Drug industry corruption, scientifically unreliable diagnoses and pseudoscientific research have compromised the values of the psychiatric profession.

Alternet
By Bruce E. Levine
January 6, 2012

Why do some of us become dissident mental health professionals?

The majority of psychiatrists, psychologists and other mental health professionals “go along to get along” and maintain a status quo that includes drug company corruption, pseudoscientific research and a “standard of care” that is routinely damaging and occasionally kills young children. If that sounds hyperbolic, then you probably have not heard of Rebecca Riley, and how the highest levels of psychiatry described her treatment as “appropriate and within responsible professional standards.”

When Rebecca Riley was 28 months old, based primarily on the complaints of her mother that she was “hyper” and had difficulty sleeping, psychiatrist Kayoko Kifuji, at the Tufts-New England Medical Center in Boston, Massachusetts, diagnosed Rebecca with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). Kifuji prescribed clonidine, a hypertensive drug with significant sedating properties, a drug Kifuji also prescribed to Rebecca’s older sister and brother. The goal of the Riley parents—obvious to many in their community and later to juries—was to attain psychiatric diagnoses for their children that would qualify them for disability payments and to sedate their children making them easy to manage.

By the time Rebecca was three years old, again based mainly on parental complaints, Kifuji had given Rebecca an additional diagnosis of bipolar disorder and prescribed two additional heavily sedating drugs, the antipsychotic Seroquel and the anticonvulsant Depakote.

At the age of four, Rebecca was dead.

At the time of her death, Rebecca had a life-threatening amount of clonidine—enough to kill her—in her body, according to the former director of the Massachusetts toxicology lab and the medical director of a regional poison control center. The medical examiner who performed the autopsy concluded that Rebecca died from intoxication of clonidine, Depakote and two over-the-counter cold and cough medicines that led to heart failure, lungs filled with bloody fluid, coma, and then death. Rebecca’s abusive parents went to prison for the over-drugging that led to their daughter’s death.

Kifuji’s fate? The psychiatric establishment rallied around Kifuji, enabling her to return to Tufts Medical Center practicing child psychiatry without any restrictions, penalties or supervision. After Rebecca’s death, Tufts-New England Medical Center defended Kifuji. A Tufts spokesperson told “60 Minutes” in 2009, “The care we provided was appropriate and within responsible professional standards.”

Apparently, psychiatric care that is considered appropriate and within responsible professional standards includes diagnoses of ADHD for a two-year-old and bipolar disorder for a three-year-old when the symptoms of those disorders are normal behaviors for those ages; prescribing three heavily sedating drugs that have not been approved by the FDA for child psychiatric treatment; ignoring the warnings from a school nurse about over-dosages for Rebecca; and making diagnoses based almost entirely on the reports of Rebecca’s mother, who herself was diagnosed with mental illness and heavily medicated to the point of falling asleep in Kifuji’s office.

Long before the Rebecca Riley tragedy hit the headlines, I was embarrassed by the mental health profession for seven major reasons:

1. Corruption by Big Pharma

How did it become within responsible professional standards for a two-year-old to get an ADHD diagnosis, for a three-year-old to get a bipolar diagnosis, and for toddlers to be prescribed multiple heavily sedating drugs? The short answer is drug company corruption of the mental health profession.

Congressional hearings in 2008 revealed that psychiatry’s “thought leaders” and major institutions are on the take from drug companies.

On June 8, 2008, the New York Times reported about psychiatrist Joseph Biederman: “A world-renowned Harvard child psychiatrist whose work has helped fuel an explosion in the use of powerful antipsychotic medicines in children earned at least $1.6 million in consulting fees from drug makers from 2000 to 2007.”

Due in large part to Biederman’s influence, the number of American children and adolescents treated for bipolar disorder increased 40-fold from 1994 to 2003. Pediatrician and author Lawrence Diller notes about Biederman, “He single-handedly put pediatric bipolar disorder on the map.” In addition to his popularization of bipolar disorder for children, Biederman is one of the most significant forces behind the expanding numbers diagnosed with ADHD; and congressional investigators also discovered that Biederman conducted studies of Eli Lilly’s ADHD drug Strattera that were funded by National Institute of Health at the same time he was receiving money from Lilly.

Not only does the drug industry have influential psychiatrists such as Biederman in their pocket, virtually every major mental health institution is financially interconnected with Big Pharma. Congressional hearings also exposed the American Psychiatric Association psychiatry’s premier professional organization, as being on the take from drug companies. In 2006, the drug industry accounted for about 30 percent of the APA’s $62.5 million in financing. Most relevant here, the APA is the publisher of the psychiatric diagnostic bible, the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM), and thus the APA is the institution responsible for creating mental illnesses and disorders.

2. Invalid Illnesses and Disorders

Psychiatry’s first DSM (1952) and its DSM-II (1968) listed homosexuality as a mental illness. Only because of a fierce political fight waged in the 1970s by gay activists did the APA abolish homosexuality as an illness and eliminate it from its DSM-III (1980). Gay activists’ fight was not only a victory for themselves but a service for everyone else, as it made public the important scientific problem of psychiatric disorder invalidity. Specifically, are psychiatric disorders scientifically valid illnesses, or are they simply behaviors that create discomfort for some authorities at a given moment in time?

While psychiatry lost homosexuality as a mental illness in the 1980 DSM-III, the APA found other groups it could pathologize, groups that could not mobilize and resist, most notably children, who are now routinely given psychiatric diagnoses for behaviors that many of us view as normal for their ages.

Psychiatry sees it as within responsible professional standards to diagnose three-year-olds such as Rebecca Riley with bipolar disorder. The symptoms of bipolar disorder include irritable and rapidly changing moods, severe temper tantrums, defiance of authority, agitation and distractibility, sleeping too little or too much, poor judgment, impulsivity and grandiose beliefs.

Psychiatry also sees it as within responsible professional standards for Rebecca Riley to have been diagnosed at 28 months old with ADHD. The symptoms of ADHD are inattention (easily distracted and bored, difficulty organizing and completing tasks, losing things, not seeming to listen, not following instructions); hyperactivity (fidgeting, talking nonstop, having trouble sitting still, difficulty with quiet tasks), and impulsivity (impatience, blurting out inappropriate comments, interrupting conversations).

Today, children and teens are also diagnosed with oppositional defiant disorder (ODD), the symptoms of which include “often actively defies or refuses to comply with adult requests or rules,” and “often argues with adults.”

The standard for a medical disorder should not be whether or not an individual causes friction.

3. Scientifically Unreliable Diagnoses

Even if you believe that bipolar disorder for three-year-olds, ADHD for two-year-olds, ODD for teenagers, and all the other DSM diagnoses are valid disorders, there is still the scientific issue of diagnostic unreliability—the lack of diagnostic agreement among professionals examining the same person.

