Re: ADHD Myths


"Mark Probert" <markprobert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:ppL8f.17914$rE2.16671@xxxxxxxxxxx
> LadyLollipop wrote:
>
> Sadly, Jan has scfrewed up all attributions by her snipping, etc. She does
> this to confuse issues and find ways to play Liar! Liar!

Umm, NO, I did not write that, but please do forgive Mark, evidently he has
finally flipped out.
>
> End of discusion.
>
>> Mark Probert blathered:
>>
>> LadyLollipop wrote:
>>
>>>Posted by A PROVEN LIAR.
>>
>>
>>>"Mark Probert" <markprob...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>>>news:cSd8f.15385$rE2.621@xxxxxxxxxxx
>>
>>
>>
>>>>Thursday October 27, 2005
>>
>>
>>
>>>>http://thestar.com.my/services/printerfriendly.asp?file=/2005/10/27/l...
>>
>>
>>
>>>Lifeparenting by parents who also are poping these pills.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> What Jan meant to say is that the article was originally published in a
>> magazine dealing with ADHD and that the people who wrote it have first
>> hand PERSONAL experience dealing with ADHD.
>>
>> What I said was EXACTLY what I meant to say.
>>
>> In FACT here are my EXACT words.
>>
>> (DEPEND ON DRUGS TO DEAL WITH NORMAL STRESS!!!!!!!!)
>>
>>
>> God Help This Country to WAKE UP!!!!!!
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>http://msnbc.msn.com/id/9630257/site/newsweek/
>>
>>
>>
>> Yes, adults have come to realize that AD/HD does not just magically
>> disappear when they get older.
>>
>>
>>
>> Sadly adults in this country have learned to pop pills, rather than learn
>> to deal with stress and learn self control.
>>
>> Take the EASY way!
>>
>>
>>>>ADHD myths
>>
>>
>>>>Few psychological conditions have generated more discussion in recent
>>>>years than attention deficit hyperactive disorder. Yet people continue
>>>>to
>>>>harbour many mistaken beliefs about it. Read on to learn the truth about
>>>>ADHD.
>>
>>
>>
>>>>Myth #1: ADHD isn't a real medical disorder.
>>
>>
>>
>>>>ADHD has been recognised as a legitimate diagnosis by major medical,
>>>>psychological, and educational organisations, including the US National
>>>>Institutes of Health and the US Department of Education. The American
>>>>Psychiatric Society recognises ADHD as a medical disorder in its
>>>>Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders - the official
>>>>mental health "bible" used by psychologists and psychiatrists.
>>
>>
>>
>>>That's the problem. They threw out the REAL bible and replaced it
>>>with their so called official mental health "bible"
>>
>>
>>
>>>The American Psychiatric Society is * Organized medicine*
>>
>>
>>
>>>Who pushes DRUGS.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> But, Jan cannot refute what is said in the next paragraph.
>>
>> I refuted that below, which YOU snipped. I will restored it.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>>Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (also known as attention
>>>>deficit
>>>>disorder) is biologically based. Research shows that it's a result of an
>>>>imbalance of chemical messengers, or neurotransmitters, within the
>>>>brain.
>>>>Its primary symptoms are inattention, impulsiveness, and sometimes,
>>>>hyperactivity. People with ADHD typically have a great deal of
>>>>difficulty
>>>>with aspects of daily life, including time management and organisational
>>>>skills.
>>
>>
>>
>>>>Myth #2: Children given special accommodations because of their ADHD are
>>>>getting an unfair advantage.
>>
>>
>>
>>>Yvonne Bailey wishes she had known earlier what she knows now about
>>>Individualized Education Programs or IEPs. Her son, Brian, a first-grader
>>>with attention deficit disorder and symptoms of a defiant disorder, has
>>>been
>>>expelled from his Mount Healthy school with less than a month to go. The
>>>school says he was disruptive, uncooperative, and tried to cut a teacher
>>>with scissors. Now Bailey and her husband are fighting to get him back to
>>>school
>>
>>
>>
>>>>The US Federal Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA)
>>>>requires
>>>>that public schools address the special needs of all children with
>>>>disabilities, including children with ADHD. Special accommodations, such
>>>>as extra time on tests, simply level the playing field so that kids with
>>>>ADHD can learn as successfully as their non-ADHD classmates.
>>
>>
>>
>>>>Myth #3: Children with ADHD eventually outgrow their condition.
>>
>>
>>
>>>The Drug companies have picked on on that one!
>>
>>
>>
>> The fact is that AD/HD does not go away for most people when they get
>> older. Jan cannot accept that reality.
>>
>> No, that is not a fact, that is what *organized medicine* has put forth
>> and sold to the masses.
>>
>>
>>
>>>Mark Proberts's shares have gone up!
>>
>>
>>
>> Moron.
>>
>>
>>
>>>U.S. retail sales of the total ADHD drug market more than tripled between
>>>2000 and 2004, according to health care information company Verispan.
>>>From
>>>2003 to 2004, U.S. sales of Adderall XR grew nearly 40 percent, while
>>>U.S.
>>>sales of Eli Lilly & Co. s drug Strattera, which came on the market in
>>>2002,
>>>nearly doubled
>>
>>
>>>The value of the ADHD market was US$2.4 billion in 2004 and it is now the
>>>9th largest segment of the CNS market by sales and one of the fastest
>>>growing (+40% year-on-year). Global sales of ADHD are forecast to reach
>>>US$3.3 billion by 2010.
>>
>>
>>
>>>NOW we know WHY he posted this!!!!
>>
>>
>> No, you do not. I posted this because it refutes the bull*** you post.
>>
>> Ahh, yes, Mark playing games.
>>
>> What I have posted, *I* didn't write. So get over your childish games.
>>
>> More than 70% of the individuals who have ADHD in childhood continue to
>>
>>>>have it in adolescence. Up to half will continue to have it in
>>>>adulthood.
>>
>>
>>
>>>>Although it's been estimated that 6% of the adult population has ADHD,
>>>>the
>>>>majority of those adults remain undiagnosed, and only one in four of
>>>>them
>>>>seek treatment. Yet, without help, adults with ADHD are highly
>>>>vulnerable
>>>>to depression, anxiety, and substance abuse.
>>
>>
>>
>>>http://www.hon.ch/News/HSN/514029.html
>>
>>
>>
>>>A survey by researchers from the New York University Medical Center and
>>>School of Medicine also found that primary-care doctors would take a more
>>>active role in treating adult ADHD if those issues were addressed. It's
>>>estimated about 8 million American adults have ADHD, which can result in
>>>increased health-care costs, higher divorce rates, unemployment, and
>>>motor
>>>vehicle accidents.
>>
>>
>>
>>>>They often experience career difficulties, legal and financial problems,
>>>>and troubled personal relationships.
>>
>>
>>
>> Myth #4: ADHD affects only boys.
>>
>>
>>
>>>>Girls are just as likely to have ADHD as are boys, and gender makes no
>>>>difference in the symptoms caused by the disorder. But because this myth
>>>>persists, boys are more likely to be diagnosed than girls.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> I addressed this precise point in the other thread.
>>
>>
>>
>>>>Myth #5: ADHD is the result of bad parenting.
>>
>>
>>
>>>>When a child with ADHD blurts things out or gets out of his seat in
>>>>class,
>>>>it's not because he hasn't been taught that these behaviours are wrong.
>>>>It's
>>>>because he cannot control his impulses. The problem is rooted in brain
>>>>chemistry, not discipline. In fact, overly strict parenting - which may
>>>>involve punishing a child for things he can't control - can actually
>>>>make
>>>>ADHD symptoms worse. Professional interventions, such as drug therapy,
>>>>psychotherapy, and behaviour modification therapy, are usually required.
>>
>>
>>
>>>BS BS BS
>>
>>
>>
>> No, it is a fact. Many parents see a remarkable improvement in their
>> child when they loosen up a bit.
>>
>>
>> No, it is NOT a fact, it is more LIES from *organized medicine*.
>>
>> Some of the alternative programs you have posted also recommend exactly
>> this, IIRC.
>>
>> I doubt that you remember correctly, as usual you are too L A Z Y to look
>> it up!
>>
>>
>>>Mark Probert is a fine example.
>>
>>
>>
>> But, I do not have AD/HD.
>>
>> You are a PARENT of one who does.
>>
>>
>>>One symptom is:
>>
>>
>>>Blames others for problems
>>
>>
>>
>>>Providing structure and positive discipline is a challenge parents should
>>>try to meet. It takes time and effort, and most parents don't have the
>>>time.
>>>It takes a lot of energy to change what we do.
>>
>>
>>
>>>NOT lying as a parent is rule #1.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Yes, so why did you do it? Professional babysitters should not lie
>> either!
>>
>>
>> #2 is NOT blaming others for YOUR problems
>>
>> Yes, why do you blame Jews and anyone named Rich for your problems in
>> newsgroups.
>>
>>
>> You just proved Rule # 1 and 2
>>
>> Shall we talk more about bad parenting?!?!
>>
>>
>>>Mark fails both of those very clearly!!!
>>
>>
>>
>> Only in your so called mind.
>>
>>
>> Then you prove Rule 1 and 2 again.
>>
>> http://www.adhdfraud.org/history_of_the_fraud_of_biological_psychiatr...
>>
>>
>> HISTORY OF THE FRAUD OF BIOLOGICAL PSYCHIATRY (7/19/00)
>>
>>
>> The epidemic of psychiatric drugging in the US as nowhere else in the
>> developed world has risen from 150,000 in 1970, to 9-10 million today; 15
>> to
>> 20% of all US schoolchildren. The ADHD/Ritalin portion now stands at an
>> estimated 6-7 million. Other 'chemical imbalances' treated with other
>> 'chemical balancers'-drugs-make for a total to 9-10 million-all of them
>> normal until the first brain-altering, brain damaging drug courses
>> through
>> their systems.
