disorders. In particular Parkinson’s and even Alzheimer’s disease have been increasingly believed to be linked to long-term emotional disturbance. Something Arthur Janov has discussed in his recent books. And there are many more conditions that could be seriously considered

in the “early unresolved emotional distress-disease” theoretical framework I have presented here! To be sure the potential list is quite long. One could also included discussion of some of the different types of the so-called “rare diseases.”

     Traditional medical practice often involves what I call “End Point Medicine!” That means that a patient is often so many months, a year or so, or maybe weeks away from dying, and then they pull out some “space age technology” in an attempt to save the individual. Sometimes it fortunately works. But many times it does not. MSTCL is absolutely not against medical practices that work! However my focus in MSTCL is on prevention of disease and the promotion of long-term health rather than sole reliance on academic medical acrobatics and “space-age technology” at the “end-stage” of disease formation. However, again I must warn that if one has unfortunately reached the point where the disease process has set-in then really I see no other option but the existing recognized protocol of medical treatment! The

                                                                                                                                                               Page 46

American medical community has to do the right thing and begin to honestly research the health issues discussed here!   

      In the extended discussion of these writings I also look at the historical evidence of a large degree of emotional disturbance among individuals in science, medicine and academics generally. I have omitted this    

discussion here because of space limitation. I base this position most importantly by looking at these entire fields within the theoretical framework presented in my writings. But also there are books and studies that present strong data that support this position very well. For example the interested reader can begin by looking at books such as: “Gynecology, The Metaethics of Radical Feminism,” (in particular chapter 7) by      

Mary Daly; “Sex in the Forbidden Zone, When Men in Power-Therapists, Doctors, Clergy, Teachers, and others-Betray Women’s Trust,” by Peter Rutter, MD. ; “Drug Impaired Professionals, How physicians,

dentists, pharmacists, nurses, attorneys, and airline pilots get into and out of addictions,” by Robert Holman Coombs; “Dying to Drink: Confronting Binge Drinking on College Campuses,” by Henry Wechsler and Bernice Wuethrich; “Mediscams,” (audio book recording) by Chuck Whitlock, produced by Renaissance Media Inc. of Los Angeles California; “Destroying The World To Save It, Aum Shinrikyo, Apocalyptic Violence and the New Global Terrorism,” (see particularly those chapters on the scientists and doctors of the insane “Aum” organization) by Robert Jay Lifton. Also see; “Deadly Medicine, Creating the Master Race,” by Dieter Kuntz and Susan Bachrach;”Hitler’s Scientists: Science, War and the Devil’s Pact,” by       

John Cornwell; “A Plague Upon Humanity: The Secret Genocide of Axis Japan’s Germ Warfare Operation,” by Daniel Barenblatt; “Nazi Doctors” by R. J. Lifton and many more, etc… and there are the massively large studies of medical errors in the U. S. and undoubtedly else where throughout the Globe. In fact the position here is that it is crucial the U.S. trained doctors be completely familiar with these writings and be aware of their own emotional backgrounds, otherwise they very likely are putting the population at risk!       

      Also in the more extended version of these writings I discuss cultures (including my own) in much greater detail. Particular emphasis is placed on the simple fact that most all cultures have tolerated to a                      

very large extent the systematic destruction of the emotional lives of untold millions of children. This is a simple fact and if looked at within the framework presented here this is easy enough to see! Right now, today as I write, this process is going on to a great degree in many Third World countries. I do not say this in justification of the policies of the stronger nations, such as the U.S., towards these countries. In fact from

much that I have read it does not appear that there is any real justification for many of these policies. Certainly not in those cases where these policies make the economic and human hardships of daily living more difficult for the populations of these countries. Although certainly important, this issue is, to a degree, another matter. Here I am more greatly concerned with things that can, if one looks close enough, actually

be observed. And that is, the damaging of the emotional lives of infants and children at mind boggling

numbers. A process that directly occurs through the social relationships set up between child and adult care-provider, as well as the physical treatment of many children. I have regretfully omitted much of this

discussion here because of space limitations. But it can not be over looked that in fact we can find the maltreatment of infants and children everywhere, including here in the U. S. And that is certainly so in the

Southern parts of the nation. In fact in the not so distant past we looked pretty much like the Third World today in these regards generally. The struggle here is to “revolutionize” the level of awareness to these things and create a global environment that is far more concerned with protecting the healthiest possible emotional development of newborns, infants and children.

     In addition, in the extended discussion I look at what I call the “Adult Addiction to Abuse Children” to various degrees. In the “Adult Addiction to Abuse Children” I maintain that often enough when adults “act out” some form of significantly abusive behavior on children that in fact such behavior must be acting or serving as some sort of emotional-biological “release” of tension. This is logical given the massive history of parental abuse that has essentially occurred everywhere, including in the most far removed cultures globally. In fact the addiction to abuse goes back as far as recorded history and probably further! So clearly

something has to have been driving this primarily emotionally based behavior up until the present! That it has always offered some level of “release” seems to me to be a good logical bet! Hence, in the more

extended discussion I also look at what most likely must be the biological basis for the abuse of infants and children, serving as some form of release. Primarily I theorize that there must be a “neurologically based release,” biochemically mediated by such things as dopamine, endorphins, various “pleasure” neuro-peptides (as have been described by researchers such as Candace Pert and others) and similar biochemicals. And I further propose that future research be guided by this framework! I do not say that such behavior is natural in a healthy sense. But it must have some form of twisted release driving it for so long.            

