DANGER WARNING - A BRIEF HISTORY OF PSYCHOTOPIC DRUGS FOR CHILDREN.

History - 
A Brave New World of Psychopharmacology
Some History:

    There's really too much history for a comprehensive treatise here. The following are examples of early experiments and approaches.

    The early history of using what was then called "chemotherapy" in treatment of children goes back to 1942 or earlier. Bender, L., and Cottington, F.: The use of amphetamine sulphate (Benzedrine) In child psychiatry, Am. J. Psychiat. 03:116, 1942. The concept of maintenance with stimulants can be dated at at least to 1962:

        "Thus, the following have been tried (4]: Metrazol (5], electric convulsions [6], subshock insulin, many psychopharmaceutical agents [7-1O], the milder antihistamines (Benadryl), amphetamines, anticonvulsants, muscle tone stimulants (Tolserol), meprobamates, phenothiazines, reserpines, antidepressants, tranquilizers, etc.

        "The goal in these therapeutic efforts has been to modify the secondary symptomatology associated with retarded, regressed, and disturbed behavior of the children. ... It was thought that the treatment not infrequently did succeed in nudging the lagging maturation in all behavior areas, thus enabling the child to carry on with a more normal development."

        Bender L, Goldschmidt L, Siva DV: Treatment of Autistic Schizophrenic Children with LSD-25 and UML-491; Recent Advances in Biological Psychiatry, 4:170-77 (1962)

    These early tests were an attempt to develop a "chemotherapy" routine consisting of daily doses of various mind altering substances to address problems in "all behavior areas, thus enabling the child to carry on with a more normal development". The focus drifted from LSD-25 when Sandoz discontinued free distribution of the drug in 1965.

    Much of the research at that time involved what were then termed, "schizophrenic children", the term used differently than "schizophrenic" is used today. The drug preferred by child psychiatrist Lauretta Bender was "LSD-25" but amphetamines were included and presumably given in maintenance dosages. One curious observation, this regarding her LSD-25 experiments:

        "They became disturbed to the extent that they said we were experimenting on them. In two or three hours this passed off, and the next day we put them back into their group activity after repeating the dose; they had no trouble that day as long as they were in their own group and away from close observation of the psychiatrist.

        "We continued these boys for some months on 150 g in two divided doses daily. One of them benefited very much, and was able to go home and return to school, although he has since returned as a disturbed adult schizophrenic."

        Lauretta Bender: Children's Reactions to Psychotomimetic Drugs; Psychotomimetic Drugs, pp. 265-273 (1970).

    The amazing thing about these early tests was the degree to which the experimenters were willing to use these drugs on a maintenance course of treatment (administering the drugs on a daily basis). Lauretta Bender is still respected for her work among child psychiatrists.

... Applied to Current Ritalin Prescribing Practice

 

    Present practice of daily course administration is not only an outcome of these early tests; it almost precisely follows these early experiments. The comment of Lauretta Bender in 1970 suggests the subject was sent to school on a daily routine of the drugs (although in that particular case, on acid).

    Taken into perspective, Timothy Leary's "Turn on, tune in trip out" mantra seems mild. It was a suggestion to use the drug intermittantly. (The radical part was his suggestion that drugs be used outside of a theraputic setting.)

    Time of Use -- There are too many psyciatrists who are willing to prescribe drugs which happen to only be needed during school hours. If there is an attention problem with the school, it's just that,an attention problem with the school,not a generalised attentional disorder.

Professional Philosophy

    The general acceptance of what seems to ordinary people to be bizarre experiments underscores the difference between psyciatrists and psychologists ( i.e. the 'medical model' and the 'social model') It is an inherent part of psychiatry to treat conditions with pharmochemotherapy. In contrast, it is an inherent part of psychology to address environmental and thought process issues in the science of mental phenomena, as exemplified by Freud.

'BRAVE NEW WORLD'(HUXLEY) - USING 'SOMA' WITH KIDS - - A CHILLING PERSPECTIVE FROM AUSTRALIA- CHILD DRUGGING AND CHILD DEATHS.

The Brave New World of Pre-Drugging Kids: Patrick McGorry - Psychosis Risk Syndrome

July 8, 2010 By David Jones 
- COMMENT  BY JAN EASTGATE 
(Courtesy of 'The New Dawn Website')

TO WATCH 'SPECIAL REPORT'-CHANNEL 4 NEWS CLICK ON LINK BELOW:
http://www.channel4.com/news/adhd-drugs-prescribed-to under-6s-against-guidelines

Imagine being a parent taking your 10-year-old daughter to the doctor where she gasps for air and suddenly dies in your arms. You are informed afterwards that a toxic dose of prescribed medication caused her death.

Imagine leaving your house to have lunch with friends, while your husband and 11-year-old daughter are happily cuddled together watching your daughter’s favourite TV show Animal Planet. You return home hours later, walk upstairs to her bedroom and find her hanging from the valence of her bed.

Imagine your teenage son is prescribed a medicine because a teacher said he needs it to curb his disruptive behaviour. Months later he is diagnosed with severe diabetes – a known but covered up side effect by the makers of the medicine. He dies shortly afterwards from complications.

WHY IS THIS SUCH A COMMON SOCIETAL RESPONSE TO NORMAL PATTERNS OF CHILDRENS' BEHAVIOUR.

THERE IS A CLEAR PROFESSIONAL CONSENSUS THAT ADHD IS A SOCIALLY CONSTRUCTED PHENOMENON NOT A PROVEN MEDICAL CONDITION.

These are not isolated incidents. They are representative of those thousands of children and adolescents who died while taking prescribed psychotropic (mind-altering) drugs in the United States. In the above cases, the drugs were prescribed to treat anxiety experienced while sitting for exams or for so-called “Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder” (ADHD), the symptoms of which include fidgeting, losing your pencils, not sitting still, running about or excessively climbing, and butting into other’s conversations.

DOES THIS CHILD NEED MEDICATING OR IS HE GIVING A CLEAR SIGNAL TO SOCIETY? - 

"DOCORS LEAVE US KIDS ALONE!"

 

Australian Child Deaths

An estimated 1,900 Australians under the age of 19 have died while on antidepressants and antipsychotics. More than 30,700 under 18-year-olds were prescribed antidepressants in 2007-2008, including 550 aged 5 and under. Side effects include hallucinations, hostility, psychosis and suicide.

During the same period, more than 9,300 children under 18 – some as young as one – were prescribed antipsychotics, costing the government $3.4 million. Of the 477 deaths reported to the Australian Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) linked to antipsychotics, 15 were for ages 0 to 19, including intrauterine deaths. Experts estimate only 1 percent of Adverse Drug Reactions (ADRs) are reported to the TGA, so deaths could be as high as 1,500.

Common side effects of antipsychotics include excessive weight gain, life-threatening diabetes, and an irreversible neurological effect called Tardive Dyskinesia that manifests in uncontrollable twitching of the muscles and extremities and tongue movements. Another adverse effect, Neuroleptic malignant syndrome (NMS) can cause sudden death.(1) Statistics the Citizens Commission on Human Rights obtained from the TGA in 2009 revealed 14 incidents of 10 to 19 year olds experiencing NMS were reported to it.

SOME SERIOUS SIDE EFFECTS FROM USING STIMULANTS WITH CHILDREN

The psychiatric drug abuse of young Australians prompted one Western Australian MP recently to call for a national inquiry into the use of psychotropic drugs in children. To date, the federal government has yet to act.

Instead, it has potentially exacerbated the situation, handing over more than one hundred million taxpayer dollars to Patrick McGorry, Professor of Youth Mental Health at the University of Melbourne, Executive Director of ORYGEN Research Centre, and founder of the youth mental health centre chain, HEADSPACE.
 
