Biopsychiatry Illuminated

THE CANDLELIGHT PROJECT
by Bob Collier

27 October 2003
Issue 65

I had a very interesting email a couple of days ago from some parents who had read The Parental Intelligence Report on 'ADHD' and took exception to its findings.

As they're perfectly free to do, of course. I'm not neutral about the subject - that's obvious - but everyone has to make up their own mind about what it means to them personally and I'm already well aware that some people, for reasons of their own, are not exactly enthusiastic about separating the facts from the fiction.

Plus, the story of the American Psychiatric Association's manufactured 'disorders of childhood' is a complex one to start with, wherein semantics and personal interpretations can often work against a clear understanding. If that wasn't the case, a lot more of the underlying shenanigans would be more obvious to the general public.

Anyway, the parents who sent me the email didn't put forward much of a case for their own point of view, to be honest (actually, none at all), but their comments did highlight once again the one aspect of the 'ADHD' debate that, in my experience, has muddied the waters more than anything else. That is, the prevalence of the idea that no label equals no problem.

While it's most certainly my contention that the so-called 'symptoms' of 'ADHD' are nothing more than a list of observed general behaviours that have been arbitrarily grouped together and I don't accept that many of the behaviours are genuinely problematic anyway, the behaviours in themselves DO exist and, where there is consensus that they are a problem (even if only in the realm of the subjective mind), they do need to be responded to.

In other words, removing the artificially created label of 'ADHD' does not necessarily refute the behaviour that it purports to describe.

Understanding that would probably be useful to those many people who seem to think that, because the label used to describe their problem is a fabrication, they're being told that they DON'T HAVE a problem when their everyday experiences clearly tell them otherwise!

For me, it's not the behaviour in itself that's the central issue in the 'ADHD' debate, but the insistence by vested interests - despite the absence of any supporting evidence (indeed, in the face of continually mounting evidence to the contrary) - that the behaviour is ATTRIBUTABLE TO a physiological defect in the brain.

Ironically, it's this dishonestly popularized misconception (and its consequences) that has in many cases actively PREVENTED whatever genuine problems these children may have from being resolved.

Last week in The Candlelight Project, I looked at a recently published article called 'Broken Brains or Flawed Studies? A Critical Review of ADHD Neuroimaging Research', by Jonathan Leo and David Cohen, which dealt with the somewhat less than straightforward way that the proponents of biopsychiatry have attempted over the years to demonstrate the validity of so-called 'ADHD' through the use of brain scan studies.

Jonathan Leo is an associate professor of anatomy at Western University of Health Sciences in Pomona, California. He has written several articles critical of biological psychiatry for journals and magazines such as Skeptic, Society, and the Human Nature Review.

This week, he provides us with further enlightenment in the matter of yet another way in which the proponents of biopsychiatry have presented a hypothesis as if it was a proven fact to the unsuspecting public - in this case, in their claim that 'mental illnesses' including 'ADHD' are genetic.

Professor Leo's article 'The Fallacy of the 50% Concordance Rate for Schizophrenia in Identical Twins' was published earlier this month in The Human Nature Review and is a review of a book called 'The Gene Illusion' by Jay Joseph, Psy.D.

These are the opening paragraphs of that review:

"The common practice of treating psychiatric conditions with medications is justified by the belief that mental illnesses are the result of underlying biological deficits. Genetic research is one avenue of research that is frequently cited as proof in support of this belief; and, in turn, one of the most commonly cited pieces of genetic evidence is the concordance rate for identical twins diagnosed with schizophrenia.

When discussing schizophrenia twin studies psychiatrists often report a 45%-50% concordance rate for identical twins, compared to only a 15% concordance rate for fraternal twins. These numbers which are often cited in psychiatry textbooks, peer reviewed papers, magazine articles, speeches and even newspaper articles are generally considered the most important piece of evidence supporting the biological theory of schizophrenia - and even as evidence that mental illnesses in general are biologically based.

Concerning the genetic theory of schizophrenia, the most recent edition of the neuroscience textbook Fundamental Neuroscience by Squire et al. (2003) states, "The most compelling evidence is the 50% concordance rate for monozygotic twins [siblings developed from one fertilised egg: identical twins] relative to the 15% concordance for dizygotic twins" [siblings developed from the fertilization of two different eggs by different sperm: fraternal twins]. (Rapp and Bachevalier, 2003, p. 1193). A new book The Gene Illusion, by Jay Joseph shatters the validity of this statement and leaves the most commonly mentioned statistic in psychiatry in tatters. Joseph's book is an analysis of psychiatric genetic research and covers topics such as the heritability concept, the genetics of IQ, the genetics of criminality, the schizophrenia adoption studies - but his most devastating criticism is of the schizophrenia twin studies (Joseph, 2003).