     I am well aware that there is surely much more to discuss on the complex issues presented here. But again because of various limitations I have stuck to the core concepts of MSTCL and hope that I have at least sufficiently presented them. I completely anticipate continuing this discussion in the future. I have no doubt that an effective system, in this and many other societies, of protecting the emotional rights of children can be accomplished. Those in the biological research sciences and medicine can, and hopefully will, play a major role in these important efforts. The truth is on our side. So let the work begin! Those interested in the extended discussion raised here can write to: Philip Alberto, MSTCL Inst. P.O. Box 51055 Boston Ma. 02205-1055 

PHILIP ALBERTO                                

                                     REFERENCES    Behavior And Heart Disease       

   1)  Emrika Padus, The Complete Guide to Your Emotions And Your Health.

   2)  Ray Rosenman “Do You Have Type A Behavior?” Health and Fitness ’87.’

   3)  Tandy J. McClung, “A Profile of Low, Moderate, and High Type A Female Children,” paper

         presented at the 10th Anniversary Meeting, Society of Behavioral Medicine, April 1, 1989.

 4)  Kathy A. Fackelmann, “Child’s Aggression May Foretell Heart Risk,” Science News, July 1: 1989,15               

 5)  Karen A. Matthews, Catherine M. Stoney, Charles J. Rakaczky, and Wesley Jamison, “Family              

      Characteristics and School Achievements of Type A Children,” Health Psychology, 5(5): 1986, 453-       

      467.

 6) Carl E. Thoresen, Jean R. Eagleston, Kathleen Kirmil-Gray, Sue Wiedenfeld, “Examining Anger in    

      Low and High Type A Children and Adolescents,” paper presented at the 10th Anniversary Meeting,        

      Society of Behavioral Medicine, March 31, 1989.

 7) David M. Murray, Karen A. Matthews, Susan M. Blake, Ronald J. Prineas, and Richard F. Gillum,     

      “Type A Behavior in Children: Demographic, Behavioral, and Physiological Correlates,” Health   

      Psychology, 5(2): 1986, 159-169.

 8)  Ray H. Rosenman and Margaret A. Chesney, “Stress, Type A Behavior, and Coronary Disease,” in 

      Common Psychiatric and Somatic Conditions, pp. 547-565.

 9)  Redford Williams, The Trusting Heart: Great News About Type A Behavior (New York: Times

      Books, 1989).

10) Friedman and L. Powell, “The Diagnosis and Quantitative Assessment of Type A Behavior:   

       Introduction and Description of the Videotaped Structured Interview,” Integrative Psychiatry, 12(9):

      1984; and Bill Lawren, “Type A Giveaways: The Telltale Glare,” Longevity, November: 1990, 82    

11) Redford Williams, T. Haney, et al., “Type A Behavior, Hostility, and Coronary Artery Disease and    

       Morality,” Psychosomatic Medicine 45: 1983, 109-114; and J. C. Barefoot, W. G. Dahlstrom, and 

       R.B. Williams, “Hostility, CHD Incidence, and Total Mortality: A 25-Year Follow Up Study of 255

       Physicians,” Psychosomatic Medicine 45: 1983, 59-63.Marvin Moser, “Relaxing Your ‘Type A’

       Responses,” arx Being Well, Sept./Oct. 1985, 5; F. DeClerck ,”Effects of Serotonin on Platelets and

       Blood Vessels,” pp. 51-55, P. M. Vanhoutte, “Platelet-Derived Serotonin, the Endothellium, and

       Cardiovascular Disease,” pp. 56, and J. T. Willerson, “Serotonin and Thrombotic Complications,” pp.

       513-520, Journal of Cardiovascular Pharmacology 17: 1991, Supplement 5; and J. I. Haft and Y. S.

       Arkel, “Effect of Mental Stress on Platelet Aggregation in Humans,” Chest 70: 1979, 501-525.

12)  S. J. Schleifler, et al., “The Nature and Course of Depression Following Myocardial Infarction,”

        Archives of Internal Medicine 149: 1989, 1785-1789.

13)  Depression and Heart Disease: Research on Women Broadens the Ageenda,” Psychosomatic      

        Medicine 55: 1993, 434-435

14)On Emotional factors in the development of Hypertension: J.P. Meehan and P.M. Stephens, “The Use of Psychological Stumuli To Induce Prolong Systolic Hypertension In Mice.” Psychosomatic Medicine, 29, 1967, 408.

15)R.P. Forsyth. “Blood Pressure Responses to Long-Term Avoidance Schedules in the Restrained Rhesus Monkey, “Psychosomatic Medicine 31: 1969, 301.

16)R.P. Forsyth, “Regional Blood Flow Changes During 72-Hour Avoidance Schedules in the Monkey.” Science, 173: 1971, 546.

17)James A. Blumenthal, Redford Williams, Y. Kong, Saul Schanberg, and Larry Thompson, “Type A Behavior Pattern and Coronary Atherosclerosis,” 58 Circulation (1978), 634-39.

18)K.A. Frank, S.S. Heller, Conald S. Kornfeld, A. A. Sporne, and M. B. Weiss. “Type A Behavior Pattern and Coronary Angiographic Findings,” 240 Journal of the American Medical Association (1978), 761-63; and Steven J. Zyzanski, C. David Jenkins, Thomas J. Ryan, A. Flessas, and M. Everist.

19)“Psychological Correlates of Coronary Angiographic`Findings,” 136 Archives of Internal Medicine (1975), 1234-37.

20)“Coronary-Prone Behavior and Coronary Heart Disease; A Critical Review: 63 Circulation (1981), 1199-1215.