Psychosis Risk Syndrome Creates Harm (DUBIOUS NEW DIAGNOSTIC LABELS DAMAGING FUTURE GENERATIONS)

McGorry’s Australian of the Year Award hardly had time to settle on the mantelpiece before the psychiatrist demanded millions more for his brand of youth services.(2) Established in 2006 and funded by the Commonwealth Government of Australia, McGorry’s headspace, the National Youth Mental Health Foundation, are one-stop-shops that have a range of health professionals covering in addition to general health, mental health and counselling, education, employment and alcohol and other drug services.(3)

It sounds reasonable. Some of the services are undoubtedly valuable. However, there is an ominous side. McGorry not only promotes youths being put on antipsychotics and antidepressants, he goes a giant step further: He promotes drugging them before they’ve even developed a “psychiatric” disorder.

It’s based on an invented disorder called “Psychosis Risk Syndrome” (PRS) – a subjective checklist of symptoms that psychiatrists claim to be predictors of early onset psychosis or schizophrenia, called prodormal (early symptoms). It’s speciously marketed as “preventive medicine” or “early intervention.” The upshot of it is that youths are drugged for mental disorders they don’t have.(4)

The US group Association for the Accreditation of Human Research Protection Programs (AHRPP) likens this to “performing mastectomies on women who are at risk of – but do not have – breast cancer.”(5)

As Richard Gosden, Ph.D., a highly respected Australian author and academic pointed out in 1999, “Apart from the risks involved in the prophylactic [protective] use of neuroleptic drugs, so-called preventive medicine might be variously seen as an unnecessary expansion of social control, a threat to human diversity through the enforcement of hyper-normality, a violation of human rights, and a marketing ploy for the new generation of atypical [new] neuroleptic drugs.”(6)

PRS is proposed to be included the next edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5). The American Psychiatric Association (APA) developed the DSM in 1952 and since then psychiatrists around the world have and continue to use it to obtain insurance reimbursement for treating patients. There are already 374 “disorders,” including, depression, ADHD, caffeine-related disorder, disorder of written expression, conduct disorder, mathematics disorder, nicotine use or withdrawal, sibling rivalry disorder and the all-encompassing “Phase of Life Problem.” Proposed new disorders include Internet addiction and compulsive shopping disorder. Psychiatrists refer to it as their “billing bible.”

The DSM is driven not by science, but instead caters to the pharmaceutical industry's drive for 'market expansion' into socially unacceptable areas and for the financial 'god' of profit . Disorders are voted into existence, not discovered as in real medicine. Medical conditions can be substantiated with blood work, urine or other tests, x-rays and brain scans. There are no such tests for any psychiatric disorders. In fact, Andrew Witty the CEO of GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) announced the company was dumping future antidepressant research as it was too hard to prove the drugs worked because “patient improvement is measured by subjective mood surveys” – based on DSM – “not by any blood or biological test” used to confirm medical diseases.(7)

A study published in the April 2006 edition of Psychotherapy and Psychosomatics determined that 56 percent of the psychiatrists who decided which “mental disorders” were included in the DSM-IV edition had undisclosed financial ties to pharmaceutical companies. One hundred percent of those sitting on DSM-IV panels overseeing so-called “mood disorders” (including “depression,” “bipolar”) and “schizophrenia/psychotic disorders” were financially involved with drug companies.(8) For the DSM-V, a study found that 18 of the 20 members overseeing the revision of clinical guidelines for treating three “mental disorders” alone had financial ties to drug companies.

Dr. Irwin Savodnik, an assistant clinical professor of psychiatry at the University of California, Los Angeles, says: “The very vocabulary of psychiatry is now defined at all levels by the pharmaceutical industry.”(10)
Big Pharma & Australian Psychiatrists

The conflicts of interest between the APA and the pharmaceutical industry were the subject of a US Senate Finance Committee investigation in 2009, an action the Australian Federal Government would do well to follow.

McGorry has received unrestricted research grant support from Eli Lilly, Janssen-Cilag, Bristol Myers Squibb, Astra-Zeneca, Pfizer, and Novartis.(11) He is a paid consultant for, and has received speaker’s fees from, most of these companies.(12)

His research arm, ORYGEN, with its Early Psychosis Prevention and Intervention Centre (EPPIC) and a “preventive” treatment clinic for young people called Personal Assessment and Crisis Evaluation (PACE), has received drug company funding from Janssen-Cilag, the maker of the antipsychotic drug Risperdal or risperidone.(13)

EPPIC assumed a leadership role in Australia in the 1990s after winning the government tender to establish the Australian Clinical Guidelines for Early Psychosis (NEPP). These guidelines extend the definition of psychosis to include “the period described as the prodrome.” The list was originally adopted without comment from a publication called the Early Psychosis Training Pack – attributed to McGorry and another colleague, the principal authors being the Director and Assistant Director of EPPIC. However, a British public relations company, Gardiner-Caldwell Communications that specialised in pharmaceutical marketing, produced the document. The training pack was funded by an “educational grant” from Janssen-Cilag.(14)

As Gosden stated: “This may have paid off handsomely for the company…. It may not be coincidental that a half page of the Clinical Guidelines is dedicated to dosage recommendations for using risperidone in first-episode psychosis. The Clinical Guidelines do not extend these dosage recommendations to include other schizophrenia drugs and the recommendations for risperidone give the appearance of an official endorsement of the drug.”(15)

In 1996, McGorry and fellow pharmaceutical company-funded researcher Alison Yung set up the clinic in Australia to monitor young people considered at a “high risk” for developing psychosis and McGorry conducted a world-first trial on “early intervention” for this.(16) A follow up study was conducted in 2002, funded with an unrestricted grant from Janssen-Cilag and supported by US psychiatric-pharmaceutical front groups National Alliance for Research on Schizophrenia and Depression (NARSAD) and the Stanley Foundation, as well as several Australian agencies. McGorry and colleagues found that Janssen’s risperidone reduced the risk of “transition to psychosis” in young people.(17)

The subjective 16-item list of “Prodromal Symptoms and Signs” of psychosis includes: Suspiciousness; Depression; Anxiety; Tension; Irritability; Mood swings; Anger; Sleep disturbances, Appetite changes; Loss of energy or motivation; Memory or concentration difficulties; Perception that things around them have changed; Belief that thoughts have speeded up or slowed down; Deterioration in work or study; Withdrawal and loss of interest in socialising; Emerging unusual beliefs.(18)

Summarising his paper “Pre-Psychotic Treatment for Schizophrenia: Preventive Medicine, Social Control, or Drug Marketing Strategy?” Gosden states: “A preventive medicine campaign based on the type of prodromal symptoms and risk factors specified in the Australian Clinical Guidelines for Early Psychosis potentially defines the whole generation of young people as being at risk and in need of treatment.”
McGorry’s Brave New World

The entire concept of pre-drugging children sounds like a page out of Aldous Huxley’s 1932 novel, Brave New World. In it, Huxley depicts a “utopian” but totalitarian society, one that is insane and bent on control using the “technique of suggestion – through infant conditioning and, later, with the aid of drugs.”(19)

Psychiatrists took this to heart in 1967 when a group of prominent psychiatrists and doctors met in Puerto Rico to discuss the plan for psychotropic drug use on “normal humans” in the year 2000. The report on that meeting stated that the “breadth of drug use may be trivial when we compare it to the possible numbers of chemical substances that will be available for the control of selective aspects of man’s life in the year 2000.”

Further: “Those of us who work in this field see a developing potential for nearly a total control of human emotional status, mental functioning, and will to act. These human phenomena can be started, stopped or eliminated by the use of various types of chemical substances. What we can produce with our science now will affect the entire society.”(20)

An online opinion written earlier this year by Melissa Raven, psychiatric epidemiologist and policy analyst, adjunct lecturer in Public Health at Flinders University, South Australia, and David Webb, board member of the World Network of Users and Survivors of Psychiatry, who works with the research/policy office of the Australia Federation of Disability Organisations, reflects this: “McGorry’s campaign is part of a wider push to promote the medicalisation of mental health (for which psychosocial wellbeing is a better term).”

