ADHD PART TWO

Karin Spaink has an opinion, which she gladly expresses in the media. But her column in the Dutch newspaper Het Parool of March 5, 2001, where she attacks journalist Bert Lanting personally for his article about Ritalin in the Dutch newspaper De Volkskrant (March 3), is a mystery to me. (See:
http://www.spaink.net/parool/20010305.html)

On the most visited Dutch web-site on ADHD, ADHD-land (ADHD.nl), I already noticed a biased reporting on the subject. Immediately the article of De Volkskrant was being published together with Karin Spaink's column quoting: 'Is such a journalist simply lazy, stupid or does he eagerly want to score.' I had earlier pointed out ADHD-land my article on ADHD and gave them permission to place it on their extensive website but they didn't even feel compelled to answer me. Apparently they have the opinion that my article is bad and damaging for the ADHD movement. But a debate about it, is being ignored. Personally I distrust people and organizations that before hand decide what someone else is allowed to read or not.

Spaink thinks Lanting already goes wrong in his first sentence: 'Millions of American school-kids swallow Ritalin on a daily basis...' According to Spaink, 11 million prescriptions are being distributed in the US every year and are being prescribed every month. Therefore Spaink concludes that its use lies around one million. 'Very large estimations of Ritalin use speak of two million', according to Spaink. Two million is in my opinion millions. But I can't find those numbers back in her sources. But Spaink believes those 11 million prescriptions belong to a fixed group of one million. While hypothetically every year a whole new group of users can arise. The real number of users and former users will surely reach millions. Also Ritalin is not the only drug against ADHD. The amphetamine Adderall shows up on six million prescriptions a year in the US. For the source she points to the 'DEA Congressional Testimony' May 16, 2000. The number of 11 million prescriptions of methylphenidate has been stable while Adderall went from 1.6 to 6 million during 1996-2000. Estimations of Ritalin use with scholars in the US vary from almost zero and up to twenty percent in some areas. Conservative estimations speak of two and a half million users under 18 years old while 4-5 million children are using of have used Ritalin. In addition to that, there's the group of children who swallow Prozac or Prozac like drugs, where the estimations lie between half and one million in the US.

Spaink thinks one should worry much more about 'alcohol, glue, amphetamines and valium'. Doesn't she know Ritalin is chemically so similar to amphetamine, that it's often classified as amphetamine? Not to mention the real amphetamines in the fight against ADHD. Spaink doesn't think Ritalin is addictive. The American DEA and the World Health Organization have a different opinion on that and rely on convincing evidence. That's also being told by one of her source of the DEA.

Her other sources - for as long they result into a working link - are quite weak. Lawsuits against Ritalin are no exceptions anymore and the fact that Spaink found a lawyer in the American team that filed a national lawsuit who is 'deep into the Church of Scientology, makes the case clear for her. Spaink is against Scientology. And therefore she's against everything Scientology believes in. So what if a lawyer in a Ritalin case is 'deep into Scientology. Is Pulp Fiction a bad movie because John Travolta is deep into Scientology?

Spaink focuses on the anti-psychiatry policy of Scientology and uses sources to 'dismember' those statements. Sources from the world of psychiatry, the pharmaceutical industry and the medical establishment. Her criticism on Breggin I find unfounded. Apparently she hasn't read his books but the reviews of his opponents. Spaink makes strange statements about Breggin, which she throws as lose sand into the eyes of the reader. The fact there are experts, who sweep away his books, is understandable. For he shows unmistakably how dangerous psychiatry and many medications are and how it threatens us. Of course many people are therefore easily offended. Spaink mentions CHADD as one of the critical reviews of his book. Yes, the public relation club of Ciba-Geigy is of course against Breggin's anti-Ritalin statements. CHADD even writes: 'Virtually every statement in [Talking Back to Ritalin] about CHADD is inaccurate, in whole or in part, out of context, or presents a very biased interpretation of the facts,' stated Sheila Anderson, president of the 32,000-member national organization. 'It is unfortunate that Breggin chose to pursue his own agenda, rather than the truth, and never made an effort to contact our national office to obtain information readily available. Instead, he chose to publish allegations unsubstantiated by the facts.'

