Re: ADHD Support Groups - Front Org. For Drug Companies??

http://www.ritalindeath.com/frontgroup.htm

Is Your ADHD Support Group a Front
Organization for the Pharmaceutical Industry?
By Richard DeGrandpre, Ph.D.

On May 18, 1999, the New York Times reported that “social phobia ranks today
as the third most prevalent psychiatric disorder in the United
States……….affecting an estimated 19 million Americans, according to the
Anxiety Disorders Association of America. Many are to bashful even to talk to
therapists.” In the same week, the Boston Globe reported that
“Epidemiological studies have found that acute social anxiety is the third
most common psychiatric disorder in the United States………. affecting up to
13 percent of Americans. Jerilyn Ross, president of the Anxiety Disorders
Association of America……she hopes a publicity blitz planned
by………..SmithKline Beecham will raise awareness of social anxiety disorder
and lead more people to seek help, which could include psychotherapy instead of
drugs.” Why were the Boston Globe and the New York Times both writing about
“social phobia disorder” in the same week, and why would a drug company
spend its money to “raise awareness” of a mental-health disorder? The
answer: the FDA had just approved a drug for the treatment of social phobia. As
the Boston Globe put it, SmithKline Beecham makes the drug Paxil, which was
“the first drug approved by the FDA specifically for treating social anxiety
disorder.”

Notice how, in the media reports just quoted, the drug company isn’t claiming
that the social phobia “disorder” affects millions of people. Rather,
it’s an organization with a professional-sounding name, and one that appears
to have nothing to do with the pharmaceutical industry: the Anxiety Disorders
Association of America. If these claims were presented by a drug company they
would likely appear to the public and news organizations as self-serving and
biased. If, however, they are presented to the public by an organization that
seems only to have the health and welfare of the public in mind, they seem
objective and credible. This is certainly what drug-company executives believe,
which is why they go great lengths to create and influence what are essentially
front organizations for the pharmaceutical industry.

Consider the case at hand. The Anxiety Disorders Association of America, ADAA,
receives so much funding and influence from the industry that it is misleading
to suggest that they are not an intricate part of it. The Boston Globe and the
New York Times both received much of their information for the above reports
from an ADAA press release, treating it in just the manner that the industry
would want: as objective information from an independent organization. As a
reporter for the Chicago Sun-Times makes clear, however, the ADAA is neither
neutral nor objective: “I recently received a press release from the Anxiety
Disorders Association of America. It said if your child is afraid of going back
to school, maybe it’s not normal, maybe your child needs drugs. The release
says three children in every class have an anxiety disorder. The solution?
Well, enclosed are details for a drug company-sponsored workshop showing the
wonders of Paxil and similar drugs.”

With funding coming directly from Paxil’s maker, ADAA did much more than just
send out press releases. The summer of ‘99 also saw a barrage of advertising
by ADAA, which asked people to imagine being “allergic to people.” A poster
they used had a picture of a young man staring despondently into a coffee cup
while a happy “social” couple sat at the other end of the table. The
implication is made clear by the caption, which reads: “Over 10 million
Americans suffer from social anxiety disorder………the good news is that
this disorder is treatable.” In addition to a toll free number and a website
listed, the poster indicates support, not from a drug company, as it should,
but from three nonprofit groups: the American Psychiatric Association, the
Anxiety Disorders Association of America and Freedom From Fear, which together
form what is called the Social Anxiety Disorder Coalition. Like ADAA, the other
two organizations also receive substantial funding from the pharmaceutical
industry. “Funding for their public awareness campaign comes from a far less
visible partner: SmithKline Beecham, the pharmaceutical giant whose flagship
antidepressant is Paxil,” writes Michelle Cottle in The New Republic (August
2, 1999.) Cottle also notes that the APA’s social phobia website is paid for
by SmithKline, as is ADAA’s, and that, on July 19, 1999, ADAA would hold a
press conference to announce the findings of a study, paid for by various drug
makers, suggesting a huge impact of anxiety disorders on America’s
productivity. Behind all this is ADAA’s corporate advisory board, which is
made up of representatives from different drug companies.