>>
>>
>> From 1965 to the present, the number of physicians in the US has grown 5
>> times faster than the population, from 140 physicians /100,000 population
>> to
>> 280/100,000! [1] Today, each physician has half the number of patients
>> they
>> had 35 years ago. But their incomes have kept pace! To compensate they
>> resort to 'physician-induced need,' or what the Health Care Finance
>> Administration (HCFA) refers to as an increased 'volume' and 'intensity'
>> of
>> prescribing. And, when that no longer compensates, they take to
>> inventing
>> diseases. This, in fact, is the primary cause of the US health care
>> crisis.
>>
>>
>> WHEN DID PSYCHIATRY BEGIN DIAGNOSING 'DISEASES'?
>>
>>
>> In 1948, the combined specialty of 'neuropsychiatry' was divided into
>> 'neurology,' dealing with organic or physical diseases of the brain, and
>> 'psychiatry' dealing with emotional and behavioral problems in normal
>> human
>> beings. Nor was there any dispute as to the division of labor;
>> psychiatrists made no claim that they diagnosed or treated actual brain
>> diseases. Finding no organic disease in patients with non-specific
>> symptoms, non-psychiatric physicians refer patients to psychiatrists. In
>> other words, finding no objective abnormalities (disease) it can safely
>> be
>> concluded that the patient's symptoms are psychological in
>> origin-psychogenic! This is the main pre-condition for referral of a
>> patient to a psychiatrist or to any mental health professional.
>>
>>
>> As the physician glut worsened, medical costs rose and health maintenance
>> organizations (HMOs) evolved to control costs. HMOs demanded
>> accountability
>> in diagnosis and treatment that cut deeply into psychiatry's open-ended,
>> fictitious diagnosing (and resultant prescribing). Psychiatry had
>> already
>> cast its lot with the pharmaceutical industry [2]. By the late 1960's,
>> psychiatric drugs were 'big' business,' growing 'bigger.'
>>
>>
>> By 1970, it was apparent that psychiatry and the pharmaceutical industry
>> had
>> agreed upon a joint marketplace strategy: they would call psychiatric
>> disorders, that is, all things emotional and behavioral, 'brain diseases'
>> and would claim that each and every one was due to a 'chemical imbalance'
>> of
>> the brain [3]. Further, they would launch a propaganda campaign, so
>> intense
>> and persistent that the public would soon believe in nothing but
>> pills--'chemical balancers' for 'chemical imbalances' [4].
>>
>>
>> Just as the National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH) is the primary
>> author
>> of the psychiatric condition/disorder-as-a-disease deception, attention
>> deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) is their prototypical, most
>> successful
>> by far, invented disease. They regularly revise its diagnostic criteria,
>> not for any scientific purpose, but to cast a wider marketplace 'net.'
>> In
>> collusion with Ciba-Geigy (now Novartis), Children and Adults with
>> Attention
>> Deficit Disorders (CHADD), and the US Department of Education they
>> proclaim
>> ADHD a 'disease' so real and terrible that the parent who dares not
>> believe
>> in it, or allow its treatment, is likely to be deemed negligent, and no
>> longer deserving of custody of their child. This is happening in family
>> courts across the country by the hundreds of thousands.
>>
>>
>> Every patient's right of informed consent requires a complete, honest
>> portrayal of both the condition to be treated (including its prognosis or
>> course, untreated) and of the treatment(s) proposed (and how it/they
>> will
>> alter the course of the condition). Lacking either, the informed consent
>> would be incomplete--invalid. Few, if any, questions about ADHD can be
>> answered without an honest answer to the question: "Is ADHD a disease
>> with
>> a confirmatory physical (including chemical) abnormality, or isn't it?
>> (When
>> asking this question of any physician or researcher, ask for reference to
>> the specific article in the scientific literature that documents the
>> confirmatory physical, including chemical, abnormality proving it is a
>> disease).
>>
>>
>> IS IT A DISEASE OR ISN'T IT?
>> All physicians, psychiatrists included, complete a course of study of
>> disease-pathology. They know, full-well, that it is the physician's
>> first
>> duty, patient-by-patient, to determine whether the patient has an actual
>> disease or does not-the "disease"/ "no disease" determination. We learn
>> that substantial numbers of patients seek help from their physicians for
>> what are "emotional," "psychological," or "psychiatric" symptoms, due to
>> the
>> stresses of everyday life. Such patients have no disease per se (ruled
>> out
>> by finding no abnormalities- no pathology, nothing objective, on physical
>> examination, laboratory testing, x-ray, scanning, etc.).
>>
>>
>> There were few claims by psychiatry in the sixties and seventies, of a
>> biologic basis of psychiatric disorders, i.e., that they were "diseases."
>> Such claims, without scientific evidence, began in earnest in the
>> eighties
>> and nineties, with the American Psychiatric Association's Diagnostic and
>> Statistical Manual-III-R (DSM-III-R) [5] and DSM-IV [6]. ADHD has
>> become
>> psychiatry's number one, "biologically-based" "disease."
>>
>>
>> PSYCHOPHARMACOLOGY: INVENTED DISEASES, BIG BUSINESS
>>
>>
>> The American Psychiatric Association's Diagnostic and Statistical Manual
>> has
>> grown from 112 mental disorders in its initial 1952 edition [7]; 163 in
>> the
>> 1968 DSM-II [8]; 224 in the 1980 DSM-III [9]; 253 in the 1987 DSM-III-R
>> [5];
>> and, 374 in the 1994 DSM-IV [6]. That there is more to the explosion of
>> psychiatric "diseases" than scientific naiveté is obvious. To the extent
>> that such research and its dissemination abrogates informed consent and
>> becomes standard practice, is it not fraud? That it is a joint,
>> psychiatric-pharmaceutical industry strategy is obvious.
>>
>>
>> ONE PHYSICIAN'S QUEST FOR AN ANSWER
>>
>>
>> Diseases are natural occurrences in the plant and animal world.
>> Scientific
>> physicians, veterinarians, botanists and others observe, describe and
>> validate the pathology (abnormality), making them diseases. Diseases are
>> not conceptualized in committee or decided upon by consensus, as
>> biological
>> psychiatry would have it.
>>
>>
>> In 35 years as a private practice, adult/child neurologist, making
>> "disease"/
>> "no disease" determinations daily, I have discovered and described real
>> diseases but have found myself unable to validate ADHD, by whatever name,
>> as
>> an actual disease.
>>
>>
>> In 1971, Baughman [10] discovered the curly hair-anklyoblepharon (fused
>> eyelids)-nail dysplasia syndrome (CHANDS). Its description was published
>> in
>> the Birth Defects: Original Article Series. In 1979, Toriello, et. al.
>> [11]
>> (myself included) established its autosomal recessive mode of
>> transmission
>> and published our findings in the Journal of Medical Genetics . In 1959,
>> Turcot, et al [12], suggested that the combination of polyposis of the
>> colon
>> with gliomas of the brain was an autosomal recessive trait. In 1969,
>> Baughman, et al, [13] described the second, "confirmatory" example of the
>> glioma-polyposis syndrome-Turcot's syndrome. Anyone asking whether or
>> not
>> CHANDS exists, whether or not it has been proven to be "genetic" or,
>> whether
>> or not Turcot's syndrome exists, can look up the references and access
>> the
>> proofs. Such is the way of medical science-with the notable exception
>> of
>> biological psychiatry.
>>
>>
>> On September 23, 1993, I [14] testified in hearings on National
>> Institutes
>> of Health (NIH) Research on Antisocial, Aggressive, and Violence-Related
>> Behaviors and their Consequences:
>>
>>
>> "If, as I am convinced, these entities are not diseases, it would be
>> unethical to initiate research to evaluate biological
>> interventions-unethical and fatally flawed scientifically. That such
>> unethical, unscientific research has, and is, going on, should be the
>> focus
>> of investigations."
>>
>>
>> My testimony, and with it, all consideration of the fundamental
>> "disease"/
>> "no disease" issue, was effectively expunged from their 1994 final
>> report.
>> Moreover, they have refused to share with me informed consent documents
>> used
>> in such research, which would have had to state how they characterize
>> ADHD,
>> CD and ODD to parents of children who are research subjects.
>>
>>
>> AND ALL THE OTHER BIOPSYCHIATRIC DISEASES, TOO?
>>
>>
>> Regarding their re-conceptualization of psychiatric "disorders" as
>> "diseases", psychiatrist, Donald Goodwin [15] acknowledged "a narrow
>> definition of disease that requires the presence of a biological
>> abnormality."
>>
>>
>> Kety and Matthysse [16] write, ". the recent literature does not provide
>> the
>> hoped-for clarification of the catecholamine hypotheses, nor does
>> compelling
>> evidence emerge for other biological differences that may characterize
>> the
>> brains of patients with mental disease."
>>
>>
>> The Congressional Office of Technology Assessment [17] concludes:
>> "Mental
>> disorders are classified on the basis of symptoms because there are as
>> yet
>> no biological markers or laboratory tests for them."
>>
>>
>> Arthur C. Clarke, scientific thinker, author of "2001: A Space Odyssey"
>> reminds us: "Science, unlike politics or diplomacy, does not depend on
>> consensus or expediency-it progresses by open-minded probing, rigorous
>> questioning, independent thought and, when the need arises, being bold
>> enough to say that the emperor has no clothes."
>>
>>
>> Biological psychiatry has "no clothes!" ADHD has "no clothes!" There
>> being
>> no scientific explanations, we must look elsewhere for answers to the
>> epidemic drugging of US schoolchildren in the name of ADHD and every
>> other
>> invented, fraudulent psychiatric 'disease,' those whose only intent is to
>> make 'patients' of every mis-educated, mis-parented, troubled, pained,
>> biologically normal, child.
>>
>>
>> I TRY TO LEARN THE TRUTH ABOUT ADHD
>>
>>
>> From 1993 to the present, I have written to leading agencies and
>> researchers, asking to be referred to the one or few articles in the
>> peer-reviewed, scientific, literature that constitute proof that ADHD is
>> a
>> disease or syndrome (medical) with a confirmatory, physical abnormality.
>>
>>
>> On December 24, 1994, Paul Leber, MD, of the FDA responded: ".as yet no
>> distinctive pathophysiology for the disorder has been delineated."
