The FAKE disease called ADHD Invented to Drug Children

ADHD, or Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder, is often referenced in schools. According to the CDC four of 17 kids have been have been diagnosed with ADHD at some point in 2012. That is about six million kids and might we add huge Pharma profits.
A recent report from The Daily Bell, shows the highest incidence States of ADHD are Arkansas and Kentucky. These are very outdoor states where kids prefer to hunt, fish and explore. This is based on a survey of statistics. Similarly States with the lowest ADHD like New Jersey show less than half the children surveyed hunt and fish. So do kids who prefer the outdoors get restless in the classroom and thus get diagnosed with ADHD?
The report indicated that boys are three times more likely to get diagnosed with ADHD than girls. Really? Additionally, children from broken homes are more likely to be diagnosed. So if you’re a boy from a divorced family with an abandoned father than you get diagnosed with a drug?
This amounts to if you like the outdoors from a broken home then your body chemicals are out of balance, so you need a drug? Really this is the science from psychiatry and Pharma? Or is the science economical and this fraud “disease” is all about money?
How about a more natural alternative like taking sugars out of a kid’s diet. Give them more exercise or participation in athletics, dance, yoga, and hiking anything but drugs. How about adding vitamins and Omega 3 fatty acids. Before a nut job doctor, psychiatrist, or teacher says your kid is ADHD Read ADHD Fraud by Fred Baughman, or read up on an article from Harvard University psychologist Jerome Kagan.

Read up don’t take up drugs. Pharma is killing your kid all for money backed by the nutty psychiatry professor

How Simple is it to be Diagnosed ADHD and on Drugs for Life.

The American Psychiatric Association's diagnostic manual the DSM. There is a list of 18 behaviors, from which a teacher can check off behaviors they observe in the potential patient or student. If one checks six or more of the nine, the individual is deemed to have ADHD. It is that easy to be diagnosed and on drugs for life. Some schools allow teachers to do just that, and push the kid on drugs or force them to leave the school.
Psychiatry looks at ADHD as a biologic abnormality of the brain, or a neurobiologic disorder. Thus if you have six or more of the nine so called behavior items on their list then you are considered to have a physical abnormality of the brain. Then the new prospective patient is then convinced they have an abnormality, so they take the drug. It appears to be so simple to get this diagnosis in the US and Western Europe and be on a drug for life. It is unbelievable that there is not an outrage over it. There are potentially about six million children on ADHD drugs in the US currently. All based on a simple gotcha test.
Dr. Peter Breggin talked about a real scenario with a zoo animal. There was a caged animal, a polar bear, in the zoo in Toronto, who was pacing up and down and looking uncomfortable, and looking like he'd really like to go back to the Arctic or the Antarctic. And they put him on Prozac, and he stopped pacing. His name was Snowball. He sat quietly and looked happy. And animal rights people gathered to the zoo and protested the drugging of a polar bear to make him into a good caged animal, and he was taken off the drug.

Wouldn’t it be nice if there were human rights groups all over the western world fighting for children to be drug free? CCHR is one such group fighting for your child to be drug free. Wouldn’t it be nice to see a society where psychiatry paid a price for any diagnosis and were forced to reveal real reasons behind their diagnosis? I mean real accountability.

Merck to Pay $950 Million in Settlement Over Vioxx Health Care Fraud

Vioxx is not an antidepressant, but we wanted to continue to enlighten readers of the unethical actions of Pharmaceutical Companies. Merck will pay $950 million and was forced to plead guilty to a criminal misdemeanor in their illegal promotion of Vioxx and their deception of the government and consumers. This court action is part fine ($320 million) and in part to settle civil penalties ($630 million). This came about from a 2004 study showed that Vioxx increased the risk of heart attacks and strokes. Vioxx was initially approved as a pain killer in 1999. This ruling is based on Merck promoting via marketing and pharmaceutical representatives unauthorized “off label” marketing. According to the Wall Street Journal a Merck spokesman Ronald Rogers indicated that some sales representatives promoted Vioxx as a treatment to rheumatoid arthritis before FDA approval. The government indicated that its representatives didn’t inform medical practitioners regarding Vioxx’s issue with cardiovascular safety.

Other pharmaceutical companies have recently been fined for misrepresentations such as GlaxoSmithKline $3 billion settlement for improper drug marketing. Dey Inc. Dey Pharma L.P. agreed to pay $280 million to settle False Claims Act allegations. The Justice department indicated that the Dey Pharma inflated government payments when they charge the Medicare and Medicaid a higher amount over actual price paid by health care providers. That discovery was related by Ven-A-Care. Elli-Lilly, Pfizer, and AstraZeneca have also been fined heavily in the past few years.

