Teen, Antidepressants, Adhd medications do they really need them?

Anti Depressants,, ADHD Medications, The brain

by DR. SUSAN BERRY23 Oct 2015957

A new study shows that more than two-thirds — some 69 percent – of patients using anti-depressants do not actually meet the criteria for depressive disorder.

The study, which appears in the Journal of Clinical Psychiatry, finds that many individuals who are prescribed and take antidepressant medications may not actually have a depressive disorder, and that such drugs are often used by patients who do not meet the diagnostic criteria of depression.

According to the research, among the users of antidepressant medications, 69 percent never met the diagnostic criteria for major depressive disorder (MDD), and 38 percent also never met those for obsessive-compulsive disorder, panic disorder, social phobia, or generalized anxiety disorder – for which the antidepressant medications are sometimes prescribed.

Other factors, however, unrelated to depression, were found to be associated with the use of antidepressants.

“Caucasian ethnicity, recent or current physical problems (eg, loss of bladder control, hypertension, and back pain), and recent mental health facility visits were associated with antidepressant use in addition to mental disorders,” say the researchers.

As Breitbart News previously reported, psychiatrist Dr. Julie Holland penned an op-ed in the New York Times earlier this year in which she cited that at least one of every four women in America is now on psychiatric medication, as opposed to one of every seven men, a situation Holland described as “insane.”

Holland observed that women are emotional and sensitive by design – qualities that are generally “a sign of health, not disease.”

According to Holland, “women are nearly twice as likely to receive a diagnosis of depression or anxiety disorder than men are.” Her concern is that the uptick in prescriptions for psychiatric medications is “creating a new normal, encouraging more women to seek chemical assistance.”

Women have learned that their normal feelings of sadness and anxiety – while they may be uncomfortable – are symptoms of pathology,” Holland wrote. “We need to … appreciate them as a healthy, adaptive part of our biology.”

ADHD medications.

“Experts note that two-thirds of prescription drugs have never been studied in children.”

“There are a huge number of drugs that are regularly given to children that have never been tested in children,” said Michael Shannon, on on professor of pediatrics at Harvard Medical School.” I’m very concerned many of these agents may also be inappropriate for children.”

The FDA concluded recently that cough and cold products should not be used in children younger than 6, shocking many parents and setting up on on possible clash between the FDA and the pharmaceutical industry, which is vowing to continue selling the products.

The above was a portion in any article from the Washington Post by Rob Stein Kids’ Cold Remedies suspect for decades.

Children are placed on ADHD medications and typically stay on them for many years. The research done by the FDA for all ADHD medications is an 8-12 week study. The side effects are only those that show up in 8-12 weeks. There is no standard to test children that are on ADHD meds for three years and see the side effects. There is a physiological addiction to these medications and if a child is taken of these medications mood will typically spiral because your child has withdrawal like symptoms just like any substance that impacts the neurology of a brain. Many children resort to illegal drugs after they get off ADHD medications because they are so used to feeling medicated.

“Questions surrounding the long-term efficacy of ADHD medications have stirred debate among pediatricians and psychiatrists. In a 2012 piece in NY times a professor emeritus of psychology at the University of Minnesota’s Institute of Child Development argued that there is considerable evidence showing that medication was effective in the short-term, but “after three years, these effects had faded, and by eight years there was no evidence that medication produced any academic or behavioral benefits.”

“Early intervention by parents trained to approach their children in an appropriate way could end up being more beneficial in the long term, and could be particularly effective in a regimen that also includes medications if necessary. That’s particularly important considering that ADHD has impact long past childhood into adulthood and is a strong indicator of co-occurring mental illness in both adults and children.”

Many children are furious at their parents for giving them a chemical lobotomy . Giving your child a medication is telling them that their behavior is not able to change and they can not modify it. It also states that no parenting skills could improve your relationship with your child. This is simply not true. There is a great deal of research on: behavior modification, parenting, family and child therapy that shows huge improvements as well as improved family dynamics. A magic pill will not improve your child’s: self esteem, coping skills, communication skills,motivation etc, this is an inside game that can be fostered through counseling and parenting skills as well as life skills.

