posted 02-25-2002 10:33 PM            

What is CHADD?(Children and Adults with Attention Deficit Disorder)

This mention of Schedule II drugs brings us to a second reason for the Ritalin explosion in this decade. That is the extraordinary political and medical clout of CHADD, by far the largest of the add support groups and a lobbying organization of demonstrated prowess. Founded in 1987, chadd had, according to Diller (author of Running on Ritalin), grown by 1993 to include 35,000 families and 600 chapters nationally. Its professional advisory board, he notes, "includes most of the prominent academicians in the ADD world, a veritable who's who in research."

One of CHADD's particuliar strengths is that it is exquisitely media-sensitive, and has a track record of delivering speedy response to any repoprts on Ritaliln or ADD that the group deems inaccurate. Diller quotes as representative one fundraising letter from 1997, where the organization listed its chief goals and objectives as "conduct[ing] a proactive media campaign" and challeng[ing] negative, inaccurate reports that demean or undermine people with ADD." Citing "savage atacks" in the Wall street Journal and Forbes, the letter also went on to exhort readers into "fighting these battles of misinformation, innuendo, ignorance and outright hostility toward CHADD and adults who have a neurobiological disorder." The circle-the-wagons rhetoric here appears to be typical of the group, as is the zeal.

Certainly it was with missionary fervor that CHADD, in 1995, mounted an extraordinary campaign to make Ritalin easier to obtain, Methylphenidate, as mentioned, is a Schedule II drug. That means, among other things, that the DEA must approve an annual production quota for the substance--a fact that irritates those who rely on it, since it raises the specter, if only in theory, of a Ritalin "shortage." It also means that some states require that prescriptions for Ritalin be written in triplicate for the purpose of monitoring its use, and that refills cannot simply be called into the pharmacy as they can for Schedule III drugs (for exapmle, low-dosage opiates like Tylenol with codeine, and various compounds used to treat migraine). Doctors, particuliarly those who prescribe Ritalin in quantity, are inconvenienced by this requirement. So too are many parents, who dislike having to stop by the doctor's office every time the Ritalin runs out. Moreover, many parents and doctors alike object to methylphenidate's Schedule II classification in principle, on the grounds that it makes children feel stigmatized; the authors of Driven to Distraction, for example, claim that one of the most common problems in treating ADD is that "some pharmacists, in their attempt to comply with federal regulations, make consumers [of Ritalin] feel as though they are obtaining illicit drugs."

For all of these reasons CHADD petitioned the DEA to reclassify Ritalin as a Schedule III drug. This petition was co-signed by the American Academy of Neurology, and it was also supported by other distinguished medical bodies, including the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Psychological Association, and the Aamerican Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry. Diller's account of this episode in Running on Ritalin is particulary credible, for he is a dostor who has himself written many prescriptions for Ritalin in cases where he has judged it to be indicated. Nevertheless, he found himself dissenting strongly from the effort to decontrol it -- an effort that, as he writes, was "unprecedented in the history of Schedule II substances" and "could have had a profound impact on the availability of the drug."

What happened next, while CHADD awaited the DEA's verdict, was in Diller's words "a bombshell." For before the DEA had offically responded, a television documentary revealed that Ciba-Geigy (now called Novartis), the pharmaceuticals giant that manufactures Ritalin, had contributed nearly $900,000 to CHADD over five years, and that CHADD had failed to disclose the contributions to all but a few selected members.

The response from the DEA which appeared in the background report cited earlier, was harsh and uncompromising. Backed by scores of footnotes and well over a 100 sources in the medical literature, this report amounted to a public excoriation of CHADD's efforts and a meticulous description, alarming for those who have read it, of the realities of Ritalin use and abuse. "Most of the ADHD literature prepared for public consumption and available to parents." the DEA charged, "does not address the abuse liability or actual abuse of methylphenidate. Instead, methylphenidate is routinely portrayed as a benign, mild stimulant that is not associated with abuse or serious effects. In reality, however, there is an abundance of scientific literature which indictes that methylphenidate shares the same abuse potential as other Schedule II stimulants."