“Further doubts must be raised about McGorry’s agenda when you see the substantial funding his organisation (Orygen Youth Health) receives from the pharmaceutical industry and also from the US Stanley Foundation, which is notorious for its particularly aggressive approach to the detention and mandatory treatment of people labelled with psychiatric disorders,” they continue. He has “personally received funding from many manufacturers of antipsychotics, frequently reports no conflicts of interest, particularly in his many recent Medical Journal of Australia articles, including a supplement on early intervention that repeatedly advocates the use of antipsychotics.”(21)

Adding controversy to this is the fact that McGorry credits PRS to Dr. Ewen Cameron, the Canadian psychiatrist famous for performing cruel and brain-damaging drug and electroshock experiments on his patients in the 1950s and 1960s with funding from the CIA.22 (Cameron’s victims sued and on October 5, 1988, the CIA settled with the plaintiffs for $750,000.)

The fact that McGorry and colleagues recommend antipsychotics to treat PRS should be raising alarm bells – not further research dollars – with Australian authorities. Even psychiatrists point out the harm of PRS.

DR ALLEN FRANCES - LEAD EDITOR OF DSM4 REGRETS THE 'FALSE EPIDEMICS' IN CHILDREN IT HAS CREATED IN THE LAST FIFTEEN YEARS.

Allen Frances, professor emeritus, former chairman of the department of psychiatry at Duke University and chair of the DSM-IV Task Force, wrote an opinion on PRS published in Psychiatric Times and Psychology Today in March. He said PRS “stands out as the most ill-conceived and potentially harmful.” The syndrome fails badly on all three counts:
“1. It would misidentify many teenagers who are not really at risk for psychosis; 
2. The treatment they would most often receive (atypical antipsychotic medication) has no proven efficacy; but, 
3. It does have definite dangerous complications.”

Australian psychiatrist Niall McLaren says the diagnostic criteria for PRS “has no scientific validity whatsoever… it can never be reliable and… will have huge unforeseen consequences.” Essentially, it means “putting large numbers of teenagers and young adults under the long-term supervision and control of psychiatrists” and that “supervision” includes the “aggressive, indefinite prescription of antipsychotic drugs.” It is the “clearest example I know of pseudoscience. Not since [lobotomies] has psychiatry stumbled so far from the principle of Primum, non nocere. First, do no harm.”23

Adds Frances: “Drug company marketing would influence parents and clinicians to be especially alert to any strangeness in teenagers.” False positives could be as high as 70-90 percent. Moreover, “It has not yet been established that antipsychotic medications are effective in preventing psychotic episodes or in improving life course in those who would meet the criteria for ‘risk syndrome’.”24 “Misidentified youths,” Frances wrote in another article, “would receive medications that can cause enormous weight gain, diabetes and shortened life expectancy.”(25)

No one denies that people experience serious problems in life, that they can be mentally traumatised, even psychotic. But it violates the informed consent rights of all consumers when they are not informed that there is no science to diagnosing psychiatric disorders, that psychiatry’s diagnostic manual is more political than medical, and that even psychiatrists say is a “monster out of control.” Labelling someone with a mental disorder, even depression, can sometimes prevent their searching for non-invasive and workable medical solutions.

Allen Frances is, at least, candid in stating that the, “First draft of the next edition of DSM… is filled with suggestions that would multiply [psychiatrists’] mistakes and extend the reach of psychiatry dramatically into the ever-shrinking domain of normal…. The pharmaceutical industry would have a field day – despite a lack of solid evidence of any effective treatments for these newly proposed diagnoses” (PRS inclusive).

McGorry seems cautious about publicly endorsing the inclusion of PRS in DSM. In an online chat on Schizophrenia Research Forum in July 2009, he said caveats and warnings are needed if a more narrowly defined PRS is included in DSM, otherwise it could lead to “widespread over-treatment with medications which possess many harmful as well as beneficial effects.” It wouldn’t belong in a school or general population setting, he said, but “to those seeking help from an early intervention/early psychosis or youth mental health service.”(26)

In other words – those in contact with McGorry’s headspace/youth mental health foundation, to which millions of dollars are now being funnelled without, it seems, anyone questioning his Brave New World of pre-drugging kids.
 
Footnotes:

1. www.coreynahman.com/atypical-antipsychotic-lawsuits.html.

2. Mental Health Update, GetUp! Action for Australia, 21 Apr. 2010, www.getup.org.au/blogs/view.php?id=1936&dc=1086,21560,1

3. www.headspace.org.au/about/

4. www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2632176/

5. www.ministryoflies.com/pdf-articles/Yale-Lilly.pdf.

6. Richard Gosden, Ph.D., “Pre-Psychotic Treatment for Schizophrenia: Preventive Medicine, Social Control, or Drug Marketing Strategy?,” Ethical Human Sciences and Services, Vol 1, No. 2, Summer 1999, 165-177, http://sites.google.com/site/richardgosden/ehss.

7. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704041504575044901266169316.html?mod=WSJ_business_MoreArticles

8. Lisa Cosgrove, Sheldon Krimsky, et al., “Financial Ties between DSM-IV Panel Members and the Pharmaceutical Industry,” Psychotherapy and Psychosomatics, May 2006, Vol. 75, 154-160.

9. Kent Garber, “Who’s Behind the Bible of Mental Illness Critics say that touted efforts against conflicts fall short,” U.S. News, 20 Dec. 2007.

10. Judith Graham, “Experts involved in mental illness manual linked to drug companies,” Chicago Tribune, 19 Apr. 2006.

11. www.mhanet.ca/documents/2008/Research-Colloquium/0920%20-%20Keynote%20MCGORRY.pdf.

12. www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/337/aug04_1/a695.

13. Richard Gosden, Ph.D., op.cit., 165-177

14. Ibid.

15. Ibid.

16. Ibid.

17. Arch Gen Psychiatry, Vol 59, Oct. 2002, www.meb.uni-bonn.de/psychiatrie/zebb/literatur/mcgorry.pdf.

18. Richard Gosden, Ph.D., op.cit., 165-177

19. Aldous Huxley, Brave New World (Granada Publishing Ltd., 1977; first published in Great Britain by Ghatto and Windus Ltd., 1932), 13.

20. Wayne O. Evans, Ph.D. & Nathan S. Kline, M.D. (editors), Psychotropic Drugs in the Year 2000, Use by Normal Humans, (Charles C. Thomas, Publisher, Illinois, U.S.A., 1971)

21. David Webb, Melissa Raven, “McGorry’s ‘early intervention’ in mental health: a prescription for disaster,” Online Opinion, www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=10267.

22. Richard Gosden, Ph.D., op.cit., 165-177

23. Niall McLaren, M.D.,”Psychosis Risk Syndrome (PRS),” 14 May 2010 (soon to be published).

24. Allen Frances, M.D., “DSM5 ‘Psychosis Risk Syndrome’ – Far Too Risky,” Psychology Today, www.psychologytoday.com/blog/dsm5-in-distress/201003/dsm5-psychosis-risk-syndrome-far-too-risky.

25. Allen Frances, MD, “Let’s save normalcy from the psychiatrists,” Lacrosstribune.com, 5 Mar. 2010.

26. Patrick McGorry, Comment, Schizophrenia Research Forum, 22 July 2009.
.

  

The above article appeared in New Dawn No. 121 (July-August 2010).

MEDCO REPORT - DRUGGING RATES FOR CHILDREN SOARS IN MEDCO REPORT (2009) - SOCIAL CONTROL THROUGH PHARMACEUTICAL INTERVENTIONS (COURTESY OF NATURALNEWS.COM)

Creating drugged and docile youth

Psychiatry's worst  meltdown concerns our youngest children. The threat of ADHD, bipolar disotder, autism, 'sadness', 'shyness', 'eating issues' and other alleged childhood diseases - which  teachers, counselors and parents have been encouraged to be  on the constant lookout for - presses children into a "socially acceptable" mold or second class citizens who are 'abnormal.'

Several ADHD websites even boast that medication benefits include: "the child is no longer distinguishable from classmates" - their words.

