Parry - Sue's Gaithersburg Address

[Guest guest]

SSRI-Research@

Sun, 05 Mar 2006 10:47:11 -0500

[sSRI-Research] Parry - Sue's Gaithersburg Address

 

 

 

The following testimony was presented by Sue Parry to the FDA Drug

Safety and Risk Management Advisory Committee in Gaithersburg,

Maryland on February 9, 2006. The committee subsequently voted 8-7 to

recommend a black-box warning about the serious cardiac risks of

stimulants used to treat attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder.

Sue's testimony might some day be remembered as the " Gaithersburg

Address " which spelled the beginning of the end for the pseudoscience

known as biopsychiatry. Read it and be inspired!

 

 

 

Ben Hansen

ICSPP Public Information Coordinator

www.icspp.org

 

*********************

ADHD MEDICATIONS: RISKS AND BENEFITS

FDA Testimony

February 9, 2006

 

Good afternoon. My name is Sue Parry. I travelled here at my own

expense from New Mexico because I am concerned about the safety of the

stimulant drugs given to children, some as young as two years old.

 

I have worked as a school-based occupational therapist with students,

mostly boys, who supposedly had ADHD. I am also the mother of three

sons who a decade ago like too many young boys in America were at-risk

of being labeled ADHD.

 

Much of the information given to parents about ADHD, then and now, is

confusing, inconsistent and contradictory. They're told ADHD has

biological underpinnings, that it runs in families, and that brain

imaging studies reveal differences in the areas of the ADHD brain that

govern concentration and impulse control.

 

They're often told to have their child screened at an early age

because ADHD, if untreated, can have a negative impact on academic

achievement, that they face a much greater risk of developing a

co-morbid disorder, and that they are at much greater risk for early

substance experimentation and abuse. Meanwhile, the psychostimulants,

as well as other drugs, are routinely portrayed as benign, mild

substances that are not associated with abuse or serious side effects.

 

What are these parents and teachers not told? They are not told that

Ritalin is classified as a Schedule II drug, the strictest category of

potentially abusable drugs that doctors can prescribe or that Ritalin

is chemically similar to " speed, " " crank " and " crack cocaine, " all

drugs with devastating addictive potential.

 

They are not told that the adverse effects of stimulants are numerous

including insomnia, decreased appetite, stomachaches, headaches and

nervousness. They are not told that children have died on these

medications.

 

Parents are not told that five subcommittee hearings have been held in

the House of Representatives between 1996 and 2003. That at the

subcommittee hearing in July, 1996 Dr. Debra Zarin stated, " A myth

surrounding the treatment of ADHD is the 'paradoxical calming effect'

of stimulants such as Ritalin. It is a commonly held misconception

that if a stimulant calms a child, then he must have ADHD; if he

didn't have the disorder, the thinking goes, the medication would not

have any effect. That is not true. Stimulants increase attention

span in normal children, as well as those with ADHD. " Six years

later, in 2002, Dr. David Fassler made the same statement.

 

Parents are not told the possible future harm that may result from the

diagnosis, as eloquently described by Dr. William Carey who states,

" The label may be stigmatizing and harmful in the long term in ways

that are only dimly appreciated today. The diagnosis of brain

malfunction, which seems so useful and comforting today, may at a

later time come back to plague the person. we have not had sufficient

time to observe fully the possible consequences it may have for

education opportunities; employment; military service; or security

clearances. Labels stick firmly, especially when they involve

neurological disability. "

 

Parents are not told that the 1998 ADHD Consensus Development

Conference Statement reads, " However, we do not have an independent,

valid test for ADHD, and there are no data to indicate that ADHD is

due to a brain malfunction. " The last paragraph of the statement

reads, " Finally, after years of clinical research and experience with

ADHD, our knowledge about the cause or causes of ADHD remains

speculative. "

 

The ADHD epidemic is a national disgrace. Our nation's children do

not need more studies. They need a federal grand jury to investigate

what may be the biggest healthcare fraud of all time. So far, only

one government agency, the DEA's Office of Diversion Control, has

stood up to this psychopharmaceutical cartel. There is at least

reasonable suspicion, if not yet probable cause, to believe that ADHD

is a pseudoscientific diagnosis, brought to market to increase the

sales of stimulant drugs. There are a variety of issues to examine in

this scheme including the potential for official corruption, bribery,

kickbacks and ethics violations. I propose that the focus should be

on the relationship between certain pharmaceutical companies, the

so-called support groups who are funded by Big Pharma and their

influence at the local, state and national levels as well as certain

government researchers and officials, and other high profile figures

and organizations from the ADHD industry.

 

Is the ADHD epidemic about neurotransmitters and chemical imbalances

or is it about increased market share for drug companies, increased

funding for research and increased business for medical entrepreneurs?

Have our kids simply become funding mechanisms to be screened,

labeled and medicated?

 

Someday Americans may wake up and realize that the ADHD emperor has no

clothes. Meanwhile, " treating " children with psychostimulants to

their central nervous systems, based on a pseudoscientific diagnosis,

is not only ethically irresponsible, it is morally reprehensible.

 

Submitted by:

Sue Parry

Las Cruces, New Mexico

 

 

*