Demolishing ADHD Diagnosis

© Lightsource | stockfresh.com

The Harvard psychologist, Jerome Kagan, sees ADHD as more of an invented condition than a serious illness. Further, he thinks it was invented for “money-making reasons” by the pharmaceutical industry and pro-ADHD researchers. He believes the drastic increase in the number of children diagnosed with ADHD has more to do with “fuzzy diagnostic practices” and relabeling. Fifty years ago, a 7-year-old child who was bored and disruptive in class was seen as “lazy.” Today he is seen as suffering from ADHD.

Every child who’s not doing well in school is sent to see a pediatrician, and the pediatrician says: “It’s ADHD; here’s Ritalin.” In fact, 90 percent of these 5.4 million kids don’t have an abnormal dopamine metabolism. The problem is, if a drug is available to doctors, they’ll make the corresponding diagnosis.

In his interview with Spiegel Online, Kagan went on to say that the inflated diagnosis of ADHD and other so-called childhood mental health disorders means more money for the pharmaceutical industry, psychiatrists and the people doing research. “We’re up against an enormously powerful alliance: pharmaceutical companies that are making billions, and a profession that is self-interested.” As he said, he’s not the only psychologist who is saying this.

Parenting expert and family psychologist, John Rosemond, agrees with Kagan. In 2009 he co-authored The Diseasing of American’s Children where they argued that ADHD and other childhood behavior disorders “were inventions of the psychological-psychiatric-pharmaceutical industry.” They went further than Kagan in saying that ADHD does not exist; that it is a fiction. In his April 9, 2017 article, “ADHD Simply Does Not Exist,” Rosemond referred to Kagan’s declaration on ADHD, noting that he and other psychologists studied Kagan’s books and research papers on children and child development when they were in graduate school. In The Diseasing America’s Children, Rosemond said:

Science depends on verifiable, objective evidence and experimental results that can be replicated by other scientists. Where ADHD is concerned, neither verifiable, objective evidence nor replicable experimental results exist to support the claims of the ADHD establishment.”

Rosemond and his co-author, Bose Ravenel, believe that childhood behavior disorders like ADHD are manifestations of “dysfunctions of discipline and lifestyle” endemic to modern family culture. Once these problems are identified, they can be easily corrected. And once corrected, the errant behavior “usually recovers to a state of normalcy within a relatively short period of time.” They believe children do not need a psychologist when they misbehave, they need discipline—“firm, calm and loving discipline.”

In Debunking ADHD, educational psychologist Michael Corrigan said ADHD is a negative label that does not exist. “Not unlike the many wonderful stories about unicorns, fairies, and leprechauns, the diagnosis of ADHD is a brilliant work of fiction.” He noted that many of the common childhood behaviors (or supposed symptoms) associated with ADHD are also used to identify giftedness in children. When these behaviors are harnessed and focused, they can help children become “incredibly creative, insightful, and successful individuals in adulthood.” If children don’t learn to harness the power of the behaviors ADHD and giftedness have in common, “such behaviors when displayed might seem annoying and immature.” He said:

My biggest reason for writing this book is my desire to show you that the practice of medicating children for acting like children in the name of ADHD is, in two words, wrong and dangerous. Despite the grandiose claims of the mega-pharmaceutical companies selling ADHD drugs to concerned parents, prescribing pills to young children trying to learn how to become young adults is just a quick fix void of any long-term benefits.

Corrigan described eating lunch with a group of children who had just taken their ADHD medication at school. They were now supposedly “good to go” (sufficiently medicated) for an afternoon of learning. It was the longest lunch period he had ever experienced. “Comparing the kids at my table to others in the cafeteria, and slowly watching these playful, creative, energetic, and funny children go from kids being kids to near expressionless robot-like entities, made me sick to my stomach.”

The total number of children on ADHD medication “skyrocketed” from 1.5 million in 1995 to 3.5 million in 2011. “Sales of prescription stimulants quintupled from 2005 to 2015.” The rising rate of ADHD diagnosis has been described as “an unreal epidemic” and a “national disaster of dangerous proportions” by well-known professionals like Allen Frances and Keith Conners. Frances was the chair of the DSM-IV. Conners, now an emeritus professor of medical psychology at Duke University, “spent much of his career in legitimizing the diagnosis of ADHD.”

Allen Frances was one of four authors of an article in the International Journal of Qualitative Studies on Health and Well-Being, “ADHD: A Critical Update for Educational Professionals.” When the DSM-IV was published in 1994, the prevalence of ADHD was estimated to be 3%. Since then, parent-reported ADHD diagnosis increased to 7.8% in 2003; 9.5% in 2007; and to 11% in 2011. Nearly one in five high school boys had been diagnosed with ADHD and around 13.3% of 11-year-old boys were medicated for ADHD.

Teachers and other school personnel are often the first to suggest a child might be “ADHD.” Research suggested teachers felt insecure about dealing with behavioral problems and hesitated to accept responsibility for students with special needs. Frances and his coauthors described six scientifically grounded issues that educational professionals should be aware of when they are confronted with inattention and hyperactivity in the classroom.

First: birth order matters. Several studies have shown “That relative age is a significant determinant of ADHD diagnosis and treatment.” The youngest children in the classroom are twice as likely to be diagnosed with ADHD and receive medication. They suggest teachers take the child’s relative age into account when judging the child’s behavior. “Seeing ADHD as the cause of inattention and hyperactivity is in fact a logical fallacy as it is circular.”

Second, there is no single cause of ADHD. “There are no measurable biological markers or objective tests to establish the presence or absence of ADHD (or any other given DSM syndrome).” ADHD is a description of behavior and is based on “criteria that are sensitive to subjectivity and cognitive biases.” Multiple factors have been associated with ADHD, without necessarily implying causality. Those factors include: divorce, poverty, parenting styles, lone parenthood, sexual abuse, lack of sleep, artificial food additives, mobile phone use and growing up in areas with low solar intensity. “All these factors and more may play a role when a particular child exhibits impairing hyperactive and inattentive behaviours, and there is no conclusive cause of ADHD.”

Third, most children exhibiting “ADHD behavior” have normal-looking brains. Studies that do show small differences in terms of brain anatomy do not apply to all children diagnosed with ADHD. Individual differences refer to slower anatomical development. “They do not reveal any innate defect as is illustrated by the fact that many people with an unusual anatomy or physiology do not experience ADHD related problems.” Also, the test subjects in many brain-related studies are rigorously screened and don’t represent all individuals diagnosed with ADHD.

The samples do not comprise an accurate representation of their respective populations, meaning an average child with a diagnosis of ADHD and an average “normal” child. This problem is particularly urgent since the DSM 5 has lowered the age of onset criterion, as well as the impairment criterion compared to the previous version, the DSM-IV. Alongside the lowered threshold, the potential to generalize earlier research findings has lowered as well.