A generation ago, psychiatrists admitted that their diagnoses were unreliable and agreed that this was a major scientific problem. So in 1980, in an attempt to eliminate this embarrassment, they created the DSM-III with concrete behavioral checklists and formal decision-making rules, but they failed to correct the problem. Psychiatric diagnoses remain unreliable, but now psychiatry no longer talks about the unreliability problem.

If a measurement is a reliable one, then clinicians trained with it should be in high agreement on the diagnosis. A major 1992 study, conducted at six sites with 600 prospective patients, was done to examine the reliability of psychiatric diagnoses. Experienced mental health professionals were given extensive training in how to make accurate DSM diagnoses. Because of the extensive training, one would expect that diagnostic agreement would be much higher than in typical clinical settings. Herb Kutchins and Stuart Kirk summarize the study in Making Us Crazy (1997):

What this study demonstrated was that even when experienced clinicians with special training and supervision are asked to use DSM and make a diagnosis, they frequently disagree, even though the standards for defining agreement are very generous. . . . [For example,] if one of the two therapists made a diagnosis of Schizoid Personality Disorder and the other therapist selected Avoidant Personality Disorder, the therapists were judged to be in complete agreement of the diagnosis because they both found a personality disorder—even though they disagreed completely on which one! So even with this liberal definition of agreement, reliability using DSM is not very good.

Kutchins and Kirk conclude: “Mental health clinicians independently interviewing the same person in the community are as likely to agree as disagree that the person has a mental disorder and are as likely to agree as disagree on which of the over 300 DSM disorders is present.”

4. Biochemical Imbalance Mumbo Jumbo

Just as nothing was more important in selling the Iraq war in 2003 than the Bush administration’s certainty that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction, nothing has been more important in selling psychiatric drugs than psychiatry’s certainty of biochemical brain imbalances as the cause for mental illnesses.

Prior to psychiatry’s proclamation that depression was caused by too little of the neurotransmitter serotonin, few Americans were taking antidepressants. But by declaring that depression was caused by a serotonin imbalance analogous to diabetes and an insulin imbalance, depressed Americans became far more receptive to serotonin-enhancing drugs such as the “selective-serotonin-reuptake inhibitors” (SSRIs) Prozac, Paxil, and Zoloft.

SSRIs can make some depressed people feel better; however, alcohol makes some shy people less shy, but that’s not enough evidence to say that shyness is caused by an alcohol imbalance. The truth is—and scientists have known this for quite some time—that serotonin levels are not associated with depression.

Researchers have used a variety of methods to test the serotonin imbalance theory of depression, including comparing serotonin metabolites in depressed and nondepressed people, and depleting serotonin levels through a variety of means and then observing whether this resulted in depression. Elliot Valenstein, professor emeritus of psychology and neuroscience at the University of Michigan, reviewed the research in his book Blaming the Brain (1998) and reported that it is just as likely for people with normal serotonin levels to feel depressed as it is for people with abnormal serotonin levels, and that it is just as likely for people with abnormally high serotonin levels to feel depressed as it is for people with abnormally low serotonin levels. Valenstein concluded, “Furthermore, there is no convincing evidence that depressed people have a serotonin or norepinephrine deficiency.”

In 2002, the New York Times reported: “Researchers knew that antidepressants seemed to raise the brain’s levels of messenger chemicals called neurotransmitters, so they theorized that depression must result from a deficiency of these chemicals. Yet a multitude of studies failed to prove this precept.”

Yet even now, many psychiatrists and other mental health professionals continue to promulgate the serotonin imbalance theory of depression, and polls show that the majority of Americans continue to believe it.

5. Pseudoscientific Drug Effectiveness Research

There are multiple tricks that psychiatric drug manufacturers and their researcher psychiatrists and psychologists use to make their drugs look more effective than they really are. One of the most common depression measurements used by researchers paid by drug companies is the Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression. In the HRSD, researchers rate subjects, and the higher the point total, the more one is deemed to be suffering from depression. On the HRSD, there are three separate items about insomnia (early, middle and late) and one can receive up to six points for difficulty either falling or remaining asleep; however, there is only one suicide item, in which one is awarded only two points for wishing to be dead. The HRSD is heavily loaded with items that are most affected by drugs, and it is therefore especially damning for antidepressants that even with such measurement dice-loading, these drugs routinely fail to outperform placebos—even dice-loaded placebos.

Proper drug research requires that neither subject nor experimenter knows who is getting the drug and who is getting the placebo (a true double-blind control). Drug company antidepressant researchers use inactive placebos such as sugar pills (which don’t create side effects). Independent research on inactive placebos show that many subjects in antidepressant and other studies can guess if they are getting the actual drug or not, which changes their expectations and subverts the double-blind control. In order to make it more difficult to guess correctly, an active placebo (which creates side effects) should be used. In 2000, a Psychiatric Times article concluded: “In fact, when antidepressants are compared with active placebos, there appear to be no differences in clinical effectiveness.”

Dice-loading depression measurements and placebos are just two of many techniques drug company researchers use to make antidepressants look more effective than they really are. But even with such dice-loading, antidepressants have not fared well, at least when one examines all the studies.

Drug companies try to ensure that those studies showing antidepressants to be no more effective than placebos are not published; however, all studies must be submitted to the FDA. So independent researcher Irving Kirsch and his research team at the University of Connecticut used the Freedom of Information Act to gain access to all data, and analyzed 47 studies that had been sponsored by drug companies on Prozac, Paxil, Zoloft, Effexor, Celexa, and Serzone. Kirsch discovered that in the majority of the trials, the antidepressant failed to outperform a sugar pill placebo (and in the trials where the antidepressant did outperform the placebo, the advantage was slight).

6. Psychotropic Drug Hypocrisy

Chemists consider psychiatric prescription drugs and illegal mood-altering drugs all to be psychotropic or psychoactive drugs. Cocaine and ADHD drugs such as Adderall and other amphetamines affect the neurotransmitters dopamine, serotonin, and norepinephrine; and antidepressants used in combination also affect the same neurotransmitters. Not only are prescription psychotropics and illegal psychotropics chemically similar, they are used by people for similar reasons, including taking the edge off their discomfort so they can function. The hypocrisy surrounding illegal and prescription psychotropic drugs is harmful to society in at least two ways.

At one level, because people are being misinformed about the realities of prescription psychotropic drugs, they are more likely to gulp them down and to give them to their children. This has helped create a tragic phenomenon detailed by investigative reporter Robert Whitaker in his book Anatomy of an Epidemic (2010). Psychiatric drug use turning mild and episodic conditions into severe and chronic ones has helped create a huge increase of Americans with severe mental illness, especially among children.

At a second level, this psychiatric-illegal psychotropic drug hypocrisy allows for unfair criminalizing and incarceration of people using illegal psychotropics.

7. Diversion from Societal, Cultural and Political Sources of Misery

When we hear the words disorder, disease or illness, we think of an individual in need of treatment, not of a troubled society in need of transformation. Mental illness expansionism diverts us from examining a dehumanizing society.