21)Bedford B. Williams, John C. Barefoot, Thomas L. Haney, Frank E. Harrell, James A. Blumenthal, David B. Pryor, and Bercedis I. Peterson, “Type A Behavior and Angiographic Documented Coronary Atherosclerosis in a Sample of 2,289 Patients,” 50 Psychosomatic Medicine (1988), 139- 52.

22)Redford B. Williams, Thomas L. Haney, Kerry L. Lee, Y. Kong, James A. Blumenthal, and Robert Whalen, “Type A Behavior, Hostility, and Coronary atherosclerosis,” 42 Psychosomatic Medicine (1980), 539-49.

23)Richard B. Shekelle, M. Gale, Adrian M. Ostfeld, and Oglesby Paul, “Hostility, Risk of Coronary Disease and Mortality,” 45 Psychosomatic Medicine (1983), 219-28.

24)John Barefoot, W Grant Dahlstrom, and Redford B. Williams, “Hostility, CHD Incidence, and Total Mortality: A 25-year Follow-up Study of 255 Physicians,” 45 Psychosomatic Medicine (1983), 59- 63.

25)Michael Hecker, Margaret Chesnev, George Black, and N. Frautschi, “Coronary-Prone Behaviors in the Western Collaborative Group Study,” 50 Psychosomatic Medicine (1988), 153-64; Theodore M. Dembroski, James M. MacDougall, Paul T. Costa and Gregory A. Grandits, “Antagonistic Hostility as a Predictor of Coronary Heart Disease in a Multiple Risk Factor Intervention Trial,” 51 Psychosomatic Medicine (1989), 514-22.

26)John C. Barefoot, Ilene C. Siegler, John B. Nowlin, Bercedis L. Peterson, Thomas I. Haney, and Redford Williams, “Suspiciousness, Health and Mortality: A Follow-up Study of 500 Older Adults,” 49 Psychosomatic Medicine (1987), 450-57.

27)Edward C. Suarez and Redford Williams, Situational Determinants of Cardiovascular and Emotional Reactivity in High and Low Hostile Men,” 51 Psychosomatic Medicine (1989), 404-18.

28)Larry D. Jamner, David Shapiro, Iris B. Goldstein, and R. Huy, “Ambulatory Blood Pressure in Paramedics: Effects of Cynical Hostility and Defensiveness,” 53 Psychosomatic Medicine (1991), 393- 406.               

                           Reference: Maternal Emotional States and Effects On The Fetus

: A. Barbazanges et al., “Maternal Glucocorticoid Secretion Mediates Long-Term Effects of Prenatal Stress.” Jr. of Neuroscience 16 (15 June 1996).

J. W. Smyth et al., “The Interaction between, Prenatal Stress and Neonatal Handling on Nociceptive Response Latencies in Male and Female Rats,” Physiology and Behavior, 55 no. 5 (May 1994): 973.

J. W. Smyth, W. B. Rowe and M. J. Meaney, “Neonatal Handling Alters Serotonin (5HT) turnover and 5HT Receptor Binding in Selected Brain Regions,” Developmental Brain Research 80 (15 Feb. 1994): 183-89. These later two studies offer support that the way the newborn is treated-whether or not he or she receives unconditional love-will start to sculpt the nerve tissue of the brain in a healthy or unhealthy manner. In fact it can be logically assumed that the same process occurs in the womb, so it is continuous.

     To continue; Peters et al., “Effects of Maternal Stress During Different Gestational Periods on the Serotonergic System in the Adult Rat Offspring,” Pharmacology, Biochemistry and Behavior 31 (1989): 839-43.

M. J. Meaney et al., “Early Environmental Regulation of Forebrain Gluto-Corticoid Receptor Gene Expression: Implications for Adrenocortical Response to Stress,” Developmental Neuroscience (Montreal, Canada) 18 (1996): 49-72.

M. Weinstock, “Prenatal Stress Increases Anxiety-Related Behavior and Alters Cerebral Lateralization of Dopamine Activity,” Life Sciences 42 (1988): 1059-65.

E. Cantor-Grace, “Link between Pregnancy Complications and Minor Physical Anomalies in Monozygotic Twins Discordant for Schizophrenia.” American Journal of Psychiatry 151, no. 8 (August 1994): 1188-93.

A. J. Friedhoff and J. C. Miller, “Prenatal Neurotransmitter Programming of Postnatal Receptor Function,” in Progress in Brain Research (Amsterdam Netherlands) 73 (1988): 509-22.. Rosengarten, E. Friedman, and A. J. Friedhoff, “Sensitive Periods to the Neuroleptic Effect of  Halperidol to Reduce Dopamine Receptors.”

      So to continue with listing some relevant studies on the issue also there is: Friedhoff and Miller, “Prenatal Neurotransmitter Programming of Postnatal Receptor Function,” p. 519.

“Fetal Plasma Cortisol and B-Endorphin Response to Intrauterine Needling,” Lancet 344 (9 July 1994): 77-81.                                                                 

“Infant Pain May Have Long-Term Effects,” Medical News and Alerts (16 August 1999).

Jane Brody, “Risk for Cancer Can Start in the Womb,” New York Times, 21 December 1999. P. D1.

TO THE READER; As you now know, these writings do get deeply involved in serious humen medical issues. But unfortunately what I call MSTCL has not yet been allowed to evolve into effective treatment for at least some of the conditions mentioned. But I do anticipate that in the future some types of effective treatments will evolve out of these writings. So given that anyone does unfortunately develop a serious condition you should seek the best treatment possible from traditional medical practice. And even if many doctors are not aware of the concepts here in these writings, the reader can always carry them in conscious awareness-

Espero que le vaya bien.

