More on how children are being targetted to boost drug profits.

[Guest guest]

SSRI-Research@Tue, 04 Apr 2006 02:22:19 -0000[sSRI-Research] An Out of Control Profession_NewScientist /Infant Mental Health Now TargetedALLIANCE FOR HUMAN RESEARCH PROTECTION (AHRP)Promoting Openness, Full Disclosure, and Accountabilityhttp://www.ahrp.org/cms/FYIA report in The New Scientist, "Prescribing of Hyperactivity Drugs isOut of Control," shows just how deviant U.S. prescribing ofpsychostimulants for children is compared to the rest of the world. Agraph from the World Health Organization quantifies America's bizarreprescribing pattern: "The figures are mind-boggling. Nearly 4million Americans, most of them children and young adults, are beingprescribed amphetamine-like stimulants to treat attention deficithyperactivity disorder (ADHD). Up to a million more may be taking thedrugs

illegally." Specialists in addiction, including the head ofthe National Institute of Drug Abuse (NIDA) worry about these drugsleading to drug dependency: Dr. Nora Volkow argues "There has to be are-evaluation and reassessment of the extent to which there is properprescription."Scientists have known that as with chronic use of Cocaine, ADHD drugscause profound long-term changes in cognitive and other mentalfunctions. Indeed, in 1996, Dr. Steve Hyman, the former director ofthe National Institute of Mental Health (now Harvard Provost) wrote:These drugs cause "molecular and cellular changes in neural functionthat are produced as adaptations to chronic administration ofaddictive drugs such as psychostimulants." Chronic exposure topsychotropic drugs, he wrote, "creates perturbations inneurotransmitter function that likely exceed the strength or timecourse of almost any natural stimulus."In other words, the

drugs induce a disease process by interfering withnormal brain function. They produce profound neural damage and drugaddiction--a disease. See: Hyman, SE. and Nestler, EJ. 1996.Initiation and adaptation: a paradigm for understanding psychoactivedrug action. American Journal of Psychiatry, 153:151-162.And in 2001, Dr. Nora Volkow and a team of researchers at BrookhavenLaboratories, found evidence using photo imaging techniques thatcontradicted the claims made by those who advocate the use ofpsychostimulants: "A typical dose [of Ritalin] given to children, 0.5mg/kg, blocked 70% of dopamine transporters" --more thancocaine. "The data clearly show that the notion that Ritalin is aweak stimulant is completely incorrect." [see, JAMAhttp://jama.ama-assn.org/issues/v286n8/ffull/jmn0822-1.html]William Carlezon

of Harvard Medical School, has studied the drugs'effects in animals and believes that they do have some lasting effecton the brain, even if its exact nature is not yet known. "Stimulantdrugs leave molecular signatures on the brain, and we have to be verycareful."The New Scientist reviews some of the documented drug hazards forchildren reported at an FDA advisory committee (March 22): theadverse psychiatric side effects include disturbing hallucinationsoften involving worms, snakes or insects, experienced by up to 5 percent of children taking the drugs.Stimulants are not the only drugs prescribed for children withoutreliable or credible diagnostic criteria: antipsychotics, the mosttoxic of all psychotropic drugs which are linked to life-threateninghazards are prescribed for children with ADHD: A Vanderbilt reportlast month revealed that in 2002 two and a half million children wereprescribed antipsychotic

drugs. These toxic drugs have not beenapproved for children; for adults they are approved for schizophreniaand short-term treatment of bipolar disorder. The atypicalantipsychotics are linked to cardiac arrest, hyperthermia, acuteweight gain-over 100 lbs in children-dangerous levels ofcholesterol, and the most severe form of diabetes.MSNBC reports what is surely reckless irresponsible professionalhucksterism: psychiatry's latest expansion is an intrusion into theneurodevelopmental life of infants: "a hot topic at majoruniversities, and last year the American Academy of Pediatricslaunched a task force with at least part of its purpose to push moreinfant/toddler mental health intervention." Some are already callingthemselves expert "infant psychiatrists."We challenge these newly proclaimed "experts" to show empiricalevidence demonstrating that their intrusion into the life of aninfant will be

beneficial to that infant. Given the uncertainty atbest-this constitutes an uncontrolled (hence scientifically useless)human experiment. The record demonstrates that tinkering withchildren's neurodevelopment is fraught with unintended harmfulconsequences. It is, therefore, not acceptable for those who wantto intervene in infants and toddlers' lives, to be given license onthe basis of an unbinding statement: "With the right therapy andcare, many of these conditions can be helped significantly and oftenswiftly." Standards and rules of evidence must be established andmet before anyone should be given carte blanche to alter infants'behavior patterns.Who has the authority to intervene with a child's birthright to be?Or to be allowed to develop naturally and idiosyncratically at his/her own individual pace? Who has the moral authority to say that somechildren should be delivered for experimental human

engineering?"the signs and symptoms of mental disorders are often also thecharacteristics of normal development." [see:Surgeon General Report,1999] As acknowledged by the chief NIMH child psychiatrist, Dr.Benedetto Vitiello: "diagnostic uncertainty surround mostmanifestations of psychopathology in early childhood" [see:Psychopharmacology for Young Children, Pediatrics, 2001, 108:983-989]What evidence do these self-anointed "experts" provide tosubstantiate their claim of diagnosing infants? What evidence isthere to support the claim that a therapy is "right" for ayoung child or infant? What empirical evidence do "infantpsychiatrists" provide for the claim "these conditions can be helpedsignificantly?"At the very least, shouldn't we as a society require of everyprofessional seeking to render mental health services to children, toshow empirical evidence that all but guarantees that no

harm willresult to the child who is exposed to the services being offered?Dr. Joan Luby who is "diagnosing" toddlers with manic-depression(bipolar)--one of the most severe mental disorders that hitherto hasnever been unheard of in children-is quoted stating: "Treatment formood disorders really depends on the disorder but, in general,behavioral and psychotherapeutic modalities are still the firstline." But she is quick to add: "The more severe the impairment, themore likely the child will eventually need psychotherapy andmedication."What evil Pied Piper has mesmerized American adults into suspendingtheir own judgment and common sense to the detriment of theirchildren? Why are intelligent parents blindly following medicallyunsound directives whereas parents in other parts of the world do notsuccumb to the lure of "quick fixes?" How can the "experts" who haveknowingly recommended

harm-producing drugs for children be trusted?Contact: Vera Hassner Sharav212-595-8974veracare "Our ideal is not the spirituality that withdraws from life but the conquest of life by the power of the spirit." - Aurobindo.

New Messenger with Voice. Call regular phones from your PC for low, low rates.