In addition to pathologizing normal behavior, the mental health profession also diverts us from examining a society that creates the ingredients—helplessness, hopelessness, passivity, boredom, fear, and isolation—that cause emotional difficulties. We are diverted from the reality that many emotional problems are natural human reactions to loss in our society of autonomy and community. Thus, the mental health profession not only has financial value for drug companies but it has political value for those at the top of societal hierarchies who want to retain the status quo.

Today, a handful of dissident mental health professionals do challenge and resist their profession’s dehumanizing standard practices. I know several of these dissidents, and they are the only psychiatrists, psychologists and mental health professionals that I have any respect for.

Read article here:  http://www.alternet.org/story/153634/7_reasons_america%27s_mental_health_industry_is_a_threat_to_our_sanity/

« Return to news items

News Feed

Related Posts

• Harvard Expert Ties Mental Illness “Epidemic” to Big Pharma’s Agenda (0)
• The business of ADHD (0)
• Seriously great article: “New Psychiatry Manual Defines Almost Anyone as Insane” (3)
• At annual convention, psychiatrists collaborate on mental disease mongering to boost profits (1)
• The Total Failure of Modern Psychiatry (0)

Mental health professionals say new diagnoses will lead to overmedication

Salon Magazine, December 27, 2011

by Rob Waters

“epidemics of over-diagnosis in child psychiatry” have caused "huge numbers of children to be unnecessarily labeled with attention deficit disorder and bipolar disorder and treated with medications."

Anyone who’s ever tried to get reimbursed by a health insurance company after seeing a psychiatrist or psychotherapist, or taking a child or teenager to one, has no doubt noticed the incomprehensible numbers that appear on the clinician’s statement, perhaps preceding some slightly less imponderable phrase.

Maybe you are a 296.22 (major depressive disorder, single episode, mild) or a 300.00 (anxiety disorder NOS–not otherwise specified). Hopefully, you are not a 301.83 (borderline personality disorder). Your kid might be a 313.81 (oppositional defiant disorder) or, more likely, a 314.01 (attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, predominantly hyperactive-impulsive type).

Since 1952, a tome called the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, better known as the DSM, has been reducing to a few digits the psychological malady said to afflict a patient. This bible of mental health treatment, published by the American Psychiatric Association (APA), provides a list and description of every mental health condition known to—or invented by—psychiatry, from histrionic personality disorder (301.50) to transvestic fetishism (302.3).

Over the decades, the manual, adapted from a guide for mental diseases developed by Army and Navy psychiatrists, has ballooned. The number of listed disorders tripled to nearly 300. A few have been discredited and dumped along the way. Most famous were battles over the inclusion of homosexuality. Successive iterations of the manual listed homosexuality as a “sociopathic personality disturbance,” then modified that to describe a more limited “sexual orientation disturbance” among people who were “in conflict with” their attraction to people of the same sex. That was later replaced by a disorder called “ego-dystonic homosexuality,” applied to those whose homosexual arousal was a source of distress. That item was dropped in the DSM-III-R, published in 1987.

The great book’s coming edition, the DSM-5, is slated for publication in May 2013. As the task force producing it has posted drafts on its website, an undercurrent of dissatisfaction has exploded into a full-scale revolt by members of U.S. and British psychological and counseling organizations. The chief complaint is that the newest version will lower the criteria needed to diagnose some conditions, creating “subthreshold” disorders, and generally making it easier for healthcare professionals to label a person with a psychiatric disorder and medicate him or her.

The latest rebellion against the DSM-5 began with a salvo from across the Atlantic. In June, a special committee of the British Psychological Society complained in a letter to the APA that “clients and the general public are negatively affected by the continued and continuous medicalisation of their natural and normal responses to their experiences.” The committee criticized the proposed creation of an “attenuated psychosis syndrome”—a sort of poor-man’s psychosis with less severe symptoms—“as an opportunity to stigmatize eccentric people.” They also objected to a proposed reduction in the number of symptoms needed to diagnose adolescents with attention deficit disorder (ADD) because it might increase diagnoses and the use of meds.

Then David Elkins, professor emeritus at Pepperdine University and president of the Society for Humanistic Psychology, a division of the American Psychological Association, formed a committee to discuss similar objections and draft a petition enumerating them. In October, he posted the petition online. “I figured we’d get a couple hundred signatures,’’ Elkins said.

The response stunned him and his colleagues. The petition attracted more than 6,000 signatures in three weeks; as of mid-December it had topped 9,300 signatories and garnered the endorsement of 35 organizations. On Nov. 8, American Counseling Association president Don Locke jumped in with a letter to the APA objecting to the “incomplete or insufficient empirical evidence” underlying the proposed revisions and expressing “uncertainty about the quality and credibility” of the DSM-5.

“This has become a grassroots movement among mental health professionals, who are saying we already have a national problem with overmedication of children and the elderly, and we don’t want to exacerbate that,” says Elkins.

For many critics, Exhibit A is childhood ADD. As the disorder describing fidgety, easily distracted kids morphed from “hyperkinetic reaction of childhood” to the current “attention deficit hyperactivity disorder,” the number of children given the diagnosis exploded, fueling, by one account, a 700 percent increase in the use of Ritalin and other stimulants in the 1990s. Diagnosis requires checking six of nine boxes from a list of symptoms that include “often does not seem to listen when spoken to directly” and “often fidgets with hands or feet or squirms in seat.” Sound familiar, parents?

Two other newly proposed disorders singled out as problematic in the petition are “mild neurocognitive disorder” in the elderly and “disruptive mood dysregulation disorder” in children and adolescents. Both lack a solid basis in research and may fuel the use of powerful antipsychotic medications, which cause weight gain, diabetes and a host of other metabolic problems, the petition says.

“We are gravely concerned that if this is published as is in 2013, it will create false epidemics where hundreds of thousands of children and the elderly who really are normal will be diagnosed with a mental disorder and given powerful psychiatric medications that have dangerous side effects,” Elkins says. “That is not tolerable.”

David Kupfer, the University of Pittsburgh psychiatrist who chairs the task force overseeing the manual’s preparation, says he expects the final number of disorders included in the DSM-5 to be about the same as in the current book. He says he welcomes the criticism and that nothing is final. The task force has been testing proposed new diagnoses in 2,300 patients at seven adult treatment centers and four adolescent centers that are acting as field-test sites, he says.

“There’s a myth that all the decisions have been made, when in fact, all the decisions haven’t been made,” he says. “Just because [things have] been proposed doesn’t necessarily mean they’ll end up in the DSM-5. If they don’t achieve a level of reliability, clinician acceptability, and utility, it’s unlikely they’ll go forward.”

The most surprising critic of the DSM is a one-time pillar of the psychiatric establishment. Allen Frances, professor emeritus at Duke University, chaired the task force that created the DSM-4. Now he’s railing against both the process and proposed content of the new DSM in blogs on the website for Psychology Today that blast the new revision as “untested” and “unscientific.”

Psychiatric diagnoses are loose enough already, Frances  told me, and that laxity has led to “epidemics of over-diagnosis in child psychiatry” causing huge numbers of children to be unnecessarily labeled with attention deficit disorder and bipolar disorder and treated with medications.