                                     REFERENCES    Behavior And Heart Disease       

   1)  Emrika Padus, The Complete Guide to Your Emotions And Your Health.

   2)  Ray Rosenman “Do You Have Type A Behavior?” Health and Fitness ’87.’

   3)  Tandy J. McClung, “A Profile of Low, Moderate, and High Type A Female Children,” paper

         presented at the 10th Anniversary Meeting, Society of Behavioral Medicine, April 1, 1989.

 4)  Kathy A. Fackelmann, “Child’s Aggression May Foretell Heart Risk,” Science News, July 1: 1989,15               

 5)  Karen A. Matthews, Catherine M. Stoney, Charles J. Rakaczky, and Wesley Jamison, “Family              

      Characteristics and School Achievements of Type A Children,” Health Psychology, 5(5): 1986, 453-       

      467.

 6) Carl E. Thoresen, Jean R. Eagleston, Kathleen Kirmil-Gray, Sue Wiedenfeld, “Examining Anger in    

      Low and High Type A Children and Adolescents,” paper presented at the 10th Anniversary Meeting,        

      Society of Behavioral Medicine, March 31, 1989.

 7) David M. Murray, Karen A. Matthews, Susan M. Blake, Ronald J. Prineas, and Richard F. Gillum,     

      “Type A Behavior in Children: Demographic, Behavioral, and Physiological Correlates,” Health   

      Psychology, 5(2): 1986, 159-169.

 8)  Ray H. Rosenman and Margaret A. Chesney, “Stress, Type A Behavior, and Coronary Disease,” in 

      Common Psychiatric and Somatic Conditions, pp. 547-565.

 9)  Redford Williams, The Trusting Heart: Great News About Type A Behavior (New York: Times

      Books, 1989).

10) Friedman and L. Powell, “The Diagnosis and Quantitative Assessment of Type A Behavior:   

       Introduction and Description of the Videotaped Structured Interview,” Integrative Psychiatry, 12(9):

      1984; and Bill Lawren, “Type A Giveaways: The Telltale Glare,” Longevity, November: 1990, 82    

11) Redford Williams, T. Haney, et al., “Type A Behavior, Hostility, and Coronary Artery Disease and    

       Morality,” Psychosomatic Medicine 45: 1983, 109-114; and J. C. Barefoot, W. G. Dahlstrom, and 

       R.B. Williams, “Hostility, CHD Incidence, and Total Mortality: A 25-Year Follow Up Study of 255

       Physicians,” Psychosomatic Medicine 45: 1983, 59-63.Marvin Moser, “Relaxing Your ‘Type A’

       Responses,” arx Being Well, Sept./Oct. 1985, 5; F. DeClerck ,”Effects of Serotonin on Platelets and

       Blood Vessels,” pp. 51-55, P. M. Vanhoutte, “Platelet-Derived Serotonin, the Endothellium, and

       Cardiovascular Disease,” pp. 56, and J. T. Willerson, “Serotonin and Thrombotic Complications,” pp.

       513-520, Journal of Cardiovascular Pharmacology 17: 1991, Supplement 5; and J. I. Haft and Y. S.

       Arkel, “Effect of Mental Stress on Platelet Aggregation in Humans,” Chest 70: 1979, 501-525.

12)  S. J. Schleifler, et al., “The Nature and Course of Depression Following Myocardial Infarction,”

        Archives of Internal Medicine 149: 1989, 1785-1789.

13)  Depression and Heart Disease: Research on Women Broadens the Ageenda,” Psychosomatic      

        Medicine 55: 1993, 434-435

29)On Emotional factors in the development of Hypertension: J.P. Meehan and P.M. Stephens, “The Use of Psychological Stumuli To Induce Prolong Systolic Hypertension In Mice.” Psychosomatic Medicine, 29, 1967, 408.

30)R.P. Forsyth. “Blood Pressure Responses to Long-Term Avoidance Schedules in the Restrained Rhesus Monkey, “Psychosomatic Medicine 31: 1969, 301.

31)R.P. Forsyth, “Regional Blood Flow Changes During 72-Hour Avoidance Schedules in the Monkey.” Science, 173: 1971, 546.

32)James A. Blumenthal, Redford Williams, Y. Kong, Saul Schanberg, and Larry Thompson, “Type A Behavior Pattern and Coronary Atherosclerosis,” 58 Circulation (1978), 634-39.

33)K.A. Frank, S.S. Heller, Conald S. Kornfeld, A. A. Sporne, and M. B. Weiss. “Type A Behavior Pattern and Coronary Angiographic Findings,” 240 Journal of the American Medical Association (1978), 761-63; and Steven J. Zyzanski, C. David Jenkins, Thomas J. Ryan, A. Flessas, and M. Everist.

34)“Psychological Correlates of Coronary Angiographic`Findings,” 136 Archives of Internal Medicine (1975), 1234-37.

35)“Coronary-Prone Behavior and Coronary Heart Disease; A Critical Review: 63 Circulation (1981), 1199-1215.

36)Bedford B. Williams, John C. Barefoot, Thomas L. Haney, Frank E. Harrell, James A. Blumenthal, David B. Pryor, and Bercedis I. Peterson, “Type A Behavior and Angiographic Documented Coronary Atherosclerosis in a Sample of 2,289 Patients,” 50 Psychosomatic Medicine (1988), 139- 52.

