Inventing Disorders - The Psychiatric Drugging of Children

http://counterpunch.com/pringle04212010.html


Of all the harmful actions of modern psychiatry, "the mass diagnosing and drugging of children is the most appalling with the most serious consequences for the future of individual lives and for society," warns the world-renowned expert, Dr Peter Breggin, often referred to as the "Conscience of Psychiatry."

"We're bringing up a generation in this country in which you either sit down, shut up and do what you're told, or you get diagnosed and drugged," he points out.

Breggin considers the situation to be "a national tragedy." "To inflict these drugs on the growing brains of infants and children is wrong and abusive," he contends.

The kids who get drugged are often our best, brightest, most exciting and energetic children, he points out. "In the long run, we are giving children a very bad lesson that drugs are the answer to emotional problems."

Dr Nathaniel Lehrman, author of the book, "Coming Off Psychiatric Drugs," believes that giving infants and toddlers "powerful, brain-effecting psychiatric medication is close to criminal activity."

"Giving them these drugs," he says, "has no rationale, and ignores the basic fact that youngsters are very sensitive to their environments, both social and chemical, with the juvenile brain easily damaged by the latter."

-snip-

"I think possibly 10 to 15 years up the road," he told Shields, "we're going to be looking at a generation of children who will have been seriously injured by the treatments that they appear ever-increasingly likely to be put on now."

But the administration of multiple drugs at once complicates the situation so that it may be impossible to determine which drugs are most responsible for the adverse reactions children experience, according to Dr Breggin.

"Because so many doctors and so many drug companies will share the blame for mistreating these children, they will be unable to seek redress against individual perpetrators through the courts when they grow up," he explains.
------------------------


the pharma Barons so love our children's parents money

our doctors so love the attention and rewards they get from the barons

bastards one and all

Really? Just what "attention and rewards" do they get? All of them?

And what would you do about children who have real psychiatric problems? Seems to me it is better to treat those disorders now rather than paying to keep them in prison later. Did it occur to you that the reason children might have psychiatric problems is because we are living in a completely artificial and wholely fucked-up society? I'm not saying drugs are always the answer, but they are more often than I think you want to admit.

trips and gifts, etc.

these rewards have been reported here at DU before.

I am a teacher who deals with the opposite problem - kids who need meds but aren't on them because their parents have bought into crap like the OP is promoting.

maybe you just don't know how to handle your class problems

Also, you're almost always wrong on every issue.

So there you go.

I don't mean this as that I don't care, cause I do and have done extensive studies on it. I once did a study regarding the use of psyiatric medications in children under 4 years old. There shouldn't even NEED to be a study of this, as it should be nonexistant, but I did the study and it was shocking. I sent around my information to doctors, media, etc, and no one was interested.

I would strongly disagree with that.

LOL

While the profit-motive is huge and the rewards are ample, there is a fringe benefit to drugging the masses legally and with medical sanction.

Corporate monoculture requires a narrowing of the human spectrum and compliance, regardless of how that is achieved. The dual benefit is that you can socially engineer both your monobots who will function as willing and pliable peons and those that will also cooperate and manage those peons in the corporate structure, while also influencing the underclass and misfits who don't fit the mold/model being induced as inverted tyranny and via various stages of techno-Fascism towards an end result.

The war on drugs has actually been a war on "some" drugs as many are realizing. Just think, we are only at the beginning stages of deep, well funded research into our neuro=chemistry and this is merely the testing phase for even more effective psychoactive management. Aldous Huxley's Brave New World seems a bit mild and short-sighted when you consider how easily this process is justified while also being extremely lucrative.

So, as we go deeper into the miasma of existence in a web of pervasive, manufactured monoculture, the impact that has screams loudly for a fix as people become dismayed, dysfunctional and overwhelmed by the sweeping social engineering and change they find themselves in. There has to be a fix. The fix is then provided by those who engineer the process in the first place. It is such a sweet deal!

Television is not your friend.

so that she would sit down, shut up, and do what she was told. I gave her medication so that she would look both ways before she crossed the damn street! Why is this so hard to get?

are helped by meds. I don't think most parents medicate their kids on a whim, with a light heart. They just don't want their children to basically flunk their first six grades of school, never learn how to read, and jump off the roof on an impulse.

One killed himself.

every single one

the opposite of anecdote is not data, and to paper over suicidal impulses with drugs, esp. a drug that has a side effect of potentially increasing the chance of suicide/murder which is the case for some anti-depressants when taken by children under age 18...well, i just don't know what you are trying to say here

one kid didn't take pills and killed himself but how many more kids do take the pills and they still kill themselves, and more and more often these days, they pick up a gun and take others with them -- i live in new orleans, kids are shooting ea. other over fucking nothing

i don't agree w. the good doc that the kids being drugged are "our most exciting and energetic," obv. that's romanticizing mental illness and it's just bullshit, these kids are in a bad situation either way and they DO need help -- this is why the issue is a difficult one

the evidence that meds "help" is, i dunno, apparently much more believable to those who take the drugs than those of who don't -- we keep hearing from the drug taker how much better they are since they got on the drug, but ALL junkies say that, don't they? the argument is not persuasive when, say, my bipolar friend says how much he's been helped by an SSRI and then he starts waving his gun at people (including me)