“DSM has to be a safe, reliable and credible guide to current clinical practice,” he says. “It can’t be an untested program for future research.’’

The user revolt against the DSM-5 has emerged as a major challenge to the document, Frances says, and its future is looking unclear. He and Elkins are proposing that an independent committee of experts review the proposed draft and make recommendations.

The fight over the DSM-5 pits some of the greatest minds and biggest egos in the world of psychiatry, but it’s more than a battle among 301.81s (narcissistic personality disorder). For people seeking help for life’s problems who don’t want to be labeled mentally ill or have their treatment limited to medication, and for clinicians who want to help people without reducing them to a category, the stakes are high.

http://www.salon.com/2011/12/27/therapists_revolt_against_psychiatrys_bible/singleton/

« Return to news items

News Feed

Related Posts

• DSM 5 Will Further Inflate The ADD Bubble (0)
• Psychiatry bible ‘turns sorrow into sickness’ (0)
• At annual convention, psychiatrists collaborate on mental disease mongering to boost profits (1)
• The business of ADHD (0)
• Shrinks on the couch as they ponder who is and is not crazy (1)

The Huffington Post – December 22, 2011

Remember that many of these children will be waking up on Christmas morning to count out their multiple mind-altering psychiatric drugs that they have been prescribed by psychiatrists and other prescribers hired by the states in which they reside and paid for by tax dollars. These kids don't need psychiatric drugs, they need human "angels" to rescue them from a system that is stacked against their well-being.

The most vulnerable among us are the littlest victims. Young children, torn from their birth families through various, often unspeakable tragedies. These children end up in state supervised foster care and too often are passed from hand to hand, house to house. There were approximately 662,000 children in foster care in the United States in 2010.

Now there is a Government Accounting Office (GAO) report confirming that foster children in five states — Florida, Massachusetts, Michigan, Oregon and Texas — are receiving shocking amounts of psychiatric drugs. In the words of ABC News, they are “being prescribed psychiatric medications at doses higher than the maximum levels approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in these five states alone. And hundreds of foster children received five or more psychiatric drugs at the same time despite absolutely no evidence supporting the simultaneous use or safety of this number of psychiatric drugs taken together.” The ABC News report shows one 7-year-old holding a bag filled with 13 psychiatric medications that she had taken.

During the FDA drug-approval process, the maximum dose of a drug is determined by giving that drug by itself without any other psychoactive substances. When two or more psychiatric drugs are given together, each at its maximum dose, toxic levels of exposure can occur. In addition, some of these children are being given higher than the FDA-approved dose of individual drugs.

One young child interviewed by ABC News described the effect of the antidepressant and antipsychotic drugs he was taking: “They made me feel like I had a thousand bricks on my head.” Another child said, “Some of the medications were for ADHD but I’m not ADHD, I’m just naughty.” A teen in foster care on multiple psychiatric drugs told ABC News she felt like a “guinea pig.”

Foster children are provided government insurance in the form of Medicaid that includes “mental health” services such as psychiatric evaluations and prescription drug coverage. Individual states administer Medicaid and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services is responsible for overseeing the state programs.

In the states surveyed by the GAO, children in Massachusetts fared worst. Thirty-nine percent of the foster care children aged 0-17 on Medicaid were prescribed at least one psychiatric drug. By comparison, 10 percent of non-foster care children in Massachusetts were prescribed at least one psychotropic medication under Medicaid. It’s serious enough when 10 percent of non-foster care children from our poorer communities are receiving psychiatric drugs; it’s even more tragic when 39 percent of our most poor and abandoned children are being inundated with these drugs.

Other states in the GAO study had total numbers of foster care children on Medicaid being prescribed at least one psychiatric drug: Oregon — 19.7 percent; Texas — 32.2 percent; Florida — 22 percent; and Michigan — 21 percent. The statistics reported are eye-opening, and it is worthwhile to see the full GAO report. In Texas, for instance, 9.1 percent of foster care children aged 0-5 years old are on at least one psychiatric drug, and 58.2 percent of foster care children aged 13-17 years old are on at least one psychiatric drug. Massachussetts has 53.4 percent of foster care children aged 13-17 on at least one psychiatric drug, and almost 5 percent of foster children aged 0-5 are on at least one psychiatric drug.

Is this widespread psychiatric drugging medically appropriate or indicated? Absolutely not. First of all, these are young children, even infants, who have already been through extremely traumatic experiences. All of them have been taken from their homes and most of them will not have had a stable replacement home. Beyond that, one can only imagine their horrendous living conditions prior to being removed from their families of origin. These children do not need psychoactive substances — they need the best human, caring services that our society can provide. The drugs may make them temporarily more docile, but by disrupting and suppressing normal brain function and development, they add new stressors to their lives and prevent them from adapting and growing as best as possible.

ABC News reports, “Of all the psychiatric medications, antipsychotics are, by far, the most prescribed, especially for foster children. Foster children are given anti-psychotics at a rate nine times higher than children not in foster care, according to a 2010 16-state analysis by Rutgers University of nearly 300,000 foster children.”

These antipsychotic drugs — including Abilify, Risperdal, Seroquel and Zyprexa — can lead to obesity, elevated blood sugar and diabetes, pancreatitis, cardiovascular abnormalities and a disfiguring and sometimes disabling movement disorder called tardive dyskinesia. It’s been suggested they could shorten lifespan by up to 25 years in patients exposed to them for decades. Evidence is accumulating that they can also lead to shrinkage of the brain in those patients exposed to them for years.

Why are these highly-toxic drugs being given to so many children in foster care? The antipsychotic drugs can suppress the highest centers of the brain — the frontal lobes — leading to indifference and apathy, which makes the children more docile and easier to manage. The use of multiple psychiatry drugs (polydrug therapy) produces similar effects. In the extreme, these children become zombie-like.

The newer antidepressant drugs such as Prozac, Paxil, Zoloft, Cymbalta, Lexapro, Wellbutrin, Effexor and Pristiq and have been shown to cause an increase in suicidal behavior in children. In addition, as the FDA-approved label and medication guides for these drugs confirm, they also can cause a general worsening of the individual’s condition, including depression, anxiety, hostility, aggression, impulsivity and mania. Many studies also suggest that a high percentage of children are driven into abnormal mental states by these drugs. When a child develops any one of these adverse reactions they are likely to have additional psychiatric drugs added to their drug cocktail rather than being carefully withdrawn from the offending substances.

As ABC News documented with one mother, parents or foster parents who object to the prescriptions of mind-altering psychiatric drugs for their young children are likely to be threatened with removal of the child from their care. In a separate case in Detroit, a child who was on Medicaid due to physical disability was taken off her mind-altering psychiatric drug by her mother when she displayed adverse effects.

The prescribing clinic called child welfare services and reported the mother. Welfare services removed the child from her mother’s care for a time. Fortunately, this child was later returned by court order to her mother and criminal charges against the mother were dismissed.