37)Redford B. Williams, Thomas L. Haney, Kerry L. Lee, Y. Kong, James A. Blumenthal, and Robert Whalen, “Type A Behavior, Hostility, and Coronary atherosclerosis,” 42 Psychosomatic Medicine (1980), 539-49.

38)Richard B. Shekelle, M. Gale, Adrian M. Ostfeld, and Oglesby Paul, “Hostility, Risk of Coronary Disease and Mortality,” 45 Psychosomatic Medicine (1983), 219-28.

39)John Barefoot, W Grant Dahlstrom, and Redford B. Williams, “Hostility, CHD Incidence, and Total Mortality: A 25-year Follow-up Study of 255 Physicians,” 45 Psychosomatic Medicine (1983), 59- 63.

40)Michael Hecker, Margaret Chesnev, George Black, and N. Frautschi, “Coronary-Prone Behaviors in the Western Collaborative Group Study,” 50 Psychosomatic Medicine (1988), 153-64; Theodore M. Dembroski, James M. MacDougall, Paul T. Costa and Gregory A. Grandits, “Antagonistic Hostility as a Predictor of Coronary Heart Disease in a Multiple Risk Factor Intervention Trial,” 51 Psychosomatic Medicine (1989), 514-22.

41)John C. Barefoot, Ilene C. Siegler, John B. Nowlin, Bercedis L. Peterson, Thomas I. Haney, and Redford Williams, “Suspiciousness, Health and Mortality: A Follow-up Study of 500 Older Adults,” 49 Psychosomatic Medicine (1987), 450-57.

42)Edward C. Suarez and Redford Williams, Situational Determinants of Cardiovascular and Emotional Reactivity in High and Low Hostile Men,” 51 Psychosomatic Medicine (1989), 404-18.

43)Larry D. Jamner, David Shapiro, Iris B. Goldstein, and R. Huy, “Ambulatory Blood Pressure in Paramedics: Effects of Cynical Hostility and Defensiveness,” 53 Psychosomatic Medicine (1991), 393- 406.               

                           Reference: Maternal Emotional States and Effects On The Fetus

: A. Barbazanges et al., “Maternal Glucocorticoid Secretion Mediates Long-Term Effects of Prenatal Stress.” Jr. of Neuroscience 16 (15 June 1996).

J. W. Smyth et al., “The Interaction between, Prenatal Stress and Neonatal Handling on Nociceptive Response Latencies in Male and Female Rats,” Physiology and Behavior, 55 no. 5 (May 1994): 973.

J. W. Smyth, W. B. Rowe and M. J. Meaney, “Neonatal Handling Alters Serotonin (5HT) turnover and 5HT Receptor Binding in Selected Brain Regions,” Developmental Brain Research 80 (15 Feb. 1994): 183-89. These later two studies offer support that the way the newborn is treated-whether or not he or she receives unconditional love-will start to sculpt the nerve tissue of the brain in a healthy or unhealthy manner. In fact it can be logically assumed that the same process occurs in the womb, so it is continuous.

     To continue; Peters et al., “Effects of Maternal Stress During Different Gestational Periods on the Serotonergic System in the Adult Rat Offspring,” Pharmacology, Biochemistry and Behavior 31 (1989): 839-43.

M. J. Meaney et al., “Early Environmental Regulation of Forebrain Gluto-Corticoid Receptor Gene Expression: Implications for Adrenocortical Response to Stress,” Developmental Neuroscience (Montreal, Canada) 18 (1996): 49-72.

M. Weinstock, “Prenatal Stress Increases Anxiety-Related Behavior and Alters Cerebral Lateralization of Dopamine Activity,” Life Sciences 42 (1988): 1059-65.

E. Cantor-Grace, “Link between Pregnancy Complications and Minor Physical Anomalies in Monozygotic Twins Discordant for Schizophrenia.” American Journal of Psychiatry 151, no. 8 (August 1994): 1188-93.

A. J. Friedhoff and J. C. Miller, “Prenatal Neurotransmitter Programming of Postnatal Receptor Function,” in Progress in Brain Research (Amsterdam Netherlands) 73 (1988): 509-22.. Rosengarten, E. Friedman, and A. J. Friedhoff, “Sensitive Periods to the Neuroleptic Effect of  Halperidol to Reduce Dopamine Receptors.”

      So to continue with listing some relevant studies on the issue also there is: Friedhoff and Miller, “Prenatal Neurotransmitter Programming of Postnatal Receptor Function,” p. 519.

.

                                                     Back Cover

    In these writings the author argues the interesting position that the long-term medical health and quality of emotional life of any individual can be profoundly affected by his or her early developmental history and experiences. The position itself is not completely new as other authors in psychology have noted the same. Particular note is made of authors such as Wilhelm Reich, Arthur Janov and A. S. Neill, although supporting research and studies are nearly infinite of my positions now. Althrough it should be noted that Arthur Janov has done much to pull the primary issues discussed into the realm of modern neuro and medical sciences. However, the author has made significant advances on these issues and therefore offers great advances in both infant-child developmental psychology and long-term human health. The author argues that the emotional developmental rights of Infants and children must be vigorously protected from any significant adult abusive treatments. And this has to be done throughout all of human society. And in fact there can never be any real advances of “Civilized Humanity” without such protections. Also focused on is the emerging concept that not only does the abuse of the female child greatly affect her own emotional life, but will also affect her later developing fetus, potentially leaving it with various possible levels of dysfunctions, neurological and otherwise. What is presented here is not so much a “completed book” as really a “series of writings” on these issues. The ideas here were contemplated by the author throughout the 1970’s and early 80’s, and finally started to be put down in the mid-90’s until the present. Given the large involvement of the scientific research and medical concerns throughout much of these writings, there is every expectation that this work will definitely evolve further. The reader and International Health Organizations may be interested in the fact that the real origins of HIV/AIDS risk behaviors are discussed throughout this book.

