Peter R. Breggin, M.D.
Disclaimer: HiddenMysteries and/or the donor of this material may or may not agree with all the data or conclusions of this data. It is presented and reported here 'as is' for your benefit and research. Material for these pages are sent to HiddenMysteries from around the world. If by chance there is a copyrighted article posted which the author does not want read, email the webmaster and it will be removed. HiddenMysteries and/or the donor of this material does not offer or provide any medical opinion, medical endorsement and/or medical advice as would be defined in law, legal code, legal policy, administrative rules and regulations.
Director
International Center for the Study of Psychiatry and Psychology
Testimony Before
the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations
Committee on Education and the Workforce
I appear today as Director of the International Center for the Study of
Psychiatry and Psychology (ICSPP), and also on my own behalf as a
practicing psychiatrist and a parent.
Parents throughout the country are being pressured and coerced by schools
to give psychiatric drugs to their children. Teachers, school
psychologists, and administrators commonly make dire threats about their
inability to teach children without medicating them. They sometimes
suggest that only medication can stave off a bleak future of delinquency
and occupational failure. They even call child protective services to
investigate parents for child neglect and they sometimes testify against
parents in court. Often the schools recommend particular physicians who
favor the use of stimulant drugs to control behavior. These stimulant
drugs include methylphenidate (Ritalin, Concerta, and Metadate) or forms
of amphetamine (Dexedrine and Adderall).
My purpose today is to provide to this committee, parents, teachers,
counselors and other concerned adults a scientific basis for rejecting the
use of stimulants for the treatment of attention deficit hyperactivity
disorder or for the control of behavior in the classroom or home.
I. Escalating Rates of Stimulant Prescription
Stimulant drugs, including methylphenidate and amphetamine, were first
approved for the control of behavior in children during the mid-1950s.
Since then, there have been periodic attempts to promote their usage, and
periodic public reactions against the practice. In fact, the first
Congressional hearings critical of stimulant medication were held in the
early 1970s when an estimated 100,000-200,000 children were receiving
these drugs.
Since the early 1990s, North America has turned to psychoactive drugs in
unprecedented numbers for the control of children. In November 1999, the
U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) warned about a record six-fold
increase in Ritalin production between 1990 and 1995. In 1995, the
International Narcotics Control Board (INCB), an agency of the World
Health Organization, deplored that "10 to 12 percent of all boys between
the ages 6 and 14 in the United States have been diagnosed as having ADD
and are being treated with methylphenidate [Ritalin]." In March 1997, the
board declared, "The therapeutic use of methylphenidate is now under
scrutiny by the American medical community; the INCB welcomes this." The
United States uses approximately 90% of the world's Ritalin.
The number of children on these drugs has continued to escalate. A recent
study in Virginia indicated that up to 20% of white boys in the fifth
grade were receiving stimulant drugs during the day from school officials.
Another study from North Carolina showed that 10% of children were
receiving stimulant drugs at home or in school. The rates for boys were
not disclosed but probably exceeded 15%. With 53 million children enrolled
in school, probably more than 5 million are taking stimulant drugs.
A recent report in the Journal of the American Medical Association by Zito
and her colleagues has demonstrated a three-fold increase in the
prescription of stimulants to 2-4 year old toddlers.
II. Legal Actions
Most recently, four major civil suits have been brought against Novartis,
the manufacturer of Ritalin, for fraud in the over-promotion of ADHD and
Ritalin. The suits also charge Novartis with conspiring with the American
Psychiatric Association and with CHADD, a parents' group that receives
money from the pharmaceutical industry and lobbies on their behalf. Two of
the suits are national class action suits, one is a California class
action and one is a California business fraud action. The attorneys
involved, including Richard Scruggs, Donald Hildre, and C. Andrew Waters
have experience and resources generated in suits involving tobacco and
asbestos. That they have joined forces to take on Novartis, the American
Psychiatric Association, and CHADD indicates a growing wave of
dissatisfaction with drugging millions of children.