But word gets around. Complain about your child being placed on drugs and social services may intervene.

A mother in Millbrook, NY, was charged with medical neglect for not continuing her 4th grade son on a cocktail of psychiatric medications that was making him angry and listless. Off the drugs his energy returned and his mood improved, but public school officials kicked the boy out of school and reported the mother. The mother prevailed and was exonerated of “medical neglect” charges. Her son attended a private school and thrived. He is now a grown man and responsible citizen. His mother explained, “Kids don’t need drugs, they need individualized education and better family life. The priorities are all screwed up.”

In two of the ABC news foster care cases, the clinics that were authorized to deliver services to the children were also promoting themselves as being research facilities for “CNS Conditions” (central nervous system conditions, a misnomer for psychiatric conditions.) As research facilities those clinics have ties with pharmaceutical companies.

And what about the drug companies? Are they doing all they can to prevent the inappropriate use of their products? To the contrary, several of the largest drug companies have paid billions to settle claims they illegally marketed antipsychotics to children and other off-label populations, such as the elderly.

What is being done to these children should be viewed as chemical battery and child abuse. The misguided parents and foster parents are not the perpetrators. The psychopharmaceutical complex is the perpetrator, including the drug companies, the federal government and organized medicine and psychiatry.

The drugging of America’s children raise many issues including parental rights, children’s rights, child safety, off-label prescribing of the drugs and fraud and malpractice on the part of the researchers, psychiatrists and other prescribers. Most tragic is the silence! The stifled voices of victimized children and the self-serving silence of health professionals throughout the country who fail to take a public stand against the escalating drugging of our children.

Drugging traumatized foster children shoves them under society’s rug and is in no way therapeutic for the child. There are humane and effective approaches to helping our most vulnerable children. First, they need to be protected from predatory psychiatrists and other prescribers. Second, they need improved social services that could keep many of them in their homes or provide better assistance, training and supervision to improved foster care homes. When they inevitably become emotionally distressed and at times behaviorally disturbing, they do not need chemical readjustments of their brains — they need better attention from adults in the form of improved home-life or foster care, improved educational opportunities and psychosocial therapies aimed at helping them overcome and move beyond the trauma and stress they have endured and continue to endure as children and youth.

Sure, it’s easier to give them drugs. But has anybody noticed — it doesn’t help them in the long run. Exposure to psychiatric drugs in childhood is dangerous and over time can be damaging, disabling and even deadly.

No agencies and no associations — not NIMH, the American Medical Association, the American Psychiatric Association, the American Psychological Association, and the many other mental health associations — are willing to call a halt to the massive tidal wave of mind altering psychiatric drugs being thrown at America’s children. Several states, including Florida, Louisiana and New York have expelled “high prescribing” doctors from Medicaid but this is like nipping off the top of the iceberg. The primary problem remains: Placing children on psychiatric drugs instead of offering genuine help.

Dr. Robert Nelson, M.D., Ph.D. of the FDA Office of Pediatric Therapeutics, squirmed when challenged by Diane Sawyer in the ABC foster child series, but said the FDA had no plans to strengthen their warnings about psychiatric drugs and children.

The GAO, while courageously illuminating the great number of foster children on psychiatric drugs as well as the seriousness of children being exposed to multiple psychiatric drugs, falls far short of calling for the curtailment of the drugging of American children.

Twenty-five years ago, a tiny fraction of children were prescribed psychiatric medications, and that was largely confined to stimulants. In the early 1990s we were blowing the whistle on the increasing attention psychiatry was paying to children. I wrote an op-ed piece in the Wall Street Journal in 1989 and spoke frequently through the media about how children being blamed and diagnosed for problems in families, schools and in society. From 1990 to 1995 the increased prescribing of psychotropic drugs for preschoolers had begun.

What is to be done?

It is time for state attorney generals to launch full-scale investigations into the practices of these Medicaid psychiatrists. When appropriate, they should be charged with battery and with fraud, and sued for malpractice. But the psychiatrists are largely responding to the campaigns conducted by the psychopharmaceutical complex.The entire system, from the drug companies and insurance companies to the medical and psychiatric associations, and also the researchers and universities, need to be investigated for participating in this widespread medical abuse of children.

This Christmas, as many of us gather around a Christmas tree watching the children in our families wake up with shining eyes and happy laughter… remember. Remember that there were approximately 662,000 children in foster care in the United States in 2010.

Remember that many of these children will be waking up on Christmas morning to count out their multiple mind-altering psychiatric drugs that they have been prescribed by psychiatrists and other prescribers hired by the states in which they reside and paid for by tax dollars. These kids don’t need psychiatric drugs, they need human “angels” to rescue them from a system that is stacked against their well-being.

Only an outraged citizenry will change this. Write your Congressional representatives and senators. Write your state representatives and senators. Write your state attorney general’s office requesting a full investigation in your state of the crisis with foster children and psychiatric drugs. If you are a parent or a foster parent being pressured to keep your child on psychiatric drugs, call your local paper, referencing the ABC News investigation. If you are a reporter, plan a local series on this issue. If you are a teacher, a social worker or professional in the Medicaid system, consider becoming a whistleblower against the chemical assault of these children. If you are a medical professional learn how to help children safely taper off their psychiatric drugs while assisting their families in obtaining more useful services. Always remember that withdrawal from psychiatric drugs can be hazardous and needs to be done carefully with experienced clinical supervision.

It’s the Christmas season. Let’s not forget the kids who are so drugged their eyes cannot sparkle anymore. Become one of their real-life angels.

Peter R. Breggin, M.D. is a Harvard-trained psychiatrist and former full-time consultant with NIMH who is in private practice in Ithaca, New York. Dr. Breggin is the author of more than twenty books including the bestseller Talking Back to Prozac and the medical book Brain-Disabling Treatments in Psychiatry, Second Edition. His most recent book is Medication Madness, the Role of Psychiatric Drugs in Cases of Violence, Suicide and Crime. He is also the author of dozens of peer-reviewed scientific articles, many in the field of psychopharmacology. On April 13-15, 2012 in Syracuse, New York, the annual conference of Dr. Breggin’s 501c3 nonprofit international organization, The Center for the Study of Empathic Therapy, will present a panel of lawyers, experts, survivors and families concerning antidepressant-induced violence and crime. Conference information is available on www.EmpathicTherapy.org.

« Return to news items

News Feed

Related Posts

• The New Child Abuse: The Psychiatric Diagnosing and Drugging of Our Children (0)
• New Study Confirms: Millions of kids misdiagnosed with ADHD and drugged (0)
• At annual convention, psychiatrists collaborate on mental disease mongering to boost profits (1)
• The hidden tyranny: children diagnosed and drugged for profit (4)
• Pharma makes hundreds of billions of dollars with government-subsidized Medicaid: buying their overprescribed psychiatric drugs (0)

The Age
By Jill Stark
December 4, 2011

IT’S been branded a “dangerous public experiment” that could turn normal human experiences into an epidemic of mental illness with healthy people being drugged unnecessarily.