It is hard to find any defense of biological psychiatry that does not mention the schizophrenia twin research. As just one example, Steven Hyman, the former-chairman of NIMH [America's National Institute of Mental Health], appeared before President George Bush's Commission on Bioethics for the purpose of defending the meteoric rise in the use of Ritalin and other psychotropic drugs in young children. In his opening monologue he did NOT cite a study documenting the biological basis of Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD); he did NOT cite a study showing the benefits of Ritalin; instead he cited the "50% schizophrenia twin concordance rate". His comments, which are not uncommon, are simply an echo of a commonly held belief in psychiatry that if schizophrenia is "genetic" then other psychiatric conditions such as ADHD must also be "genetic." But in another sense when a psychiatrist defends the biological basis of mental illness and starts the discussion by citing genetic evidence, and not biological evidence such as pathological markers or blood tests, this is a tacit acknowledgement that in fact there is no biological evidence. If there was good biological evidence then why not mention it?

Over the past fifty years the history of psychiatry has been nothing more than the absolute triumph of "nature" over "nurture" - at least in the way the medical community looks at human distress. In the world of biological psychiatry "genes" have won the gold medal and completely pushed "the environment" right off the stage, and no historical analysis of this victory would be complete without a discussion of the schizophrenia twin studies. For instance, if the genetic theory of anorexia never pans out this would have no bearing on the way psychiatrists approach other mental illnesses, but if the most compelling evidence that mental illnesses are genetic is flawed - and that the major cornerstone of the profession is false - then the psychiatry profession has a problem."

You can find out more about the size of that problem by reading the review in its entirety here (only 10 pages and every one a fascinating read!):
http://human-nature.com/nibbs/03/joseph.pdf

Following here is another review of Dr. Joseph's book, this time from the website of its publisher in the UK, PCCS Books.
http://www.pccs-books.co.uk/

The Gene Illusion:
Genetic research in psychiatry and psychology under the microscope

Jay Joseph

ISBN 1 898059 47 0 Paperback price: £18.00

Jay Joseph's timely, challenging book provides a much-needed rebuttal of the evidence cited in support of genetic theories. Far from establishing the importance of genes, this book shows that family, twin, and adoption studies are plagued by researcher bias, unsound methodology, and a reliance on unsupported theoretical assumptions. Furthermore, he demonstrates how this research has been used to support the interests of those attempting to bolster conservative social and political agendas.

What are the forces shaping who we are, how we live, and how we act? Are we shaped primarily by our environment, or by our genes? These are very old questions, and form the basis of the 'nature-nurture debate'. Increasingly, we are told that research has confirmed the importance of genetic factors influencing physical and psychiatric disorders, personality, intelligence, sexual orientation, criminality, and so on.

Much of the scientific evidence cited as supporting these ideas has been produced by the fields of behaviour genetics and psychiatric genetics. It has been delivered to the public in numerous magazine and newspaper articles, as well as by the authors of several popular books. In particular, studies of twins (both reared together and reared apart) have been cited as providing conclusive evidence supporting the importance of genetic influences on psychological trait differences. The reared-apart twin studies by researchers at the University of Minnesota have been the subject of much attention, including stories of individual pairs of reared-apart identical twins who, it is claimed, displayed remarkable similarities upon being reunited. Family and adoption studies are also cited in support of the importance of genetic factors.

Schizophrenia is the most studied, and at the same time the most feared and misunderstood, of all psychiatric diagnoses. Two chapters are devoted to problems with genetic research in this area. One of these chapters reviews the schizophrenia adoption studies, which include the well-known and frequently cited Danish-American and Finnish investigations. Another chapter looks into the alleged genetic basis of criminal behavior -- an idea more popular today than at any time in the past 50 years. Additional chapters look into other areas of current interest in genetics, such as IQ, heritability, and molecular genetic research.

In contrast to the bleak view of humans and their future laid out by those claiming that heredity is of overriding importance, there exists a radically different perspective. The threat to the future of humanity does not come from peoples' genes. Rather, it comes from well-known and well-documented psychologically traumatic events and environments.

This book is essential reading for anyone seeking an alternative to the increasingly popular, yet mistaken view that 'genes are destiny'.

Comments

"The claim that psychiatric disorders are biological and genetic in origin has done a great deal of harm to the mental health professions and their clients. Dr Jay Joseph's book should be read by anyone interested in a genuinely scientific analysis of the myths of biological psychiatry."

Peter R Breggin MD
Author, Toxic Psychiatry

For more information about The Gene Illusion, please visit:
http://www.pccs-books.co.uk/

ADHD-Report.com: The concerned parents' guide to childrens' attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD/ADD)

Contact
Resources