>>
>>
>> On October 25, 1995, Gene R. Haislip of the DEA wrote: "We are also
>> unaware
>> that ADHD has been validated as a biologic/organic syndrome or disease."
>>
>>
>> On September 1l, 1996, as if unfamiliar with the concept of scientific
>> proof, Joyce Moscaritola, MD, Medical Affairs Vice President, Ciba-Geigy
>> (now Novartis) responded: "A comprehensive computer search of the
>> literature yielded several articles which discuss the various hypotheses
>> for
>> the etiology (cause) of ADHD."
>>
>>
>> Turning to the top ADHD researchers in the country, those at the NIMH, I
>> sent, by Fed-Ex, the following request, individually, to Doctors Peter S.
>> Jensen, F. Xavier Castellanos, Alan J. Zametkin and Judith L Rapoport,
>> all
>> on the same day, November 3, 1995:
>>
>>
>> "I would like you to direct me, specifically, to those reports in the
>> literature which constitute proof that ADHD is a disease or a syndrome
>> and
>> thus organic/biologic."
>>
>>
>> The response came not from any one of the four to whom I had directed the
>> question-all purveyors of the proposition that ADHD is a "disease" and
>> that
>> the children are abnormal, but from L. Eugene Arnold, M.Ed., MD, December
>> 8,
>> 1995, after consultation with the four. Not until the final paragraph of
>> a
>> two-page letter, replete with 35 references, having nothing to do with my
>> question, did Arnold get to the question:
>>
>>
>> However, I suspect you are more interested in evidence that ADHD is
>> organic/biologic.The evidence here is more nascent, with exciting new
>> reports at each professional meeting. It is very likely that multiple
>> causes will be established.
>>
>>
>> This, of course, was a non-answer.
>>
>>
>> The 1995, Report of the International Narcotics Control Board [18] voiced
>> concern regarding the diagnosis of ADD:
>>
>>
>> The INCB requests the authorities of the United States to continue to
>> carefully monitor future developments in the diagnosis of ADD in
>> children.in
>> order to ensure that these substances are prescribed in accordance with
>> sound medical practice, as required under article 9 paragraph 2, of the
>> 1971
>> Convention.
>>
>>
>> On June 7, 1996 I wrote to the INCB asking:
>>
>>
>> With no confirmation that so-called attention-deficit disorder with or
>> without hyperactivity (ADHD) is a disease, a "discrete diagnostic entity"
>> or
>> anything organic or biologic, how could it possibly be sound medical
>> practice?
>>
>>
>> Replying on July 3, 1996, INCB Secretary, Herbert Schaep, expressed
>> satisfaction with the newly-launched Ciba-Geigy campaign to inform the
>> community about the abuse potential of methylphenidate-Ritalin, but left
>> the
>> more fundamental question of the validity of a ADD/ADHD as a
>> disease/medical
>> syndrome un-addressed.
>>
>>
>> Conner, he of the parent-teacher behavior scales, replied on September
>> 15,
>> 1998. He enclosed his April, 1997, article [18]: "Is ADHD a disease?" by
>> way of response. Therein, he summarized:
>>
>>
>> .we see that there is no agreement on a core psychological defect,
>> anatomic
>> locus, neurochemical or genetic basis, or neuropsychological pattern,
>> that
>> is characteristic of ADHD. What is wrong with our approach.that we should
>> have so little success in identifying a specific marker for the ADHD
>> disease, almost a century after George Still identified the disorder?
>>
>>
>> On September 15, 1997, I wrote to Director of National Drug Control
>> Policy,
>> General (ret.) Barry R. McCaffrey and Secretary of the Department of
>> Health
>> and Human Services, Donna Shalala, charging:
>>
>>
>> that ADHD-the fraudulent, never-validated, "disease"-was fabricated by
>> experts at the National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH)" and that "On
>> no
>> less than four occasions (by registered mail as well) I have asked NIMH
>> experts, Doctors Peter S. Jensen, F. Xavier Castellanos, Judith L.
>> Rapoport
>> and Alan J. Zametkin to refer me to those articles.that prove that ADHD
>> is a
>> "disease" (or a medical syndrome) with a confirmatory, characteristic
>> abnormality (pathology).
>>
>>
>> At long last, I elicited a reply to my question-or so I thought-from the
>> one
>> person, who, more than any other, speaks of and for ADHD and oversees
>> ADHD
>> research in the U.S.-Peter S. Jensen, MD, Chief, Developmental
>> Psychopathology Research Branch, NIMH, NIH, Department of Health and
>> Human
>> Services (DHHS). Dr. Jensen urged that I:
>>
>>
>> "note within the pages of the prestigious British journal Lancet an
>> article
>> will soon be forthcoming (James Swanson, et al. [19] ) that reviews all
>> of
>> the biologic evidence for the establishment of ADHD as a bona fide
>> disorder."
>>
>>
>> What Dr. Jensen failed to state, once again, is whether or not the
>> "soon.forthcoming" Lancet article, or any, anywhere in the peer-reviewed
>> literature on ADHD, yet constitutes proof of an abnormality within the
>> child-one that can be tested for and found patient-by-patient, one
>> proving
>> that we are not drugging millions of normal children.
>>
>>
>> On December 5, 1997, I wrote and faxed James M. Swanson, Ph.D., Director,
>> Child Development Center, Department of Pediatrics, University of
>> California, Irvine, and author of the "soon.forthcoming" Lancet article
>> asking that he:
>>
>>
>> please send me a copy or reprint of the article referred to by Dr. Jensen
>> in
>> his letter to me of October 12, 1997 (enclosed). Can you cite final,
>> confirmatory proof that ADHD is a disease/medical syndrome with a
>> definite,
>> discernible (patient by patient) physical or chemical abnormality/
>> marker?
>>
>>
>> Getting no response from Swanson, I re-sent my original letter (that of
>> December 5, 1997) on January 12, 1998, this time by registered mail. In
>> so
>> doing, I learned that the address I had been using was correct and that
>> the
>> registered letter had been received and signed for. But still, no
>> response
>> to my scientific, collegial inquiry.
>>
>>
>> Next, Swanson appeared as a substitute speaker at a meeting I was
>> attending
>> in San Diego, that of the American Society for Adolescent Psychiatry,
>> March
>> 5-8, 1998. He spoke, among other things, of the MRI brain scan research
>> of
>> Castellanos, et al [20,21], and Filipek, et al [22], alleged to show
>> brain
>> atrophy in subjects with ADHD, but not in controls.
>>
>>
>> I spoke from the audience, pointing out that 93% of the subjects in the
>> Castellanos [20,21] studies had been on chronic stimulant therapy, and
>> inquired as to the stimulant status of those in the Filipek [22] study.
>> Swanson acknowledged that Filipek et al [22], also utilized ADHD subjects
>> who had been on chronic stimulant therapy-an acknowledgment nowhere to be
>> found in a review of this research either in the in the Lancet article
>> [19]
>> or in the more recent Report of the Council of Scientific Affairs of the
>> American Medical Association [23].
>>
>>
>> Here, we had strong, replicated evidence that chronic stimulant therapy
>> (methylphenidate, amphetamine) causes brain atrophy, not confirmation of
>> an
>> ADHD phenotype at all, as we were led to believe.
>>
>>
>> Next--much to my surprise--came the answer to the ADHD "disease"/ "no
>> disease" question. Swanson (from the tape recording of the session):
>>
>>
>> "I would like to have an objective diagnosis for the disorder (ADHD).
>> Right
>> now psychiatric diagnosis is completely subjective.We would like to have
>> biological tests-a dream of psychiatry for many years. I think we will
>> validate it. I do not think these drugs are dangerous or addictive when
>> used this way."
>>
>>
>> "I think we will validate it," he said. At long last-an open, honest,
>> truly scientific appraisal from one within the ADHD industry!
>>
>>
>> At last, I had my answer from Swanson, and from the greater ADHD
>> industry.
>> He thinks they will validate ADHD. What he neglected to say was how he
>> describes ADHD today, in obtaining informed consent from the parents of
>> children he treats with stimulants and from those of children in their
>> research studies using positron emission tomography (PET) scans, spinal
>> taps
>> and indwelling venous catheters, from which to draw blood drug levels.
>> I
>> have written him requesting copies. I am still waiting (7/19/00).
>>
>>
>> On May 13, 1998, F. Xavier Castellanos or the NIMH wrote to me:
>>
>>
>> ".I have noted your critiques of the diagnostic validity of ADHD. I
>> agree
>> that we have not yet met the burden of demonstrating the specific
>> pathophysiology that we believe underlies this condition. However, my
>> colleagues and I are certainly motivated by the belief that it will be
>> possible in the near future to do so."
>>
>>
>> Swanson thinks "we will validate it!" Meanwhile, Castellanos and his
>> colleagues are ". motivated by the belief that it will be possible in the
>> near future to do so."
>>
>>
>> On August 5, 1998, William B. Carey, MD, of the Children's Hospital of
>> Philadelphia, wrote to me:
>>
>>
>> "There are no such articles (constituting proof that ADHD is a disease).
>> There are many articles raising doubts but none that establish the proof
>> you
>> or I seek."
>>
>>
>> Barkley [24] implies that brain atrophy characterizes and validates ADHD
>> as
>> a disease. He cites MRI studies by Castellanos, et al. [20,21] the first
>> of
>> which showed that "Subjects with ADHD had a 4.7% smaller total cerebral
>> volume," while the second showed: "Vermal (cerebellar) volume was
>> significantly less.with ADHD." Not mentioned was the fact, acknowledged
>> in
>> the original report [20], that 93% of ADHD subjects had been on chronic
>> stimulant therapy and, that the same, treated, cohort was used in the
>> second
>> study. No drug-naïve group (not taking Ritalin, or other stimulants or
>> psychiatric drugs) has been shown to have brain atrophy. It can only be
>> concluded that their brain atrophy is a function of their chronic
>> stimulant
>> therapy-the only physical variable.
