ADD & ADHD: Epidemic of a Phantom Disease

Stretch

House Member
Feb 16, 2003
3,924
19
38
Australia
There is no proof that "attention deficits" in children are anything but normal human variants, yet medical practitioners are labelling more and more children with this diagnosis and giving them dangerous stimulant drugs to control their behaviour.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Extracted from Nexus Magazine, Volume 12, Number 2 (February - March 2005)

http://www.nexusmagazine.com/articles/ADHDisbogus.html
 

Vanni Fucci

Senate Member
Dec 26, 2004
5,239
17
38
8th Circle, 7th Bolgia
the-brights.net
The same thing is happening here...

My daughter, who lives with her mother out of town, was diagnosed with ADHD, and prescribed a variety of behavioural modification drugs at different times including Ritalin and Dexadrin and in varying doses...

One summer, while she was staying with me, I took her off the drugs, because I was concerned about her health, and decided to regulate the sugar in her diet. It was rough at first, as she had the notion that she needed the drugs to be able to behave properly...but after a few days, her behaviour had improved...all without the terrible side-effects of the drugs she was formerly taking...


However, her mother doesn't believe me about the sugar, and didn't continue to regulate sugar in her diet, and now my daughter is having problems in school because of her behaviour, but I have been adamant about not putting her back on drugs, unless it is in conjunction with therapy, which she now desperately needs...

Now my son is acting out in school too...I wonder how long it will take to tag him as ADHD...
 

tibear

Electoral Member
Jan 25, 2005
854
0
16
Vanni,

Most health care professions will first restrict the sugar intake with hyperactive children. If this isn't the case with your children, time to look for new doctors.
 

Twila

Nanah Potato
Mar 26, 2003
14,698
73
48
RE: ADD & ADHD: Epidemic

I think the label is giving not to describe the child's behavoir but to give the parents a sense of control.

I worked with a woman who was married and had 3 kids. 2 of them were "diagnoses" ADHD. The 3rd was still a baby.

Her husband and her decided to NOT drug their kids but to learn as much about their childrens "triggers" as possible and to adjust.

She had the support of her church and her community. One of the things that she said that totally surprised me was that when her kids acted up while out (restaurant or the mall) she'd just leave the store.

Isn't that what your suppose to do anyway?

I believe that each child has a different way of learning and coping. I can see how giving them drugs might be a short term answer, but what about teaching them and the parents how to cope with it, how to adjust to it, and how to learn with it?
 

tibear

Electoral Member
Jan 25, 2005
854
0
16
Twila,

I agree with you that the parents need to learn how to deal with the situation. By simply leaving somewhere when the child acts out this gives all of the control to the child.

If they don't want to go to grandma's place they simply have a hissy fit when their there and the family will leave.

The parents need to be able to learn different methods of how they can handle these situations so everyone is comfortable.

A prime location that people use as an excuse is church, synagogue, mosque, etc. The parents say that their children don't behave well enough to sit for that length of time. Yet, we never had issues with our children, if you start them young enough they simply grow up knowing that they have to sit quietly. We brought colouring books and cheerios to keep them occupied. Certainly there are some children who are the exception but most learn quite quickly. This practice probably helps the children prepare for school when they need to sit quietly for long periods of time.
 

Twila

Nanah Potato
Mar 26, 2003
14,698
73
48
RE: ADD & ADHD: Epidemic

I didn't explain the acting up very well.

When my daughter was younger and she acted up in the mall (usually because she wanted candy, or a toy,) we'd simply leave the mall. She didn't actually get her way. She didn't have the control....

Although If we'd been somewhere and she didn't want to be there and had a hissy we'd have ignored it.

Thankfully, my daughter was very well behaved....for the most part.....lol
 

Vanni Fucci

Senate Member
Dec 26, 2004
5,239
17
38
8th Circle, 7th Bolgia
the-brights.net
Re: RE: ADD & ADHD: Epidemic of a Phantom Disease

tibear said:
Vanni,

Most health care professions will first restrict the sugar intake with hyperactive children. If this isn't the case with your children, time to look for new doctors.