CONFORMITY AT WHAT COST?

A Medco Health Solutions Report in 2009 revealed children to be the pharmaceutical industry's most expanding market. Child prescriptions have increased at four times the rate of the general population.

Psychotropic prescription rates for 14 year olds in one state.

Every new disorder equals more prescriptions and more profit. With changes planned for DSM-5, toddlers with recurring tantrums could be drugged for "temper dysregulation disorder", upset six-year-olds could be drugged for "Disruptive Mood Dysregulation Disorder" and kids with "overly familiar behaviour (verbal or physical violation of culturally sanctioned social boundaries)" could be drugged for "Disinhibited Social Engagement Disorder."

Social totalitarians
 
DSM officials admit that everyone has instances of sadness and anger, and assert that diagnoses depend on the severity and frequency of symptoms.

DIAGNOSTIC 'BIBLE' OR BLUNDERBUSS!

And who decides when a child or adult has crossed from normality into abnormality? Psychiatrists - a field financially joined at the hip with Big Pharma.

Per the current DSM, social no-nos deserving an abnormal imprint (and likely to lead to a prescription drug) include:

* Heightened self-esteem ("manic episode")
* Very sensitive to criticism ("avoidant personality disorder")
* Defying and disobeying authority figures ("oppositional defiant disorder")
* Behavior that deviates markedly from the expectations of the culture ("personality disorder")

The Soviet Union and East Germany also used psychiatric labels for social control. People who defied communism were diagnosed as mentally ill, isolated and forcefully medicated.Children in Care in the U.S. in some states are forcibly medicated in the morning if they refuse to take their medications.

Ahead of his time, Aldous Huxley anticipated psychiatric totalitarianism in his classic novel, Brave New World: "And if ever, by some unlucky chance, anything unpleasant should somehow happen, why, there's always soma* to give you a holiday from the facts. And there's always soma to calm your anger, to reconcile you to your enemies, to make you patient and long-suffering. In the past you could only accomplish these things by making a great effort and after years of hard moral training. Now, you swallow two or three half-gramme tablets, and there you are." [In this fictional novel, soma is a hallucinogenic drug used by those in power to subdue the citizens.]

Sources include:

http://www.montrealgazette.com/heal...

http://communities.washingtontimes....

http://www.cchrint.org/cchr-issues/...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OOcJ...



About the author:
Monica G. Young is a human rights investigator and educational writer with a purpose to expose the truth about the pharmaceutical and psychiatric industries and safeguard human liberty. She encourages non-drug alternative approaches based on healthy lifestyles and human decency. 
For more facts and video documentaries,

Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/032342_psychiatric_drugs_sheeple.html#ixzz1NOziZ4FD

Prescription Drug Use Soaring Among U.S. Children
June 1, 2010 | From theTrumpet.com
 
One in four children took drugs for chronic mental health conditions in 2009, according to a new report.


Prescription drug use among youngsters in the United States is growing at nearly four times the rate as among the overall population. A new report shows that nearly a quarter of insured children and almost one third of adolescents ages 10 to 19 took at least one prescription medicine to treat a chronic condition last year.

The annual drug trend report by big pharmacy benefit manager Medco Health Solutions Inc, issued May 19, revealed that prescriptions marketed to children and teens are the biggest growth factor for the pharmaceutical industry. Money spent on prescription drugs for children rose 10.8 percent last year—more than triple the increase among senior citizens.
 
“Looking at children was the real shocker for us,” Dr. Robert Epstein, Medco’s chief medical officer, said on a conference call from Medco’s drug trend symposium in Orlando, Florida.

The drastic rise in medication use by children is largely due to young people increasingly suffering from adult illnesses.

“What’s surprising is the type of drugs these kids are taking. All these adult drugs are popping up in children, which is really disturbing,” Epstein said. “Children are looking like little versions of adults when it comes to chronic illness.”

One trend fueling the increase in medication use is children being prescribed powerful antipsychotic drugs traditionally given to people diagnosed with schizophrenia. Now, they are commonly prescribed for conditions such as depression or anxiety.

“Atypical antipsychotics are extremely powerful drugs that are being used far too commonly especially in children given their safety issues and side effects,” said Dr. David Muzina, a specialist in mood disorders and national practice leader of the Medco Therapeutic Resource Center for Neuroscience.

Dr. Muzina went on to point out the counterproductive nature of such drugs: “We’re seeing them prescribed for a number of different conditions including depression and anxiety for which there is not good evidence that they are an effective treatment and yet we’re exposing children to the possibility of extreme weight gain that could lead to a host of health problems including diabetes.”

An analysis by Medco showed that the use of antipsychotic drugs has more than doubled in the past nine years.

Drugs used to treat obesity and diabetes are also contributing to the increased drug use among children. Epstein reported a 50 percent increase since 2001 in the use of cholesterol-lowering drugs among those ages 10 to 19, a 24 percent increase in use of blood pressure medicines, and a 147 percent jump in adolescents taking heart burn and acid reflux drugs. Drugs used to treat type-2 diabetes, once referred to as adult-onset diabetes, has risen more than 150 percent among children since 2001.

Sadly, our children, the segment of the population that should be healthiest—not to mention establishing the right habits for a healthy adulthood—are becoming more reliant on drugs than anyone else.

Children are being given the so-called quick fix of pills to alleviate their ills rather than helped to make lifestyle, diet and behavioral changes. This gross negligence has become accepted in a society that focuses on treating the symptom rather than addressing the cause.

AS RESPONSIBLE PROFESSIONALS IN THE U.K. WE MUST CHALLENGE THIS DODGY DELUDED  DOCTRINE BEING IMPORTED 'LOCK STOCK AND CAPSULE' HERE. 

 

N.I.C.E. GUIDELINES - EPIDEMIOLOGY - GIVES LIKELY RANGE OF PREVALANCE OF ADHD IN CHILDREN.

Key information about ADHD
Epidemiology

    The prevalence rate of ADHD is usually estimated at 3%-5% in school -aged children (American Psychiatric Association, 1994) although recent systematic reviews report ADHD prevalence estimates as wide as 2-18% (Rowland et al. 2002).
   
Around 1% of school-aged children have severe combined type ADHD (DSM-1V)/ hyperkinetic disorder (HKD - ICD-10); equivalent to approximately 73,000 children aged 6-16 in England and Wales.
   
Taking all forms of ADHD into account, perhaps 5% of school-aged children are affected - or 366,000 in England and Wales. Significant numbers remain undiagnosed.
   
The ratio of boys to girls is 4:1, with no social, economic or ethnic group bias in the general child population.
    
One third of affected individuals have at least one parent who suffers from similar symptoms.
   
ADHD is associated with: low birth weight (<1500g); environmental toxins; tobacco, alcohol and cocaine abuse during pregnancy (Milberger et al, 1996).
    
Although in the past it was thought that ADHD did not continue beyond adolescence, research has shown that a childhood diagnosis of ADHD has long term implications. More than 70% of those diagnosed with ADHD as children continue to fulfill diagnostic criteria in adolescence, and up to 65% of adolescents with ADHD still present with the disorder as adults (Jadad et al. 1999).
    
The number of prescriptions written for Methylphenidate in the UK increased from ~about 6000 in 1994 to ~ 345,000 children in 2003.

ABSTRACT FROM ROWLAND STUDY. 
"The epidemiology of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD): a public health view."
Rowland AS, Lesesne CA, Abramowitz AJ.(2002)

MPH Program, Department of Family and Community Medicine, University of New Mexico Health Sciences Center, Albuquerque, New Mexico, USA. arowland@salud.unm.edu
Abstract

Attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) is the most common neurodevelopmental disorder of childhood. However, basic information about how the prevalence of ADHD varies by race/ethnicity, sex, age, and socio-economic status remains poorly described. One reason is that difficulties in the diagnosis of ADHD have translated into difficulties developing an adequate case definition for epidemiologic studies.