>>
>>
>> What does this say about ADHD "science" and "scientists?" NIMH, NIH
>> Publication No. 94-3572, states: "Brain scan images produced by positron
>> emission tomography (PET) show differences between an adult with
>> Attention
>> Deficit Hyperactivity and an adult free of the disease." Nowhere in
>> their
>> peer-reviewed literature do we find disavowals of their claims of
>> "disease."
>>
>>
>> In 1986, Ross [25], a psychiatrist, chided:
>>
>>
>> .dealing with symptoms or syndromes as if they were specific disease
>> reflects a trend in psychiatry to regard mental illnesses as biological
>> entities.But in this surrealistic world of pseudo-entities, the
>> psychiatrist
>> abdicated reality to embrace biological reductionism.
>>
>>
>> In 1990, Pam [26], a psychologist, supposing psychiatrists naïve, sought
>> to
>> impose scientific standards. He wrote:
>>
>>
>> .any studies that do not meet standards for proper research procedures or
>> interpretation of data must not be accepted for publication or, if
>> already
>> published, must be discredited within the professional literature.the
>> possibility that that emotional experience (love, hate, fear, grief) may
>> be
>> physiologically non-specific gets short shrift.If each emotion is not
>> physiologically distinctive, there can be no biological marker for each
>> type
>> or subtype of emotional pathology, and thus most current research would
>> be
>> methodologically inappropriate.the preponderance of research contributed
>> by
>> biological psychiatry up to the present is questionable or even
>> invalidated
>> by the criticisms just made.
>>
>>
>> With research and the peer-reviewed scientific literature substantially
>> or
>> wholly (as in the case of drug-related research) funded by industry-who
>> speaks for science? To what extent are scientific findings muted?
>> Perverted? Are diseases invented where they don't exist? Treatments?
>> Acknowledgments appearing on published articles regarding research
>> funding
>> and sponsorship are wholly inadequate. Readers have every right to
>> detailed
>> knowledge regarding research funding and the researchers, as well.
>> Without
>> such information, informed consent is not fully informed.
>>
>>
>> In the Clinical Psychiatric News of December, 1994, Houston psychiatrist,
>>
>>
>>
>> Theodore Pearlman wrote:
>>
>>
>> "I take issue with Dr. Harold Alan Pincus' (of the Committee of the
>> Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of the American Psychiatric
>> Association)
>> assertion that elimination of the term "organic" in the DSM-IV has served
>> a
>> useful purpose for psychiatry.Far from being of value to psychiatry, the
>> elimination of the term "organic" conveys the impression that psychiatry
>> wishes to conceal the nonorganic character of many behavioral problems
>> that
>> were, in previous DSM publications, clearly differentiated from known
>> central nervous system diseases."
>>
>>
>> Baughman, wrote in the same issue of Clinical Psychiatric News (December,
>> 1994):
>>
>>
>> "The fact that DSM-IV eschews the distinction between organic disease and
>> disorders .that are not organic, does not mean that treating physicians
>> can.to contend that something is a disease when that has not been
>> established is to fail to provide the patient with information sufficient
>> to
>> make an informed decision."
>>
>>
>> In a 1995 review of the neuro-imaging literature on ADHD, Ernst [27]
>> commented:
>>
>>
>> "The definition of ADHD has changed over time. This change has
>> contributed
>> to the selection of research samples with differing clinical
>> characteristics, making comparisons among studies difficult.samples of
>> children with ADHD who were diagnosed according to DSM-III-R (1987)
>> criteria
>> include children who do not meet DSM-III (1980) criteria."
>>
>>
>> What Ernst pointed out is that the ADD of DSM-III (1980), the ADHD of
>> DSM-III-R (1987), and the ADHD of DSM-IV (1994) are 3 separate,
>> incomparable
>> entities. Moreover, the ADHD of DSM-IV has been divided (also by
>> consensus-altered diagnostic criteria) into three sub-types: (a)
>> hyperactive-impulsive, (b) inattentive, and (c ) combined-none comparable
>> to
>> the other or to the ADD of DSM-III (1980) or the ADHD of DSM-III-R
>> (1987).
>> If the neuro-imaging literature for each is separate and incomparable,
>> then
>> the same is true of the literature on biochemistry, genetics,
>> epidemiology,
>> co-morbidity, psychopharmacology, etc. None are comparable, one with the
>> other. Is this science?
>>
>>
>> In all of medicine, other than psychiatry, there is no inventing or
>> conceptualizing of 'diseases' in-committee. Rather, diseases are natural
>> occurrences, recognized as abnormalities-diseases-by physicians who, in
>> turn, find upon review of the literature, that they have not been
>> previously
>> described, who then describe them. Nor are diseases revised in
>> committee,
>> as is regularly done at the American Psychiatric Association for
>> consecutive
>> editions of the DSM. Rather, new features of established diseases are
>> recognized by astute physicians who, in turn, learn that the feature is
>> new,
>> hitherto un-described, and describe it.
>>
>>
>> Why do ADHD experts regularly extol the sheer volume and longevity of
>> their
>> research record, as if this alone, as opposed to particular proofs, were
>> what mattered. For example, the Report of the Council on Scientific
>> Affairs
>> of the AMA [23] states: "ADHD is a childhood neuropsychiatric syndrome
>> that
>> has been studied thoroughly over the past 40 years." ADHD, as such, did
>> not
>> appear until the publication of DSM-III-R in 1987. Nor have I mentioned
>> its
>> many pre-DSM-III, 1980, conceptualizations. Consider:
>>
>>
>> The high frequency of "soft" neurologic findings led to designating the
>> condition "minimal brain dysfunction", with the expectation that a
>> consistent neurologic lesion or set of lesions would eventually be found
>> [28].
>>
>>
>> Typical of biopsychiatry, "minimal brain dysfunction," circa, 1960-1970,
>> better known by its acronym, "MBD," was itself re-conceptualized before
>> "a
>> consistent neurologic lesion or set of lesions" could be found. Nor was
>> it
>> the same or comparable, to any subsequent conceptualization-another
>> chapter
>> of the research record, down the drain.
>>
>>
>> Writing in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), in
>> 1995,
>> psychiatry spokesmen, Marzuk and Barchas [29] stated:
>>
>>
>> Perhaps the most significant conceptual shift (from DSM-III-R, 1987, to
>> DSM-IV, 1994) was the elimination of the rubric organic mental disorders,
>> which had suggested improperly that most psychiatric disorders.had no
>> organic basis.
>>
>>
>> Notice that these authors have assumed, but not proven, that "most
>> psychiatric disorders" have an organic basis, making it improper for
>> anyone
>> to suggest otherwise. They would shift the burden of proof to those who
>> doubt and question, hardly in keeping with science. What they and the
>> American Psychiatric Association (APA), with its DSM-IV, have done, was
>> to
>> absolve psychiatry of every physician's obligation to make a fundamental,
>> patient-by-patient, "organic"/ "not organic," "disease"/ "no disease"
>> determination. They have absolved themselves, and, anyone wishing to
>> join
>> them in such diagnosing, of having to demonstrate an
>> abnormality-pathology,
>> by way of proving that psychiatric "disorders"/ "diseases" are actual
>> diseases.
>>
>>
>> In fact, the essential first step in all diagnosis, even in the diagnosis
>> of
>> psychiatric disorders, is to make the fundamental "Is it a disease or
>> isn't
>> it?" determination. This determination is usually made by physicians
>> other
>> than psychiatrists; usually by those referring patients to the
>> psychiatrist
>> (or psychologist, or other mental health professional). What
>> psychiatrists
>> do from that point on, is nothing, more or less, than, semantic
>> classification, based upon subjective symptoms, alone, in patients
>> already-proven to have no disease. The absence of organic disease, over
>> time, stands as the strongest evidence that a patient's symptoms are
>> psychogenic.
>>
>>
>> An ad placed by "America's Pharmaceutical Research Companies" in
>> Newsweek,
>> October 7, 1996, read: "A chemical that triggers mental illness is now
>> being
>> used to stop it." Here again, is the "big lie." There is no mental
>> illness
>> with a proven chemical abnormality. In their scheme of things, however,
>> scientific facts are less important, by far, than that the public at
>> large
>> become believers in the "chemical imbalance"-chemical "balancer" (pill)
>> view
>> of mental health. When and in which boardroom did they meet to adopt
>> their
>> "disease"-"chemical imbalance"-"pill" model of all human emotional
>> distress?
>>
>>
>> Biopsychiatry's researchers are aware that without proven diseases,
>> syndromes (in a medical sense) genotypes or phenotypes, that the
>> "disease"
>> and "control" groups are both physically normal and, indistinguishable.
>> They know from the outset that their research is destined to prove
>> nothing
>> and to remain forever theoretical. (this means that all of their
>> biological
>> research on entities known not to be biological, i.e., known to have an
>> objective abnormality or physical marker, are doomed to prove nothing and
>> are fraudulent).
>>
>>
>> Pam [26] asks:
>>
>>
>> .how can we account for the tendency to seriously compromise research and
>> review standards within a medical discipline (all of psychiatry, its
>> governing bodies and journals) known for its commitment to the scientific
>> method?
>>
>>
>> .and, ventures an answer:
>>
>>
>> "The sociology of knowledge developed by Mannheim [30] postulates that
>> all
>> intellectual systems-science included-are influenced by special interest
>> and
>> social considerations; a body of information is never unrelated to a
>> political-economic context."
>>
>>
>> 1998: THE AMA COUNCIL ON SCIENTIFIC AFFAIRS
>>
>>
>> With no proof that ADHD is a disease with a confirmatory, physical
>> abnormality, the ADHD "epidemic," has grown from 150,000 in 1970, to five
>> million in 1997. Ritalin production in the US rose 700%, between 1990 and
>> 1997, and the AMA, Council on Scientific Affairs [23] has seen fit to
>> conclude: ".there is little evidence of widespread overdiagnosis or
>> misdiagnosis of ADHD or of widespread overprescription of
>> methylphenidate."