Fourth, the claims of ADHD being inherited may be overestimated.  The claims vary widely and are subject to debate because of methodological issues used in calculating the heritability coefficient in twin, familial and adoption studies. There is significant difficulty separating genetic influences from environmental ones, such as poverty, parenting styles and divorce, in these studies. “In genetic association studies that really analyse genetic material and that are more powerful when separating the influence of genetics from other etiologic sources, associated genes show only very small effects.” When combined, they explain less than 10% of variance.

This means they occur only slightly more often in diagnosed individuals than in controls, and they do not explain nor predict ADHD behaviours. For educational professionals, this is important to consider as an ADHD label might give a false sense of security with regard to the alleged (genetic) cause of a child’s behaviour and the preferred cure (medication).

Fifth, medication does not benefit most children in the long run. Follow up studies of the long-term effects of the MTA (Multimodal Treatment of Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder) study showed a convergence of outcomes over time between medicated and non-medicated children. Other studies also report either no long-term benefits, or even worse benefits. “While medication may help a small group of children in the long run, most will not benefit from long-term pharmaceutical treatment.”

The sixth and final issue that educational professionals should be aware of when confronted with inattention and hyperactivity in the classroom is the reality that a diagnosis can be harmful to children. A CDC MMWR Report indicated only 13.8% had severe ADHD, with 86.2% having mild (46.7% or moderate (39.5%) ADHD. The authors pointed out a DSM diagnosis opened the door for additional reimbursement to the school for treatment and school services, perhaps promoting a search for pathology in relatively mild cases. “The question is whether in these mild cases the merits of a confirmed diagnosis—such as acknowledgement of problems and access to help—outweigh possible demerits.” Some known disadvantages of a diagnosis are: lower teacher and parent expectations that turn into self-fulfilling prophecies, prejudice and stigmatization of diagnosed children, a more passive role towards problems, difficulties getting life and disability insurances later on in life, and others.

The Allen Frances article linked above was the most accepting of ADHD as a legitimate “neuro-developmental disorder.” Yet it cautioned there was no single cause for ADHD, medications to “treat” ADHD did not have long-term benefits, and there was a problem with its over diagnosis. Jerome Kagan thought 90% children were wrongly diagnosed with ADHD because of “fuzzy diagnostic practices and relabeling.” Michael Corrigan, John Rosemond and questioned the validity of ADHD as a neuro-developmental disorder. Corrigan said it pathologized normal childhood behavior; and medicating these children was wrong and evil. It’s time to demolish the ADHD treatment empire.

Additional articles on ADHD can be found on this website here: “National ADHD Epidemic,” “Misleading Info on ADHD,” “Tip of the ADHD Iceberg,” and “Is ADHD Simply a Case of the Fidgets?” You can also read a longer paper: “ADHD: An Imbalance of Fire Over Water of a Case of the Fidgets?


National ADHD Epidemic

© kentoh | stockfresh.com

© kentoh | stockfresh.com

The CDC published a study that found 11% of school-aged children in the U.S. between 2003 and 2011 had received an ADHD diagnosis. This statistic meant that 6.4 million children, 1 in 5 boys and 1 in 11 girls, were said to have ADHD. A different CDC report indicated the American Psychiatric Association (APA) estimated in their 2013 edition of the DSM, the DSM-5, that only 5% of children have ADHD. The rates of ADHD diagnosis are increasing over time, from an average of 3% per year between 1997 and 2006, to 5% between 2003 and 2011. The prevalence of children between the ages of 4 and 17 diagnosed with ADHD varied widely by state. In 2011, the lowest reported rates were in Nevada (5.6%); the highest rates were in Kentucky (18.7%). In contrast, the percentage of children diagnosed and medicated for ADHD in France is less than half of one percent—.5%!

You can see the CDC reports cited above here, here and here.

Writing for Psychology Today in 2012, Marilyn Wedge noted in “Why French Kids Don’t Have ADHD,” how the difference seemed to turn on how ADHD was conceived. In the U.S. ADHD is seen as a biological disorder with biological causes. So the go-to treatment method is stimulant medications. Dr. Wedge also pointed that French psychiatrists did not use the DSM system to diagnose childhood emotional problems. Instead they used an alternative classification system that focuses on the underlying psychosocial causes of a child’s symptoms.

French child psychiatrists, on the other hand, view ADHD as a medical condition that has psycho-social and situational causes. Instead of treating a child’s focusing and behavioral problems with drugs, French doctors prefer to look for the underlying issue that is causing the child distress—not in the child’s brain but in the child’s social context. They then choose to treat the underlying social context problem with psychotherapy or family counseling. This is a very different way of seeing things from the American tendency to attribute all symptoms to a biological dysfunction such as a chemical imbalance in the child’s brain.

She commented that the holistic, psychosocial approach of the French allowed for the possibility there could be nutritional factors that worsen ADHD symptoms. “In the U.S., the strict focus on pharmaceutical treatment of ADHD, however, encourages clinicians to ignore the influence of dietary factors on children’s behavior.”

Psychiatrist Robert Berezin commented on Wedge’s report saying that it seemed American boys had contracted some contagion that spread ADHD exponentially. More seriously, he went right to the heart of the problem: if ADHD rates are so drastically different between the U.S. and France, how can ADHD be a brain disease? “Yes there can be symptoms of hyperactivity and concentration. But it is created by psychosocial causes, not biological ones. And the treatments should be appropriate to the cause.” He concluded that the French situation showed that so-called ADHD was a psychosocial problem, not a brain disease.

So if we accept this conclusion, where does this leave us in America with regard to ADHD and the aftermath of decades of conceiving and treating it as a brain disease? A recent investigative report by the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel and MedPage Today pointed out several areas of concern. First is the increase in the diagnosis of Adult ADHD. Twenty years ago ADHD was rarely diagnosed in adult Americans. Now, 1 in 23 adult Americans, around 10 million people, are said to have ADHD. And there has been a fourfold increase among adults 26 and older who use Adderall recreationally.

The reporters cited a 2010 study where 22% of the adults tested for ADHD had exaggerated their symptoms. This finding underscores how college-aged adults increasingly use ADHD medications as  “study aides.” A 2013 study found wastewater samples collected near college dormitories in Tacoma Washington were eight times higher for amphetamines during final exams week than during the first week of classes. Although FDA adverse events indicated there were more reports for children, the adults were reporting more serious adverse events. “Adults accounted for just over one-third of reports, but made up more than half of all hospitalizations and 85% of deaths.”

Experts question whether adult ADHD is truly a widespread condition that needs treatment with the array of FDA-approved prescription medications. A medical historian, Nicolas Rasmussen, was quoted as saying that amphetamines are grossly overused; and that “the streets are awash with Adderall.”