The DEA went on to note its "concerns" over "the depth of the financial relationship between CHADD and Ciba-Geigy." Ciba-Geigy, the DEA observed, "stands to benefit from a change in scheduling of methylphenidate." It further observed that the United Nations International Narcotics Control Board (INCB) had "expressed concern about non-governmental organizations and parental associations for children with ADD." (The rest of the worl, it should be noted, has yet to acquire the American taste for Ritalin. Sweden, for example, had methylphnidate withdrawn from the market in 1968 following a spate of abuse cases. Today, 90 percent of Ritalin production is consumed in the United States.) The report concluded with the documented observations that "abuse data indicate a growing problem among school-age children," that "ADHD adults have a high incidence of substance disorders," and "with three to five percent of today's youth being administered methylphenidate on a chronic basis, these issues are of great concern."

Yet whatever public embarassment CHADD and its supporters may have suffered on account of this setback turned out to be short-lived. Though it failed in the attempt to decontrol Ritalin (in the end, the group withdrew its petition), on other legislative fronts CHADD was garnering one victory after another. By the end of the 1990s, thanks largely to CHADD and its allies, an ADD diagnoses could lead to an impressive array of educational, financial, and social service benefits.

In elementary and high school classrooms, a turning point came in 1991 with a letter from the U.S. Department of Education to state school superintendents outlining "three ways in which children labeled ADD could qualify for special education services in public school under existing laws," as Diller puts it. This directive was based on the landmark 1990 Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), which "mandates that eligible children receive access to special education and/or related services, and that this education be designed to meet each child's unique educational needs" through an indiviualized program. As a result, ADD diagnosed children are now entitled by law to a long list of services, including separate special-education classrooms, learning specialists, special equipment, tailored homework assignments, and more. The IDEA also means that public school districts unable to accomodate such children may be forced to pick up the tab for private education.

posted 02-27-2002 07:27 AM            

quote:

---

Table I, Disciplinary Actions Taken Against Doctors Cited for Misprescribing or
Overprescribing Drugs, below, shows that of the 1,318 different doctors who were disciplined because of misprescribing or overprescribing drugs, there were 378 actions
(96 revocations, 85 surrenders, 155 suspensions plus 42 emergency suspensions) which required those doctors, at least temporarily, to stop practicing medicine. Switching from actions to doctors, there were 368 doctors (27.9%) who were, at least temporarily, removed from practice by license suspension, surrender or revocation. But this means that at least 72.1% of doctors (950 doctors) were allowed to continue practicing, their behavior probably unknown to most if not all of their patients. It is likely that other
doctors, especially those whose licenses were only suspended temporarily, are once again practicing medicine.

---

posted 03-02-2002 04:02 PM            

No 3T3L1, I am not saying that a child with medically diagnosed ADHD does not have a disability. It is my personal opinion, though, that many of the ADHD diagnosed children, were not disabled at all until they became tagged with the ADHD label. That is to say, once a child gets herded into the ADD or ADHD corral by their school administrators, school psychologists, teachers and/or parents, then given Ritalin - it is then that they begin to take on characteristics of being disabled

posted 03-12-2002 11:11 PM            

Each one of these girls was an incredibly unique, bright, outgoing, fast moving/thinking/talking individual. And certainly, for everything that I could do and provide for them they gave me back far more than I could have ever imagined. Unfortunately, I didn't realize this at the time. It was only after I had lost them through divorce that this fact became so apparent to me.

These girls only experienced the public education system for a few short months. They did not do well in public school as it bored them terribly. They didn't have their public school experience until after they had already attended a very progressive private school as well as receiving home school.

I have no doubt that if these girls would have had to remain in a public school environment that sooner, more than later, they would have been targetted for being labeled ADHD and given Ritalin like so many of the others. They each simply moved too fast for public school and this would have been viewed as hyperactivity and in being required to slow down - well, they would have quickly become bored and thus figet and would definitely be viewed as haveing a deficet of attention. This scenario, fortunately, never had to become a reality for them, their Mother or me.