>> Without a confirmatory physical or chemical abnormality to make of it a
>> disease, with which to diagnose it, child-by-child, how could they
>> possibly
>> know whether or not there was ".overdiagnosis or misdiagnosis of ADHD or
>> of
>> widespread overprescription of methylphenidate"?
>>
>>
>> Ten years earlier, in 1989, the same AMA Council on Scientific Affairs
>> [31],
>> evaluated "dyslexia," a.k.a. "specific reading disability," and duly, and
>> scientifically, concluded there was no satisfactory definition-that it
>> was
>> not a disease. Why, today, in 1998, does the Council fail to provide a
>> forthright, scientific answer to the same question about ADHD? "Is it a
>> disease with a confirmatory physical abnormality, or isn't it?"
>>
>>
>> What factors have changed which allowed the Council to speak
>> forthrightly-scientifically--on the issue of "dyslexia" in 1989, but not
>> on
>> ADHD, in 1998 [23]?
>>
>>
>> Is industry (pharmaceutical) control of the practice of medicine more
>> nearly
>> complete today? How often are scientific conclusions not friendly to the
>> "bottom line" published? Quashed?
>>
>>
>> The AMA and Goldman, et al, authors of the Council Report are, no doubt,
>> aware of the influence their report will have on the ADHD field in these
>> times of continued proselytizing and incredible growth of the
>> ADHD/Ritalin/psychotropic drug epidemic and growing doubts as to the
>> validity of it all. Is their mandate to represent science, or have they
>> sided with industry to protect the ADHD "golden goose." I am shocked at
>> their avoidance of the main scientific question-the "disease"/ "no
>> disease"
>> question.
>>
>>
>> Armed only with the illusion of a disease, no proof that a disease (ADHD)
>> exists, or that the children are other than normal, the RECOMMENDATIONS
>> of
>> the AMA [23] are:
>>
>>
>> 1. "The AMA encourages physicians to use standardized diagnostic
>> criteria in making the diagnosis of ADHD, such as the American
>> Psychiatric
>> Association's DSM-IV."
>>
>>
>> 2. "The AMA encourages the creation and dissemination of practice
>> guidelines for ADHD by appropriate specialty societies and their use by
>> practicing physicians."
>>
>>
>> 3. "The AMA encourages efforts by medical schools, residency
>> programs,
>> medical societies, and continuing medical education programs to increase
>> physician knowledge about ADHD and its treatment."
>>
>>
>> 4. "The AMA encourages the use of individualized therapeutic
>> approaches
>> for children diagnosed as having ADHD, which may include pharmacotherapy,
>> psychoeducation (whatever that is), behavioral therapy, etc., etc."
>>
>>
>> 5. "The AMA encourages physicians and medical groups to work with
>> schools to improve teachers' abilities to recognize (diagnose?) ADHD and
>> appropriately recommend that parents seek medical evaluation."
>>
>>
>> 6. "The AMA reaffirms Policy 100.975, to work with the FDA and the
>> DEA
>> to help ensure that appropriate amounts of methylphenindate and other
>> Schedule II drugs are available for clinically warranted patient use."
>>
>>
>> RECOMMENDATIONS (5) and (6) are particularly reprehensible. The former
>> (5)
>> further encourages the teachers of the nation to make a diagnosis leading
>> to
>> the prescription of controlled substances-constituting, in my opinion,
>> the
>> practice of medicine without a license. The latter (6) pushes drugs of
>> addiction, Schedule II drugs, upon a population free of any demonstrable
>> physical abnormality.
>>
>>
>> Nor are the editors of the Journal of the American Medical Association
>> (JAMA) unaware of the fundamental problem concerning ADHD-the need-still,
>> for a forthright answer to the "disease"/ "no disease" question. In a
>> 1993, letter to the editor of the JAMA [32], I wrote:
>>
>>
>> Unlike definite syndromes, such as Klinefelter's, Brown-Sequard, and
>> Down's,
>> in which there is a constancy of symptoms and signs (objective), the
>> Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Revised, Third
>> Edition allows any combination of 8 of 14 behaviors for a diagnosis of
>> attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder. Is this the validation of a
>> syndrome, or does it redefine the term syndrome?.If attention-deficit
>> hyperactivity disorder is not a proven syndrome, how can cause be
>> inferred?
>> How can therapies be evaluated?
>>
>>
>> In 1995, an article by AJ Zametkin [33], entitled Attention-deficit
>> Disorder: Born to Be Hyperactive was published in the JAMA. In a letter
>> to
>> the editor of JAMA that was rejected, I wrote:
>>
>>
>> Without a statement that there has never been proof that ADHD is a
>> syndrome,
>> a disease, organic or biologic, the review by Zametkin is incomplete and
>> misleading. Under the heading "Pathophysiology" -as if there were a
>> "pathophysiology"-he writes only, "the cause of ADHD is unknown.".The
>> ADHD
>> literature reveals that there was never syndrome validation to begin
>> with.
>> Is this not a fatal flaw?.Regarding ADHD, the "informed consent" should
>> include the statement that ADHD has never been proven to be a
>> syndrome/disease; biologic/organic.
>>
>>
>> Upon rejection of my letter, I wrote to JAMA, Senior Editor, Margaret A.
>> Winker, MD, September 21, 1995, stating:
>>
>>
>> .I would be especially disappointed if it turns out that you do not plan
>> to
>> publish any correspondence asking for such clarification.JAMA would not
>> wish
>> to be seen as failing to disclose the status of what science there is
>> regarding what is commonly referred to as ADHD.
>>
>>
>> Although I was assured that my letter was passed on to Zametkin, I never
>> received a reply from him. Would JAMA, the AMA, and the AMA Council on
>> Scientific Affairs wish to be seen as failing to disclose the scientific
>> status of ADHD?
>>
>>
>> I have sought, unsuccessfully, for 5 years to get a straightforward
>> "Yes!"
>> or "No!" answer to the "Is ADHD an actual disease or not?" question, from
>> the leaders of the ADHD research establishment, including, most
>> prominently,
>> Peter S. Jensen, MD, of the NIMH in Rockville, MD, and James M. Swanson,
>> Ph.D., of the University of California, Irvine (both members of the
>> Professional Advisory Board of Children and Adults with Attention Deficit
>> Disorders-CHADD, as well).
>>
>>
>> As unthinkable as it may seem, what we are dealing with here, is nothing,
>> more or less, than a for-profit, invented "disease" and a for-profit
>> invented "epidemic," perhaps the most successful of all time, in monetary
>> terms. At the same time it has been one of the most diabolical and
>> inhuman,
>> of all time, if not, the most diabolical and inhuman.
>>
>>
>> Psychiatrist, Walter E. Afield,[34], said it best, and, most succinctly.
>> He
>> testified before the Select Committee on Children, Youth, and Families,
>> House of Representative, April 28, 1992, on the psychiatric hospital
>> fraud
>> of the 1980's, as follows:
>>
>>
>> " .The DSM-III, we're talking about everyone in this room will fit into
>> two
>> or three of the diagnoses.In DSM-II, homosexuality was a disease. In
>> III,
>> it's not. In IV, there'll be some new diseases. Every new disease
>> that's
>> defined gets a new hospital program, new admissions, a new system and a
>> way
>> to bilk it, and this bilking continues.
>>
>>
>> THE SEARCH FOR ADHD 1998 TO THE PRESENT?
>>
>>
>> On April 15, 1998, I wrote to Attorney General Janet Reno charging:
>>
>>
>> "the representation of ADHD as a disease, the children as abnormal, and
>> the
>> psychiatric drugging of the millions of schoolchildren said to have it,
>> was
>> the greatest health care fraud of the century."
>>
>>
>> In May 13, 1998, F. Xavier Castellanos of the NIMH wrote me:
>>
>>
>> "I agree we have not yet met the burden of demonstrating the specific
>> pathophysiology that we believe underlies this condition." (haven't found
>> it
>> yet)
>>
>>
>> As the main invited speaker at the November 16-18, 1998, NIH, Consensus
>> Conference on ADHD, on the subject: "Is ADHD a Valid Disorder?" Professor
>> William B. Carey [35] concluded:
>>
>>
>> "...common assumptions about ADHD include that it is clearly
>>
>>
>> distinguishable from normal behavior, constitutes a neurodevelopmental
>>
>>
>> disability, is relatively uninfluenced by the environment... All of
>> these
>>
>>
>> assumptions...must be challenged because of the weakness of empirical
>>
>>
>> (research) support and the strength of contrary evidence...What is now
>>
>>
>> most often described as ADHD in the United States appears to be a set
>> of
>>
>>
>> normal behavioral variations... This discrepancy leaves the validity of
>>
>>
>> the construct in doubt..."
>>
>>
>> With no proof with which to counter Carey's assertions, the final
>> statement of Consensus Conference on ADHD (11/18/98) read (p.3, lines
>> 10-13):
>>
>>
>> "...we do not have an independent, valid test for ADHD, and there
>>
>>
>> are no data to indicate that ADHD is due to a brain malfunction."
>>
>>
>> Richard Degrandpre, author of Ritalin Nation, and a participant in the
>> Consensus Conference, contributed:
>>
>>
>> ". it appears that you define disease as a maladaptive cluster of
>> characteristics.in the history of science and medicine, this would not be
>> a
>> valid definition of disease."
>>
>>
>> My own, invited, entirely public, Consensus Conference, testimony,
>> 11/17/98
>> (un-rebutted), was:
>>
>>
>> Without an iota of proof or credible science, the National Institute of
>> Mental Health has proclaimed the behaviors of ADHD a "disease," and the
>> children "brain-diseased," "abnormal." CHADD (Children and Adults with
>> Attention Deficit Disorders), 35,000-strong, funded by Ciba-Geigy,
>> manufacturer of Ritalin, has spread the "neurobiological" lie. The US
>> Department of Education, absolving itself of controlling the children
>> and
>> rendering them literate, coerces the labeling and drugging.ADHD is a
>> total,
>> 100% fraud."
>>
>>
>> In the press conference that followed (11/18/98), National Public Radio
>> correspondent Joe Palca addressed the Panel:
>>
>>
>> "What you're telling us is that ADHD is like the Supreme Court's
>> definition
>> of pornography, 'You know it when you see it.'"