Drug companies counter that ADHD is a real and treatable medical condition that effects millions of Americans. Charles Catalano, a spokesperson for Shire, which manufactures two ADHD medications, Vyvanse and Adderall, said the drugs have been approved by regulators around the world and are safe to use. “Our medications are proven to be effective when used according to prescribing practices of a licensed, trained health care professional.” A spokesperson for Novartis, the manufacturer of Ritalin, said it has been used safely and effectively for more than 60 years. “If used inappropriately, the results could be serious, just like with the misuse of any other medication.”

The DSM-5, published in 2013 by the APA, relaxed the criteria for diagnosing adult ADHD. Previously adults needed to have six of nine possible symptoms. Now they only need five of nine symptoms. Seventy-eight percent of the panel of experts who approved the changes had financial ties to drug companies. The APA minimized the potential conflicts of interest by stating no panel member had made more than $10,000 a year working as industry speakers and consultants.

Moffitt et al. published the results of a forty-year study of individuals in New Zealand in The American Journal of Psychiatry. The study found that found 90% of adult ADHD cases did not have a history of childhood ADHD. “The findings raise the possibility that adults presenting with the ADHD symptom picture may not have a childhood-onset neurodevelopmental disorder.” The authors added that if the findings were replicated, adult ADHD’s place in the DSM should be reconsidered and that research needs to investigate the etiology of adult ADHD.

It also appears that using ADHD medication leads to addiction and abuse problems with some individuals. Some of this is simple common sense. All ADHD stimulant medications are Schedule II controlled substances, meaning that the DEA considers them to have the same addictive potential as cocaine. Yet the research literature presents conflicting accounts. Some studies report that untreated ADHD is a significant risk factor in developing substance use disorders. Others suggest there is no compelling evidence that treating children with ADHD medication leads to an increased risk of later substance use problems.

A Medscape article concluded that the bulk of evidence suggested that treating ADHD with stimulant medication did not increase the risk for developing a substance use disorder, nor did it decrease to risk. At the very end of the article this comment appeared: “This activity is supported by an independent educational grant from Shire.” The author of the article had also received grants and served as a paid consultant for Shire.

On the other hand, Peter Breggin and others have noted there is a high abuse liability with stimulant medications. A 1995 DEA report indicated there was an abundance of scientific literature on the abuse potential of Ritalin and other Schedule II stimulants. A 1998 NIH conference on the “Diagnosis and Treatment of ADHD” stated: “An extensive scientific literature spanning more than 30 years of research unequivocally indicates that MPH [Ritalin] has a high abuse liability.” A 1995 study by Nora Volkow and others found that cocaine and MPH had similar effects on the brain when given intravenously. Breggin commented in his discussion of the study in his book, The Ritalin Fact Book, that the main difference was the longer lasting effect of Ritalin. This was speculated to be why Ritalin was less subject to abuse than cocaine. Breggin said:

What does all of this mean in plain English? Ritalin’s biochemical mechanism of action is essentially the same as that of cocaine, and therefore Ritalin produces similar effects to cocaine. In fact, all of the stimulants, including Ritalin and cocaine, jack up dopamine, serotonin, and norepinephrine chemical messengers in the brain, producing a variety of similar mental abnormalities. If given intravenously, the “high” is the same for all of them.

A study by Schrantee et al. published in the September issue of JAMA Psychiatry found there was a distinct effect of methylphenidate (Ritalin) on the brains of children and young adults. A discussion of this study in an article on Mad in America indicated the lead researcher of the study’s team, Liesbeth Reneman, said given that maturation of several brain regions are not complete until adolescence, drugs given during the sensitive, early phases of life could effect “neurodevelopmental trajectories” and have profound effects later in life.

The adolescent brain is a rapidly developing system that maintains high levels of plasticity. As such, the brain may be particularly vulnerable to drugs that interfere with these processes or modify the specific transmitter systems involved.

The mesolimbic dopamine system (MDS), the reward pathway of the brain, is one of those later maturing brain regions. Incidentally, the MDS is probably the region of the brain where drugs produce dependence. In his book, The Science of Addiction, Carleton Erickson said neuroscientists believe that when the functioning of certain MDS neurotransmitter systems are disrupted from genetic “miswiring” and/or long-term exposure to a drug, “chemical dependence as a bran disease” can develop.

The Schrantee et al. study is the first evidence that using ADHD medications can alter brain development. So studies of the long-term consequences need to be completed. But one of the questions that should be investigated is does the long-term use of stimulant medications effect changes to the MDS of the brains of adolescents and young adults and are those changes related to a greater risk of substance abuse. Hopefully we’ll have some answers before prescription stimulant drugs compete with opioids as a national drug epidemic.


Misleading Info on ADHD

© Ivelin | stockfresh.com

© Ivelin | stockfresh.com

Three Swedish researchers did a study on the information published online by the National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH) on ADHD. What is intriguing about their study is that they were looking at how the NIMH document sought to persuade its readers to take action to address their child’s ADHD problem. They suggested there was a circular argument wherein ADHD was defined according to the presence of certain behaviors, which the diagnostic label of ADHD was said to explain. They also pointed out how ADHD is presented as legitimate medical disorder, despite the fact that “diagnostic criteria are subjectively interpreted from the behavior of the child.”

The authors, Erlandsson, Lundun and Punzi, linked this Easy-to-Read NIMH document on ADHD in their study. However, their citations appear to be from this NIMH document, “What is Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD, ADD)?” They noted where the image of ADHD as a legitimate medical disorder was established by the first sentence of the article, “ADHD is one of the most common childhood disorders [and can continue through adolescence and adulthood].” This is word-for-word in the latter article, where the Easy-to-Read one is slightly different: “ADHD is a common mental disorder that begins in childhood and can continue through adolescence and adulthood.” The bracketed phrase was not quoted by Erlandsson, Lundun and Punzi, possibly because they were looking at ADHD in children; or when they examined the document in October of 2015, it wasn’t there.

Erlandsson et al. noted how the repeated use of the term “disorder” (at least 15 times) and a number of references to brain imaging and brain chemicals gave the impression of a chronic, long-term disability.  The rhetoric is clearly suggestive that ADHD is a brain disorder. And yet, because symptoms vary from person to person, the ‘disorder’ can be difficult to diagnose. The so-called ‘key behaviors of ADHD’ are also found in all children—inattention, hyperactivity, and impulsivity. “But for children with ADHD, these behaviors are more severe and occur more often.” They have to be present for at least six months, and be present to a degree “that is greater than other children of the same age.” Erlandsson et al. said:

In fact, as shown in the document, there are no biological markers, environmentally defined categories, or objective tests to distinguish “ADHD” as a discrete condition. Rather, diagnostic criteria are subjectively interpreted from the behavior of the child: “No single test can diagnose a child having ADHD. Instead, a licensed health professional needs to gather information about the child, and his or her behavior and environment.” Professionals as well as teachers and parents are involved in the evaluation and examination process, and subsequently in the diagnostic process.