Sincerely; Philip Alberto       

                                                   BACK COVER

   In these writings the author argues the position that the long-term medical health and quality of emotional life of any individual can be profoundly affected by his or her early developmental history and experiences. On the issue of medical health, the position is not completely new as other authors in psychology, medicine and related fields have proposed similar positions, in particular that significant long term stress can be significantly related to serious disease states. For example the large volume of research following the studies of noted figures such as Hans Selye with the “General Adaptation Sybdrome” and discovery of the “hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal-axis,” etc… In these writings a focus is placed on the writings and works of A. S. Neill and Arthur Janov, as a key position here is on the true origins of the early neurotic state, development of long-term unresolved emotional conflict and repression of psychogenic pain with the accompanying “down-regulation” of the individual’s general state of health and ultimately possible disease formation. Of special interest here is to bring early experience and lasting conflict into the realm of the modern neurological and health sciences. The author has made clear advances into issues of early infant-child development and long-term general health. The author shows how significant early abuses of the child can be strongly tied to many of the so-called “number one killers” such as heart disease, diabetes and many other medical conditions. The author also gives a reinterpretation of such influential studies in the health sciences as “Type A Behavior and Heart Disease” and the famous “Framingham Heart Study” etc… Hence, these writings should not only be of interest to parents and others but they should also be seriously considered by all those in the medical research community! In these writings it is also argued that the healthy emotional developmental rights of infants and children must be vigorously protected from all forms of early abuses that will be harmful to their early development. Also focused on is the emerging concept that not only does the abuse of the female child greatly affect her own life but may also profoundly affect her developing fetus later on as well. Really there can not be any true advances of “Civilized Humanity” without these protections of the infant and child! A constant theme throughout is the position that the medical and related scientific communities should have seriously contemplated these issues long ago. And it might also be of interest that the real origins of HIV/AIDS risk behaviors are discussed in these writings as well as may other important issues!

                                                MSTCL Inst   

                                                 Boston Ma. 

                                              THE MICRO-CAMERA OF THE BRAIN.

     Janov once stated to the effect that only if we could actually look into the brain when an infant or child is denied love for the first time, or is put through some sort of significant abuse, neglect, or both for the first time, and see the changes that begin to occur from that point on. Well in a way we can in fact do that because when such events do happen, and continue to occur, changes do take place. And at some point these changes set themselves up to become more permanent. So while we can’t see the exact moment that these things happen, we can see the after effect, or some of the after effects of it! And that’s what I have been trying to point to all along through out my writings. That is, such things as the effects of high levels of stress hormones being released into the abused individual’s system and the accompanying brain and physiological changes, or immunological suppression etc… These are certainly some of the significant known events that occur (or start to occur) at the moment of significant abuse and neglect of the individual. And it has become increasingly clear that the effects of these events do in fact linger on in the system. And it is my position, as the more advanced people in the field would certainly agree, if such abuse or neglect  occur with enough intensity, then the changes will very likely stay in that system to a significant degree. New emotional arrangements will occur, and remain in the individuals system. What I call “emotional conflict of an early origin. Right now as I write there is sufficient neurological evidence that strongly supports this position. For those who want a clearer view of this position I would suggest looking at some of Arthur Janov’s later writings such as: “Why You Get Sick. How You Get Well, The Healing Power Of Feelings,” or also; “The Biology Of Love” etc… Although for sure one could also support the same general position(s) by looking at the relevant studies and research work scattered through out the scientific-biological archival literature. There is certainly more than enough of it there!

     So again I would argue that we do in fact have what amounts to having “micro-cameras” in the brain! The “picture” that already exists can be obtained by looking correctly at the relevant neurophysiologic data that is already presently in the scientific literature. The reasoning goes is as such: The changes that occur due to high levels of abuse and neglect, the reason that they are significant is because they are lasting. Certainly, at least to a significant degree, it is pretty clear what some of the “bad changes” are from “good” or healthy changes. For example, a child who is loved and given all kinds of confidence, and never has to experience abuse, is most likely on average going to be healthier than the child who experiences early lost of love, or never experiences any authentic early contact as an infant, and also experiences abuse throughout infancy and childhood, etc… Or another way to put it, perhaps a clearer way, the child who was always given early authentic love and never suffered significant abuses throughout infancy and childhood is certainly in the majority of cases going to be emotionally healthier than the child who was never given authentic early love and ways constantly under the weight of significant abuses. And th

position of MSTCL is that such levels of emotional dysfunction do affect medical health over time. And that is absolutely supported in the data. The child with the high abuse and neglect is definitely going to be left with “permanent marks” in the form of “emotional scars.” Those “permanent marks” have to come from the effects on the child’s emotional development that took place at the time of the abuse and neglect, or certainly to a good degree. So since we can to some degree measure stress and many of the other things that go along with it, such as immunological suppression of some important aspects of immunological function and so forth, we are in fact looking inside the brain and physiology of the individual. These things do leave a “picture.” Such research has never really been systematically done but a significant amount of data does already exist that supports these positions. So much so that in fact, I would consider it criminal for any society to simply ignore such abuse and neglect of its infants and children. And worse that members of the medical community do the same. Really it is just an issue of being truthful. It is often convenient, some would say essential for any area of science that expects billions or trillions of dollars of funding to be infused in itsw area of interest to arouse as much interest and excitement as possible in the general population who after all ultimately will be footing the bill               

                 POPULAR MEDIA GENETICS FOR THE POPULATION.