Diagnosis depends heavily on parent and teacher reports; no laboratory tests reliably predict ADHD. Prevalence estimates of ADHD are sensitive to who is asked what, and how information is combined. Consequently, recent systematic reviews report ADHD prevalence estimates as wide as 2%-18%. The diagnosis of ADHD is complicated by the frequent occurrence of comorbid conditions such as learning disability, conduct disorder, and anxiety disorder. Symptoms of these conditions may also mimic ADHD. Nevertheless, we suggest that developing an adequate epidemiologic case definition based on current diagnostic criteria is possible and is a prerequisite for further developing the epidemiology of ADHD. 

The etiology of ADHD is not known but recent studies suggest both a strong genetic link as well as environmental factors such as history of preterm delivery and perhaps, maternal smoking during pregnancy. Children and teenagers with ADHD use health and mental health services more often than their peers and engage in more health threatening behaviors such as smoking, and alcohol and substance abuse. Better methods are needed for monitoring the prevalence and understanding the public health implications of ADHD. Stimulant medication is the treatment of choice for treating ADHD but psychosocial interventions may also be warranted if comordid disorders are present.

The treatment of ADHD is controversial because of the high prevalence of medication treatment. Epidemiologic studies could clarify whether the patterns of ADHD diagnosis and treatment in community settings is appropriate. 

Population-based epidemiologic studies may shed important new light on how we understand ADHD, its natural history, its treatment and its consequences.

HANSARD - QUESTION ABOUT RITALIN PRESCRIPTION RATES FOR CHILDREN

Ritalin: Children

Mr Frank Field: To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many children in households receiving working-age benefits have been prescribed Ritalin in each year from 1997 to 2010; [51038]

(2) how many children were prescribed Ritalin to treat attention deficit hyperactivity disorder in each year from 1997 to 2010. [51039]

Anne Milton: The Information Centre Prescribing Team has advised that this information is not available for children’s prescriptions. They have however provided information on the numbers of all Ritalin prescriptions dispensed in the community as follows:

Ritalin is a branded version of the drug Methylphenidate Hydrochloride. The following table shows the total number of items dispensed for Methylphenidate Hydrochloride overall (including Ritalin) and for Ritalin separately for individuals of all ages.
Methylphenidate Hydrochloride prescriptions dispensed in the community in England
(Thousands)
    Prescription items
    Methylphenidate Hydrochloride    
1998     126.6     
1999     158.0    
2000     186.2    
2001     208.5    
2002     254.0   
2003     314.5    
2004     359.1   
2005     389.2     
2006     456.9    
2007     535.3   
2008     573.4   
2009     610.2    
 
Notes:1. Prescription Cost Analysis (PCA) DataPrescription information is taken from the PCA system, supplied by the Prescription Services Division of the NHS Business Services Authority, and is based on a full analysis of all prescriptions dispensed in the community i.e. by community pharmacists and appliance contractors, dispensing doctors, and prescriptions submitted by prescribing doctors for items personally administered in England. Also included are prescriptions written in Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland and the Isle of Man but dispensed in England. The data do not cover drugs dispensed in hospitals, including mental health trusts, or private prescriptions.2. Prescribers are general practitioners, hospital doctors, dentists and non-medical prescribers such as nurses and pharmacists.3. Prescription ItemsPrescriptions are written on a prescription form. Each single item written on the form is counted as a prescription item.4. British National Formulary ClassificationsThe PCA system uses the therapeutic classifications defined in the BNF. No information on why a drug is prescribed is available and since drugs can be prescribed to treat more than one condition it is impossible to separate the different conditions that a drug was prescribed for.

Source:Prescription Cost Analysis

ETHICAL ISSUE WITH PSYCHOTROPIC DRUGS FOR CHILDREN - "A COSY CORRUPT AND COLONISING CARTEL FORMED BETWEEN PSYCHIATRY IN THE U.S. AND THE DRUG MANUFACTURERS." - THE RELEASE OF DSM5 MUST BE RESISTED IN THE U.K.ON ETHICAL GROUNDS

SENATE SUBCOMMITTEE EXPOSES CORRUPT LINKS BETWEEN ACADEMICS AND PHARMACEUTICAL COMPANIES THAT AFFECTS DSM PROCESS.

"One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest" a classic film about the mislabelling and misdiagnosis of mental illness and societal pressures to conform to norms of behaviour.

http://www.channel4.com/news/adhd-drugd-prescribed -to-under-6s-against-guidelines

To watch Channel 4 'Special Report' click on link above.

Commission of Chhildren's Human Rights 2010

In March 2009, the American Psychiatric Association announced that it would phase out pharmaceutical funding of continuing medical education seminars and meals at its conventions.  However, the decision came only after years of controversial exposure of its conflict of interest with the pharmaceutical industry and the U.S. Senate Finance Committee requesting in July 2008 that the APA provide accounts for all of its pharmaceutical funding.  Despite its announcement, within two months, the APA accepted more than $1.7 million in pharmaceutical company funds for its annual conference, held in San Francisco.

Not surprising.  In 2002, the APA’s Anand Pandya said that without pharmaceutical industry funds, membership dues could escalate 455% from $540 a year to $3,000. Pandya is president of the National Alliance on Mental Illness (NAMI), which in 2009 was also asked to provide records of its pharmaceutical company funding to federal investigators.  About 56% of its $12 million-a-year income comes from drug makers (more below).

Within a month of the APA’s announcement, its conflicts came under criticism again with the release of a study that found that 18 of the 20 members overseeing the revision of clinical guidelines for treating just three “mental disorders” had financial ties to drug companies. The common diagnoses generate some $25 billion a year in pharmaceutical sales.
Psychiatrists Top the List of Drug Maker Gifts.

In June 2007, The New York Times reported that psychiatrists in Vermont and Minnesota topped the list of doctors receiving pharmaceutical company gifts and that this financial relationship corresponds to the “growing use of atypicals [new antipsychotics] in children.” From 2000 to 2005, drug maker payments to Minnesota psychiatrists rose more than six-fold to $1.6 million.  During those same years, prescriptions of antipsychotics for children under the state’s insurance program rose more than nine-fold.

Conflicts Under Congressional Investigation

With the U.S. prescribing antipsychotics to children and adolescents at a rate six times greater than the U.K., and with 30 million Americans having taken antidepressants for a “chemical imbalance” that psychiatrists admit is a pharmaceutical marketing campaign, not scientific fact, it is no wonder that the conflict of interest between psychiatry and Big Pharma is under congressional investigation.  The following is a summary of some of those under Senate Finance Committee investigation:

JOSEPH BIEDERMAN DID NOT DISCLOSE MASSIVE EARNINGS FROM DRUG COMPANIES TO UNIVERSITY OR HOSPITAL AUTHORITIES.(NYT 2008)
 
Joseph Biederman (ABOVE): Chief of the Program in Pediatric Psychopharmacology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Biederman has received research funds from 15 pharmaceutical companies. The New York Times exposed how Biederman earned $1.6 million in consulting fees from drug makers between 2000 and 2007 but did not report all of this income to Harvard University officials. His marketing of the theory that children have “bipolar” was attributed to the increase in antipsychotic drug sales for pediatric use in the United States—today 2.5 million children. Following exposure of his conflicts, he stepped down from a number of industry-funded clinical trials. In March 2009, in newly released court documents, Biederman was reported to have promised drug maker Johnson & Johnson in advance that his studies on the antipsychotic drug Risperidone would prove the drug to be effective when used on preschool age children.


Melissa DelBelloMelissa DelBello: Research psychiatrist, University of Cincinnati was cited for her failure to disclose to the university much of what she had earned from pharmaceutical companies. In 2002, she was the lead author of a study that reported some patients benefited from the antipsychotic drug Seroquel, which is manufactured by AstraZeneca, which paid her $100,000 in 2003 and $80,000 in 2004. She disclosed that she’d received $100,000 from the company between 2005 and 2007, but federal investigators discovered it was more than double that—$238,000.