There is a clear bias in presenting ADHD as a biomedical problem. While saying scientists aren’t sure what causes ADHD, NIMH then said many studies suggest genes play a large role. Twin studies show ADHD runs in families. “Children with ADHD who carry a particular version of a certain gene have thinner brain tissue in the areas of the brain associated with attention.” But the differences were not permanent and as the children with this gene grew up, the brain developed to a normal level of thickness and the ADHD symptoms improved. As Erlandsson et al. commented: “The biomedical discourse assumes that there is a consensus among professionals on how to interpret the behaviors of the child, which means that pharmacological treatment is the preferred intervention.” But this is not the case.

In “ADHD: an Imbalance of Fire over Water or a Case of the Fidgets?” I reviewed several different sources questioning whether ADHD was a biochemical disorder. Psychiatrist Peter Breggin said the search for a genetic and biological cause for ADHD would never succeed because the researchers are looking in the wrong place. Neurologist Fred Baughman said:

 Despite regular pronouncements that its biologic roots have been discovered, no proof of a definite physical or chemical abnormality is ever found. All such research and all such claims … have been a sham, meant to create illusions of science and disease while proving nothing.

The NIMH material also did not mention there was a lack of consensus on the safety of using medication to treat children. Rather, medication is said to be a safe treatment:  “Under medical supervision, stimulant medications are considered safe.” The potential for substance abuse or dependence is downplayed, saying: “there is little evidence of this.” ADHD stimulants are classified as Schedule II controlled substances, which have “a high potential for abuse, with use potentially leading to severe psychological or physical dependence.” See “ADHD: an Imbalance of Fire over Water or a Case of the Fidgets?” for more information on ADHD medications and addiction.

The consequences of a biomedical view of ADHD were addressed in a recent study by the CDC of ADHD treatment among children between 2 and 5 years of age. While the American Academy of Pediatrics and other organizations recommend behavior therapy ahead of stimulant medication for children under 5, only 53% of children had received behavior therapy in the year prior to the survey, while 47% had received stimulant medication during the previous week.  Between 75% and 78.5% of children aged 2-5 with ADHD received one or more ADHD medications.

ADHD is a highly prevalent condition that can lead to poor health and social outcomes. Despite 2007 and 2011 guidelines recommending behavior therapy as first-line treatment for children aged <6 years with ADHD, during 2008–2014 only about half of children aged 2–5 years with ADHD received psychological services. To effectively mitigate impairments associated with ADHD and minimize risks associated with ADHD medications, it is important to increase the percentage of young children with ADHD who receive evidence-based psychological services, especially parent training in behavior therapy.

Around 30% of children aged 3-5 experienced adverse effects from ADHD medications. The most common ones were appetite suppression and sleep problems. But other commonly reported side effects were: abdominal pain, emotional outbursts, irritability, lack of alertness, repetitive behaviors and thoughts, social withdrawal, and irritability when the medication wears off. In one large study, of methylphenidate (Ritalin or Concerta) over 10% of children 3-5 had to stop treatment because of adverse effects. They were also 20% lower for height and 55% lower for weight. Anne Schuchat, the CDC’s Principle Deputy Director, said:

We are still learning about potential side effects of long-term use of ADHD medicine on young children. Until we know more, the recommendation is to refer parents for training in behavior therapy for children under 6 years of age with ADHD.

We recognize that these are not easy treatment decisions for parents to make. We know that behavior therapy is effective, and the skills they learn through behavior therapy can help the whole family be successful. Building these skills in parents and children both empowers families and helps young children with ADHD live up to their full potential.

An article in The Washington Post, “CDC Warns that Americans May Be Overmedicating Youngest Children with ADHD,” addressed this concern as well. The long-term effects of the drugs of choice for treating ADHD, Adderall and Ritalin, were not well studied. An estimated 2 million of the 6 million children diagnosed with ADHD were so labeled between the ages of 2 and 5. While ADHD medications don’t work for everyone, in many cases they take effect almost immediately. In contrast, behavior therapy can take several months to have an impact. However, it can be long lasting; and has no side effects.


Now There’s Chewable Speed

© vogelsp | 123rf.com

© vogelsp | 123rf.com

Do you have a difficult time giving your child ADHD medication? Not that you don’t want them to take it—you do. But they don’t like the taste; or they have problems swallowing pills; or they just don’t like how it makes them feel. Or maybe you’re an adult who chronically forgets to take your medication in the morning. You don’t want to carry a prescription bottle around with you. People may wonder why you are popping pills in the middle of the day. Now there is an ADHD medication that is right for you! It’s chewable and comes in fruit flavors too!

Okay, the paragraph above was a tad satirical, but it is entirely true in what it said about ADHD medication. In mid-May of 2016, Adzenys, a chewable, fruity form of amphetamine became available. As STAT reported, Adzenys XR-ODT was approved by the FDA in January of 2016 by the FDA for patients six and older. The CEO of Neos Therapeutics said they were “launching now at full speed.” They want to get “ahead of back-to-school season.”

Vipin Garg, the CEO of Neos, said the new quick-dissolving formula will help “harried mothers” get their children medicated faster in the morning before school. And if adults forget to take their pill at breakfast, they can “pop a tablet” on the way to work—it comes in a blister pack, not in a pill bottle. “You go to a pharmacy, and everything is in gummy bear format. . . . Why would that be the case if there wasn’t a need for this?” Garg sees the dissolving tabs as part of a trend to make medications more pleasant to take.

All that adds up to a booming market. Sales for ADHD medications were at $4.7 billion in 2006, had nearly tripled to $12.7 billion by last year, and are projected to grow to $17.5 billion by 2020, according to a 2015 report from market research firm IBISWorld.

Adzenys is not alone as a chewable ADHD medication. In December of 2015, one month ahead of Adzenys, the FDA approved QuilliChew for Pfizer. Similar to Adzenys, it is an extended release tablet and was approved for patients six and older. The tablet is even scored, so it can be easily halved to individualize the needs of the patient taking it. The active ingredient in QuilliChew is methylphenidate hydrochloride.

Ann Childress, the president of the Center for Psychiatry and Behavioral Medicine in Las Vegas, was quoted by Medscape as saying: “As a physician, it is important to have treatment choices for patients with ADHD and their caregivers. QuilliChew ER extended-release chewable tablets give healthcare providers an additional treatment option to meet their patients’ needs.”

Dr. Childress was a paid consultant and spokesperson for Pfizer according to ProPublica. Between August 2013 and December of 2014 she received $25,911 for “consulting”, “promotional speaking/other” “travel and lodging” by Pfizer for activities related to Quillivant XR. Looking at the archived data on ProPublica, she has had a speaking, consulting and research relationship with Pfizer for several years. She has also been paid $17,998 during the same time period for consulting and other activities by Shire, which makes Vyvanse, another ADHD medication.

