Biopsychiatry Illuminated

THE CANDLELIGHT PROJECT
by Bob Collier

16 February 2004
Issue 81

Dr. William Campbell Douglass'

Daily Dose

February 3, 2004

The unvarnished truth about ADHD drugs

You know how I feel about ADHD. I think it's the most over- diagnosed "disease" in the world - one that for the most part has been invented via the re-classification of many types of perfectly normal behavior as abnormal. I also think it's the most egregious example out there of a malady being promoted by drug companies in order to expand the market for their poisons. And usually, the mainstream media has been a more-than-willing accomplice in this heartless and dangerous scam.

That's why it shocked me to read in a mainstream source (CNN.com) an article about yet another downside to the stimulant drugs most commonly prescribed for children "diagnosed" with ADHD. According to the article, several studies suggest that these controversial drugs can have a lasting and negative effect on the developing brain.

Hmmm. That's encouraging, isn't it? Especially for those among the steadily-growing throng of youngsters "diagnosed" with ADHD (up to 5% of kids nowadays) that are PERFECTLY NORMAL - but who've been saddled with a drug habit because their parents aren't up to the task of parenting.

The Harvard-based research featured two groups of animal subjects, medicated at a point in their life cycles that closely approximates human adolescence. One of these groups was given today's most popularly prescribed ADHD drug the other a harmless placebo. Then, later in life, both groups were tested with a battery of behavioral tasks administered under stress.

Not surprisingly (to me), the "drug group" test subjects exhibited a noticeably higher degree of what's known in the mental health field as "learned helplessness," a condition marked by symptoms of depression and a tendency to give up quickly when faced with a challenge. Other, similar research noted that the formerly medicated subjects responded less to rewards and reacted more to stress than the drug-free control group.

What's this mean? It means that these studies point to the likelihood that today's most commonly prescribed psychotropic drugs for a largely made-up disease may in fact cause real and permanent changes in brain chemistry that can affect a person for the rest of his or her life - even long after they've "outgrown" ADHD. The pharmaceuticals giants would no doubt be quick to claim that findings from animal research may not correlate to human beings, but the question I'd ask is this:

Do we really want to take that chance - especially with our children? But what's really scary is that kids aren't the only ones at risk. Keep reading...

To start receiving your own copy of the Daily Dose, visit:
http://www.realhealthnews.com/dailydose/freecopy.html
Or forward this e-mail to a friend so they can sign-up to receive their own copy of the Daily Dose.

And the "truth" as the drug-loving media would have you believe...

In a recent edition of yet another mainstream source (USA TODAY online), a far different picture gets painted of ADHD - this time among adults.

In the December 8th article, which can only be described as a "rave review" for the drug trade, we learn that just like in children, ADHD affects up to 5% of American grown-ups. But here's the kicker: 75% or more of these unfortunate (see also lazy, undisciplined) souls don't even know they have the "disease."

This, according to "researchers" who are never actually named in the piece. Could this be because they're DRUG INDUSTRY sources, perhaps? No, not in a responsible piece of mainstream journalism - perish the thought. This incredible story even goes so far as to credit the marketing machine of the only drug company with an FDA-approved adult ADHD drug on the market (Eli Lilly and Co.) for raising "awareness" about the condition. The article mentions nothing, however, about the PROFITS these campaigns have raised...

And it makes only brief mention of the fact that almost any adult who reads the horribly misleading list of symptoms on the drug's Web site might conclude they were afflicted with ADHD themselves!

What's even more disturbing is this: Many adults nowadays are "discovering" their affliction because of their child's diagnosis (or misdiagnosis, most likely). While hearing all about the symptoms of childhood ADHD, they say to themselves "That sounds like me when I was a kid... "

And viola, another drug-addicted "victim" of ADHD is born! Not bad, huh? One patient walks into the psychiatrist's office (needlessly), but two come out.

As long as the mainstream media acts as nothing more than a free extension of the drug giants' marketing departments, that's the way it's going to be.

Hyper about exposing the hype,

William Campbell Douglass II, MD

Copyright (c)1997-2003 by www.realhealthnews.com, L.L.C.
The Daily Dose may not be posted on commercial sites without written permission.

If you'd like to participate in the Dr. Douglass' Real Health Breakthroughs Forum, search past e-letters and products or you're a Dr. Douglass' Real Health Breakthroughs subscriber and would like to search past articles, visit www.realhealthnews.com

To learn more about Dr. Douglass' Real Health Breakthroughs, visit
http://www.agora-inc.com/reports/RHB/WRHBD610/home.cfm

By the way, this is something that occurred to me during the week:

In my Penguin English Dictionary, 2002 edition, the 'meaning' of the word 'deficit' is given as "a deficiency in amount or quality". A 'deficiency', in turn, is defined as an "inadequacy, lack or shortage".

It seems to me, therefore, that what the phrase "attention deficit" is suggesting is that there's a lack or shortage of attention. Not enough attention. Not as much attention as there *should* be.

Many people, in my experience, do perceive it as having that meaning - as in, for example, a five-year old child *should* be able to sit still and focus on a single activity for at least half an hour at a time, and a five-year old child who is NOT able to do so must, therefore, have an "attention deficit" - a 'lack' or 'shortage' of attention.

But, from a purely biological standpoint (and isn't that what modern psychiatry is promoting?), there can NEVER BE a 'lack' or 'shortage' of attention.

Attention is simply an inherent facility of the biological organism - "a resource designed to provide a particular service", to quote my dictionary - and, as such, is unquantifiable.

There can be neither too much attention nor too little attention. There is *only* ATTENTION - and there's *where* attention is.

Sometimes it's external, sometimes it's internal; sometimes it's fixed in one particular area, sometimes it wanders around many different areas; sometimes it moves gradually, sometimes it jumps. But, wherever attention is, it's *always somewhere*, throughout every conscious moment of every day and night.

And the attention of each and every individual organism, when allowed to flow naturally, will be WHERE THE ORGANISM ITSELF MOST NEEDS IT TO BE FOR ITS OWN PURPOSES AT THAT TIME.

So, when a teacher, parent or psychiatrist claims that a child "lacks attention", what they *really* mean is that the child's attention is SOMEWHERE OTHER THAN WHERE THE ADULT WANTS IT TO BE OFTEN ENOUGH FOR THE ADULT TO NOTICE.

In my view, quite apart from all the rest of the primitive and muddle-headed thinking behind so-called 'ADHD', the idea of there being such a reality in the first place as an "attention DEFICIT" is complete nonsense.

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

Contact
Resources