In radical changes to the way mental health conditions are diagnosed, what was once considered a child’s temper tantrum could be labelled ”disruptive mood dysregulation disorder”. If a widow grieves for more than a fortnight she might be diagnosed with ”major depressive disorder”.

If a mother in a custody battle tries to turn a child against the father, it might create ”parental alienation disorder”.

These are among new conditions proposed for the fifth edition of the psychiatrist’s bible, the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5), due to be finalised next year.

Some doctors in Australia are arguing the revised manual – used globally to diagnose mental disorders – is pathologising unhappiness.

The changes have also caused an international outcry, with the American Counselling Association, American Psychological Association, the British Psychological Society and others calling for the draft of the new edition to be independently reviewed.

They fear it is so inclusive, it risks labelling millions of healthy people as mentally ill.

”It’s such a narrow and limited view of human experience, to want to reduce every bit of suffering to medical diagnosis,” said Jon Jureidini, professor of psychiatry at the University of Adelaide. He said the changes would lead to increased prescribing.

The authors say ”misinformation” about the manual, produced by the American Psychiatric Association since 1952, is creating unnecessary fear and any inclusions will be based on robust scientific evidence. Psychiatrist Ian Hickie, director of Sydney University’s Brain and Mind Research Institute, rejects claims that the new manual would medicalise unhappiness. ”When people are in pain and suffering elsewhere we don’t say people are pathologising that. We say, let’s try and do the best we can to relieve that and get them back to function in the appropriate way,” Professor Hickie said.

The rift reflects division within the mental health community over a global rise in the use of antidepressants, stimulants and antipsychotics, with many clinicians critical of drugs with potentially serious side effects being favoured over more costly talk-based therapies. Others argue that medication can be life-saving where other therapies have failed. The inclusion of conditions such as attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and autism in previous DSM editions is believed to have contributed to increased prescribing.

In the new edition, the diagnosis threshold for some existing disorders is also being lowered so that

over the death of a loved one can qualify as a major depressive illness.

The authors of DSM-5, however, argue that a bereaved person who is suffering from major depression is currently ineligible for that diagnosis, preventing them from getting help if they need it.

”A broad range of evidence … shows that there are little to no systematic differences between individuals who develop a major depression in response to bereavement and in response to other severe stressors – such as being … raped … or the loss of your treasured job,” Dr Kenneth Kendler, a member of the DSM-5 mood disorders group, said.

The changes also mean children only have to display six of 13 possible symptoms for a diagnosis of ADHD, compared with six of nine in the previous manual.

”Under the new criteria it’s almost harder not to get diagnosed with ADHD than it is to get diagnosed with it,” Martin Whitely, a West Australian Labor MP and anti-ADHD medication campaigner, said. ”There were about 60,000 Australian children on ADHD medications in 2010 – a lot of money has gone into marketing and selling the disease.”

One of the manual’s biggest critics is the man who developed the last edition, American psychiatrist Allen Frances. He told The Sunday Age the fact that the authors of the new edition have described it as a ”living document” makes it a ”dangerous public health experiment”.

”The DSM-5 is used in real life-and-death decisions – it shouldn’t be a set of hypotheses to be tested,” he said. ”The worst outcome of this would be all these suggestions get included and a lot of people get medicine they don’t need. But an almost equally bad outcome would be that psychiatry gets so tarred by this aberration that people who really need psychiatry and need the medicine stop taking it.”

http://www.theage.com.au/national/psychiatry-bible-turns-sorrow-into-sickness-20111203-1ocmm.html

« Return to news items

News Feed

Related Posts

• Therapists revolt against psychiatry’s bible (0)
• DSM 5 Will Further Inflate The ADD Bubble (0)
• The business of ADHD (0)
• DSM: The Book of Woe—Inside the Battle to Define Mental Illness (1)
• Psychiatric Times – Let’s Call the Whole Thing Off (0)

By Daily Mail Reporter
December 2, 2011

A 12-year-old boy has bravely told how he was medicated into a near-stupor as he was passed between foster care homes.

The seventh grader, known only as Ke’onte, told Congress that being given the mind-altering drugs was ‘the worst thing anyone could do to foster kids’.

He revealed that he could barely eat while on the medication and was so exhausted ‘it felt like I would collapse wherever I was in the house’.

Ke'onte, 12, tells Congress that he was wrongly diagnosed with bipolar disorder and ADHD and given four different medications that left him in a 'stupor'

‘I think putting me on all these stupid meds was the stupidest thing I’ve ever experienced in foster care,’ he said.

Ke’onte’s plight came to light as a Government Accountability Office report was released that found the federal government had not done enough to oversee the treatment of foster children with powerful drugs.

The study found cared-for children were up to 13 times more likely to be prescribed anti-psychotics and anti-depressants than other children.

Ke’onte, who was adopted in 2009, said he had tantrums as a foster child and was inaccurately diagnosed as bipolar and having ADHD.

‘I’ve been in the mental hospital three times during foster care, and every time I had to get on more meds or new meds to add to the ones I was already taking,’ he said.

Medicated: The Government study found children in foster care were 13 times more likely to be on anti-pyschotics and anti-depressants than other children

« Return to news items

News Feed

Related Posts

• 52% of foster kids are prescribed psych drugs—One of them is fighting back (1)
• The New Child Abuse: The Psychiatric Diagnosing and Drugging of Our Children (0)
• Psychiatric Drug Abuse of Foster Care Kids Costs Government Billions; Feds now investigating potentially massive fraud (3)
• The Portland Press Herald: Psychiatric Drugging of American Children is Cause for Alarm (4)
• Huffington Post – “Foster Teen: I Was Put In A Psych Ward. I Wasn’t Crazy” (0)

The Australian – 11/26/2011

by Frank Furedi

As far as the American Academy of Pediatrics is concerned you can never drug children early enough.

It is important to realise that what drives the steady expansion of the diagnosis of ADHD among children is not the discovery of a hitherto unknown medical condition, but the cultural redefinition of some of the normal existential problems of childhood

In their recently published guidelines they recommend that children as young as four can be treated with the psycho-stimulant drug Ritalin.

These new guidelines issued by the academy at its annual conference in Boston proposed that preschool children who show symptoms of inattention and hyperactivity should be evaluated for pharmacological intervention. “Treating children at a young age is important, because when we can identify them earlier and provide appropriate treatment, we can increase their chances of succeeding in school,” was how Mark Wolraich, one of the authors of the guidelines, justified this proposal.

The targeting of preschoolers by the academy is an integral part of a disturbing tendency to advocate medical and pharmaceutical intervention as a legitimate option for the management of childhood behaviour. The campaign, which has as its premise the conviction that children’s behavioural problems represent a marker for mental illness, implicitly assumed a coercive and intrusive form. In Australia, draft guidelines being considered by the National Health and Medical Research Council threaten parents who refuse to medicate children diagnosed with ADHD with being referred to child protection authorities. The proposed guidelines assert that “as with any medical intervention” the “inability of parents to implement strategies may raise child protection issues”.