It seems I don't need a doctor...I figured that one out on my own... :)
 

Stretch

House Member
Feb 16, 2003
3,924
19
38
Australia
Think Ritalin Is Safe? - Read
What Novartis Says About
Its Own Product!
By Joel Bainerman
isratech@netvision.net.il
2-18-5

If your child's doctor or a child physiatrist diagnosis your child as suffering from ADD/ADHD - and recommends that you give your child Ritalin each morning before school in order to counter the negative effects of ADD/ADHD, then you should be aware of all the facts surrounding Ritalin. Instead of taking the advice of your doctor - or anyone else whether Ritalin is safe, simply read the packaging label Novartis puts inside each box of Ritalin. I did, and this is what it says:

Ritalin is a mild central nervous system stimulant. The mode of action in man is not completely understood, but Ritalin presumably activates the brain stem arousal system and cortex to produce its stimulant effect. There is neither specific evidence which clearly establishes the mechanism whereby Ritalin produces its mental and behavioral effects in children, nor conclusive evidence regarding how these effects relate to the condition of the central nervous system.

Even the company can't verify that it is effective - or that it does what the user is told is says it does by our doctors. The company can also not guarantee that these drugs will not have a negative effect on the central nervous system of the user. In other words, in Novartis's own words- not enough research has been done to determine if Ritalin is safe- or if it is even effective.

Ask yourself this question: would you allow your child's foot to be x-rayed if the technician told you before the procedure that "we can't be 100% sure that the x-ray won't cause your child's foot to develop a deadly disease over time- and if this happens- we may have to amputate it"?

What if you picked up a chocolate bar in the supermarket and it said: "The manufactures of this product can't guarantee that by eating this chocolate bar a person won't suffer massive convulsions and die."? Would you buy it and give it to your child to eat?

The company that manufacturers Ritalin clearly states that they haven't investigate fully how these stimulants may interfere with the central nervous system of children? They are telling you in advance that these drugs have not been fully tested- nor are they guaranteed not to cause complications in the future- nor do they even know fully about the mechanisms that causes the change in mental and behavioral effects in the user.

The warnings continue:

Sufficient data on safety and efficacy of long-term use of Ritalin in children are not yet available.

By the company's own admission - the drug has not been tested sufficiently - and nobody can testify to the safety of this medication long term. One has to wonder that if the company who produces and markets these drugs isn't doing this research work to determine the long term effects of Ritalin usage- who will? Who has the ability and financial resources to ensure medicines approved for human consumption have no long term negative effects- other than the manufacturer?

So, if they say they haven't done this- shouldn't we believe them and not buy their product?

In the next line, we read:

Although a causal relationship has not been established, suppression of growth (i.e., weight gain, and/or height) has been reported with the long-term use of stimulants in children.

In the previous sentence Novartis claimed that they have not done any research on long-term use of Ritalin to determine if it is 100% safe. One sentence later - they claim that "a causal relationship" between suppression of growth (notice how they don't mention the growth of the child's brain - which one has to assume - from age seven on - is still in the process of growing?) has not been reported.

Perhaps Novartis has done long term research - but only revealed a part of their results - and not told us about the part of their research that questioned whether their products are safe for long term use?

The warning continues:

Clinical experience suggests that in psychotic children, administration of Ritalin may exacerbate symptoms of behavior disturbance and thought disorder. Safe concomitant use of anticonvulsants and Ritalin has not been established. Use cautiously in patients with hypertension. Blood pressure should be monitored at appropriate intervals in all patients taking Ritalin, especially those with hypertension.

In most cases- children are not tested for any of these disorders or medical conditions. So, despite the wide-spread claim by most of the medical establishment recommending Ritalin use that "Ritalin is completely safe" it appears the company that manufacturers the drug believes differently. It is clear from the list of potential dangers that this drug carries with it that the company has not done sufficient research on how these medications affect the body's central nervous system. If it did - it would not use words such as "may cause" and "has not been established". If blood pressure needs to be constantly monitored during Ritalin use - there is a danger of something- which Novartis probably knows- but has decided not to put on its warning labels.