The ties between drug companies and organizations like ADAA do not end with
public ads and education. As front organizations, they also direct the public
toward support groups that share their two-pronged bias, that the disorder in
question is really a legitimate medical disorder in need of medical treatment,
and that this treatment will most likely involve psychiatric drugs. The support
group is in many ways the most important step in the process of getting people
on the latest pharmaceuticals, since it is the support group that will come
into direct contact with the individual or parent. At the ADAA website
(www.adaa.org), for example, one finds the following description under
“Self-Help Support Groups”: Self-help and support groups for anxiety
disorders are a way of empowering people to help themselves, and others, on the
path to recovery. Participation in a self-help group can end the painful
isolation of suffering alone with a disorder that is disruptive and
debilitating for the individual and those people around him/her. An effective
group will help members achieve recovery through mutual support as well as
provide them with updated information about causes and treatment, eliminating
some of the myths about anxiety disorders. The ADAA Self-Help Support Group
Network is available in nearly all states and various countries around the
world. The list of support groups is provided as a service of the
ADAA……….The ADAA is constantly listing new groups and updating
information about current groups. Please contact-- ADAA at 301.231.9350, or by
email at [email hidden] for additional information about self-help support
groups, including: How to start a group of your own; Adding a new group to the
ADAA network; Notification of any changes in a group’s status or contact
information. What the ADAA website fails to disclose is that they are there
first and foremost to serve the interests, not of the public, but of the
pharmaceutical industry, and that the support groups they are recommending are
likely to be doing this as well. Consider the case of CHADD.

CH.A.D.D., which somehow translates into “Children and Adults with
Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder,” asserts on its website
(www.chadd.org) the following: With over 22,000 members in 225 affiliates
nationwide, CHADD is the nation’s leading non-profit organization serving
individuals with Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (AD/HD). Through
collaborative leadership, advocacy, research, education and support, CHADD
provides science-based, evidence-based information about AD/HD to parents,
educators, professionals, the media and the general public.

Clearly CHADD is a powerful organization, and one that is likely to attract
many if not most American parents confronting a possible diagnosis of
“ADHD” in their child. What is not clear, especially to those who stray
into the CHADD web of “support”, is what the organization is really about.
Founded in 1987, CHADD, which estimates that 10 to 20 percent of school
children have ADHD, organizes speaking events, publishes a monthly newsletter
(Chadderbox) and a glossy magazine (Attention!), and operates an impressive
website. CHADD claims that “No matter how many sources of information are out
there, CHADD is the one you can trust.”

This “trust” depends greatly, however, on what you want from CHADD. If you
want an organization that has longstanding ties with pharmaceutical interests,
and that selectively recruits only scientists proven to be pro-drug to their
advisory board, then you can trust CHADD; if you want an organization that
unquestionably embraces ADHD as an inherited disease for which parenting and
culture play no role, either as causes or solutions, then you can trust CHADD;
and if you want an organization that acts as a powerful lobby for the growing
population of ADHD parents and children, then you can trust CHADD. If however,
you want an honest organization that acknowledges its pro-drug and pro-disease
agenda to its prospective (and current) members, then you cannot trust CHADD;
and if you want an organization that carefully considers, or even considers at
all, the findings of scientific and epidemiological studies showing that ADHD
has strong social and cultural inputs, that psychostimulants may very will
cause brain damage, and that psychostimulant drugs work more for parents and
teachers than they do for children, then again you cannot trust CHADD.

In October of 1995, the US public television network, PBS, aired a critical
“Merrow Report” on CHADD, ADHD, and Ritalin called “Attention Deficit
Disorder: A Dubious Diagnosis?”, anchored by John Merrow. The program
documented in detail the deception used by the organization, including the
concealment of its ties to the drug industry. Starting in 1988, more than $1
million has poured into the organization from the maker of Ritalin (then
Ciba-Geigy, now Novartis); CHADD received $748,000 for Ciba/Novartis just in
the years 1991-1994. The Merrow Report documented this and showed how, in turn,
CHADD did the dirty work of the drug company. They do this by policing media
coverage on “ADHD” by propping themselves up as “the” independent,
national support organization for “ADHD”and by lobbying the US Government,
including the Department of Education, on behalf of Ciba/Novartis. In one
instance, CHADD worked vigorously to have Ritalin reclassified by the US Drug
Enforcement Administration (DEA) as a less dangerous drug. As a Schedule II
drug, Ritalin is considered a potentially addictive drug, with restrictions
placed on its annual production quota and with certain states monitoring who
and how much the drug is prescribed. Getting it reclassified as a Schedule III
drug would mean that it could be touted as being benign and could be obtained
more easily. It would also mean that prescription refills could simply be
called into the pharmacy, rather than requiring a new prescription each time.