Frederick GoodwinFrederick Goodwin: Former National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH) director, Goodwin earned at least $1.3 million between 2000 and 2007 for giving marketing lectures to physicians on behalf of drug makers—a fact he did not reveal to the audience, broadcaster or producers of “The Infinite Mind,” that he hosted on the National Public Radio during its 10-year run.  Subsequently, NPR removed the program from its schedule.  Lichtenstein Creative Media issued a statement that this income was a violation of the contract between the company and Goodwin.


Charles NemeroffCharles Nemeroff: Professor and Chairman of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Emory University School of Medicine in Atlanta. From 2000 through 2006, Nemeroff received just over $960,000 from GlaxoSmithKline (GSK), but only disclosed no more than $35,000 to Emory. Between 2000 and 2007, he earned more than $2.8 million from various drug makers but failed to report at least $1.2 million. He signed a letter in 2004 promising Emory administrators that he would earn less than $10,000 a year from GSK but on the same day he was at a hotel earning $3,000 of what would become $170,000 in income from the company—17 times greater than the figure he agreed upon. He was the principal investigator for a five-year $3.9 billion grant financed by the NIMH for which GSK provided the drugs, during which he received more than the annual $10,000 threshold allowed from the company. In 2006, he stepped down as editor of Neuropsychopharmacology after publishing a favorable review of the vagus nerve stimulation (VNS) device, manufactured by Cyberonics, for which he was a paid consultant.  In 2003, he coauthored a favorable review of three therapies in Nature Neuroscience failing to mention his significant financial interests in these, including owning the patent for one of the treatments—a lithium patch.  Nemeroff has consulted for 21 drug and device companies simultaneously.  In 1991 Nemeroff testified before the FDA on behalf of Eli Lilly in hearings into Prozac, saying that the drug did not cause suicidal acts of ideation—yet 13 years later, the FDA concluded the opposite and issued a black box warning about suicide risks. Nemeroff resigned his position at Emory in 2008.


Martin KellerMartin Keller: Professor of Psychiatry and Human Behavior at Brown University, chairman of the psychiatry department at the Alpert Medical School, Keller’s study (329) on GSK’s Paxil use in children and adolescents and its authors have been fiercely criticized in medical journals for allegedly misrepresenting data, suppressing information linking the drug to suicidal tendencies and reaching a conclusion unsupported by the relevant data. There are also claims that a GSK-affiliated employee ghostwrote Study 329, while Keller et al. made huge sums of money from the antidepressant manufacturer.  In 1999, it was disclosed that while serving as chief of the psychiatry department at Brown University, Keller earned more than $842,000 from Pfizer, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Wyeth-Ayerst and Eli Lilly, makers of antidepressants he “lauded in a series of medical research reports.” After a three-year criminal investigation by the Attorney General’s Office, Brown University “agreed to return $300,170” of taxpayer money to the state of Massachusetts for psychiatric research Keller’s psychiatry department never performed. Additionally, Keller did not disclose the extent of his financial ties with companies to the medical journals that published his research—this included $93,199 in 1998.  In the same year that Keller authored a review article in Biological Psychiatry, and concluded that the newer antidepressants were more effective, he received $77,400 in personal income and $1.2 million in research funding from the makers of two of these drugs.  In April 2009, Keller announced he was stepping down as chair of psychiatry at Brown.


Augustus John RushAugustus John Rush: Former Vice-Chairman of the Dept. of Clinical Sciences at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, and now working at Duke University’s medical school in Singapore. He was criticized for disclosing only $3,000 of the nearly $18,000 that Eli Lilly had paid him in 2001.  Between 2000 and 2007, he neglected to report another $12,000 from various drug companies. His research studies list financial relationships with more than 20 pharmaceutical companies. In 2003-2005 he received an NIH grant to conduct a clinical training program that dealt with, among other things, medical ethics.


Alan SchatzbergAlan Schatzberg was appointed APA President in May 2009, despite the exposure of his conflict of interest. As exposed in The New York Times and other media, Schatzberg owned $6 million equity in drug developer Corcept Therapeutics at the same time that he was principle investigator in an NIH-funded, Stanford-based study of Corcept’s drug mifepristone. Schatzberg had initiated the patent application on mifepristone to “treat psychotic depression” in 1997. He co-founded Corcept in 1998, and in 1999, extended the NIH grant for the study of psychotic depression to include mifepristone. In 2008, Schatzberg stepped down from his position as principal investigator in the study following months of Congressional scrutiny regarding his financial ties to the drug industry.


Thomas SpencerThomas Spencer: Assistant Director of the Pediatric Psychopharmacology Unit at Massachusetts General Hospital and Associate Professor of Psychiatry, Harvard Medical School, he is under Senate investigation for reportedly failing to disclose at least $1 million in earnings from drug companies between 2000 and 2007.


Karen WagnerKaren Wagner: Professor, University of Texas Medical Branch at Galveston reportedly failed to disclose more than $150,000 in payments from GSK. Between 2000 and 2008, Wagner had worked on NIH-funded studies on the use of Paxil to treat teenage depression and was a co-researcher on Study 329 (See Keller). In 2001, when study 329 was published, the company reportedly paid her $18,255. Between 1998 and 2001, she was one of several researchers participating in more than a dozen industry-funded pediatric trials of antidepressants and other drugs.  In her Zoloft study, Wagner said she had received “research support” from several drug makers, including Pfizer, but did not disclose she had received “sizeable payments” from Pfizer for work related to the study. Between 2000 and 2005 GSK paid her $160,404, but only $600 was disclosed to the university. In 2002, Eli Lily also paid her over $11,000, which was not disclosed.


Timothy WilensTimothy Wilens: Associate Professor of Psychiatry at Harvard Medical School in Boston allegedly failed to report that between 2000 and 2007 he had earned at least $1.6 million from drug makers. Federal grants received by Dr. Joseph Biederman (above) and Wilens were administered by Massachusetts General Hospital, which in 2005 won $287 million in such grants.  He is under Congressional investigation.

NATIONAL ALLIANCE FOR THE MENTALLY ILL: 
The Senate Finance Committee also requested the financial records of NAMI, a group long accused of being a covert marketing arm of the pharmaceutical industry.  The mental health alliance, which is hugely influential in many state capitols, has refused for years to disclose specifics of its fund-raising, saying the details were private. But according to investigators in Mr. Grassley’s office and documents obtained by The New York Times, drug makers from 2006 to 2008 contributed nearly $23 million to the alliance, about three-quarters of its donations.”

While the National Alliance on Mental Illness (NAMI), claims to be an advocacy organization for people with “mental illness,” its actions indicate otherwise. The group opposed the black box warnings on antidepressants causing suicide for under 18 year olds in 2004, and black box warnings on ADHD drugs causing heart attack, stroke and sudden death in children in 2006, when you look at their biggest source of funding: Pharma.

Read NY Times article here: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/22/health/22nami.html?_r=2



William Weeks: A Dartmouth Medical School professor of psychiatry and community and family medicine, in May 2009, acting U.S. attorney Paul Van de Graff charged the psychiatrist with five federal misdemeanor counts regarding conflict of interests.  The U.S. Attorney’s Office also filed an 11-count civil complaint, including 6 counts of conflict of interests, 4 counts of false claims and one count of “breach of fiduciary [financial] duty.”  Weeks was allegedly involved in price-fixing contracts in 2003, both initiating the contracts on behalf of the VA and monitoring them.


Jeffrey Bostic, director of school psychiatry at Massachusetts General Hospital, was named in a 34-page court complaint in U.S. District Court in Boston as being a “star spokesman” in helping Forest Laboratories illegally promote its drugs, Celexa and Lexapro for pediatric use despite not having FDA approval for such use. Court documents in March 2009 revealed that the drug company paid Bostic kickbacks, including lavish meals and cash payments disguised as grants and consulting fees, to induce doctors to prescribe the drugs. Forest also paid Bostic to meet other physicians in their offices in order to ease their concerns about prescribing the drugs. The Boston Globe revealed, “…the allegations against Forest are part of a legal and political backlash against potential conflicts of interest in medicine, particularly in psychiatry.”
 