Considering these warnings on the package, if Ritalin were being prescribed to a fully-grown adult- it would be cause enough for concern. But keep in mind we are talking here about a drug that is being given primarily to children from seven years old and up. Will these drugs adversely affect how the body organs in these children develop and grow? These drugs are supposedly supposed to counteract a chemical imbalance in the brain. Will they have any affect on how those brains grow and develop? Has Novartis investigated this so we know 100% for sure that they will not? Even if Novartis has tested them and was less than 100% convinced that they were completely safe- would they inform us about their concerns on their own package- or would they just use words such as "can cause" and "may have implications"?

Are you prepared to simply "not know" and hope these drugs are completely harmless for your children? The company which produces and sells these drugs has given the public plenty to be concerned about. Parents who take the decision to medicate their children with Ritalin should be equally concerned.

The Company isn't finished warning parents of what their products may do to their children (may do- they don't know because they haven't investigated the issue fully):

Human pharmacologic studies have shown that Ritalin may inhibit the metabolism of coumarin anticoagulants, anticonvulsants (phenobarbital, diphenylhydantoin, primidone), phenylbutazone, and tricyclic drugs (imipramine, clomipramine, desipramine). The safety of using methylphenidate in combination with clonidine or other centrally acting alpha-2 agonists has not been systemically evaluated.

Not being a scientist I don't know what the implications of these warnings are- but they sound as if they are serious enough to warrant further investigation. Novartis certainly has or else they wouldn't have mentioned it on their packaging labels- probably so that they could not be sued for not informing the public of these potential drawbacks. However if most parents are like me - and aren't scientists - these words have absolutely no meaning. Yet it sounds like there are a lot of potential complications related to Ritalin use- and that the company is disclosing them- so that nobody can come back to them years later and say, "you never told us about these potential complications."

The instructions for use on the package then states:

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.

Which I guess means that Ritalin and drug and alcohol abuse go hand in hand.

The label continues:

Chronically abusive use can lead to marked tolerance and psychic dependence with varying degrees of abnormal behavior. Frank psychotic episodes can occur. 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 patientís basic personality disturbances. Patients with an element of agitation may react adversely. Prescription should not depend solely on the presence of one or more of the behavioral characteristics. When these symptoms are associated with acute stress reactions, treatment with Ritalin is usually not indicated. Long-term effects of Ritalin in children have not been well established.

At least the company is honest - and unlike your doctor who told you that the reason your child should be medicated with Ritalin is because he/she has a "chemical imbalance in the brain." Novartis recognizes that the drug is being given for "behavioral characteristics" - which cannot be confused with "chemical imbalances in the brain." They are also honest enough to inform us that they themselves have not investigated whether there are any long-term effects of Ritalin.

So despite the canard we hear from so many physicians and child psychiatrists who claim, "Ritalin is completely safe, don't worry" as least as far as Novartis knows - it isn't for long term use- simply because nobody has investigated if the drug is or is not safe when consumed over long periods of time.

Those are the unknown potential future side effects that could result from long term use. Here is what Novartis admits are the known side effects that occur the first day the drug is consumed:

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; dizziness; palpitations; headache; dyskinesia; drowsiness; blood pressure and pulse changes, both up and down; tachycardia; angina; cardiac arrhythmia; abdominal pain; weight loss during prolonged therapy. Toxic psychosis has been reported. Although a definite causal relationship has not been established, the following have been reported in patients taking this drug: instances of abnormal liver function, ranging from transaminase elevation to hepatic coma; isolated cases of cerebral arteritis and/or occlusion; leukopenia and/or anemia; transient depressed mood; 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.

Notice how the issue of loss of appetite is right at the end of this list. This issue alone should have parents wondering if the drug is worth the benefit. For a young child not to eat during the school day ñ and to return home after not having eaten anything but was consumed before the drug was administered in the morning - means that child will not receive the nutrition and vitamins that food provides. If proper nutrition is not maintained- how can the brains and bodies of our children develop normally? If Ritalin retards their appetite- isn't that concern enough not to administer these drugs to small children?