ADHD Medication Child Teenager

A chief of the National Institute of mental health systematically did an evaluation on 20 children given Ritalin by their Primary Care Physician. The results are as Follows: The Ritalin produced these negative psychological, moral, and social effects on these children. Children disowned accountability and responsibility for their acting out behaviors. There self esteem was damaged and impaired. There was no family systemic changes to address past family behaviors, changes, challenges, traumas, loss, that may have preceded the hyperactive behaviors.The child became the “identified problem” as if family parenting, environment, and other issues were not adding to the child’s behavior it was 100% the child’s disability and he or she was damaged and defective. Many kids believed they were bad. The kids attributed poor behavior to eating sugar or something external instead of taking accountability for undesired behaviors at home. The study chief stated that the pill or med distracted parents and teachers and docs from paying proper attention to problems going on in the child’s environment. In essence the act of taking a pill relieved everyone involved, child and family, teachers and doctors, for improving the child’s behavioral and emotional issues.

Many experts believe that giving a child a pill allows parents an explanation for their child’s hyperactive behaviors by saying basically that all of his unhealthy behaviors are due to his physiological makeup i.e.( hi or her diagnosis). Parents may be unwilling to look at how they might have contributed to the child’s behavioral problems.

In my opinion labeling a child with a diagnosis is extremely damaging. The child begins to see himself as: defective,disabled, and damaged such that he needs to be medicated. The stigma can also impact children that want to join government agencies and the military according to past research. Military applicants had been turned down do to taking ADHD medications which were considered mood altering drugs according to the military.

Parents belief system about a child will affect our expectations and communication with our children. It can limit parents expectations and encourages a child to not work on self control because after all he has ADHD and only the meds will help him or her with self control issues. Parents believe that their child can not learn normal self control. Parents lower their expectations and truly believe a hyperactive child really can not sit down so parents will not work on behavior modification to right the undesired behaviors.

Dr. Breggin Testifies Before US Congress

Peter R. Breggin M.D. Testimony September 29, 2000

Before the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations

Committee on Education and the Workforce

U.S. House of Representatives

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.

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), a 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.

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.

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.

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.

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 life—why the child is restless or disobedient in the classroom or home—the 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.

Depression Medication

The science behind many anti-depressant medications appears to be backwards, say the authors of a paper that challenges the prevailing ideas about the nature of depression and some of the world’s most commonly prescribed medications.

The authors of the paper, posted by the journal Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, combed existing research for evidence to support the theory that has dominated nearly 50 years of depression research: that depression is related to low levels of serotonin in the gaps between cells in the brain.

The low-serotonin theory is the basis for commonly prescribed anti-depressant medications called selective serotonin re-uptake inhibitors, or SSRIs, which keep the neurotransmitter’s levels high by blocking its re-absorption into the cells that release it.

Those serotonin-boosting medications actually make it harder for patients to recover, especially in the short term, says lead author Paul Andrews, an assistant professor of Psychology, Neuroscience & Behaviour at McMaster.

“It’s time we rethink what we are doing,” Andrews says. “We are taking people who are suffering from the most common forms of depression, and instead of helping them, it appears we are putting an obstacle in their path to recovery.”

When depressed patients on SSRI medication do show improvement, it appears that their brains are actually overcoming the effects of anti-depressant medications, rather than being assisted directly by them. Instead of helping, the medications appear to be interfering with the brain’s own mechanisms of recovery.

“We’ve seen that people report feeling worse, not better, for their first two weeks on anti-depressants,” Andrews says. “This could explain why.”

It is currently impossible to measure exactly how the brain is releasing and using serotonin, the researchers write, because there is no safe way to measure it in a living human brain. Instead, scientists must rely on measuring evidence about levels of serotonin that the brain has already metabolized, and by extrapolating from studies using animals.

The best available evidence appears to show that there is more serotonin being released and used during depressive episodes, not less, the authors say. The paper suggests that serotonin helps the brain adapt to depression by re-allocating its resources, giving more to conscious thought and less to areas such as growth, development, reproduction, immune function, and the stress response.

Andrews, an evolutionary psychologist, has argued in previous research that anti-depressants leave patients in worse shape after they stop using them, and that most forms of depression, though painful, are natural and beneficial adaptations to stress.

Articles are not to be taken as a substitute for professional advice or counseling.