If that's true, why didn't CHADD sue Breggin for slander? But CHADD didn't do that because that way everyone will find out about the financial agreement with Ciba-Geigy (Novartis nowadays) - if one didn't know that yet. CHADD pretends it receives small contributions from the pharmaceutical industry. In 1993 one 'small contribution' from one pharmaceutical company (Ciba-Geigy) was $748,000. Does CHADD really think people should believe such contributions are for the good cause in ADHD? Or is it to promote Ritalin? Apparently Breggin dares what other journalists don't: criticizing the pharmaceutical establishment. Spaink accuses Breggin of propaganda. But propaganda of what then? Of having more respect for children, of listening more to people with problems and of treating people as people and not as chemical formulas? Put that against the propaganda of the pharmaceutical industry.

With the criticism of Jeffrey A. Schaler - which she mentions - on Breggin and his International Center for the Study of Psychiatry and Psychology I cannot make head or tail. I cannot find any logical argumentation in it.

Russel A. Barkley - the other source of Spaink - is such a Ritalin defender and member of CHADD's 'Professional Advisory Board'. But the defenders of Ritalin are silent in the media why there's so much Ritalin prescribed to kids under the six 6, sometimes even under 2, while the safety for that age group has not been established. Barkely doesn't say a word about that. What he does is accusing Breggin of breaking the oath as a physician to 'first, do no harm' with his Ritalin book (!). Unless Breggin starts throwing that book, this is an absurd statement. But supplying Ritalin to toddlers while even Novartis disapprove of that, is the real damage. That Breggin points out (and he is surely not the only one) the FREQUENT relation of abuse, neglect and punishment of ADHD children by their parents, is simply being pushed aside by Barkley as 'parent-bashing' and relieves parents from all guilt (and therefore responsibility). He even claims that such a view is outdated psychoanalytic thinking, discarded decades ago by the scientific community. Unfortunately there are more and more documented cases known of severe sexually, emotionally and physically abused children who got labeled as hyperactive and put on Ritalin. Even though these are extremes, the subtle snarling, the punishing and manipulating and the ignoring of the needs of the growing child are no exceptions and contribute to an emotional confused child.

Apparently Scientology's anti-psychiatry statements are aimed at the poor pharmaceutical industry. The denial of medical medicines is according to some a crime. But what do you think happens when nobody would use psychiatric medication? The collapse of the economy! Panic, chaos! Follow the trail of the money and the pharmaceutical industry has by far more interests to defend than Scientology and ALL other cults and sects together. If Spaink would put as much energy in the pharmaceutical industry as she does in Scientology, she'll find out how matters stand.

But with this literary hair-splitting the fact is ignored why parents give their children such severe drugs, like Prozac, Ritalin, amphetamines (for example Adderall). For centuries one tries to control children. Until the 19th century it was common to believe children were born evil and had to be corrected by religion to punish the 'evil'. In the 20th century one thought children were born neither bad nor good and pedagogy had to reward the 'good' and to punish the 'bad'. In the 21st century the trend is to believe a child's personality has already been established before it's born, good or bad and only chemical intervention can change something about that.

Hyperactive children don't feel ill. They often don't even realize there's something 'wrong' with them. Although children can of course feel miserable and depressed by the negative reactions of their environment. The parents on the other hand do feel stressed out. If one prescribes drugs, why not tranquilizers for the parents? For obvious reasons they are not very enthusiastic for that. But the child is being placed with his back against the wall with the slogan: swallow or choke.

Parents who are emotionally standing on the edge of the abyss because they don't know how to deal with their hyperactive child, are of course not a reliable source when it comes down to decisions taken in the importance of the child. On the other side there's the money-grabbing pharmaceutical industry that provides 'the solution'; the child becomes calmer.

In some countries the hands of thieves are being cut off. Very effective because stealing is out of the picture. In the civilized West we disapprove such convictions. But when one deals with the same brutal manner with the brains of children (and adults), resistance is minimal because it's invisible at first sight. Is that progression?

© 2001 Dennis Rodie

The original Dutch article appeared in Kleintje Muurkrant, May, 2001