Shire recently applied to the FDA to be allowed to bring a chewable Vyvanse to market. On April 14, 2016 Shire announced they had submitted a new drug application to the FDA for a chewable tablet version of Vyvanse for individuals who may have problems swallowing or opening a capsule. The existing Vyvanse capsules can be swallowed whole or opened so that the medication can be mixed into food or water. “Vyvanse chewable tablets will offer an additional administration option for patients.”  The proposed indications for chewable Vyvanse would be the same as the existing uses for Vyvanse capsules—ADHD and Binge Eating Disorder. By the way, sales for Vyvanse more than doubled between 2010 and 2014, from $986 million to $2.1 billion.

Opinions are mixed on the new chewable formulas, according to STAT.  Dr. Ben Biermann, an assistant professor of psychiatry at the University of Michigan, thought there was nothing revolutionary about Adzenys. “It’s simply another delivery mechanism for a medication that already exists and has widespread use.” On the other hand, Dr. Mukund Gnanadesikna, a child and adolescent psychiatrist in Napa, California, thought it was a recipe for people to request it and then sell it: ““I’m not a big fan of controlled substances that come in forms that can be easily abused — and certainly a chewable drug falls into that category.”

Both Adzenys and Vyvanse are amphetamines, as is Adderall. Quillivant and Quillichew are methylphenidate, as are Concerta and Ritalin. All ADHD stimulants are Schedule II controlled substances, meaning they have a high potential for abuse and dependence. And there are multiple potential issues when using stimulants. Here are some of the precautions noted on the Adzenys-XR-ODT medication guide: serious cardiovascular reactions including sudden death, stroke and myocardial infarction; adverse psychiatric reactions such as psychosis or mania. Other adverse reactions can include insomnia, loss of appetite, nervousness, weight loss, and agitation.

The existing and potential harm to children from stimulant medications like Adzenys and Quillichew are well documented and described by Dr. Peter Breggin on his website, breggin.com. He said too many children grow up believing they are inherently defective. The latest scientific literature indicates the potential consequences of boys aged 7-9, who were given a diagnosis of mild hyperactivity in the 1970s and treated with Ritalin. Those boys have much higher rates of early death, atrophy of the brain, suicide, psychiatric hospitalization incarceration and drug addiction than a control group of children from the same time period.

Breggin gave multiple reasons for these potentially dreadful outcomes, including the misinterpretation of adverse effects like depression, anxiety, agitation, insomnia psychosis and aggression. Instead of seeing these as adverse drug reactions, they are viewed disorders that were “unmasked” by the stimulants, which leads to further prescriptions to deal with these newly uncovered mental disorders. Embedded in his linked page are several videos he has done that explain the harmful effects and method of action of stimulants; the negative effects of diagnosing children with ADHD; and the long term consequences to children using stimulants like Ritalin.

There is more information available on the problems with ADHD medications and ADHD diagnosis on this website. Try  “A Drug in Search of a Disorder”, “Pseudoscience with Vyvanse?” or “ADHD: An Imbalance of Fire over Water or a Case of the Fidgets?” Also try a search of “ADHD.”


Tip of the ADHD Iceberg

© bobbimac | stockfresh.com

© bobbimac | stockfresh.com

Stimulant medications prescribed to children with ADHD are known to cause hallucinations and psychotic symptoms. The risk of these adverse events was widely thought to be minimal, but a recent study published in the journal Pediatrics suggests that is not the case. MacKenzie et al. reported that psychotic symptoms were found in 62.5% of youth who had taken stimulants versus 27.4% of individuals who had never taken stimulants. The researchers said this association was still significant even after potential confounding variables were controlled.

Mad in America noted in “ADHD Drugs Linked to Psychotic Symptoms in Children” that clinical trials used to test the safety and efficacy of stimulant medications such as Adderall, Ritalin and Vyvanse estimate that only 1-2% of children on stimulants have such a reaction. MacKenzie et al. suggested these underestimates were partly because researchers often rely upon participants to self-report these symptoms, which leads to significant underreporting. Among the children diagnosed with ADHD in the study, 11 of 17 (65%) treated with stimulants experienced psychotic symptoms, while only 4 (25%) of the 16 who were not treated with stimulants had such symptoms.

The children included in the MacKenzie et al. study had at least one parent with a diagnosis of major depression, bipolar disorder or schizophrenia. However, “the association between stimulants and psychotic symptoms remained consistent after the researchers controlled for other risk factors, age, gender, and parent diagnosis.” The researchers were also able to confirm that the occurrence of the symptoms coincided with the time when the children were actively taking stimulant medications. They concluded:

We report an association between the use of stimulant medication and psychotic symptoms in children and adolescents at familial risk of mental illness. The association of current use of stimulants with current psychotic symptoms and the close temporal relationship between stimulant use and psychotic symptoms in youth who started and stopped stimulants indicated a potential causal relationship. The findings suggest that psychotic symptoms may be relatively common adverse effects of stimulants in youths with a family history of major psychiatric disorders.

In “Psychotic Symptoms in Children on Stimulants,” Dr. Lydia Furman, an Associate Editor for Pediatrics, said the study put a microscope on the subpopulation of children with an ADHD diagnosis, whose risk of psychotic symptoms is substantially higher. She added that the study was just the tip of the iceberg with regard to ADHD diagnosis, stimulant treatment and the risk in adulthood of psychotic disorders or episodes. She cited a study by Moran et al. that demonstrated how adult individuals with psychotic disorders, who were exposed to stimulants in their youth, had a significantly earlier age of onset of psychosis than those who were unexposed.

But Furman seems more interested in seeing ADHD diagnosis as an increased risk factor for adult diagnosis of psychotic disorders, rather than looking at the evidence of how stimulant medications seem to trigger or increase the risk of psychotic symptoms. She commented that an additional body of evidence suggests that ADHD diagnosis in childhood is associated with an increased risk of adult diagnosis of psychotic disorders, and then referenced two studies: Rho et al. and Dalsgaard et al. It wasn’t clear to me from the abstracts that stimulant medication as a confounding variable was controlled for in either study.

Given that the MacKenzie study found the symptoms of psychosis occurred during the active use of stimulant medication, and that the association remained even after the researchers controlled for risk factors including parental diagnosis, it seems the more significant results were that using stimulant medication may trigger hallucination and psychotic symptoms more frequently than has been previously reported.

Cherland and Fitzpatrick reported in a 1999 study, “Psychotic Side Effects of Psychostimulants,” that 6% of children developed psychotic side effects from methylphenidate (Ritalin). They also indicated their findings likely were an underestimate in the prevalence. Significantly, the symptoms stopped as son as the medication was discontinued. No psychotic symptoms were reported among children diagnosed with ADHD who did not receive medication.

Dr. Peter Breggin also reported the danger of ADHD medications triggering symptoms of psychosis in his article for International Journal of Risk & Safety in Medicine. He noted how several studies have compared stimulant-induced psychoses to the symptoms of schizophrenia. Methylphenidate has even been used to experimentally produce or worsen psychotic symptoms in adults diagnosed with schizophrenia. He commented that psychoactive drugs would tend to produce psychosis at a higher rate in children than in adults.