If circumstances would have been different, though, and they would have not had the other options they helped to create the scenario could have gone something like this: I would inevitably have been informed that one or all of my daughters were suspected as having ADHD. The prescribed treatment - Ritalin would have been strongly recommended. I would certainly not have aquiesced to the Ritalin solution. The first thing I would check with my daughter(s) would be how they are doing in each topic of study they are involved in. I know, from personal experience, that when you suddenly find yourself lost in a study that this can bring about a sort of nervous hysteria with various physical manifestations that could easily be misread as being a problem with focus of attention and/or hyperactivity. On the other hand, they might not be lost at all - they might just be bored to death because they are being forced to learn at a rate much slower than their capacity (like making a race horse walk around the race track instead of letting the horse realize his true potential for speed). If all checked out A-Okay with this line of investigation, I would next begin investigating the diet my daughter(s) were on being sure to thoroughly check for food allergies, vitamin or mineral deficiences, etc. If that checked out alright then it would be on to checking for any exposure to toxic chemicals ie., cleaning fluids, pesticides, herbacides, etc. In my daughters' case I think that the sorce of the problem would have been found to be somewhere in the first line of investigation pursued. In any event, the taking of Ritalin would have never been an option!

In this country we make our children, to get a degree, attend a program of schooling for 12 years (yes,there are exceptions). Bright beings eager to learn and feeling like there is nothing that they can't learn enter the first grade and from there it goes downhill. I wonder what the schools in general think that their product is? When a child serves their time and makes it through the grades to receive that, all so important, diploma - is that graduate an asset or a liability to society? From the young graduates I deal with on almost a daily basis, the ones who are clerks, cashiers, waitresses and waiters, attendants of one thing or another, laborers, salespeople, car washers, fast food workers, factory workers, etc. etc. - in general, I would have to say that these graduates are extremely poor examples of the result a 12 year "education" brings forth to exchange to society. So many of these kids are dull, blank faced and slow. Is it the Ritalin?

"Children with early-stage brain tumors can develop sumptoms of hyperactivity or poor attention. So can lead- or pesticide-poisoned children. So can children with early-onset diabetes, heart disease, worms, viral or bacterialr infections, malnutrition, head injuries, genetic disorders, allergies, mercury or manganese exposure, petit mal seizures, and hundreds-yes hundreds-of other minor, major, or even life threatening medical problems. Yet all these children are labeled hyperactive or ADD." Dr. Sydney Walker, III, Psychiatrist & Neurologist Author, The Hyperactivity Hoax

posted 04-20-2002 07:08 PM            

Washington (Reuters Health) September 19, 2001
Steep increases in the use of stimulant drugs to treat attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) in children have translated into major abuse problems in America's schools, according to data from a government study. Statistics from the Drug Enforcement Agency show that amphetamine production in the US rose from 1,768 kilograms in 1990 to 14,957 kilograms in 2000, a 746% increase. Those numbers have alarmed some lawmakers, who are concerned that psychiatrists, parents, and schools are using drugs as easy shortcuts to treating complex social problems. "We are dealing with behavior by drugging our kids," said Sam Stratman, a spokesman for Rep. Henry Hyde (R-Ill.)

As you can read from the above, there is a growing awareness even by the mainstream press that the psychiatric solution is not working. However, the mainstream press, the educational establishment, parents and, of course, the Mental Health Movement, all miss the real point. And that is that virtually everything leading up to the drugging of these children in the first place is fraud. The "examination" is fraudulent. The "diagnosis" is fradulent. The "prognosis" is a guess at best. And the "treatment" is fraudulent.

If the above parties wanted to genuinely better the conditions of these children, they would certainly do so--there is much information to remedy childhood problems, whether physical, nutritional or educational. The truth is that they have no interest in bettering the situation because their pocketbooks depend on there being "disordered" children.