the meds have been around for a couple decades now and, honestly, there hasn't been any startling decrease in the violence, quite the opposite if you ask me

in uk, at least for a time, some of these drugs had to carry warnings that they increased the risk of suicide/violence in kids under 18

if it was my kid, i would think v. carefully, you the teacher will be gone in a year but i would have to deal w the kid forever

i've lived this long and i won't say drugs/tech never help, and some of these kids are no-hopers anyway so what can it hurt, but there's a need for some pushback or pretty soon it's become the norm where you have to take a drug like adderal just to compete in school -- you don't think it's fair for athletes to have to compete w kids on steroids but it's fair for students to compete w. the other kids on a brain-enhancing drug like adderal or ritalin?

the issue isn't as simple as it seems and the threat of, "oh your kid will die if he doesn't pop a pill" doesn't necessarily impress...it sounds like bullying, actually, which is what the doc is complaining about, kids being bullied and silenced with chemicals

he goes too far if he always denies kids drugs but this issue really doesn't seem to be all that simple

That's all I was trying to point out.

I've seen medication work WONDERS for a kid whose behavior was so extreme, his parents AND teachers were at the end of their rope. After years of going with a general, catch-all (and meaningless) diagnosis of "emotionally disturbed," finally a comprehensive evaluation led to a diagnosis of Bipolar Disorder, and medication (a single medication, not a cocktail) was prescribed, with dramatic results.

Improperly medicating, over-medicating are problems, but they shouldn't detract from the value of medication when properly prescribed and based on actual evaluation and testing.

This fascinating prediction is one of my faves:

"If nominated, Obama will not survive a month when faced with the Republican attack machine."

Is sadly one of the vocal few out there who dare to stand up to Big Pharma.

It's too bad that most people (especially those prescribing these meds) aren't more aware of his work... Unfortunately the revolving door of monied interests (ie. politicians, the FDA and Pharmaceutical companies) have successfully drowned out Breggin's medically thought provoking arguements regarding the dangers of overprescribing psychiatric drugs. Breggin began writing about his concerns in the late 80's when Prozac and other anti-depressant scripts were dramatically rising. And his warnings were not and are still not just for children.

IMHO Breggin's work should be required reading for any med. school student.

nt

The one who blames ADHD on the child's father.

That's some fine doctoring right there.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Breggin

In fact, he's been very vocal in opposition to it.

As far as him being a Scientologist?... :shrug: I've never heard of him being one and even if he is, he makes no mention of it anywhere in his writtings or court opinions.

http://www.quackwatch.org/11Ind/breggin.html

Then you'll know even the courts think he's a quack.

In several sucessful high profile cases against big Pharma.

Those are the court opinions I am referring to.

" This court finds that the evidence of Peter Breggin, as a purported expert, fails nearly all particulars under the standard set forth in Daubert and its progeny. . . . . Simply put, the Court believes that Dr. Breggin's opinions do not rise to the level of an opinion based on "good science." The motion to exclude his testimony as an expert witness should be granted.—Report & recommendation. Magistrate Judge B. Waugh Crigler in Lam v. The Upjohn Company, No. 94-0033-H, W. Dist., of VA (Harrisonburg Division, U.S. District Court, 1995)"

"The court believes not only is this gentleman unqualified to render the opinions that he did, I believe that his bias in this case is blinding. . . . I find that he . . . was not only unprepared, he was mistaken in a lot of the factual basis for which he expressed his opinion. . . . The court is going to strike the testimony of Dr. Breggin, finding that it has no rational basis.—Excerpt of hearing. Judge Hilary J. Caplan in Lightner v. Alessi, No. 94013064/CL174959 (Baltimore City Circuit Court, 1995)."

" Dr. Breggin's observations are totally without credibility. I can almost declare him, I guess from statements that floor me, to say the he's a fraud or at least approaching that He has made some outrageous statements and written outrageous books and which he says he has now withdrawn and his thinking is different. He's untrained. He's a member of no hospital staff. He has not since medical school participated in any studies to support his conclusions except maybe one. . . . I can't place any credence or credibility in what he has to recommend in this case.—Excerpt of trial, order, and decision. Judge James W. Rice in Schellinger v. Schellinger, No. 93-FA-939-763 (Milwaukee County Circuit Court, 1997)"

Over-prescription of medication is a real issue and for psychiatric medication in particular it's well worth asking for an independent second opinion. But Breggin has made a career of exploiting people's ignorance of and anxiety about a complex topic.

with the exception of the subject line and (perhaps) the word 'exploiting'...

You've been accused of having something to do with Scientology. Is that true?

... I have nothing to do with Scientology. For approximately 25 years, I have conducted reform work with nothing to do with Scientology. There is no issue whatsoever about me and Scientology. I'm the editor-in-chief of a journal with 40 professional members on it. I'm director of a center with 200 professional people on the advisory council and 1,000 general members. I have taught at Harvard and Johns Hopkins and George Mason. I have nothing to do with Scientology. It's a drug company PR campaign. ... I have the letters. If I had known you were going to go to this level of journalism, I would have brought the letters along where Eli Lilly tries to link people like me to Scientology.