Pharmaceutical companies have shown a pattern in promoting their products for other reasons then FDA approval. This misrepresentation and unethical behavior must be from top management to the sale representatives. Why would a sale rep inform medical practitioners of the uses of drugs unless they were told to indicate so by management? This also brings up another issue as doctors are allowed to prescribe drugs for “off label” uses. Shouldn’t a drug be only allowed to be used for the reason it was approved by all involved in the drugs distribution? It looks like a Congressional law is needed here.

Diet's role in treating ADHD debated

This is a reprint of the recent LA Times article reiterating what we have been saying.
By Jill U. Adams Los Angeles Times

A new study appears to lend credence to the belief that restricting certain foods could ease kids' symptoms. But question are raised about the validity of the research and the ability to follow a draconian diet.

Kids with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, or ADHD, are normally treated with behavioral therapy and stimulant medications. A new study suggests that a highly restricted diet can be just as effective at reducing symptoms in a majority of children with ADHD.

Diet is not a routine consideration in diagnosing and treating ADHD in the U.S. or in Europe, where the study was done. Many doctors are open to the idea that certain foods might trigger ADHD symptoms in some kids, though they believe it's a relatively minor factor in most cases.

"There's no question that foods have effects on people's mood, sleep and energy," says Dr. David Schab, a psychiatrist at Columbia University in New York. However, he adds, the current state of knowledge about what foods are problematic and which kids are susceptible is still too limited to be of much use for doctors or their patients.

The CDC (Center for Disease Control) estimates that 9.5% of school-age children in the U.S. have ADHD. That adds up to more than 5 million kids who could potentially benefit from a symptom-reducing diet.

Here's a closer look at how dietary changes may — or may not — help kids with ADHD.

Children with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder exhibit a range of symptoms. Many have trouble staying focused on a single task and become bored or distracted quite easily. Others are unable to sit still, stay quiet or be patient. Some kids have a combination of these symptoms, plus others, according to the National Institute of Mental Health.

In the study, published last month in the Lancet, 100 children with ADHD symptoms who were 4 to 8 years old were divided into two groups. Half were allowed to eat only a small number of foods for five weeks; their diets were customized from a short list of ingredients that included water, rice, turkey, lamb, lettuce, carrots, pears and other hypoallergenic foods. The rest of the kids were counseled (along with their parents) about healthful eating but allowed to eat whatever they wanted.

At the end of the study, 64% of the kids on the limited diet showed significant improvement on a variety of standard rating scales. Though the initial scores for all of the kids in this group put their ADHD symptoms in the moderate-to-severe range, after the diet intervention their symptoms were classified as either mild or nonclinical.

"It's shocking to most people," says psychologist Lidy Pelsser of the ADHD Research Center in Eindhoven, the Netherlands. "The parents were shocked. The children said they felt so different, as if some mad thing in their head wasn't there anymore."

Previous studies have found similar effects, but, like this one, they all had fundamental problems that made it easy for doctors to dismiss them.

For example, it's impossible to implement such a radical diet without kids and their parents realizing they're in the treatment group. That can affect the results because parents who know their child is receiving treatment may look harder for improvements. Their heightened expectations, in turn, may affect their kids' behavior. Children with the disorder often improve with regular, focused attention.

"These are not easy things to tease out," says Dr. Jaswinder Ghuman, a child psychiatrist at the University of Arizona in Tucson who treats ADHD.

Some experts question whether all the children in the Lancet study actually had ADHD. Making a diagnosis in 4- and 5-year-olds is tricky, since the ability to sustain focused attention doesn't usually show up until age 6 or 7, says Robert Myers, a psychologist at UC Irvine who has worked with ADHD patients for 30 years.

One way the new study differed from the preceding ones is that it didn't select only kids who had an allergy related condition, such as asthma or eczema, but rather enrolled anyone with an ADHD diagnosis. That suggests food triggers may be important in a broader population of patients than previously thought. Until now, the consensus has been that food sensitivities play a role in only a small subset of ADHD cases.

Whether the Lancet study will change many doctors' minds remains to be seen. In a commentary that accompanied the Lancet study, Ghuman wrote that, while the diet's benefits were impressive, following it for more than five weeks could have detrimental health consequences.