The suits and the contents of the complaints are based on information
first published in my book, Talking Back to Ritalin (1998), and I am a
medical expert in these cases.
III. The Dangers of Stimulant Medication
Stimulant medications are far more dangerous than most practitioners and
published experts seem to realize. I summarized many of these effects in
my scientific presentation on the mechanism of action and adverse effects
of stimulant drugs to the November 1998 NIH Consensus Development
Conference on the Diagnosis and Treatment of Attention Deficit
Hyperactivity Disorder, and then published more detailed analyses in
several scientific sources (see bibliography).
Table I summarizes many of the most salient adverse effects of all the
commonly used stimulant drugs. It is important to note that the Drug
Enforcement Administration, and all other drug enforcement agencies
worldwide, classify methylphenidate (Ritalin) and amphetamine (Dexedrine
and Adderall) in the same Schedule II category as methamphetamine,
cocaine, and the most potent opiates and barbiturates. Schedule II
includes only those drugs with the very highest potential for addiction
and abuse.
Animals and humans cross-addict to methylphenidate, amphetamine and
cocaine. These drugs affect the same three neurotransmitter systems and
the same parts of the brain. It should have been no surprise when Nadine
Lambert presented data at the Consensus Development Conference (attached)
indicating that prescribed stimulant use in childhood predisposes the
individual to cocaine abuse in young adulthood.
Furthermore, their addiction and abuse potential is based on the capacity
of these drugs to drastically and permanently change brain chemistry.
Studies of amphetamine show that short-term clinical doses produce brain
cell death. Similar studies of methylphenidate show long-lasting and
sometimes permanent changes in the biochemistry of the brain.
All stimulants impair growth not only by suppressing appetite but also by
disrupting growth hormone production. This poses a threat to every organ
of the body, including the brain, during the child's growth. The
disruption of neurotransmitter systems adds to this threat.
These drugs also endanger the cardiovascular system and commonly produce
many adverse mental effects, including depression.
Too often stimulants become gateway drugs to illicit drugs. As noted, the
use of prescription stimulants predisposes children to cocaine and
nicotine abuse in young adulthood.
Stimulants even more often become gateway drugs to additional psychiatric
medications. Stimulant-induced over-stimulation, for example, is often
treated with addictive or dangerous sedatives, while stimulant-induced
depression is often treated with dangerous, unapproved antidepressants. As
the child's emotional control breaks down due to medication effects, mood
stabilizers may be added. Eventually, these children end up on four or
five psychiatric drugs at once and a diagnosis of bipolar disorder by the
age of eight or ten.
In my private practice, children can usually be taken off all psychiatric
drugs with great improvement in their psychological life and behavior,
provided that the parents or other interested adults are willing to learn
new approaches to disciplining and caring for the children. Consultations
with the school, a change of teachers or schools, and home schooling can
also help to meet the needs of children without resort to medication.
IV. The Educational Effect of Diagnosing Children with ADHD
It is important for the Education Committee to understand that the
ADD/ADHD diagnosis was developed specifically for the purpose of
justifying the use of drugs to subdue the behaviors of children in the
classroom. The content of the diagnosis in the 1994 Diagnostic and
Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders of the American Psychiatric
Association shows that it is specifically aimed at suppressing unwanted
behaviors in the classroom.
The diagnosis is divided into three types: hyperactivity, impulsivity, and
inattention.
Under hyperactivity, the first two (and most powerful) criteria are "often
fidgets with hands or feet or squirms in seat" and "often leaves seat in
classroom or in other situations in which remaining seated is expected."
Clearly, these two "symptoms" are nothing more nor less than the behaviors
most likely to cause disruptions in a large, structured classroom.
Under impulsivity, the first criteria is "often blurts out answers before
questions have been completed" and under inattention, the first criteria
is "often fails to give close attention to details or makes careless
mistakes in schoolwork, work, or other activities." Once again, the
diagnosis itself, formulated over several decades, leaves no question
concerning its purpose: to redefine disruptive classroom behavior into a
disease. The ultimate aim is to justify the use of medication to suppress
or control the behaviors.