Just so you understand what Novartis has told us, the Swiss multinational drug company has warned all parents that if you give your child Ritalin- the drug could cause your children to lose their hair, abdominal pains, nausea, liver damage, cerebral arthritis, dizziness, palpations, skin rash, fever, cardiac arrhythmia. hypersensitivity, urticaria, fever, anorexia; headache, blood pressure and pulse changes, and weight loss- not to mention anemia, a depressed mood, and insomnia.

That is quite a risk to take just so that the teacher won't call you at home and complain he can't sit still in class.

Joel Bainerman is a parent who recently took his child off Ritalin after learning of the potential dangers of this narcotic.

http://www.rense.com/general63/thin.htm
 

LadyC

Time Out
Sep 3, 2004
1,340
0
36
the left coast
It appears there's some confusion about the difference between normal behavioural issues and ADD and ADHD. Both conditions are very real, even if they tend to be misunderstood and misdiagnosed. Regulating diet is a good idea, but it's not a cure-all. If it helps your child great. That probably means s/he doesn't actually have ADD or ADHD, or if so, a very mild form.

Putting a child on Ritalin or any other drug is a difficult decision, but before judging parents who choose to go that route consider this... if your child had cancer would you deny them chemo? How about diabetes... would you nix the insulin?

ADD and ADHD have been around a long time. Remember the potheads from school who couldn't seem to start the day without a joint... only to have another during lunch? They were more than likely self-medicating. We tend to do what we have to in order to cope.If something helps you sit still long enough to concentrate and learn something we'll do it.
 

gerryh

Time Out
Nov 21, 2004
25,756
295
83
Re: RE: ADD & ADHD: Epidemic of a Phantom Disease

LadyC said:
It appears there's some confusion about the difference between normal behavioural issues and ADD and ADHD. Both conditions are very real, even if they tend to be misunderstood and misdiagnosed. Regulating diet is a good idea, but it's not a cure-all. If it helps your child great. That probably means s/he doesn't actually have ADD or ADHD, or if so, a very mild form.

Putting a child on Ritalin or any other drug is a difficult decision, but before judging parents who choose to go that route consider this... if your child had cancer would you deny them chemo? How about diabetes... would you nix the insulin?

ADD and ADHD have been around a long time. Remember the potheads from school who couldn't seem to start the day without a joint... only to have another during lunch? They were more than likely self-medicating. We tend to do what we have to in order to cope.If something helps you sit still long enough to concentrate and learn something we'll do it.


Why bother LC. It's obvious the posters under this topic have no desire in knowing the truth, or in alternative behavioural solutions to ADD/ADHD. When you don't understand, the easiest is to condemn.

and your right, if a diet change takes care of things then it is misdiagnosed ADD. Something I will agree happens far too much in North America, but it is a diservice to those that do genuinly have ADD/ADHD to discount all diagnosis out of hand.
 

Vanni Fucci

Senate Member
Dec 26, 2004
5,239
17
38
8th Circle, 7th Bolgia
the-brights.net
http://www.cchr.org/topics/family/adhd/chadd/index.htm

http://www.cchr.org/topics/family/adhd/chadd/page01.htm

Gerry,

You've talked at length of parental responsibility in the abortion thread, and now you come here and presume to have me believe that it is more responsible to drug our children into lucidity and compliance? I say that if that's how you treat actual children, it would have been better to have aborted the fetus, and save yourself the trouble...

I've had schools, daycamps and after-school programs refuse to accept my daughter unless she was drugged...and yet I refused to submit to their uneducated demands...because as the OP has presented here, and you've chosen to dismiss, there is no actual scientific evidence to support the existence of ADD/ADHD...

I asked to have my daughter re-tested for ADD/ADHD and her doctor refused...I asked him to test her for other possible causes for her behaviour, such as juvenile diabetes or some other physiological determinant...the arrogant bastard began to regard me with thinly veiled contempt from that point on...and this is the fifth doctor I've taken her to...all want to slap the ADD/ADHD label on her and dope her up good...