Pelsser is the first to admit that no one can follow such a severe diet for very long. The children in her study have been gradually adding foods back to their diet. "We've followed all these children for about a year, and each child reacts to different foods," she says. For one child, triggers included beets, tomatoes, wheat and bananas; for another, it was fish, pork, eggs and oranges.

The idea of treating ADHD through diet modification goes back to at least the 1970s, when researchers began experimenting with a regimen called the Feingold diet that eliminated food additives and foods containing natural salicylates, such as apples, strawberries, almonds and tomatoes. Though the diet achieved only modest results, it is still used in some circles, Myers says.

Other researchers have charged that food additives — such as artificial colors, flavors and preservatives — are likely triggers for hyperactive behavior. A 2007 Lancet study of 297 children who did not have ADHD found that drinks laced with artificial colors and the preservative sodium benzoate increased activity to levels that were between one-half and two-thirds as high as seen in kids with ADHD who are not on medication. "Relatively modest amounts of food additives caused hyperactive symptoms in kids," says Schab, the Columbia psychiatrist.

To be sure, the prospect of treating ADHD with diet instead of drugs would appeal to many parents, Ghuman says. But parents who want to give it a try should be sure to consult their child's physician first, she warned: "It's not that simple to do appropriately."

Possible Fraud by Pharmaceutical Companies as Placebo Confirmed as more Effective and Safer than Antidepressants

A recently article reported in Newsweek Magazine, of a study by (The Journal of the American Medical Association) and other studies have shown that the effectiveness of antidepressants is almost entirely due to the hope and aspirations that the drug will be effective and not the drug at all. Hence, a placebo is more effective than antidepressants, and there are no side effects from placebos. The side effects from antidepressants alone can kill you. According to the FDA the use of antidepressants can cause anxiety, agitation, panic attacks, insomnia, irritability, hostility, impulsivity, akathisia (severe restlessness), hypomania, mania and suicide. They have also been attributed to mass murder (Columbine, Virginia Tech) to list a couple. Newsweek reports regarding a study by Irving Kirsch and Guy Sapirstein of the University of Connecticut. Patients on a placebo improved about 75 percent as much as those on the drugs. Essentially you positive mind will cure your depression.

Many may ask how is it possible that these drugs could get approved by the FDA for decades if they are proven to be ineffective. Well the early failed results appear to have been suppressed. Thomas Moore of George Washington University used the freedom of information act to analyze the FDA earlier studies of antidepressants. There were numerous company sponsored studies by the makers of Prozac, Zoloft, Paxil, Effexor and others. Many of these studies were unpublished, and over 50% more unpublished studies than other classes of drugs. Apparently 40% of the all clinical trials had never been published, and most of those unpublished trials according to Newsweek's article were the trials that proved antidepressants were a failure. The damaging results indicate pharmaceutical companies may be fraudulent in their studies and disclosures, and we ask why companies are allowed to sponsor trials. In addition, the FDA appears to have allowed it. Who is watching the store? Why wouldn’t the government at minimum only allow independent studies? But even that could be problem. Scientists at Universities who have questioned antidepressant results and who have cited Irvin Kirsch’s results have been reprimanded and their future grants have been threatened. These University grants are typically funded by large pharmaceutical companies. Looks like for our own safety we need to find another independent study group, and perhaps the Department of Justice can look into the FDA and pharmaceutical studies for authenticity.

Newsweek’s article also points out the relationship of the chemical imbalance theory causing depression. Pharmaceutical companies have claimed for decades that this chemical imbalance is the cause of depression. The typical SSRI (serotonin reuptake inhibitor) is supposed to raise the serotonin level of the patient. This is the basis of all their research. Well a new drug study indicates that lowering serotonin is as effective as raising serotonin on depression. The new drug tianeptine made in France lowers serotonin. Now the American and UK pharmaceutical companies’ main argument is gone, but they never really had an argument. In actuality, there is no scientific evidence at all that demonstrates antidepressants alleviate depression. The hope and expectation that a pill “sugar pill” will be effective recently has shown to alleviate depression.

When Bristol Myers Squibb’s advertises Abilify as an add-on to one’s current antidepressant because of it’s ineffectiveness on depression, it is an indication from the industry that their products have failed. In addition, many of these drugs are marketed for Bi-Polar Disorder, ADHD, and even non-smoking. ADHD has also been found to be fraudulent (see the book ADHDFraud by Fred Baughman Jr.). Will it be found that antidepressants are ineffective with these maladies also? There is certain to be more investigation into these past unpublished results, and we hope the justice department will look into fraud and misrepresentation. Like the Real Estate bubble the pharmaceutical house of cards is coming down, and we are sure there are many lawsuits to come with this disturbing information.