When a senior person at the US Department of Education was interviewed for this
program by John Merrow, he was asked whether he knew CHADD received
considerable funding from Ciba/Novartis, to which he replied that he had no
awareness of such monies. By that time CHADD had obtained a several hundred
thousand dollar grant from the Department to make a video about ADHD, and was
also helping to author materials for the Department of Education. Yet the
Department of Education had no idea of CHADD’s significant ties with the
industry. The Department’s spokesperson was then asked if he thought he had
been mislead by CHADD, and that the organization was doing the work of the drug
company. Indeed he did.

In part because of the Merrow Report, the DEA decided against softening the
classification of Ritalin. Instead, it published a report that was highly
critical of CHADD. Mary Eberstadt summarizes the report in her 1999 Policy
Review article “Why Ritalin Rules: Backed by scores of footnotes and well
over a 100 sources in the medical literature, this report amounted to a public
excoriation of CHADD’s efforts and meticulous description, alarming for those
who have read it, of the realities of Ritalin use and abuse. ‘Most of the
ADHD literature prepared for public consumption and available to parents,’
the DEA charged, ‘does not address the abuse liability or actual abuse of
methylphenidate [Ritalin]. Instead, methylphenidate is routinely portrayed as a
benign, mild stimulant that is not associated with abuse or serious effects. In
reality, however, there is an abundance of scientific literature which
indicates that methylphenidate shares the same abuse potential as other
Schedule II stimulants.’ Ciba-Geigy, the DEA observed, ‘stands to benefit
from a change in scheduling of methylphenidate.’ It further observed
that……..‘abuse data indicate a growing problem among school-age
children,’ that “adhd adults have a high incidence of substance
disorders,” and that “with three to five percent of today’s youth being
administered methylphenidate on a chronic basis, these issues are of great
concern.” Eberstadt also describes how the DEA was contacted by the
International Narcotics Control Board (INCB) of the United Nations, which
expressed concern to them about the financial ties between CHADD and
Ciba/Novartis. According to the DEA, the INCB charged CHADD with being a
vehicle for marketing a controlled substance directly to the public, which is a
isolation of the Controlled Substances Act of 1971, an international statute to
which all signing countries, including the US, are bound.

Despite the dubious nature of CHADD, the organization continues to have
enormous power. In 1998, for example, the US National Institutes of Health
(NIH) convened a Consensus Conference on whether “ADHD” was a legitimate
disorder and whether drugs like Ritalin were effective in treating it, whatever
it was. The Consensus Conference consists of a panel of scientists who, after
hearing testimony from invited “experts” on the subject, assemble a report
that is then published by the NIH. When the Conference was organized, CHADD
played a significant role in deciding who would and would not be on the panel.
As a result, the report was strongly biased in favor of the disease model of
childhood, as well as the use of drugs to “cure” it. With the use of
Ritalin and other stimulant drugs rising sharply in the 1990’s, people often
wonder if, or believe that, drug companies are conspiring on a continual basis
to put more and more kids on Ritalin and other drugs. The actual truth is a bit
more complex than this. As the example of CHADD illustrates, as well as the
case of “social phobia disorder,” drug companies have a more nuanced method
of promoting their interests, which pay off in big dividends long after the
money has been spent. Drug companies spend money in a targeted fashion, early
on, planting seeds that will grow into an institutionalization of the
“problem” and the “treatment” that they are so anxious to sell.
Specifically, drug companies realize that they do not really need to push their
drugs directly, knowing that once the so-called medical disorder--“ADHD” or
“ADD”--is treated as a real medical disorder or disease, drug sales will
follow.