In his “Simple Truths About Psychiatry” series of videos on YouTube (Simple Truth 7 and Simple Truth 8), Dr. Breggin said stimulant drugs don’t fix or cure anything. They actually cause biochemical imbalances in the brain that make children docile, and take away their spontaneity. This adverse effect is then interpreted as a positive effect. I agree with Breggin that these drugs should never be given to children. Ultimately, he asserted that children who are raised on stimulant drugs will never know who they really are. “Since you’re messing up several neurotransmitters in the brain, you’re going to be causing life-long changes in the child’s brain.”

An NIH-funded study by Collins and Clearly found there has been a 43% overall increase in the diagnosis of ADHD since 2003. Among children between the ages of 10 and 14 the increase was 47%, and 52% among adolescents aged 15-17.  There were increasing trends for all racial/ethnic groups, most notably among Hispanics, where the increase in ADHD diagnosis was 83% from 2003 to 2011. Dr. Clearly hedged his bet, saying that the reported increase could be a true increase in ADHD or it could be the result of a tendency to over-diagnose the condition. “Additional studies must be done to identify the underlying cause of the increase.”

In the meantime, his advice was for parents to “talk to your doctor.” That is often pharma-speak for “get a prescription.” We may be just beginning to see the tip of the iceberg of consequences from ADHD medications.


Academic Steroids

© ninto | stockfresh.com

© ninto | stockfresh.com

In response to the growing problem of the abuse of ADHD medications by college students, colleges and universities are instituting a variety of new campus rules. Some college clinicians are forbidden from diagnosing ADHD. Several now require students who bring ADHD medication from home to sign a contract that they will not divert their medications. Others require students to sign a release to have school officials confirm the truth of reported symptoms with parents. Duke University declared the nonmedical use of ADHD drugs to be a form of academic dishonesty. And Harvard is being sued for malpractice by the parents of a student who received an ADHD diagnosis and medication after one meeting with a clinical nurse specialist.

Mad in America pointed to an article by Watson et al., “The ADHD Drug Abuse Crisis on American College Campuses” and noted that ADHD drugs like Ritalin and Adderall have become so common on college campuses that there have been “exponential increases in emergency room visits, overdoses, and suicides by students taking these drugs.”

While ADHD meds are popularly known as “academic steroids,” there is no clear evidence that they facilitate cognitive functioning or scholarship. In fact, “compelling new evidence indicates that ADHD drug treatment is associated with deterioration in academic and social-emotional functioning.” Lower GPAs have been found to be associated with HIGHER rates of ADHD drug abuse in a couple of studies (Arria et al., 2008; McCabe et al., 2005). But this effect is not just limited to students with lower GPAs. ADHD drug abuse is a more common problem at competitive colleges and universities with high admission standards. “There is an emerging trend for medical students to abuse these drugs.”

There was a story in The New York Times about a student who died from prescribed ADHD medications. He never had ADHD, but used a classmate’s ADHD medications to cram for exams. Then he decided to get his own prescription to help him study for medical school entrance exams. He had been a presidential scholar with a high GPA. His academic performance plummeted AFTER he began to use ADHD drugs. This raises the possibility “that low GPAs may often follow—not always precede—use of the medication.” Eventually he became violently delusional and spent a week in a psychiatric hospital. Upon his release, his doctor gave him another prescription for 90 days of Adderall. He hung himself in his bedroom two weeks after he was out of Adderall.

The substantial risk associated with stimulant drug treatment might be best evaluated against associated academic and/or social emotional gains—namely, the reason that the drugs get prescribed in the first place. After 30 years of research on the topic, not a single study has linked ADHD drug treatment with improved academic outcomes. Hundreds of studies have documented that it is associated with short-term improvements in focus and performance on boring, repetitive tasks; nevertheless, these gains have not been shown to translate to improvements in higher order learning or scholarship.

ADHD drugs have a high addictive potential and as early as 1995, the DEA was warning about the potential for abuse with methylphenidate, the generic name for Ritalin, Concerta, and Daytrana. Although it is regularly described as benign, it has the same abuse potential as other Schedule II stimulants, like cocaine and methamphetamine.

It’s been long established that neither drug addicts nor lab rats can distinguish between cocaine and methylphenidate [Ritalin, Concerta, Daytrana]. Now, a growing body of evidence has actually linked methylphenidate treatment to an increase proclivity toward cocaine abuse in rats. These preclinical findings add to the cautionary note about lax attitudes toward ADHD diagnosis, which has the potential to become the gateway to more serious substance use and abuse.

The lead author of the article, “The ADHD Drug Abuse Crisis on American College Campuses,” Gretchen LeFever Watson, is no stranger to the ADHD wars. In the mid 1990s, she began a program of ADHD research. When LeFever et al. published their findings in the American Journal of Public Health, they concluded that the high prevalence rates found by their study suggested that “ADHD was overdiagnosed and overtreated in some groups of children.” They called for additional prevalence studies:

Further research is needed to clarify the long-term social, psychological, and biological consequences of ADHD drug therapy; to determine the prevalence of multimodal ADHD treatment; and to provide a framework for design and implementation of educational programs that ensure appropriate use of stimulant medications and nonpharmacologic interventions.

But in the course of her ongoing efforts to improve ADHD treatment in southeastern Virginia, the area where she did her research, “LeFever was repeatedly attacked for reporting high rates of ADHD diagnosis and treatment.” One of the attacks was an anonymous allegation of scientific misconduct. Although she was ultimately cleared of all allegations, the net effect of the attacks against her was that her research into psychosocial interventions that “raised questions about the effectiveness of ADHD drug treatment was terminated and study findings were suppressed.” You can read a detailed description of LeFever’ s research and the attacks on her here: “Shooting the Messenger: The Case of ADHD.”

The reason her work was targeted is simple—it conflicted with drug industry interests. So ADHD experts with ties to the pharmaceutical industry repeatedly launched ad hominem attacks upon LeFever Watson and her work. “These attacks ultimately led to a decade of significant ADHD research and community-based interventions being mischaracterized in professional venues and media outlets.” The eventual suppression of her work contributed to the escalation and expansion of ADHD diagnosis and drug treatment among Americans of all ages.

The rate of ADHD diagnosis now exceeds all reasonable estimates of the true prevalence of the disorder. As a consequence, ADHD drugs are readily available on American high school and college campuses where they are increasingly abused with serious and sometimes lethal consequences.


The Rise of the Stimulation Junkie

image credit: iStock

image credit: iStock

Do you think your child has ADHD? Are they oppositional, petulant, prone to major tantrums when they don’t get their way? In school, are they inattentive, disruptive, unfocused? Does their teacher essentially have to stand over them to get their work finished? Do something radical—remove television and other electronics from their life!