Is Your Child Genius an ADHD Ritalin Candidate Also?

Einstein, Newton, Edison, Beethoven, Caruso, and Churchill were all ADHD candidates. What would the world be like without them? Albert Einstein did not speak until he was four years old and he didn’t read until he was seven. The instructors described him as mentally slow, unsociable and a dreamer. He was later expelled from school.
Thomas Edison’s teachers said he was too stupid to learn anything. Isaac Newton did very poorly in grade school while singer Enrico Caruso’s was informed he had no voice and couldn’t sing. Winston Churchill failed sixth grade, and Beethoven was awkward with the violin and preferred to compose instead of play. His instructor called him hopeless as a composer. If these world changing men were boys today they would be evaluated as ADHD candidates and subscribed Ritalin a schedule 2 drug similar to cocaine. Our pharmaceutically drug induced children have no chance to become the likes of these great men.

There is no single test for ADHD. In fact there is no scientific test at all for ADHD. It is entirely made up, by taking the most annoying habits of children and calling it a disease. It creates a market for pharmaceutical companies, and invoices for psychiatry. Please see adhdfraud.org and the book ADHD Fraud by Fred A. Baughman Jr., MD. Here are the symptoms of ADHD according to the drug pushers. ADHD is diagnosed after a child has shown six or more specific symptoms of inactivity and or hyperactivity on a regular basis for more than six months in more than two settings. The symptoms that can get your child diagnosed as ADHD are constant motion, fidgeting, not listening, difficulty paying attention, excessive talking, easily distracted, and not completing tasks. Virtually all children demonstrate behavior like these while growing up. Most Ritalin and ADHD diagnosis is prescribed to children 6 to 12 years.

The side effects of Ritalin according to the DSM Diagnostic and Statistical Manual Of Mental Disorders,(Psychiatry’s owners manual) include stunting of growth, depression, insomnia, nervousness, skin rash, anorexia, nausea, dizziness, headaches, abdominal pain, blood pressure and pulse changes, and Tourette’s Syndrome which is a permanent and irreversible condition characterized by body tics, spasms, screaming obscenities, and barking sounds. The drug is under the same federal category as cocaine, opium and morphine, since it is such an addictive and dangerous drug. Withdrawal symptoms can be severe and include depression, fatigue, paranoia, increased dreaming, irritability, bedwetting and suicide. How could a mother provide a drug with these side effects to their child? How can the FDA approve of such a drug for children for a disease that is completely made up?

Where would we be without the Einstein’s, Newton’s, and Beethoven’s of the world and where is the world going today by subscribing so many as ADHD candidates? It is estimated that 90 percent of children diagnosed with ADHD will be prescribed Ritalin as part of their treatment. Prescriptions increased 450 percent from 1991 to 1995, climbing from a nationwide consumption of 4,000 pounds to 18,000 pounds annually, according to the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA). This is a DEA statistic not an FDA statistic. That should tell you something alone. Why because it is a schedule 2 drug like cocaine and opium. Ritalin is made by the pharmaceutical company Novartis and it is the brand name for the drug methylphenidate. It's taken as tablets and takes effect after about four hours and a second dose and third dose maybe necessary every four hours throughout the day. As we have noted it is an addictive drug. Other similarly prescribed ADHD drugs are Dexedrine (dextro-amphetamine), Adderall (mixed dextro- and levo-amphetamine) and, Gradumet, and Desoxyn (which are methamphetamine which is basically speed or commonly called ‘ice”').

Since ADHD is simply fraud and the drug given to your child is simply “speed or ice” then the alternative is easy, don’t agree to the diagnosis. You’re the parent your in charge of your child’s health and welfare. The home remedy alternative is to reduce the sugar intake for your children and put them on a better protein and vegetable diet. You can assist them by getting them a tutor for school when they are having difficulty, or adding extra school time so they get the subject matter better. Children also need to be more active in sports or athletics which teaches concentration and team work. It also burns calories, and they can win at games which improves their well being. These simple steps alone can correct your child’s behavior. Drugs are not the answer and they will never be the answer.

Stop Foundation Inc. www.stoprx.org Stop Foundation Inc. was formed to make the public aware of the effects of psychotropic drugs. We have a wealth of information including books and many alternative remedies you can pursue. Please visit the website and donate today.