>>
>>
>> My response to the 1998 Report of the Council on Scientific Affairs of
>> the
>> AMA was published in the Journal of the American Medical Association,
>> 4/28/99:
>>
>>
>> "Once children are labeled with ADHD, they are no longer treated as
>> normal.
>> Once methylphenidate hydrochloride or any psychotropic drug courses
>> through
>> their brain and body, they are, for the first time, physically,
>> neurologically and biologically, abnormal."
>>
>>
>> In the January, 2000 Readers Digest, F.X. Castellanos summarized a
>> quarter
>> of a century of 'biological' research on ADHD:
>>
>>
>> "Incontrovertible evidence is still lacking.In time I'm confident we'll
>> confirm the case for organic causes."
>>
>>
>> Here, Castellanos speaks of "organic causes" when they have yet to
>> confirm
>> ADHD as a disease, a syndrome, or anything at all "organic." Twenty-five
>> years and 6-7 million patients after its 'invention,' and
>> "incontrovertible
>> evidence is still lacking!"
>>
>>
>> More recently still, J.N. Giedd, writing in Attention, the magazine of
>> CHADD
>> [March/April, 2000, p. 19], confessed:
>>
>>
>> ".clinical history remains the gold standard of AD/HD diagnosis."
>>
>>
>> This, of course, means that there are no objective abnormalities to be
>> found. This does not deter CHADD President, Matthew Cohen, Esq., from
>> continuing to insist to the public that ADHD is a 'neurobiological
>> disorder'
>> when it is neither neurological or biological; when children said to have
>> it
>> are normal.
>>
>>
>> ENDLESS MARKET: NORMAL HUMANS CRADLE TO GRAVE
>>
>>
>> As if 8-10 million, K-12, on psychiatric drugs were not enough, Zito, et
>> al
>> [36] reported a two- to three-fold rise of psychiatric diagnosing and
>> drugging of normal infants, toddlers and preschoolers between 1990 and
>> 1995.
>> We know these drugs are addictive, dangerous and even deadly. We know
>> that
>> Ritalin and all amphetamines cause growth retardation, brain atrophy,
>> seizures, psychosis, tics, and Tourette's syndrome. We know that Cylert,
>> yet another stimulant, can kill the liver. We know that Canadian
>> officials,
>> but not those in the US, have banned it.
>>
>>
>> RECENT DAMAGES FROM PSYCHIATRIC DRUGS-HEART & BRAIN
>>
>>
>> I have been consulted in 3 cases in which there appear to have been
>> cardiac
>> deaths due to Ritalin/amphetamine treatment for ADHD. Stephanie Hall,
>> 11,
>> of Canton, Ohio, died in her sleep the day she started an increased dose
>> of
>> Ritalin. In March 21, 2000, Matthew Smith, 14, of Clawson, Michigan,
>> fell
>> from his skateboard, moaned, turned blue and died. His myocardium (heart
>> muscle) was diffusely scarred, it's coronary arteries, diffusely
>> narrowed.
>> Ritalin was, indisputably, the cause of death. Randy Steele, 9, of
>> Bexar,
>> County, Texas, became unresponsive and pulseless while being restrained
>> in a
>> psychiatric facility. His heart was found to be 'enlarged.' He had had
>> ADHD and had been on Dexedrine; d-amphetamine. Of the 2,993 adverse
>> reaction
>> to Ritalin, reported to the FDA, from 1990 to 1997, there were 160
>> deaths
>> and 569 hospitalizations. 126 of these adverse reactions were
>> 'cardiovascular.'
>>
>>
>> Further, the brain damaging potential of Ritalin and other of the
>> psychostimulants (most of them amphetamines) has become increasingly
>> clear.
>> And with this new clarity, a particularly heinous crime on the part of
>> ADHD
>> researchers has become clearly apparent-the close-held news that these
>> drugs
>> cause brain atrophy, that is brain shrinkage. Over the past 15 years,
>> psychiatric researchers have maintained that the brains of children with
>> ADHD, as seen on brain scans, were, on average, 10% smaller than those of
>> normal controls. What they have withheld from the public, as well as
>> their
>> readership and professionals that attend their professional meetings, is
>> that virtually all of the ADHD subjects in these many studies over the
>> past
>> 15 years had been on long-term stimulant treatment and that this
>> treatment
>> was the only physical difference between the ADHD subjects and the normal
>> controls and the only plausible cause of the brain atrophy. Swanson
>> failed
>> to acknowledge this role of the drugs in his March 6, 1998, address to
>> the
>> American Society of Adolescent Psychiatry and Swanson, again, speaking
>> for
>> Swanson and Castellanos, failed again to present these facts in his
>> address
>> to the ADHD Consensus Conference, November 17, 1998. It was left to me
>> to
>> ask him about the role of drugs from a microphone in the audience. He
>> then
>> confessed there were no brain scan studies on record other than those
>> using
>> ADHD subjects on drugs.
>>
>>
>> Sensitive now to being held accountable for what they say and write on
>> the
>> issue, Castellanos (NIMH) was quoted in the January, 2000 Reader's
>> Digests
>> as saying some critics claim that such brain differences in ADHD children
>> might actually be caused by Ritalin. To address this, Castellanos has
>> now
>> embarked on another study, imaging the brains of ADHD youngsters who have
>> not been treated with drugs. With 15 years of brain scanning research
>> suggesting that the drugs used in millions of children are shrinking
>> their
>> brains, and they have just, now, decided to look at the brain scans of a
>> cohort of children with ADHD before starting the drugs.
>>
>>
>> A study, which will be highlighted at the Society for Neuroscience annual
>> meeting in Miami, Florida from October 23-28,Yale University researchers
>> have found that brief, low-dose, amphetamine use in primates caused
>> possibly
>> permanent cognitive impairment. Researcher Stacy Castner concluded: "It
>> may
>> be the case that even a brief period of low-dose amphetamine abuse in
>> early
>> adolescence or early adulthood can produce profound cognitive deficits
>> that
>> may persist for a couple of years or more after amphetamine use has
>> ended."
>> Yet, the researchers observe, Ritalin (generally identical to
>> amphetamines)
>> is being prescribed to millions of children--including toddlers--who have
>> been loosely "diagnosed" with ADHD.
>>
>>
>> Whether 'loosely' diagnosed or not, the bottom line is that ADHD simply
>> does
>> not exist-the children are normal! At least they were until the
>> amphetamines were started.
>>
>>
>> THE MARKETPLACE STRATEGY OF BIOLOGICAL PSYCHIATRY
>>
>>
>> Present-day biological psychiatrists speak to one another, the public and
>> to
>> their patients as though all emotional and behavioral pains were
>> diseases--chemical imbalances. This nomenclature serves no scientific or
>> Hippocratic-healing purpose. It serves only to gain their acceptance of
>> one-dimensional drug treatment. It makes 'patients' of normal persons
>> and
>> serves only the profit motive. In every single case, as well as in
>> virtually all of their drug, electroshock, and psychosurgical research,
>> they
>> intentionally violate the informed consent rights of the patient. Quite
>> simply, there is no disease on the risk side of the risk/benefit equation
>> in
>> psychiatry. Instead, there are normal, troubled, pained, educable,
>> remediable, adaptable, human beings--human beings who, if treated
>> appropriately, have the potential to improve, to prevail, and to lead
>> happy,
>> normal, productive lives.
>>
>>
>> Until such time as the diagnosis of a disease has been objectively
>> confirmed, a physician has no right to proceed with any treatment, which
>> is,
>> itself, a source of risk.
>>
>>
>> I would not be justified in starting insulin for diabetes, based only on
>> history, without confirmatory, elevated, blood sugar levels in hand. I
>> would not be justified in surgically removing a breast based upon the
>> naked
>> eye appearance of a tumor, without microscopic confirmation of the
>> presence
>> of a cancer.
>>
>>
>> Psychiatrists speak to their patients as though their emotional and
>> behavioral problems were 'diseases.' They do so to gain patient
>> acceptance
>> of drug treatment, when this, and this alone, is in the best financial
>> interest of both, psychiatrists, and their pharmaceutical industry
>> partners.
>>
>>
>> A week ago I got a letter from Frank Heutehaus of Don Mills, Ontario, a
>> father-of -divorce, whose son is on Ritalin. He enclosed the Toronto Sun
>> article on the death of Matthew Smith and in his post-script added. "In
>> regards to my case, I am entertaining the prospect of bringing criminal
>> charges of assault and battery against some of the doctors who claimed my
>> son had a disease that doesn't exist."
>>
>>
>> Such 'biological' psychiatrists, violate the informed consent rights of
>> their every patient. This is medical malpractice. There is no
>> scientific,
>> medical or moral justification for their pseudo-biological diagnosing or
>> for
>> the drugging that invariably follows.
>>
>>
>> On May, 25,2000, I wrote to the JF Lucey, Editor of the journal
>> Pediatrics,
>> stating:
>>
>>
>> (your) Clinical Practice Guideline opens:
>> "Attention-deficit/hyperactivity
>> disorder is the most common neurobehavioral disorder of childhood."
>> "Neurobehavioral," implies an abnormality of the brain; a disease. And
>> yet,
>> no confirmatory, physical or chemical abnormality of the brain (or
>> anywhere
>> else in the body) has been found.With no evidence that ADHD is a disease,
>> where has the notion come from that it is a disease? .It has become
>> apparent
>> that virtually all professionals who are part of the extended ADHD
>> 'industry'
>> convey to parents, and to the public-at-large, that ADHD is a disease and
>> that children said to have it are 'diseased'-'abnormal.' This is a
>> perversion of the scientific record and a violation of the informed
>> consent
>> rights of all patients and of the public-at-large.
>>
>>
>> We cannot but conclude that medicine, once a healing mission, is now an
>> enterprise.
>>
>>
>> BIOLOGICAL RESEARCH INTO THINGS NON-BIOLOGICAL
>>
>>
>> A closing word about our own National Institute of Mental Health and
>> their
>> dedication to a program of biological research into things emotional and
>> behavioral that are biologically indistinct. Ross [25] and Pam [26] put
>> it
>> most succinctly.
