It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


ADHD guidelines pulled after payment scandal- Ritalin

page: 1

log in


posted on Nov, 23 2009 @ 08:34 PM
I thought I would post this as it seems quite pertinent considering what's been happening in the last week with the Great Global Warming Swindle.

Seems like some Scientists are more interested in their own bottom lines, rather than researching & giving us the facts.

How are we to trust Science in the future if their opinions can be bought for a price? Anyway, here's the article, let me know your thoughts.

CONTROVERSIAL guidelines on ADHD have been pulled by the Federal Government following claims drug company payments to a doctor have tainted the work.

The Government has been forced to stop the release of the draft guidelines and may have to rewrite them following the embarrassing scandal.

A cloud has been cast over the draft's validity after one of the psychiatrists, whose research into anti-psychotic drugs helped form the guidelines, was accused of failing to reveal payments from drug companies.

US-based child psychiatrist Dr Joseph Biederman is under investigation in America by authorities who have uncovered $1.6 million in payments.

The US Congress investigation has found Dr Biederman failed to declare where all the money came from and has possibly breached federal and Harvard University research laws.

Australian authorities have been forced to admit the embarrassing discovery that has now put the guidelines – which recommend medication such as Ritalin as the best form of treatment for ADHD and are designed to help parents and doctors – in jeopardy.

Child welfare and ADHD experts want the guidelines rewritten entirely.

"This is an excellent opportunity for the Government to go back to the drawing board," University of South Australia education faculty lecturer Dr Brenton Prosser said.

"I advise parents to use medication as a last resort. Pills don't acquire skills. Medicines don't address social skills."

The Royal Australasian College of Physicians is in charge of devising the guidelines, following a Government review in 2007.

"The College was not aware of the US investigation when drafting the guidelines," a spokesman said.

"When (it) is completed the college and National Health Medical Research Council will determine the future status of the guidelines."

It was revealed last year that seven of the 10 people in charge of setting the guidelines had financial links to firms who make ADHD drugs.

Link here :-

posted on Nov, 23 2009 @ 08:40 PM
Im not in the least BIT surprised by this.

We ALLOW for lobbiests to harangue our politicians, and drug companies are some HUGE lobby bucks...why would they NOT be bribing Dr's & Hospitals as well?
We allow drug companies to market directly to millions of hypochondriacs via heart warming commercials, which is a JOKE IMO and should not be allowed at all.....

is ANYONE surprised by this revelation?

[edit on 23-11-2009 by theRiverGoddess]

posted on Nov, 23 2009 @ 08:55 PM
reply to post by theRiverGoddess

is ANYONE surprised by this revelation?

Actually, you beat me to the punch. I was just about to reply with basically the same wording. It would have surprised me if massive bribery and corruption was NOT involved.

Bribery and corruption has become part and parcel of every aspect of our lives. I saw it at the college that I taught in. College textbook sales reps FREQUENTLY tried to bribe professors with various offerings, everything from free golf trips to "conferences" in the Bahamas, to outrageous sums of money to "review" a new textbook.
I threw the reps out of my office, but some of my "colleagues" accepted the trips or other such "honorariums"(in the loosest sense of the word.)

posted on Nov, 23 2009 @ 09:47 PM
Hi guys, thanx for your replies. I'm not suprised at all either by this revelation, & am wondering WHAT ELSE is on the verge of being revealed?

It has concerned me for a long time that Drug company Reps are able to easily get Doctors to prescribe their products to patients, & have even had to wait behind a Rep before I was "seen to" for my own Dr's appointment! * shakes head*

posted on Nov, 24 2009 @ 02:01 AM
a damn shame, some of ym best memeories are of me and my freidns taking ritalin.

posted on Nov, 24 2009 @ 04:15 AM

Originally posted by STFUPPERCUTTER
a damn shame, some of ym best memeories are of me and my freidns taking ritalin.


But there is a serious side to this, & I'm suprised more people don't care. Ritalin is just one drug, what else is out there? Will be scouring the net looking for more of this corruption & payoffs.....

posted on Nov, 24 2009 @ 11:44 AM
reply to post by SpinifexPrincess

italin is just one drug, what else is out there? Will be scouring the net looking for more of this corruption & payoffs.....

There is no need to look very far:

The Increasing Corruption in the U.S. Medical & Pharmaceutical Sector

Drugs, Devices and Doctors


Merck, the pharmaceutical giant, is under siege. And one side effect
of that siege is a public relations crisis for the Cleveland Clinic,
a celebrated hospital and health care organization.

But the real story is bigger than either the company or the clinic.
It's the story of how growing conflicts of interest may be distorting
both medical research and health care in general.