     It is often convenient, some would say essential for any area of science that expects billions or trillions of dollars of funding to be infused in itsw area of interest to arouse as much interest and excitement as possible in the general population who after all ultimately will be “footing the bill!” Not that this is necessarily bad, especially if great human benefit comes out of it for the world. But just getting the population interested and excited by itself does not mean that every claim in the particular area of research  is absolutely true! The “new genetics” has accomplished great media attention by linking up with human health issues in particular. For example there has been some media attention by some health science jurnalists in newspapers like The New York Times, Wall Street Journal, Boston Globe, etc…about experimental work being done on so-called “gene switches” as an explanation of many major disease states and discussion on how the “future of medicine and medical practice” will supposedly focus on these issues more with the use of advanced digitalized technology. See for example The New York Times, Sept 5, 2012; “Bits of Mystery DNA, Far From ‘Junk’ Play Crucial Role,” by Gina Kolata. Again billions, maybe a trillion dollars or more has gone into this research. Really nothing has gone into the type of research I have been advocating in my writings. This is a good time to change what can only be seen as an extremely and really outrageously lopsided picture in the sciences to date. Of course every significant area about human health should be explored to the fullest degree possible. But the simple fact is that the issue of significant early pain being placed in the neurological-emotional system of the fetus, new born, infant or child is going to have its impact on the future health or the individual. And regardless of whether, billions, trillions or “zillions” of dollars go into “gene switch” or any other genetic theory with the improved technology that is developed for the task, the fact of early emotional pain and its effect on life-long health is not going to go away one iota! And no genes, or “gene switches” put that early pain there in the individual’s system. It is put there by the abusive practices of far too many abusive or neglectful “adult care givers.” In fact even a mother who has intense negative feelings toward her developing fetus will possibly have a negative impact on the development of her unborn child. Some would even say that it is certain to have some such impact. And a mother’s negative on the fetus concerns her own psychosocial background and not some genes. I am not trying to claim that more funding (within reason) into genetic research will not advance our knowledge of important biological functions of the living cell. Of course it will, or that certainly appears to be the case. But at the same time such research cannot make other important realities in biological and human functions simply disappear. In some “academic parallel universe” it might work that way but not in this one! Besides, no area of scientific research should be used to that end!

     Those academics who might want to believe that some areas of genetic theory are going to some how make the facts of early emotional pain of infants and children, because of adult practices, and its effects on later health go away, then they really are tragically mistaken! For a trillion dollars to be spent in hopes of avoiding a scientific truth is like trying to blow down a large mountain with a gentle breeze! Again it is not that I believe that they should not look at “genetic switches,” etc… It is just that I know that the key positions I take in MSTCL are in fact scientifically true, even though much more needs to be known on these issues!

     Unfortunately genetic theorizing-or whatever it was-has been often used in the past to try to obviate the necessity of the seemingly impossible task of actually understanding how trillions of nerve cells create all thoughts and feelings of an individual. Indeed it seems to be a simplistic response to simply use what is actually or believed to be known in genetics and extend it to claim that it can explain these very complex human functions; thoughts, emotions, actions, etc… Once the individual has received early significant levels of abuse and it starts the poisonous processes in their emotional system then no amount of genetic theory is going to change that one iota!

     In fact by using genetic theory against my key positions in what I call MSTCL one is only doing what the major religions did in the past by using religious beliefs or theory to prevent scientific progress considered a “threat” to the particular religion!

     It has always been extremely poisonous for societies to religiously claim that it is a “holy right” for any parent to do whatever they see fit to a child/infant no matter what the actual damage might be to that child’s life! Like Western Europe, and nearly all other societies throughout most of the globe, this is precisely how this society has operated throughout the centuries and decades. And to a very great degree this has been the case even under the advent of so-called modern psychiatry and child development theory. The academics, “professionals” in these fields are not the “gods” that some have actually attempted to portray themselves to be-and this is so no matter how many degrees any one of them may have. 

     Again it is not that I am trying to claim that there is “nothing” to genetics. That of course would be ridiculous for anyone in science to state. There is a lot that is still not known, and that’s an understatement. However, some academics have attempted to ignorantly use genetic concepts in the past as an “intellectual weapon” against positions similar to my own. It is possible that a century or so from now it will be realized that a lot of the “medical genetics” to explain certain areas of human health was greatly incorrect. That is a possibility! Those in so-called “medical genetics” of course could say the same about my own positions. But I do find it extremely difficult to believe that adult care givers can abuse and neglect infants and young children all that they want and there will never be any consequences to them both emotionally and health wise. Such a statement makes no sense what so ever. But one will find a scary number of “academic professionals” still pushing the idea! Genetic research has received billions and billions in funding and will more than double that in the future. What I am discussing, my positions hasn’t received anything yet! What that really means is that the ignorance of these positions in medicine is really quite massive! The ignorance of how many have likely died because of these issues has to be quite great as well. The world really can’t afford to continue with a “que sera, que sera” approach on these issues. It would be completely illogical for those in the medical research community to want such ignorance to continue. But to be honest funding has gone into areas that clearly point in the direction of my own positions and similar positions.                                     

                        A Gene Caused it = God Caused it!