In The Diseasing of America’s Children, Family psychologist John Rosemond indicated that in most cases, these kids will go through a “withdrawal period”—moodiness, irritability, obsessing about watching TV. “Typically, and depending on the age of the child and the strength of the addiction, after a withdrawal period of one to two weeks, parents begin seeing the signs of recovery.” Within two or three months, the child is better behaved at home and there can be evidence of academic improvement in school.

Rosemond related that within three months of taking his son off of TV and implementing a traditional model of parenting, Eric was one of the best-behaved children in his class; and his reading skills had improved one grade level. Today Eric is a corporate pilot with four boys of his own.

Without doubt, the most glaring difference between the environment of a young child fifty years ago and the environment of today’s child is the prominence of electronic media—television, video games, and computers.

Rosemond isn’t the only person reporting an association between TV and attention problems in children. In “A Generation of Stimulation Junkies,” Allen Hsu reported that according to Neilsen ratings, the average American watches 34 hours of television a week. Children 2 to 11 watch 24 hours a week, translating to 3.5 hours per day. Remember that these statistics don’t account for the time spent on smart phones, video games and computers. Both Hsu and Rosemond cited an important 2004 study in the journal Pediatrics.

In that study, Dimitri Christakis and others found that: “early exposure to television was associated with subsequent attentional problems.” The authors noted that their study did not prove a causative association between television and clinically diagnosed ADHD. Nevertheless, “Early television exposure is associated with attentional problems at age 7. Efforts to limit television viewing in early childhood may be warranted, and additional research is needed.” Hsu said the Christakis study reported that television increased the chances of a child developing attention problems by 28%.

Hsu also said the negative impact of television carried over to video games as well. The more time children spent playing video games and the more violent the video game was positively correlated with increased attention difficulties. A 2010 article by Edward Swing and others in the journal Pediatrics, reported that exposure to both television and video games was associated with attention problems in childhood. This continued in late adolescence and early adulthood: “It sees that a similar association among television, video games, and attention problems exists in late adolescence and early adulthood.”

The increased societal dependence on electronics is affecting how we do things. Hsu thought it was making us more stupid. This is not so outrageous of a thought. In a short story titled “A Feeling of Power,” Isaac Asimov described a future time where people were so reliant on pocket calculators, that they had forgot basic math skills. Then one of the scientists “reversed engineered” mathematics, and demonstrated to his fellow scientists that the same results could be done with paper and pencil.

Our society is becoming a generation of stimulation junkies. We click from website to website, change television channels as we please, while relying on an external stimulation. Viewing fast paced video games, fast paced movies, and addicting television is leading to a population who chooses to quit activities just because they are too hard or not entertaining enough and our need for instant gratification.

Do you think that our dependence upon electronics has altered our neurological networks?


The Making of an American Tragedy

image credit: iStock

image credit: iStock

Psychiatrist Peter Breggin said that diagnosing millions of children with ADHD and then treating them with stimulants and other psychoactive chemicals is an American tragedy. “Never before in history has a society attempted to deal with its children by drugging a significant portion of them into conformity while failing to meet their needs in the home, school and society.” According to Dr.Breggin, the ethical scientist and physician, the concerned parent “must feel stricken with grief and dumbfounded” that our society has allowed this to happen to our children.

In October of 2011, the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) overrode the FDA and approved diagnosing children as young as four with ADHD and medicating them with Ritalin. The lead author of the report said: “Because of greater awareness about ADHD and better ways of diagnosing and treating this disorder, more children are being helped.” Dr. Breggin said this action was an outrage: “This endorsement of drugging younger children by the American Academy of Pediatrics is an outrage.”

According to Dr. Breggin, the scientific literature shows that 50 percent or more of children this young will become depressed, lethargic, weepy—along with being more manageable when given medications such as Ritalin, Adderall and other ADHD medications. Studies show that stimulants will permanently change brain chemistry in the children, cause shrinkage of brain tissue and predispose them to cocaine addiction in young adulthood. He also feared this endorsement by the AAP would open the door for every other psychiatric drug being prescribed to children that young.

These new guidelines will encourage prescribers to throw caution to the wind with toddlers, opening a Pandora’s box of drug intervention for children. Many young children will have their brains bathed with powerful and often toxic chemicals in the early years of their central nervous system development.

But the problems didn’t stop there. Susanna Visser, who oversees the CDC research on ADHD, presented a report at the Georgia Mental Health Forum in May of 2014 that suggested at least 10,000 2 and 3 year-olds were being medicated for ADHD. “It puts these children and their developing minds at risk, and their health is at risk.” Effective non-drug treatments were often ignored.

Families of toddlers with behavioral problems are coming to the doctor’s office for help, and the help they are getting too often is a prescription for a Class II controlled substance, which has not been established as safe for that young of a child.

As liberal as the AAP guidelines for ADHD are, they do not even address diagnosis in children 3 and younger—let alone the use of stimulant medications—with that age group. Children under 4 are not covered in the guidelines because “hyperactivity and impulsivity are developmentally appropriate for toddlers.” Dr. Lawrence Diller, a pediatrician, said: “People prescribing to 2-year-olds are just winging it. It is outside the standard of care, and they should be subject to malpractice if something goes wrong with a kid.”

Sheila Matthews attempted to put “the insanity of drugging 2-3 year olds” in perspective. She noted that the average weight for male toddlers at three years was 29.5 pounds; female toddlers averaged 28.4 pounds. “By this age, only 80 percent of the child’s brain has fully developed.” Kids at this age are learning to arrange things in groups, to put things in size order, remembering what they did yesterday, learning to say please and thank you, and recognizing themselves in the mirror. “In a nutshell, 2-3 year old toddlers are being labeled with an alleged mental illness that is not based in science or medicine and then “treated” with extremely addictive, mind-altering drugs before their brains are even fully formed.”

Psychiatrist Allen Frances said: “Treating babies with stimulants is based on no research, is reckless, and takes no account of the possible harmful long-term effects of bathing baby brains with powerful neurotransmitter drugs.” He hoped that the CDC report would fuel a backlash of parental and professional protest as it becomes clearer how absurdly overused is the ADHD diagnosis and stimulant medication. “It is also particularly outrageous that so many of the thought leaders promoting the excessive use of stimulants have such close ties with pharmaceutical companies.”

Dr Breggin lamented that instead of meeting the normal needs of our children, we are suppressing them with drugs. The average parent or teacher has no idea that what is presented as medical treatment “is actually a form of medical child abuse.” What they see is a more manageable child and assumes this is for the best. Instead, it is the making of an American tragedy.

Do you think the drugging of young children and toddlers is a form of medical child abuse?


The Dumbest “Diagnosis” Ever

Is your child drowsy/sleepy at times? Do you see signs of daydreaming, mental confusion, slowed thinking or behavior, lethargy or apathy? Don’t worry; it may just be the early signs of Sluggish Cognitive Tempo (SCT)! By some estimates, SCT is present in two million children. While still not acknowledged as an official psychiatric disorder, the January 2014 issue of The Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology devoted the entire issue to SCT. Be patient, it will eventually become an official childhood psychiatric disorder, if its advocates have their way. And then you will have a brand new reason to give your son or daughter stimulant medications.