MORE ON APA-PHARMA CONFLICTS

The APA is steeped in a conflict of interest with the pharmaceutical industry. After all, it has made at least $40 million just in sales of its diagnostic manual, the billing bible that psychiatrists use for insurance reimbursement for “treatment”—most often psychotropic drugs.   Consider:


Nada StotlandNada Stotland: The 2008 APA President, Stotland serves on the Board of the National Mental Health Association (now called Mental Health America), a group that received over $3 million in pharmaceutical company funding in one year alone. In 2008, Pfizer donated at least $500,000 to Mental Health America while Eli Lilly donated $600,000. Stotland is on the speakers’ bureau for Pfizer and GlaxoSmithKline (GSK).


David KupferDavid Kupfer: A member of the DSM-IV Task Force and Chair of the DSM-V Task Force.  He has been a consultant to Eli Lilly & Co., Johnson and Johnson, Solvay/Wyeth, Servier and also sat on the advisory boards of Forest Labs and Pfizer.  In 2008, Kupfer also disclosed that he had been a consultant for Forest Pharmaceuticals, Pfizer Inc., Hoffman La Roche, Lundbeck and Novartis.


Dilip V JesteDilip V. Jeste: APA Trustee and Member of the DSM-V Task Force is a consultant to Bristol-Myers Squibb, Lilly, Janssen, Solvay/Wyeth and Otsuka; honoraria from Bristol-Myers Squibb, Janssen and Otsuka; received “supplemental support to NIMH-funded grants” from Astra Zeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, and Janssen in the form of donated medication for the study, “Metabolic Effects of Newer Antipsychotics in Older Patients.”  Jeste’s 2008 APA disclosure for the DSM-V Task Force stated he received honorarium from Abbott, AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly Janssen, Pfizer-Eisai, Solvay-Wyeth and Otsuka. He also received consulting fees from nine pharmaceutical companies.


Steven SharfsteinSteven Sharfstein: Former APA president who sat on the Board of Directors of the American Psychiatric Foundation (APF), an organization formed by the APA that lists 17 major pharmaceutical companies as its corporate adviser.  Since 1992, he has been President and CEO of Sheppard Pratt Health System and in 2002, he signed on 6 pharmaceutical companies to test their products at Sheppard Pratt. He signed contracts with Eli Lilly & Co., Merck and Janssen Research Foundation.


Alan SchatzbergAs covered elsewhere in this site, Alan Schatzberg was appointed APA President in May 2009, despite the exposure of his $6 million conflict of interest with drug developer Corcept Therapeutics at the same time that he was principle investigator in an NIH-funded, Stanford-based study of Corcept’s drug mifepristone. Schatzberg co-founded Corcept in 1998, and in 1999, extended the NIH grant for the study of psychotic depression to include mifepristone. Dr. Schatzberg co-wrote Textbook of Psychopharmacology with Dr. Charles Nemeroff who is also under Senate Finance Committee investigation for undisclosed conflicts of interest.
 
DSM: “DIAGNOSIS AS A SOURCE OF MONEY FOR PSYCHIATRY”

In an interview with a psychiatrist outside the American Psychiatric Association conference in May 2009, he commented: “The DSM stands for Diagnosis as a Source of Money”! How true.  The financial conflicts between psychiatrists involved with psychiatry’s billing bible, the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-IV and DSM-V) Task Forces are under scrutiny and the potential pharmaceutical company influence on what “disorders” are included in the DSM.  This is especially so as they contribute to the current $25 billion in annual antipsychotic and antidepressant drug sales in the U.S. alone.

A study by Dr. Lisa Cosgrove, Ph.D., from the University of Massachusetts, Boston and Harvard Medical School’s Dr. Harold Bursztjanin showed that despite the APA instituting a disclosure policy for DSM-V (due out in 2012), only 8 out of 27 members of the DSM Task Force had no industry relationship. “The fact that 70% of the task force members have reported direct industry ties—an increase of 14% over the percentage of DSM-IV task force members who had industry ties—shows that disclosure policies alone…are not enough and that more specific safeguards are needed,” stated Dr. Cosgrove.  Further, “pharmaceutical companies have a vested interest in the structure and content of DSM, and in how the symptomology is revised.”

A 2006 study by Dr. Cosgrove and Sheldon Krimsky, a Tufts University professor, determined how 56% of the170 psychiatrists who worked on the 1994 edition of the DSM (IV) had at least one monetary relationship with a drug maker. The study also found that every one of the “experts” on DSM-IV panels overseeing so-called “mood disorders” (which includes depression) and “schizophrenia/psychotic disorders” had undisclosed financial ties to drug companies.  At the time, international sales of drugs to “treat” these conditions were more than $34 billion.

Dr. Irwin Savodnik, an assistant clinical professor of psychiatry at the University of California, Los Angeles, commented at the time: “The very vocabulary of psychiatry is now defined at all levels by the pharmaceutical industry.”

KNOWING THIS THERE IS ONLY ONE LOGICAL COURSE OF ACTION AND THAT IS TO BLOCK THE RELEASE OF DSM5 IN 2013 IN THE U.K. 
THE GOVERNMENT MUST ACT SWIFTLY.

ADHDtesting.org - THE DANGERS OF METHYLPHENIDATE FOR UNDER SIXES -A BREACH OF N.I.C.E. GUIDELINES

Ritalin Side Effects
from the Physicians' Desk Reference®

Pronounced: RIT-ah-lin
Generic name: Methylphenidate hydrochloride
Other brand names: Concerta, Metadate, Methylin

RITALIN-SR® methylphenidate hydrochloride USP sustained-release tablets.



WARNINGS -
Ritalin should not be used in children under six years(as clearly stated by Dr Tim Kendall,N.I.C.E., one of the authors of the regulatory body's guidelines, on BBC Radio 4's 'Womans' Hour on 13.01.11), since safety and efficacy in this age group have not been established. Sufficient data on safety and efficacy of long-term use of Ritalin in children are not yet available. Although a causal relationship has not been established, suppression of growth (ie, weight gain, and/or height) has been reported with the long-term use of stimulants in children. Therefore, patients requiring long-term therapy should be carefully monitored.



ADVERSE REACTIONS
 
Nervousness and insomnia are the most common adverse reactions but are usually controlled by reducing dosage and omitting the drug in the afternoon or evening. Other reactions include hypersensitivity (including skin rash, urticaria, fever, arthralgia, exfoliative dermatitis, erythema multiforme with histopathological findings of necrotizing vasculitis, and thrombocytopenic purpura); anorexia; nausea; dizzines; palpitations; headache; dyskinesia; drowsiness; blood pressure and pulse changes, both up and down; tachycardia; angina; cardiac arrhythmia; abdominal pain; weight loss during prolonged therapy. There have been rare reports of Tourette's syndrome. Toxic psychosis has been reported. Although a definite causal relationship has not been established, the following have been reported in patients taking this drug: leukopenia and/or anemia; a few instances of scalp hair loss. In children, loss of appetite, abdominal pain, weight loss during prolonged therapy, insomnia, and tachycardia may occur more frequently; however, any of the other adverse reactions listed above may also occur.



DRUG DEPENDENCE

The highs and lows of the addiction cycle.

 
Ritalin should be given cautiously to emotionally unstable patients, such as those with a history of drug dependence or alcoholism, because such patients may increase dosage on their own initiative. Chronically abusive use can lead to marked tolerance and psychic dependence with varying degrees of abnormal behavior. Frank psychotic episodes can occur, especially with parental abuse. Careful supervision is required during drug withdrawal, since severe depression as well as the effects of chronic over activity can be unmasked. Long-term follow-up may be required because of the patient's basic personality disturbances.

 Why is this drug prescribed?
 

Mathew Smith died 2002 from heart failure caused by Methylphenidate according to his death certificate.