>>
>>
>> Ross [25], a psychiatrist, chided:
>>
>>
>> .dealing with symptoms or syndromes as if they were specific disease
>> reflects a trend in psychiatry to regard mental illnesses as biological
>> entities.But in this surrealistic world of pseudo-entities, the
>> psychiatrist
>> abdicated reality to embrace biological reductionism.
>>
>>
>> Pursued as medical practice, is this not fraud?
>>
>>
>> Pam [26] wrote:
>>
>>
>> .any studies that do not meet standards for proper research procedures
>> (doing biological studies on biologically indistinct entities) or
>> interpretation of data must not be accepted for publication or, if
>> already
>> published must be discredited within the professional literature.the
>> possibility that that emotional experience (love, hate, fear, grief) may
>> be
>> physiologically non-specific gets short shrift.If each emotion is not
>> physiologically distinctive, there can be no biological marker for each
>> type
>> or subtype of emotional pathology, and thus most current research would
>> be
>> methodologically inappropriate.the preponderance of research contributed
>> by
>> biological psychiatry up to the present is questionable or even
>> invalidated
>> by the criticisms just made.
>>
>>
>> Consider the recent mission statement of Stephen E. Hyman, Director of
>> the
>> NIMH, in relation to the above statements of Ross and Pam.
>>
>>
>> In the December 22/29, 1999 Journal of the American Medical Association
>> [JAMA. 1999;282:2290], we find the musings of heads of the constituent
>> institutes of the National Institutes of Health, as to what the future
>> portends for their disciplines.
>>
>>
>> Targeting the year 2020, Steven E. Hyman, MD, Director of the NIMH
>> states,
>> remarkably enough:
>>
>>
>> By 2020 it will be a truth, obvious to all, that mental illnesses are
>> brain
>> diseases that result from complex gene-environment interactions. We will
>> be
>> reaping the therapeutic benefits that accrue from the discovery of risk
>> genes for autism, schizophrenia, manic depressive illness, and other
>> serious
>> mental disorders.
>>
>>
>> We will also routinely analyze real-time movies of brain activity derived
>> from functional magnetic resonance imaging, optical imaging, or their
>> successor technologies, working together with magnetoencephalography or
>> its
>> successor technology. In these movies, we will see the activity of
>> distributed neural circuits during diverse examples of normal cognition
>> and
>> emotion; we will see how things go wrong in mental illness; and we will
>> see
>> normalization with our improved treatments.
>>
>>
>> Amazingly, not a single mental, emotional or behavioral disorder has been
>> validated as a disease or a medical syndrome with a confirmatory physical
>> or
>> chemical abnormality or marker within the brain or body. Furthermore,
>> Hyman
>> knows this. And yet the NIMH and all in academic psychiatry and mental
>> health regularly represent all of the "serious mental disorders" as
>> though
>> they were, and would have the public, the legislature, and the judiciary
>> believe that they are.
>>
>>
>> Further, with not one psychiatric entity having a confirmatory physical
>> abnormality or marker or any prospect that any technology will validate a
>> one as a disease, Director Hyman pledges the application from decade to
>> decade of every evolving technology to confirm his/biological
>> psychiatry's
>> belief that "mental illnesses are brain diseases". Observe his use of
>> the
>> term "normalization" establishing, etymologically at least, that those
>> with
>> mental illnesses are abnormal.
>>
>>
>> Because psychiatric disorders are biologically/physically indistinct,
>> biological/physical research, no matter how long pursued, or how
>> sophisticated the technology, is doomed to prove nothing. I suspect that
>> Dr. Hyman and all at the NIMH know this full-well. Might the only
>> purpose
>> of such research be to establish a 'medical'/biological' literature, and,
>> illusions of biology, neurology and disease. After all, without such
>> illusions of disease there would only be normal children.
>>
>>
>> One final point. This NIH/NIMH research is funded not just with
>> pharmaceutical industry millions but with the hard-earned tax dollars of
>> US
>> citizens. Is there any legitimacy to biological research in psychiatry
>> or
>> is it entirely fraudulent-a deception of the people funded with their
>> very
>> own tax dollars?
>>
>>
>>
>>>Myth #6: Children who take ADHD medication are more likely to abuse drugs
>>>when they become teenagers.
>>
>>
>>
>>>Actually, it's just the opposite. Having untreated ADHD increases the
>>>risk
>>>that an individual will abuse drugs or alcohol. Appropriate treatment
>>>reduces this risk. The medications used to treat ADHD have been proven
>>>safe and effective over more than 50 years of use. These drugs don't cure
>>>ADHD, but they are highly effective at easing symptoms of the disorder.
>>>The drugs do not turn kids into addicts or "zombies."
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Actually NOT.
>>
>>
>> http://www.ritalindeath.com/Suicides.htm
>>
>>
>> Drug report barred by FDA
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>Myth #7: People who have ADHD are stupid or lazy - they never amount to
>>>anything.
>>
>>
>>
>>>People with ADHD are of above-average intelligence, recent studies show.
>>>They certainly aren't lazy. In fact, many well-known, high-achieving
>>>individuals from the past are thought to have had ADHD, including Mozart,
>>>Benjamin Franklin, Abraham Lincoln, George Bernard Shaw, and Salvador
>>>Dali. The list of high-achieving ADDers in business today includes top
>>>executives such as David Neeleman, founder of JetBlue Airways, and Paul
>>>Orfalea, founder of Kinko's. - HealthNewsDigest.com
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> http://www.newswise.com/p/articles/view/512680/
>>
>>
>> Source: Florida State University Released: Wed 22-Jun-2005,
>> 09:40
>> ET
>>
>>
>> Researcher Puts Attention on ADHD Drug Treatment
>>
>>
>> The use of drugs to treat attention deficit hyperactivity disorder
>> has
>> grown in the last decade, but it's those who live in the most affluent
>> areas
>> of the United States who are most likely to get medication for the
>> disorder.
>>
>>
>> Newswise - The use of drugs to treat attention deficit hyperactivity
>> disorder has grown in the last decade, but it's those who live in the
>> most
>> affluent areas of the United States who are most likely to get medication
>> for the disorder.
>>
>>
>> Florida State University Economics Professor Farasat Bokhari was the
>> co-author of a study published in the journal Pharmacoepidemiology and
>> Drug
>> Safety that found wide variations in the distribution of pyschostimulant
>> drugs to treat ADHD.
>>
>>
>> The study raised a number of questions for which the author and his
>> colleagues received a $900,000 grant from the National Institute of
>> Mental
>> Health to further research the economic issues and policy decisions
>> surrounding the use of ADHD medications.
>>
>>
>> ADHD is the most commonly diagnosed behavioral disorder in children and
>> is
>> considered a major public health concern, according to Bokhari. Between 3
>> percent and 5 percent of U.S. school-age children are estimated to have
>> ADHD, and these children often have problems that take a toll on schools,
>> social service agencies and health care and criminal justice systems.
>>
>>
>> "People are really polarized on this thing," Bokhari said. "States are
>> passing laws about whether teachers can talk to parents about
>> psychostimulant drug treatments, and there's a lot of disagreement about
>> both the diagnosis and the treatment of ADHD."
>>
>>
>> Some states, such as Michigan, Georgia and Virginia, have a tradition of
>> using ADHD drugs more than others, such as California and New York.
>> Bokhari
>> and colleagues Rick Mayes at the University of Richmond and Richard
>> Scheffler at the University of California at Berkeley wanted to find out
>> why. Using data from the Drug Enforcement Administration, the researchers
>> looked at the distribution of ADHD drugs to each county in the United
>> States.
>>
>>
>> The researchers found that the counties where ADHD drug use was the
>> highest
>> had higher per capita income, lower unemployment rates, greater
>> population
>> density and more access to health care, meaning more HMOs and a higher
>> percentage of people enrolled in them. Given the cost-saving objectives
>> of
>> HMOs, the researchers theorized that HMOs could be authorizing ADHD drug
>> therapy because it is cheaper than counseling.
>>
>>
>> These high-use counties also had a higher ratio of younger-to-older
>> doctors,
>> prompting the researchers to question whether younger doctors just happen
>> to
>> locate in more affluent areas or whether younger doctors are more likely
>> than their older counterparts to prescribe ADHD medication.
>>
>>
>> They also found that areas with high use have a higher student-to-teacher
>> ratio. The researchers suggested that the greater burden on teachers may
>> cause them to send more children to the school psychologist for
>> screening,
>> resulting in higher detection rates of ADHD and use of medication to
>> treat
>> the disorder.
>>
>>
>> In addition, the researchers found that high-use counties have, on
>> average,
>> slightly fewer children as a proportion of the population - a finding
>> that
>> seems counterintuitive given that ADHD is primarily diagnosed among
>> children. However, Bokhari cited previous research that has shown that
>> children of smaller families are more likely to use ADHD medication.
>>
>>
>> The findings are significant because nobody has really looked at the
>> variation in the use of these drugs across the country, Bokhari said. He
>> and
>> his colleagues will next conduct a market analysis of the factors
>> influencing the supply and demand for ADHD drugs.
>>
>>
>> "Some people who need medication aren't getting it and some who don't
>> need
>> it are," he said. "You could be playing the lottery whether your child
>> gets
>> the drug or not. It often seems to depend as much on where you live as on
>> medical science." Source: Florida State University Released: Wed
>> 22-Jun-2005, 09:40 ET
>>
>>
>> Researcher Puts Attention on ADHD Drug Treatment
>> Libraries
>> Medical News Keywords
>> DRUG, PHARMACOEPIDEMIOLOGY AND DRUG SAFETY, ADHD, FSU, NATIONAL
>> INSTITUTE OF MENTAL HEALTH, FARASAT BOKHARI, RICK MAYES, UNIVERSITY OF
>> RICHMOND, RICHARD SCHEFFLER, UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA AT BERKELEY,
>> FLORIDA
>> STATE UNIVERSITY, DIAGNOSIS, DOCTOR, DRUG ENF
>> Contact Information
>>
>>
>> Available for logged-in reporters only
>> Description
>>
>>
>> The use of drugs to treat attention deficit hyperactivity disorder
>> has
>> grown in the last decade, but it's those who live in the most affluent
>> areas
>> of the United States who are most likely to get medication for the
>> disorder.