Regardless of whether these authoritarian draft guidelines will be accepted by the NHMRC, they demonstrate a dangerous tendency to transform child-rearing into a form of professionally dominated behaviour management. The guidelines should not be seen as simply the work of a handful of insensitive and zealous Ritalin promoters. Parents throughout the Anglo-American world face considerable pressure to medicate their children. In the US and Britain, numerous parents have been given an ultimatum by their children’s school either to start giving their child Ritalin or leave. Consequently the number of children diagnosed as suffering from ADHD is continually on the increase. According to the academy, one in 12 children suffer from this condition.

It is important to realise that what drives the steady expansion of the diagnosis of ADHD among children is not the discovery of a hitherto unknown medical condition, but the cultural redefinition of some of the normal existential problems of childhood. In the eyes of the supporters of early-years medicalisation, virtually every manifestation of a child’s behaviour can be diagnosed as a medical issue. That is why they argue that doctors should evaluate children from four onwards for signs such as fidgeting, excessive talking, reluctance to concentrate and abandoning homework or chores. Apparently such normal forms of misbehaviour are symptoms of ADHD. So according to these experts, ADHD is characterised by many of the traits that would, in the absence of a medical definition, be frowned on as bad behaviour: inability to concentrate, lack of application, unruliness.

Although most sensible people are likely to be appalled by the proposal to drug preschool children, it is likely that the medicalisation of childhood will continue to gain institutional support. The main reason why children’s behaviour has become a target for pharmacological intervention is because of the difficulty that adults have in exercising authority over the life of young people. Parents have always found it difficult to deal with their toddler’s defiance and with adolescent discipline. Today, however, this age-old problem has become far more difficult to manage because of the tendency to devalue adult and parental authority.

Read the rest of the article here

« Return to news items

News Feed

Related Posts

• Medical mafia in Australia to force parents to drug children diagnosed ‘ADHD’ (0)
• Drugging of children for “ADHD” has become an epidemic (1)
• DSM 5 Will Further Inflate The ADD Bubble (0)
• ADHD review as US expert faces inquiry (0)
• Child victims of the chemical cosh: Boy who killed himself after taking Ritalin (0)

Note from CCHR: The group that fought for, and won, state legislation in the United States prohibiting schools from being able to force a parent to drug their child as a condition of attending school, was CCHR.     The article does not mention that in the U.S. this bill was also passed on a federal level, the Prohibition on Mandatory Medication Amendment (also due to CCHR’s efforts).   Now it appears Australia is in desperate need of similar legislation.

The Australian – November 21, 2011

EXPERTS have warned that parents who don’t medicate children with ADHD could be referred to child protection authorities under controversial draft guidelines being considered by the National Health and Medical Research Council.

The practice points, to guide doctors who treat the disorder, were drawn up by an NHMRC expert working group to address community concern over the use of stimulant medication to treat attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. They state: “Consideration should be given to the ability of the child/adolescent and their caregivers to implement strategies. As with any medical intervention, the inability of parents to implement strategies may raise child protection concerns.”

West Australian Labor MP, author and anti-ADHD medication campaigner Martin Whitely says “the only possible medical interventions are ADHD drugs and the implied threat that a parent’s refusal to allow their child to be ‘medicated’ with amphetamines may see their child put in care”.

The clinical practice points are open for public comment until the end of the week and he is calling for the statement to be removed because he fears it may lead to a situation similar to that in the US.

Some US states have had to legislate to prevent schools and child protection authorities from telling parents they must put their children on drugs, he said.

However, child psychiatrist and Monash University lecturer George Halasz says the situation should not be seen as unique to ADHD and parents who fail to manage serious conditions such as their child’s asthma or diabetes could also be considered to be failing their duty as a parent.

Dr Halasz said the new guidelines were a step in the right direction because they asked doctors to first try to find other explanations for a child’s behaviour before they diagnosed ADHD.

And he says it will not be humanly possible to diagnose ADHD in a single 50-minute consultation under the new clinical practice points.

“If any child is given medication after one consultation, then that child should be reviewed,” he said.

The practice points state that “a child who meets diagnostic criteria for ADHD may not be best served by making that diagnosis” and says their behaviour may be better understood as a reaction to more specific cognitive difficulties or family/environmental services.

The document says “not all people with ADHD will require, or benefit from, pharmacological management”.

It says children using medication should receive a three- to six-monthly review and that the long-term effects of ADHD drugs are unknown.

However, the document also says “for children and adolescents diagnosed with ADHD, stimulant medications like Ritalin can reduce core ADHD symptoms and improve social skills and peer relations in the short term”.

In the short term, the paper says, “combined behavioural-pharmacological treatment is most effective” in normalising child behaviour.

Controversy has dogged the NHMRC’s ADHD guidelines since Daryl Effron, the original chairman of the committee, resigned because of his association with drug companies that produce ADHD medications.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/medicate-adhd-kids-or-else-parents-told/story-fn59niix-1226200652633

« Return to news items

News Feed

Related Posts

• American Academy of Pediatrics Promotes Big Pharma Agenda—Labeling and drugging 4-year-olds (0)
• Medical mafia in Australia to force parents to drug children diagnosed ‘ADHD’ (0)
• Instead of drugs, children need a good dose of parenting (1)
• Drugging of children for “ADHD” has become an epidemic (1)
• New Study Confirms: Millions of kids misdiagnosed with ADHD and drugged (0)

The Mark – November 14, 2011

Kids as young as six are being prescribed powerful antipsychotic drugs

The number of prescriptions for antipsychotic drugs for kids in Canada more than doubled between 2005 and 2010. A study in the journal Pediatrics & Child Health shows that the number of prescriptions jumped 114 per cent across those years, despite most antipsychotics not being cleared for use in Canada among people younger than 17. The drugs are used to offset the symptoms of attention deficit hyperactive disorder, autism, mood disorders, and all manner of behavioural problems in kids as young as six. According to Postmedia‘s Sharon Kirkey and Pamela Fayerman:

Once reserved for schizophrenia and mania in adults, one antipsychotic alone, risperidone, was recommended by Canadian-office-based doctors for children 17 and younger a total of 340,670 times in 2010 – a near-doubling since 2006 – according to data provided to Postmedia News from prescription-drug tracking firm IMS Brogan.

Not too surprisingly, the level of prescriptions has some doctors wondering if these drugs are being overprescribed. Complicating matters are the side effects of the drugs, which can lead to rapid weight gain, pre-diabetes, obesity, tremors, and more. Likewise, long-term studies on the drugs’ effects on kids’ health aren’t readily available.