As psychiatrist and historian David Healy remarks in his book, The
Anti-Depressant Era, “When we stop by the pharmacy to pick up our Prozac, are
we simply buying a drug? Or are we buying into a disease as well? Drug
companies obviously make drugs, but less obviously they make views of
illnesses.” In an early example of this, Healy describes how, in the
1960’s, the drug company Merck, maker of the antidepressant amitriptyline,
marketed the idea of depression by buying and distributing 50,000 copies of a
book that encouraged the “recognition” and “treatment” of depression in
medical settings. A more recent example is a book on obsessive-compulsiveness
by psychiatrist Judith Rapoport called The Boy Who Couldn’t Stop Washing. The
book was a strong seller and, as Healy points out, Rapoport was featured on
various television shows, essentially selling the “disorder.” Rapoport, who
was also chief of the US National Institute on Mental Health’s Child
Psychiatry Branch, has strong ties with the drug industry. As Peter Breggin,
M.D. points out in Talking Back to Prozac, Rapoport was receiving, via a
private organization called The Foundation for Advanced Education in the
Sciences, considerable funds from at least two drug companies, Eli Lilly and
Ciba/Novartis. The method of the pharmaceutical industry madness, David Healy
suggests, is now clear: a relatively rare psychological problem is known to
exist (such as depression, social phobia or hyperactivity), a drug is
“discovered” to have an effect on the problem, the problem is defined as a
pervasive and well-defined disorder, and from that moment on, the prevalence of
the problem and the use of the drug expand exponentially. Two examples: the
rate of depression in the 1950’s was estimated at about 50 million, whereas
today it is estimated at 100,000 per million; in 1975, 150,000 American
children were said to be “ADD” (or “ADHD”), whereas today it is
estimated at about eight million children.

Drug companies sell psychiatric drugs by promoting the “awareness” of
so-called mental diseases. Thus, when looking at CHADD and other support-group
organizations, the first thing to notice is not how the pharmaceutical drugs
are being pushed, but rather how the disorder, “ADHD,” is being sold. Few
parents realize what exactly they are buying into when they accept a diagnosis
of “ADD” or “ADHD”; nor do they realize that this is what CHADD-like
organizations are asking them to do. What is obvious is that the labels of
“ADD” and “ADHD” are applied to a diverse group of children who are
viewed as having problems with attention, hyperactivity, and/or impulsivity (or
are showing poor academic performance.) The label means much more, however, as
is shown in casual statements like “my child has ADHD.” Here the label goes
from being a loose description to a hard explanation, suggesting that
“ADHD” is a physical thing--a problem existing within the child--that is
the cause of the behavioral or cognitive problems. This has the effect in turn
of isolating the problem within the child--it’s biological and thus a medical
problem--setting the stage for the pharmaceutical solution. To be sure, this is
exactly what organizations like CHADD mean by “ADHD,” arguing as they do
that the problem is physiological one that can be treated but not cured.
Notice, however, that there are no medical tests, and there is no proof there
is anything biologically wrong with the child. All that exists are the
so-called “symptoms,” which are as likely to be symptoms caused by the
world of the child as they are evidence of a problem existing with his or her
brain. Indeed, how else can we explain relative to earlier generations, why so
many children are viewed today as being either impulsive and inattentive?

All this boils down to the following: If you’re a parent wanting
unconditional and uncritical support of your choice to give Ritalin or other
drugs to your child, then a group like CHADD may be right for you. And if you
live in the United Kingdom rather than in the United States, all you need to do
is look for the “ADD” or “ADHD” label in the name of the organization,
as, for example, in ADDERS, ADDISS, LADDERS, ADDCONTACT, or ADDNET. Unlike UK
organizations like Stimulants Are Not The Answer (www.santa.inuk.com), OVERLOAD
or Successful Learning, these organizations embrace the “ADD” or “ADHD”
diagnosis. In doing so they lock themselves within the assumption that
“ADHD” is a thing located inside the body, like a disease--a medical
disorder--rather than realizing and acknowledging that it is really a diagnosis
pushed by the medical and pharmaceutical industries as a means to an unjust
economic end, the selling of powerful stimulant drugs. As such these
organizations are best viewed as part of the institutionalization of the
medical model, whether they know it or not, grown out from root organizations
like CHADD, the seeds of which were planted by the pharmaceutical industry.

If, on the other hand, you are someone who’s concerned with the future of
your child (or grandchild), knowing that a quick-fix drug solution only masks
the problem, then “ADD” support groups may not be for you. Trust not in
“ADD” labels and organizations but rather in the belief that all children
have the potential to live well-adjusted lives.

Richard DeGrandpre, Ph.D., is a psychologist and independent science writer and
has been published in a great variety of both professional and popular
publications, including American Psychologist, The Sciences, Common Knowledge,
Psychology Today, Cerebrum, and Adbusters. He is the author of RitalinNation:
Rapid-Culture and the Transformation of Human Consciousness and Digitopia: The
Look of The New Digital You. He is an Associate Editor of AdBusters and resides
in Vancouver, British Columbia.

Other articles by Richard DeGrandpre at www.santa.inuk.com

Recommended website http://www.adbusters.org/magazine/36/dose.html

Permission to post this article was given by Richard DeGrandpre