>>
>>
>> Newswise - The use of drugs to treat attention deficit hyperactivity
>> disorder has grown in the last decade, but it's those who live in the
>> most
>> affluent areas of the United States who are most likely to get medication
>> for the disorder.
>>
>>
>> Florida State University Economics Professor Farasat Bokhari was the
>> co-author of a study published in the journal Pharmacoepidemiology and
>> Drug
>> Safety that found wide variations in the distribution of pyschostimulant
>> drugs to treat ADHD.
>>
>>
>> The study raised a number of questions for which the author and his
>> colleagues received a $900,000 grant from the National Institute of
>> Mental
>> Health to further research the economic issues and policy decisions
>> surrounding the use of ADHD medications.
>>
>>
>> ADHD is the most commonly diagnosed behavioral disorder in children and
>> is
>> considered a major public health concern, according to Bokhari. Between 3
>> percent and 5 percent of U.S. school-age children are estimated to have
>> ADHD, and these children often have problems that take a toll on schools,
>> social service agencies and health care and criminal justice systems.
>>
>>
>> "People are really polarized on this thing," Bokhari said. "States are
>> passing laws about whether teachers can talk to parents about
>> psychostimulant drug treatments, and there's a lot of disagreement about
>> both the diagnosis and the treatment of ADHD."
>>
>>
>> Some states, such as Michigan, Georgia and Virginia, have a tradition of
>> using ADHD drugs more than others, such as California and New York.
>> Bokhari
>> and colleagues Rick Mayes at the University of Richmond and Richard
>> Scheffler at the University of California at Berkeley wanted to find out
>> why. Using data from the Drug Enforcement Administration, the researchers
>> looked at the distribution of ADHD drugs to each county in the United
>> States.
>>
>>
>> The researchers found that the counties where ADHD drug use was the
>> highest
>> had higher per capita income, lower unemployment rates, greater
>> population
>> density and more access to health care, meaning more HMOs and a higher
>> percentage of people enrolled in them. Given the cost-saving objectives
>> of
>> HMOs, the researchers theorized that HMOs could be authorizing ADHD drug
>> therapy because it is cheaper than counseling.
>>
>>
>> These high-use counties also had a higher ratio of younger-to-older
>> doctors,
>> prompting the researchers to question whether younger doctors just happen
>> to
>> locate in more affluent areas or whether younger doctors are more likely
>> than their older counterparts to prescribe ADHD medication.
>>
>>
>> They also found that areas with high use have a higher student-to-teacher
>> ratio. The researchers suggested that the greater burden on teachers may
>> cause them to send more children to the school psychologist for
>> screening,
>> resulting in higher detection rates of ADHD and use of medication to
>> treat
>> the disorder.
>>
>>
>> In addition, the researchers found that high-use counties have, on
>> average,
>> slightly fewer children as a proportion of the population - a finding
>> that
>> seems counterintuitive given that ADHD is primarily diagnosed among
>> children. However, Bokhari cited previous research that has shown that
>> children of smaller families are more likely to use ADHD medication.
>>
>>
>> The findings are significant because nobody has really looked at the
>> variation in the use of these drugs across the country, Bokhari said. He
>> and
>> his colleagues will next conduct a market analysis of the factors
>> influencing the supply and demand for ADHD drugs.
>>
>>
>> "Some people who need medication aren't getting it and some who don't
>> need
>> it are," he said. "You could be playing the lottery whether your child
>> gets
>> the drug or not. It often seems to depend as much on where you live as on
>> medical science."
>>
>>
>> ========
>>
>>
>> ADHD is "evolutionarily adaptive" [Bradshaw & Sheppard, 2000] hence
>> encompassing asseries of behaviors that are more rather than less suited
>> to life in a rapidly changing society. ADHD-diagnosed behavior & creative
>> behavior are frequently identical [Shaw & Giambra, 1993]. ADHD children
>> and adults are more creative when not drugged, & drugging is frequently
>> not necessary [Low, 1999; Rickson, 2003]. Often the alleged ADHD
>> individual & the creative individual are one & the same, & the real cause
>> of disruptiveness &/or lack of focus is an uninteresting, repetitive
>> environment [Douglas, 1983; Farley, 1981]. Farley has suggested that ADHD
>> personality may be productive & not at all disruptive with superior
>> performance if the environment & social context permits playfulness,
>> complexity, variety, novelty, & creative performance. The real cause of
>> ADHD or alleged ADHD may very often be a lack of educative value in the
>> environment, not a neurological disorder in the individual.
>>
>>
>> This is hardly new or obscure information. The researchers who disagree
>> that drugging children diminishes their creative spirit tend to rely on
>> subjective systems of scoring creativity, which have built into them
>> measures that define creative ability in decidedly uncreative terms. The
>> subject's ability to converse with the test-giver becomes part of the
>> tests; but the test-giver may legitimately be a bore or a dumbass, so
>> will
>> be treated accordingly by the subject, so that the inferior adult is
>> alienated from the child & assesses him or her in a way that assuages the
>> inferior test-giver's ego. Or tests value most highly an ability to
>> finish
>> rote "art" projects which are in reality devoid of creative requirement,
>> then the assessor who is likely a talentless dwees who wouldn't know
>> creativity if they paid to see it at the movies becomes an art-critic
>> deciding if a child with ADHD is creative or not. Some conditions of mind
>> should not be treated medically -- a belief to the contrary is why
>> homosexuals were historically categorized as medically ill, & it's why
>> potentially creative & innovative children are routed into the zombie
>> factory.
>>
>>
>> From the point of view of a non-ADD person's subjectivity, the drugged
>> kid
>> is not less creative than he was before he was drugged. What these tests
>> fail to assess is originality or a DIFFERENT approach to creativity that
>> in the long run has vastly superior results -- Einstein & Edison's poor
>> showing in early education is symptomatic of the inability of the
>> mediocre
>> to assess the superior. Even though not all creative impulses are that
>> successful, & ADHD does not automatically indicate superiority & aren't
>> necessarily going to result in a cure for cancer, that is even so is no
>> reason to undervalue impulsivity which is a different but not a diseased
>> way of living in this world.
>>
>>
>> Furthermore, the studies that conclude it is EXCELLENT to subdue creative
>> behavior patterns because it in no way harms creativity are funded by the
>> manufacturers of the drugs, & funding is renewed only where the findings
>> are valuable for the drug company's purposes. The populations studied
>> have
>> always been inadequate because an ADHD diagnosis is itself so subjective
>> that children acting out because of any number of reasons is too easily
>> diagnosed as suitable for ritalin treatment.
>>
>>
>> Frequently children suffering from anxiety disorders meet all the
>> criteria
>> for ADHD; they frequently have rational reasons for their anxiety (from
>> unrevealed sexual abuse to coping daily with parents with depression) but
>> it's the kid who ends up on ritalin without ever having had an attention
>> disorder. Mentally ill parents even if they happen to have medical
>> coverage will not have coverage for extremely costly mental health
>> treatment, so it's just easier to assess the child with a problem when
>> the
>> child's problems would evaporate if their disruptive, dangerous, phobic,
>> or depressed parent(s) could be treated instead. And the real sick thing
>> is how, given psychiatry's subjectivity in invented criteria, even when
>> it
>> is realized that the parents ARE mentally ill, the child is still
>> ritalinized on the belief that the child has an inherited disease instead
>> of the child responding the way anyone would to having nutbags for
>> parents. (Or evne as teachers; I remember one nutbag of a teacher who
>> made
>> all sorts of recommendations for the treatment of children which were
>> followed by the system set up to support teachers' opinions, when all
>> the
>> negative issues in her classrooms extended from her completely insane
>> behavior; while another teacher abused children physically for fifteen
>> years before he was finally caught, though every child who passed through
>> his class knew he was a dangerous son of a bitch.)
>>
>>
>> Another rather modern tendency is for psychiatrists to distinguish
>> between
>> proactive antisocial behavior & reactive antisocial behavior, but to
>> treat
>> both identically with drugs. A child constantly abused by an antisocial
>> teacher, sexual predator, or mentally ill parent is certainly likely to
>> be
>> reactively antisocial, oversensitive to even small injustices, or hide
>> behind very disruptive class-clown behaviors or strange outbursts about
>> indignities, besides just stubbornly refusing to sit still & concentrate
>> on work. It again just becomes vastly easier to give such kids drugs than
>> to fire bad teachers, investigate paedophiles, or interfer with dangerous
>> parents' costodial rights. A 2004 study by Bennett et al published in the
>> Journal of Attention Disorder concvluded that most children diagnosed
>> with
>> ADHD with attendant antisocial aggression are reactive, not proactive,
>> yet
>> nobody seems to be assessing weather reaction to stressful, dangerous,
>> frightening, or merely unjust situations would be perfectly rational
>> rather than evidence of a neurological disorder.
>>
>>
>> For a TINY percentage of children there may be no other recourse than
>> ritalin. But the MAJORITY of children on this drug have been misdiagnosed
>> & are getting no authentic treatment or assistanced of any kind other
>> than
>> to be drugged. ADHD is the #1 reason children are referred to mental
>> health clinics, already diagnosed before they are even assessed. The #1
>> threat to children in our society is neglect & abuse, not ADHD.
>>
>>
>> Advocates for the acceptable differentness of ADHD children & adults such
>> as Dr. Gallagher provide excellent arguments for environmental changes
>> rather than drug therapy for even that TINY percentage of children who
>> are
>> neurologically different from the norm, but the HUGE percentage of
>> children diagnosed with & drugged for ADHD simply are the victims of a
>> system that is itself pathological in its response to a normal range of
>> individuality & normal if disruptive responses to authentic dangers.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>

.

Quantcast