Get the facts about antipsychotic drugs here

http://www.themarknews.com/news/?open=7441

« Return to news items

News Feed

Related Posts

• DSM 5 Will Further Inflate The ADD Bubble (0)
• Huffington Post: Poor Kids far more likely to be prescribed psychiatric drugs (1)
• Instead of drugs, children need a good dose of parenting (1)
• J&J drug protocols cost taxpayers millions—Lawsuit claims Investigator fired after going public on J&J’s anti-psychotic drug campaign (0)
• Drugging of children for “ADHD” has become an epidemic (1)

Click image to watch Psychiatric Drug Side Effects

4-year-olds on drugs? You betcha.  The  American Academy of Pediatrics issued new treatment guidelines for “Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder” that say ADHD can be diagnosed in kids as early as age four, and that Ritalin and similar drugs are an appropriate treatment even for children this young. Apparently the “Academy” has no problem with the fact that the US FDA warns drugs like Ritalin can cause hallucinations, mania, heart attack, stroke and sudden death. Nor do they consider it a problem that a diagnoses of “ADHD” is based solely on a checklist of behaviors such as “loses pencils or toys,” “often does not seem to listen,” “is easily distracted by extraneous stimuli,” “fidgets” or “runs about or climbs excessively in situations when it is not appropriate.” And for this, children as young as four should be placed on drugs that the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration categorizes in the same class of highly addictive drugs as cocaine, morphine and opium?

Right.

It should come as no surprise that the chairman of the new ADHD guidelines, Mark Wolraich, MD, is a periodic consultant to Shire Pharmaceuticals,  Eli Lilly, Shinogi, and Next Wave Pharmaceuticals, or that the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) has received millions in pharmaceutical funding—In 2011,they received $30,000 from Pfizer; $100,000 from Eli Lilly; and $79,650 from Merck. In 2010, they received $297,750 from Pfizer; $100,000 from Merck; and $3,000 from Shire. Between 2008 and 2009, AAP received another $69,000 from Pfizer. 

This isn’t the first time the AAP has come under fire for promoting a pharmaceutical agenda – in 2008, they were exposed for their  financial ties to the pharmaceutical industry, when the academy issued guidelines recommending statins (cholesterol lowering drugs) for kids, after it was disclosed they had received substantial contributions from pharmaceutical companies with ties to statins, including $433,000 from Merck, $835,250 from Abbott Laboratories’ Ross Product Division and $216,000 from the Bristol-Myers Squibb company Mead Johnson Nutritionals.

Here are the only guidelines (also known as facts) that the AAP should be issuing:

1) There is no medical or scientific test that can validate ADHD as a medical condition or disease.  Not one.  Diagnoses is 100% subjective and means nothing in medical terms.

2) 12 International drug regulatory agencies have issued warnings on ADHD drugs such as Ritalin causing depression, insomnia, mania, hallucinations, psychosis, heart attack, stroke and sudden death. The US DEA places Ritalin in the same category of highly addictive drugs as morphine, cocaine and opium.

3) No child should ever be subjected to mind-altering, life threatening drugs based solely on a checklist of behaviors. Period.

« Return to news items

News Feed

Related Posts

• New Study Confirms: Millions of kids misdiagnosed with ADHD and drugged (0)
• Australia—New Guidelines Threaten Parents Who Refuse to Drug Their Kids (0)
• Is ADHD a Fictional Disease? (0)
• FDA’s Continual Responsibility for Making Our Children Into a Nation of Drug Addicts (0)
• Study Claims “ADHD Boys” Get in More Car Accidents—Fails to Mention ADHD Drug Side Effects & Recommends…More Drugging (0)

New York Times – October 13, 2011

by Dr. Peter Breggin

click image to read Psychiatric Disorders - The Facts Behind the Billion Dollar Marketing Campaign

The drugging of children for A.D.H.D. has become an epidemic. More than 5 million U.S. children, or 9.5 percent, were diagnosed with A.D.H.D. as of 2007. About 2.8 million had received a prescription for a stimulant medication in 2008.

The A.D.H.D. diagnosis does not identify a genuine biological or psychological disorder. The diagnosis, from the 2000 edition of the “Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders,” is simply a list of behaviors that require attention in a classroom: hyperactivity (“fidgets,” “leaves seat,” “talks excessively”); impulsivity (“blurts out answers,” “interrupts”); and inattention (“careless mistakes,” “easily distractible,” “forgetful”). These are the spontaneous behaviors of normal children. When these behaviors become age-inappropriate, excessive or disruptive, the potential causes are limitless, including: boredom, poor teaching, inconsistent discipline at home, tiredness and underlying physical illness. Children who are suffering from bullying, abuse or stress may also display these behaviors in excess. By making an A.D.H.D. diagnosis, we ignore and stop looking for what is really going on with the child. A.D.H.D. is almost always either Teacher Attention Disorder (TAD) or Parent Attention Disorder (PAD). These children need the adults in their lives to give them improved attention.

Stimulant drugs “work” by suppressing all spontaneous behavior in normal children — and even in chimpanzees and other animals. This suppression of behavior and production of compulsive activities looks like an improvement in a classroom or home where the child has seemed uncontrollable and required a great deal of attention. The drugs do nothing to improve learning or psychosocial development. I document these observations in many scientific articles and books, most recently in the second edition of my medical textbook “Brain-Disabling Treatments in Psychiatry.”

Why are the A.D.H.D. diagnosis and the use of stimulants so prevalent in America? The idea that American children are somehow genetically or even culturally predisposed has no scientific or common sense basis. For several decades, starting in the 1970s, drug-company marketing has focused on selling the diagnosis and the drugs to American parents and teachers. As I first documented in my book “Toxic Psychiatry” in 1971, “Astroturf” organizations like Children and Adults with Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder and National Alliance on Mental Illness masquerade as representing families while taking millions of dollars from drug companies in support of their promotion of psychiatric medication for children. The National Institute of Mental Health, the American Psychiatric Association and even the American Neurological Association have promoted the A.D.H.D. diagnosis and stimulant medication, which leads to considerable business for mental health clinicians.

As the American market gets saturated, promotional efforts are increasing in other countries, like Canada, Britain, Australia and Germany, which are also experiencing increased rates of diagnosing and drugging children. In Australia, the controversy has been especially heated in recent years. Everywhere that A.D.H.D. and stimulants are promoted, they substitute for needed modern reforms in education and family life.

In all cases of so-called A.D.H.D., the diagnosis is harmful. The child instead needs a real medical and psychosocial educational evaluation, and usually the child will quickly respond to improved teaching and parenting. We are diagnosing and drugging millions of our children instead of providing them the improved educational and family life that they truly need.

Peter R. Breggin, a psychiatrist in Ithaca, N.Y., is the author of more than 20 books

http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2011/10/12/are-americans-more-prone-to-adhd/adhd-is-a-misdiagnosis

« Return to news items

News Feed

Related Posts

• Children Exploited for Profit Using Fictitious Mental Disorders (0)
• DSM 5 Will Further Inflate The ADD Bubble (0)
• The problem with the DSM (0)
• Psychiatrist Asks, “Why Are People So Divided When It Comes To Children’s Mental Health?” We’ve Got the Answer… (0)
• The Portland Press Herald: Psychiatric Drugging of American Children is Cause for Alarm (4)