I often get the impression that those who tend to fanatically look towards genetics to completely explain issues as complex as human behavior and the underlying emotional factors that they believe that so-called “modern genetic theories” are actually something similar to a sort of “quantum mechanics” of biological functioning! But in fact the two are really quite radically different, that is biological functions and the laws of quantum mechanics! Quantum Mechanics, when used to explain, say, the hydrogen atom in its normal state, in fact it is relatively simple with its single electron orbiting around the single proton in its neucleus. In fact for this reason the hydrogen atom was the first to be explained this way. This is a more mechanical type process as opposed to the more complex cellular processes in the higher biological systems. One really can not look at the two in exactly the same way! The hydrogen atom behaves in a more static inanimate manner than higher biological systems, thus allowing the mathematical principles of quantum mechanics to explain it more successfully. Genetics, in being used to explain something as complex as human behavior, or human emotions, it would be a real stretch of the imagination, I believe, to think that it can do so in the manner that quantum mechanical principles have been used to explain atomic structures. Higher biological processes are significantly more complex, and one really can’t use genetics in such a mechanical way to explain such complex issues, I believe. It does often appear that some people in the “genetic sciences” are trying to do just that!

     Genetics does appear to have had some successes in explaining some cellular dysfunctions. These cellular functions/dysfunctions are usually simple direct processes that are carried out in a more mechanical manner themselves. For example, some basic cellular immune functions that went wrong were/are believed to be tied to certain gene markers. For example, the famous case of the fruit fly. That is; the “Toll gene” originally identified by the 1995 Nobel Laureates Christiane Nusslein-Volhard and Eric Wieschaus and colleagues in the fruit fly “Drosophila Melanogaster in 1985. This led to further developments of the so-called “Toll-like receptors” (TLRs) believed to play a key role in the innate immune system. While these issues may very well give us important information, as is believed by many in immunology, I do not really see any of this as obviating the effects of early long-term distress may have on the human immune system. Really, any of the conditions strongly tied to genetic factors tend to show up earlier on, as do many of the developmental problems. Actually some of these things are now suspect due to the increasing knowledge of the physiological damage that can occur during fetal development. For example see; “More Than Genes,” by author Dan Agin, who is a Molecular Geneticist himself. It has been clearly shown that emotional pain can affect important aspects of the immune system, and hence, immune functions in humans.

     But there is a big difference in how the area of science of quantum mechanics can be used to explain purely physical matter such as atoms and in any attempts to use it in explaining the far more complex biological functions such as human emotions. I do not believe that one can really successfully use genetics as a sort of “tool of physics,” or anything like that, to explain human emotions…,etc… It does not seem likely at all that something as greatly complex as the human emotional system can be successfully explained in such a grotesque mechanical manner as igt appears that some have attempted to do using purely genetic theory.

     Again, the human emotional system has to easily be one of the most complex systems of the human body-of the human being. To begin with it is literally underlined by billions of nerve cells, may be more, and its trillions of connections (synaptic points) throughout the brain and elsewhere. Then there is the little fact that it can, and in fact likely always is being affected by all sorts of experiences with some sort of additive effect over time. But surely the important ones are the very early experiences that are likely themselves “additive over time. It is unlikely that anyone is ever really aware when  much of this change occurs. Some of those who attempt to use genetic knowledge to explain emotional like seem to incorrectly see it as a mostly static entity even though it is really anything but that! It is essentially that static nature of inanimate pure physical substances that allows quantum mechanical mathematical logic to be so successful in explaining entities as the hydrogen atom and other atomic substances. Basically the only movement are the electrons in their respective orbital. And in fact even that movement and change offers significant problems for the mathematical reasoning in quantum mechanics! Really what it comes down to is, no one in the medical community should ever assume that what went on in a child’s life does not mean anything to that child’s emotional and physical health later on. In fact it can mean a lot, and often does! Really I would say that it can mean everything. It can determine whether an individual is going to even be capable of functioning in a healthy manner or not. I believe that the best position to go on, the best and most accurate one, is that early abuse and neglect must set itself up in the individual’s system as conflict, which has to be a source of continuous emotional pain that mostly operates at an unconscious level. In deed Arthur Janov and others have given various neurological arguments of how an individual carries emotional pain in his or her system and remain predominately unconscious of it. Of course we still do not know exactly how an individual carries emotional conflict or pain (which ever one prefers to call it) in his or her system from early childhood! We do not know all the details of something so complex as this. But it seems clear that there must be a significantly powerful memory system for such things in the human being. And further that it has to exist on a neurological basis. Based on a very large volume of research literature over many decades relevant to the issue, it does seem to me (and others) to be crystal clear that this has to be occurring. Greatly abused children are clearly affected in a negative manner by constant abuse. In fact this has even been shown to be the case with experimental animals! And it is crystal clear that the accompanying distress affects the healthy functioning of the physiological system. This system is clearly too complex to be reduced to some simple static system. Throughout the early stages oh development this system is clearly always changing, and at a rapid pace! And as it changes, it can be compelled to go in all sorts of directions. Directions that can be quite different than that which would promote long term health, as would occur in a non-abusive environment. Take the example of religious fanatics, they are all nuts really. They are very dangerous to the development of so many infants and children. This is so because they want to shape their emotional systems early on in an extremely poisonous and unhealthy direction. When adults set out to clearly destroy much of the lives of infants and children in this, or in some other poisonous manner, it can not and should not be ignored or buried with simplistic assumptions such as; “it must be some mysterious gene marker” to explain away why the individual became so emotionally disturbed later on, and hence, never look at the massively abusive practices of adults in their backgrounds. And ultimately stick to the extremely destructive and traditional position that, “it is the rights of the adult parents to do whatever they want, regardless of how destructive it might be, to the children under their “care.” The days of destroying the lives of children must come to an end.                                 

                                    MSTCL Inst.