Advocates of ADHD and stimulant drugs have claimed that ADHD is associated
with changes in the brain. In fact, both the NIH Consensus Development
Conference (1998) and the American Academy of Pediatrics (2000) report on
ADHD have confirmed that there is no known biological basis for ADHD. Any
brain abnormalities in these children are almost certainly caused by prior
exposure to psychiatric medication.
V. How the medications work
Hundreds of animal studies and human clinical trials leave no doubt about
how the medication works.
First, the drugs suppress all spontaneous behavior. In healthy chimpanzees
and other animals, this can be measured with precision as a reduction in
all spontaneous or self-generated activities. In animals and in humans,
this is manifested in a reduction in the following behaviors: (1)
exploration and curiosity; (2) socializing, and (3) playing.
Second, the drugs increase obsessive-compulsive behaviors, including very
limited, overly focused activities.
Table II provides a list of adverse stimulant effects which are commonly
mistaken as improvement by clinicians, teachers, and parents.
VI. What is Really Happening
Children become diagnosed with ADHD when they are in conflict with the
expectations or demands of parents and/or teachers. The ADHD diagnosis is
simply a list of the behaviors that most commonly cause conflict or
disturbance in classrooms, especially those that require a high degree of
conformity.
By diagnosing the child with ADHD, blame for the conflict is placed on the
child. Instead of examining the context of the child's lifewhy the child
is restless or disobedient in the classroom or homethe problem is
attributed to the child's faulty brain. Both the classroom and the family
are exempt from criticism or from the need to improve, and instead the
child is made the source of the problem.
The medicating of the child then becomes a coercive response to conflict
in which the weakest member of the conflict, the child, is drugged into a
more compliant or submissive state. The production of drug-induced
obsessive-compulsive disorder in the child especially fits the needs for
compliance in regard to otherwise boring or distressing schoolwork.
VII. Conclusions and Observations
Many observers have concluded that our schools and our families are
failing to meet the needs of our children in a variety of ways. Focusing
on schools, many teachers feel stressed by classroom conditions and
ill-prepared to deal with emotional problems in the children. The
classroom themselves are often too large, there are too few teaching
assistants and volunteers to help out, and the instructional materials are
often outdated and boring in comparison to the modern technologies that
appeal to children.
By diagnosing and drugging our children, we shift blame for the problem
from our social institutions and ourselves as adults to the relatively
powerless children in our care. We harm our children by failing to
identify and to meet their real educational needs for better prepared
teachers, more teacher- and child-friendly classrooms, more inspiring
curriculum, and more engaging classroom technologies.
At the same time, when we diagnosis and drug our children, we avoid facing
critical issues about educational reform. In effect, we drug the children
who are signaling the need for reform, and force all children into
conformity with our bureaucratic systems.
Finally, when we diagnose and drug our children, we disempower ourselves
as adults. While we may gain momentary relief from guilt by imagining that
the fault lies in the brains of our children, ultimately we undermine our
ability to make the necessary adult interventions that our children need.
We literally become bystanders in the lives of our children.
It is time to reclaim our children from this false and suppressive medical
approach. I applaud those parents who have the courage to refuse to give
stimulants to their children and who, instead, attempt to identify and to
meet their genuine needs in the school, home, and community.
Appendices: Tables I & II, and description of ICSPP
Scientific Sources
This report draws on hundreds of published scientific studies. I have
provided the committee with two sources for the specific citations: My
scientific presentation to the NIH Consensus Development Conference and my
peer-reviewed scientific paper that expands on it. My book, Talking
Backing to Ritalin (1998), also elaborates on many of these issues and
provides many scientific citations. A more recent book, Reclaiming Our
Children: A Healing Solution to a Nation in Crisis (2000), further
describes the harm done by drugs and proposes solutions for teachers,
parents, and other adults who want to retake responsibility for our
children.