I have no doubts that there is something wrong with my daughter...but I believe it is a combination of environment, diet and sensory stimuli, and that she needs to be taught coping skills...but I am not so quick to jump on the ADD/ADHD bandwagon, and begin a strict regimen of doping my girl with mind altering drugs...

For my part, I believe that IF I were ever to place her on these psychotropic drugs, it would only be for a VERY short time...to calm her down enough that she can participate in therapy...

Believe what you will but it's clear to me that the drug companies have their own agenda which has nothing to do with the health and mental well-being of our children...and I won't have anything to do with it...
 

Reverend Blair

Council Member
Apr 3, 2004
1,238
1
38
Winnipeg
Why bother LC. It's obvious the posters under this topic have no desire in knowing the truth, or in alternative behavioural solutions to ADD/ADHD. When you don't understand, the easiest is to condemn.

Funny. I see the posters here quoting sources. I don't see you doing that Gerry.
 

gerryh

Time Out
Nov 21, 2004
25,756
295
83
You've talked at length of parental responsibility in the abortion thread, and now you come here and presume to have me believe that it is more responsible to drug our children into lucidity and compliance? I say that if that's how you treat actual children, it would have been better to have aborted the fetus, and save yourself the trouble...


Where do I say it is more responsible to drug our children? No where... here is what I said:

no desire in knowing the truth, or in alternative behavioural solutions to ADD/ADHD.


Notice the word "alternative". Mainstream thinking is drugs, alternative would be other solutions WITHOUT drugs. And I stand by my assesment.... people that have posted to this topic are not interested in truly learning about ADD/ADHD.

it would have been better to have aborted the fetus, and save yourself the trouble...

This statement alone says more about your morality than anything else you have posted.
 

gerryh

Time Out
Nov 21, 2004
25,756
295
83
Reverend Blair said:
Why bother LC. It's obvious the posters under this topic have no desire in knowing the truth, or in alternative behavioural solutions to ADD/ADHD. When you don't understand, the easiest is to condemn.

Funny. I see the posters here quoting sources. I don't see you doing that Gerry.


and I discount those sources out of hand. They are slanted and one sided. I see no reason to link sources concerning ADD/ADHD when the first post made it quite obvious what the tone of this discourse would be.
 

Reverend Blair

Council Member
Apr 3, 2004
1,238
1
38
Winnipeg
RE: ADD & ADHD: Epidemic

Then you just show that you have no argument. One source is a reputable magazine, the other is the manufacturer of Ritalin. Neither are terribly flattering to the product.

You offer nothing, just say that what others put forth is wrong.
 

gerryh

Time Out
Nov 21, 2004
25,756
295
83
That's right....I will offer nothing to this topic because of the original posted theme
ADD & ADHD: Epidemic of a Phantom Disease

I just made an aside to LC.
 

Vanni Fucci

Senate Member
Dec 26, 2004
5,239
17
38
8th Circle, 7th Bolgia
the-brights.net
gerryh said:
it would have been better to have aborted the fetus, and save yourself the trouble...

This statement alone says more about your morality than anything else you have posted.

It sure does...especially after you cut and paste it out of context to futher your hateful agenda...

As to your mention of alternative behavioural solutions, you've as yet suggested no alternatives to drugging, and as you were supporting Lady C in her assertions that drugging is a good thing, and your inane comment about posters "having no desire to know the truth..." all led me to believe you support the drugging of children...

So, if I was mistaken in that assumption, I do apologize, but will also assert that it is due primarily to your own incoherence...
 

gerryh

Time Out
Nov 21, 2004
25,756
295
83
Vanni Fucci said:
As to your mention of alternative behavioural solutions, you've as yet suggested no alternatives to drugging, and as you were supporting Lady C in her assertions that drugging is a good thing, and your inane comment about posters "having no desire to know the truth..." all led me to believe you support the drugging of children...
.....


and I will not offer any hard fought for sollutions to this forum. Not with the attitudes demonstrated here and mainly by the topic header. As I said, it was just an aside to LC based on the topic header and the articles posted.