Ritalin and other brands of methylphenidate are mild central nervous system stimulants used in the treatment of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder in children. With the exception of Ritalin LA, Concerta and Metadate CD, these products are also used in adults to treat narcolepsy (an uncontrollable desire to sleep).

When given for attention deficit disorder, this drug should be an integral part of a total treatment program that includes psychological, educational, and social measures. Symptoms of attention deficit disorder include continual problems with moderate to severe distractibility, short attention span, hyperactivity, emotional changeability, and impulsiveness.


Most important fact about this drug

Excessive doses of this drug over a long period of time can produce addiction. It is also possible to develop tolerance to the drug, so that larger doses are needed to produce the original effect. Because of these dangers, be sure to check with your doctor before making any change in dosage; and withdraw the drug only under your doctor's supervision.


How should you take this medication?

Follow your doctor's directions carefully. It is recommended that methylphenidate be taken 30 to 45 minutes before meals. If the drug interferes with sleep, give the child the last dose before 6 p.m. Ritalin-SR, Ritalin LA, Metadate CD, Methylin ER, and Concerta are long-acting forms of the drug, taken less frequently. They should be swallowed whole, never crushed or chewed. (Ritalin LA and Metadate CD may also be given by sprinkling the contents of the capsule on a tablespoon of cool applesauce and administering immediately, followed by a drink of water.)

--If you miss a dose...

Give it to the child as soon as you remember. Give the remaining doses for the day at regularly spaced intervals. Do not give 2 doses at once.

--Storage instructions...

Keep out of reach of children. Store below 86 degrees Fahrenheit in a tightly closed, light-resistant container. Protect Ritalin-SR from moisture.


What side effects may occur?

Side effects cannot be anticipated. If any develop or change in intensity, inform your doctor as soon as possible. Only your doctor can determine if it is safe for you to continue giving this drug.



    More common side effects may include:
    Inability to fall or stay asleep, nervousness

These side effects can usually be controlled by reducing the dosage and omitting the drug in the afternoon or evening.

In children, loss of appetite, abdominal pain, weight loss during long-term therapy, inability to fall or stay asleep, and abnormally fast heartbeat are more common side effects.



    Less common or rare side effects may include:
   
Abdominal pain, abnormal heartbeat, abnormal muscular movements, blood pressure changes, chest pain, dizziness, drowsiness, fever, hair loss, headache, hives, jerking, joint pain, loss of appetite, nausea, palpitations (fluttery or throbbing heartbeat), pulse changes, rapid heartbeat, reddish or purplish skin spots, skin reddening, skin inflammation with peeling, skin rash, Tourette's syndrome (severe twitching), weight loss during long-term treatment.

WHY WOULD WE AS A SOCIETY TAKE SUCH COLLECTIVE RISKS WITH CHILDRENS WELLBEING?


Why should this drug not be prescribed?


This drug should not be prescribed for anyone experiencing anxiety, tension, and agitation, since the drug may aggravate these symptoms.
But it regularly is prescribed for such cases in the West Midlands (U.K.)

Anyone sensitive or allergic to this drug should not take it.

This medication should not be taken by anyone with the eye condition known as glaucoma, anyone who suffers from tics (repeated, involuntary twitches), or someone with a family history of Tourette's syndrome (severe and multiple tics).

This drug is not intended for use in children whose symptoms may be caused by stress or a psychiatric disorder.

This medication should not be used for the prevention or treatment of normal fatigue, nor should it be used for the treatment of severe depression.

This drug should not be taken during treatment with drugs classified as monoamine oxidase inhibitors, such as the antidepressants Nardil and Parnate, nor for the 2 weeks following discontinuation of these drugs.


Special warnings about this medication

Your doctor will do a complete history and evaluation before prescribing this drug. He or she will take into account the severity of the symptoms, as well as your child's age.

This drug should not be given to children under 6 years of age; safety and effectiveness in this age group have not been established.

There is no information regarding the safety and effectiveness of long-term treatment in children. However, suppression of growth has been seen with the long-term use of stimulants, so your doctor will watch your child carefully while he or she is taking this drug.

Blood pressure should be monitored in anyone taking this drug, especially those with high blood pressure.

Some people have had visual disturbances such as blurred vision while being treated with this drug.

The use of this drug by anyone with a seizure disorder is not recommended. Be sure your doctor is aware of any problem in this area. Caution is also advisable for anyone with a history of emotional instability or substance abuse, due to the danger of addiction.


Possible food and drug interactions
when taking this medication

If this medication is taken with certain other drugs, the effects of either can be increased, decreased, or altered. It is especially important to check with your doctor before combining this drug with the following:

Antiseizure drugs such as phenobarbital, Dilantin and Mysoline
Antidepressant drugs such as Tofranil, Anafranil, Norpramin, and Effexor
Blood thinners such as Coumadin
Clonidine (Catapres-TTS)
Drugs that restore blood pressure, such as EpiPen
Guanethidine (Ismelin)
MAO inhibitors (drugs such as the antidepressants Nardil and Parnate)
Phenylbutazone





This drug should not be given to children under 6 years of age.  Drug treatment should not, and need not, be indefinite and usually can be discontinued after puberty.


Overdosage


If you suspect an overdose, seek medical attention immediately.





    Symptoms of Ritalin overdose may include:
    
Agitation, confusion, convulsions (may be followed by coma), delirium, dryness of mucous membranes, enlarging of the pupil of the eye, exaggerated feeling of elation, extremely elevated body temperature, flushing, hallucinations, headache, high blood pressure, irregular or rapid heartbeat, muscle twitching, sweating, tremors, vomiting
S o lower doses must logically have some of the risks of these adverse effects.Why give them to children then??









Ritalin Side Effects from
The Essential Guide to Psychiatric Drugs



STIMULANT ANTIDEPRESSANT DRUGS
 
Depression may also be treated with drugs called psychostimulants. Use of such drugs is reserved for only two situations: (1) patients who have failed to respond to at least two other antidepressants and psychotherapy and who are seriously depressed, and (2) patients with serious and usually terminal medical illnesses such as cancer or AIDS who are depressed and too sick to take other kinds of antidepressants.The reason for these restrictions is that the stimulant drugs are addictive. They include amphetamines, sometimes called "speed" or "uppers," methylphenidate (Ritalin), and pemoline (Cylert). The drugs produce a short-term mood elevation even in people who are not depressed. College students take them to stay awake all night and finish term papers.In most people the effects of these stimulant drugs are short-lived and there is often a letdown or "crash" after they wear off. During this "crash" the patient can feel very depressed, sleepy, and sluggish. Furthermore, and very much unlike the other drugs discussed so far in this chapter, stimulant drugs have the potential to induce "tolerance." People who abuse amphetamines and other stimulants--usually in attempts to lose weight or stay awake for prolonged periods--often find that a dose that had worked for a while is suddenly ineffective and they need a higher dose. They then become "tolerant" to the higher dose and have to increase the dose again. Soon, the person is addicted to the drug. Stopping it suddenly leads to a severe withdrawal reaction characterized by bad depression and extreme fatigue. Suicides have been reported in people who suddenly stop taking amphetamines.Given all these problems, why even mention the stimulant drugs? Simply because they are the only drugs that work for some depressed patients. A very small group of usually chronically depressed patients seems to be resistant to every other treatment for depression. These people usually function at a fairly low level relative to their ability and they feel sad and blue all of the time. They complain of fatigue, low interest in life, and inability to concentrate. Many say they have been depressed since childhood.Another small group of patients with very serious medical problems also develops depression. Sometimes the medical problems they have make other antidepressant drugs unsafe, or the medical problems so magnify the side effects of the other antidepressants that the dying patient is made even more uncomfortable. Stimulant drugs may actually be the safest choice in this situation.For these two groups of patients stimulant drugs may be the only answer, even though the patient will probably become addicted. This is not to be taken lightly. The decision to place a patient on a stimulant drug for depression is serious and must be done only after all other efforts are declared either unsafe or ineffective. The patient must understand that he will probably become addicted to the medication and that he should never stop taking it abruptly.