And didn't they attack and make accusations about your wife?

My wife was a Scientologist, and is now so strongly anti-Scientology, that if I even took a phone call from a Scientologist, she'd be on my back. ... I don't want to take on the Scientologists. I've got enough trouble taking on psychiatry. ...

But when people see you alongside Scientologists at a hearing before a state legislature in Arkansas ...

I recommend personally that Scientologists not be brought to these hearings, but I have no control over that. I'm just an expert witness. I have no control over it. ... The average parent doesn't see that it's Scientologists who are against taking these drugs. It is strictly the drug companies and the media who bring up the Scientology issue. ...

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/medicating/interviews/breggin.html


Testimony of Ginger Ross Breggin
February 3, 1994
To Whom It May Concern:

My name is Virginia (Ginger) Ross Breggin. I was recruited into Scientology in May of 1970 and remained a member of the group until 1982. I was in the Guardian's Office from 1971 until 1981 when I departed staff without authorization...

I experienced many personal and traumatic episodes while in Scientology which I will not bother to detail in this letter since they appear to fall outside the realm of the information requested. My experiences are common to other staff and GO members and include being placed in lower conditions, working huge numbers of hours, being required to suppress personal needs for the sake of the group, and so forth. The scars will last a lifetime....

http://www.whyaretheydead.info/krasel/aff_grb.html


Some have criticized Breggin for his links to Scientology campaigns against psychiatric drugs, though since 1974 he has vigorously criticized the controversial church, which has long been a rabid opponent of psychiatry. Breggin's wife, Ginger Ross Breggin, was a Church of Scientology member and he said that he was "once an ally," meaning that they shared a common goal of opposing the growth of biological psychiatry and the increasing rate at which children are medicated.

However, Breggin reportedly helped his wife leave Scientology--which she refers to as a cult--and both have endorsed efforts to assist people who are caught up in cults or cult-like organizations.<4> On the Internet and in the media, it is still common to see him derided as an "ally of Scientology". In particular, drug maker Eli Lilly regularly links him to the Church of Scientology.<5> The drug industry, according to critics, often cites links to the Church of Scientology in order to discredit its opponents.

http://psychology.wikia.com/wiki/Peter_Breggin.

looks like a few people don't like the message.

i know personally of at least two cases where an adult was dismissed as depressed and given an RX, one of them ended up in the emergency room for bypass surgery (she was tired because she had heart disease NOT because she was depressed), the other ended up dead of too late to be dx'd colon cancer

if docs would be SURE that the victim actually had clinical depression or whatever before prescribing a psychiatric drug it would be one thing but when they're just in a hurry and brushing people off who have real diseases, it can kill

Shit taking those meds like that screwed up my thinking and attention span as well - personally I think these drugs are far more dangerous than any crack, coke, heroin, marijuana, you name it.

My kids won't be drugged up unless they are seriously ill. I've also stopped all non-natural anti-depressants. Lost 30 lbs easily.

This Manichean anti-med nonsense is annoying.

Your either/or strawman is a bit depressing, Odin. These medicines can be effective for a segment of the juvenile population and still be massively over-prescribed. Both are absolutely possible. Your ad hominem attack means absolutely zippedy-shit, sorry.

If you want some real information on this issue, I suggest reading Melody Petersen's "Our Daily Meds". She began as a NY Times reporter covering Big Pharma and ended up exposing some really nasty practices, including the planned, intentional pressuring of doctors to write scripts for drugs not approved for specific conditions. Neurontin is a great example: doctors recommended it for everything from depression to itchy feet because they were paid to do so; it has recently been proven that Neurontin can drastically increase suicide risk. Her segment on Ritalin LR (?) the time-release capsule is also quite interesting.

...this took about 5 seconds to Google. There are literally thousands of other examples out there.

http://industry.bnet.com/pharma/10003923/doc-who-urged-antipsychotics-for-3-year-olds-funded-by-jj-az-and-shire/?tag=content;selector-perfector

UPDATED: Doc Who Urged Antipsychotics for 3-Year-Olds Funded by J&J, AZ and Shire

By Jim Edwards | Aug 28, 2009

A doctor who wrote in an academic journal that preschoolers may suffer from depression and could be good candidates for atypical antipsychotics received funding from three drug companies that make mental health medicines.

Dr. Joan Luby, a professor of child psychiatry at the Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis, wrote that children as young as three years old may suffer from bipolar disorder, and that there are “promising findings for the use of atypical antipsychotic agents and mood stabilizers, both singly and in combination” in the very young. Atypical antipsychotics are not FDA-approved for such use.

Her article, in a 2009 journal titled Child and Adolescent Psychiatric Clinics of North America, does not disclose that in the past Luby’s work has been funded by Janssen (the unit of Johnson & Johnson that markets Risperdal), or that she has given talks sponsored by AstraZeneca (maker of Seroquel), and has been a consultant for Shire (maker of Adderall XR and Vyvanse).