If you think this satire is too off-the-wall, read the April 11, 2014 article in the NYT by Alan Schwartz, “Idea of New Attention Disorder Spurs Research, and Debate.” Schwartz said that “Experts pushing for more research into sluggish cognitive tempo say it is gaining momentum toward recognition as a legitimate disorder—and as such, a candidate for pharmacological treatment.” He added that some of the identified symptoms so far in the research “have helped Eli Lily investigate how its flagship A.D.H.D. drug might treat it.” The psychiatric drug industry has excelled at expanding the market for its drugs, generating tremendous wealth for many.

Becker, Marshall and McBurnett did a search of journal articles (for their own article in January 2014 issue of The Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology) and found that “very few papers explicitly examined or even mentioned SCT between 1985 and 1999.” Since then there has been a steady increase in the articles that either focused on SCT or mentioned it in the body of the paper. They observed that while symptoms of under-arousal and low levels of mental energy were noticed to be part of attention deficit as early as 1798, it wasn’t until the 1970s that inattention was seen as causing even more impairment than hyperactivity. By the mid-1980s, “empirical support for the SCT dimension separate from inattention emerged.”

Russell Barkley, one of the most influential advocates for ADHD, noted in his article for the special issue of The Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology that there was a dearth of studies on SCT. Students now entering the profession could make a successful research career specializing in the research of SCT. He felt there would surely be an increased demand for such empirically-based research in view of the clinical referrals already occurring; and the anticipated increase in the near future as the general public becomes aware of SCT. “The fact that SCT is not is not recognized as yet in any official taxonomy of psychiatric disorders will not alter this circumstance given the growing presence of information on SCT at various widely visited internet sites such as YouTube and Wikipedia, among others.”

Alan Schwartz reported in his NYT article that Barkley has said that SCT “has become the new attention disorder.” Barkley also has financial ties to Eli Lily, receiving $118,000 from 2009 to 2012 for consulting and speaking engagements. He has also published a symptom checklist to identify adults with the condition. The forms are available for $131.75 apiece from Guilford Press. Oh, and Barkley also edits sluggish cognitive tempo’s Wikipedia page. The SCT Wikipedia page carried the following note at the top of the page on June 20th, 2014: “A major contributor to this article appears to have a close connection with its subject. It may require cleanup to comply with Wikipedia’s content policies.”

One of the SCT researchers, David McBurnett, said a scientific consensus on SCT could be many years in the future. “We haven’t even agreed on the symptom list—that’s how early on we are in the process.” And yet, Dr. McBurnett recently conducted a clinical trial funded and overseen by Eli Lilly to see if the proposed SCT diagnosis could be treated with Straterra, the company’s primary ADHD drug. Published in The Journal of Child and Adolescent Psychopharmacology in November of 2013,his study concluded: “This is the first study to report significant effects of any medication on SCT.”

This process with SCT reminded me of what Robert Whitaker depicted in Anatomy of an Epidemic. He showed that in order to sell our society on the benefits of psychiatric drugs, “Psychiatry has had to grossly exaggerate the value of its new drugs, silence its critics, and keep the story of poor long-term outcomes hidden.” This has meant telling a false story to the American public, and then actively hiding research results that reveal the poor long-term outcomes with a drug-centered paradigm of care. Whitaker said it was a conscious, willful process that exacts a horrible toll on our society.

The number of people disabled by mental illness during the past twenty years has soared, and now this epidemic is spreading to our children. Millions of children and adolescents are being groomed to be lifelong users of these drugs. This grooming happens by twisting childhood behaviors like daydreaming, slowed thinking or behavior, and lethargy into symptoms of a new so-called childhood psychiatric disorder.

Allen Frances, chair of the fourth edition of the DSM, said that “’Sluggish Cognitive Tempo’ may possibly be the very dumbest and most dangerous diagnostic idea I have ever encountered . . . .The risk that it could do great harm is real . . . .The last thing our kids need is to be misdiagnosed with ‘Sluggish Cognitive Tempo’ and bathe in even more stimulants.”

Still not convinced? Listen to this pod cast by Peter Breggin where he interviews psychologist Fred Ernst about Sluggish Cognitive Tempo and the “psychiatric assault” on children through psychiatric medication.

Are you concerned with the growing tendency to medicate childhood behaviors?


Is ADHD Simply a Case of the Fidgets?

At a conference, I heard Bose Ravenel (a great name) describe how the “science” behind ADHD and other childhood behavioral disorders wasn’t truly scientific. I bought and read The Diseasing of America’s Children, which he co-authored with John Rosemond. I collected additional critiques of ADHD treatment by Peter Breggin and Fred Baughman, intending to write an article for my web site. But other interests came along, and I didn’t get around to it for a few years.

As an abstinence-oriented addictions counselor, I have a built-in bias against using stimulant medication to treat behavior problems. According to the U.S. Department of Justice, most ADHD medications have “a high potential for abuse”, leading to possible psychological or physical dependence. In other words, Adderall and Ritalin have the same abuse potential as morphine or OxyContin. It didn’t make sense to me that this “treatment” for ADHD would reverse a biochemical or neurological deficit as claimed. The calming effect of stimulants had to have another explanation.

In the summer of 2012 I finally sat down and did the reading and research to first write: “ADHD: An Imbalance of Fire Over Water or A Case of the Fidgets?” Although I read several studies supporting the use of ADHD medications, I still concluded that the negatives far outweighed the positives.

I don’t think I simply found what I already “knew” to be true because of my built-in bias against stimulant medications. The research convincingly showed that stimulant medications do not really “treat” ADHD. And I think you will too after watching the presentation by Robert Whitaker in: “Medicating ADHD: Diagnosis and the Long-Term Effects of the Medications.”

Here is just one teaser mentioned in the video. William Pelham, a researcher with the Multimodal Treatment of Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder Study (MTA Study), a long term study of the treatment of ADHD funded by the NIMH said: “We thought that children medicated longer would have better outcomes. That didn’t happen to be the case. There were no beneficial effects; none. In the short term [medication] will help the child behave better, in the long run it won’t. And that information should be made very clear to parents.”

Viewing ADHD as a simply a neurological disorder that is treated with medication seems to make the mistake of viewing human beings as simply “bodies run amuck” (to use Dave Powlison’s phrase). This reductionistic understanding of human nature neglects a biblical understanding that we are a “psycho-somatic unity” of soul (psyche) and body (soma).

There is nothing morally wrong in using ADHD medications. But given the problems with them, I certainly think it is unwise to use them long-term—particularly since they have the same risk of drug dependency as morphine and OxyContin.

What do you think about ADHD medications and the concerns raised here?