Merck stands accused of playing down evidence that Vioxx, a
best-selling painkiller until it was withdrawn last year, increases
the risk of heart attacks. The most recent accusation of obscuring
the evidence came from The New England Journal of Medicine, which
discovered that the authors of a Merck-supported paper published in
the journal had removed data unfavorable to Vioxx. The journal called
on the authors to issue a correction.

Dr. Eric Topol, a famed cardiologist at the Cleveland Clinic, has
been warning about the dangers of Vioxx since 2001. In videotaped
testimony at a recent federal Vioxx trial (which ended in a
mistrial), he accused Merck of scientific misconduct, and also
testified that Merck's former chairman had called the chairman of the
Cleveland Clinic to complain about his work - an action Dr. Topol
called "repulsive."

Two days after that testimony, according to Dr. Topol, he was told
early in the morning not to attend an 8 a.m. meeting of the clinic's
board of governors, because the position of chief academic officer,
which gave him a seat on the board, had been abolished. A clinic
spokeswoman denied that the abrupt elimination of this post had any
link to his Vioxx testimony.

A few days later, The Wall Street Journal reported on a web of
financial connections between the Cleveland Clinic, its chief
executive and AtriCure, a company selling a medical device used in a
surgical procedure promoted by the clinic. Dr. Topol - whose demotion
also cost him his seat on the conflict-of-interest committee - was
"among those who questioned the ties," the newspaper said.

O.K., it's sounding complicated. But the essence is simple: crucial
scientific research and crucial medical decisions have to be
considered suspect because of financial ties among medical companies,
medical researchers and health care providers.

That should come as no surprise. The past quarter-century has seen
the emergence of a vast medical-industrial complex, in which doctors,
hospitals and research institutions have deep financial links with
drug companies and equipment makers. Conflicts of interest aren't the
exception - they're the norm.

The economic logic of the medical-industrial complex is
straightforward. Prescription drugs and high-technology medical
devices account for a growing share of medical spending. Both are
products that are expensive to develop but relatively cheap to make.
So the profit from each additional unit sold is large, giving their
makers a strong incentive to do whatever it takes to persuade doctors
and hospitals to choose their products.

The tools of persuasion go beyond hiring cheerleaders as sales
representatives. There are also financial inducements, sometimes
disguised, sometimes blatant. A few months ago, Reed Abelson of The
New York Times reported on a practice in which device makers give
surgeons who are in a position to choose their products (with others
paying the cost) lucrative consulting contracts, in some cases
running to hundreds of thousands of dollars a year.

Above all, the line between medical researcher and medical
entrepreneur has been blurred. In her book "The Truth About the Drug
Companies," Marcia Angell, a former editor of The New England Journal
of Medicine, writes that small companies founded by university
researchers now "ring the major academic research institutions ...
hoping for lucrative deals with big drug companies." Usually, she
says, "both academic researchers and their institutions own equity"
in these companies, giving them a strong incentive to make the big
drug companies happy.

The point is that the whiff of corruption in our medical system isn't
emanating from a few bad apples. The whole system of incentives
encourages doctors and researchers to serve the interests of the
medical industry.

posted on Nov, 24 2009 @ 12:12 PM
I've long held firm to the thought that doctors are only in it for the money. If they weren't, then why the hell do we have proctologists??

posted on Nov, 24 2009 @ 12:17 PM
reply to post by TXRabbit

If they weren't, then why the hell do we have proctologists??

Some people just have a very sick way of getting their jollies, I presume. Just never shake their hand.

posted on Nov, 24 2009 @ 12:28 PM
reply to post by SpinifexPrincess

Ritalin is just one drug, what else is out there?

A lot more.

Unfortunately, the toxic halogen Fluorine is present in many antidepressants.

I was prescribed at least 5 drugs in a time span of 8 years.

Ritalin, Zyprexa/Olanzapine, Risperidone, Tofranil/Imipramine, Stilnox/Zolpidem.

I can sadly report that I suffered weight gain while on Zyprexa, Eli Lilly's favorite drug to push on teenagers.

It changed my metabolism. No, my psychiatrist did not report it as a side-effect, making the already high statistics underestimated.

Plus, risperidone have fluorine in it. I was forced to take it for more than 6 months!

What havoc did added Fluorine wreak to me during this time??? As if toothpaste, fluoridated water, cryolite pesticides were not enough.

At that time I was completely ignorant about fluorine, but not anymore.

I researched it for a full 1 month spending 2~3 hours per day with the limited resources available to me.

There are some things that ATS has missed in the dozens of threads on fluoride I browsed.

[edit on 24-11-2009 by jjjtir]

posted on Nov, 24 2009 @ 04:09 PM
Yes I do remember the big stink caused by Stilnox, & at least in my country it died down pretty quickly. Very little air coverage, maybe a weeks worth & then gone into that magical place in the sky where all this stuff goes to!

I also recall some negative press about Prozac & Zoloft, & am going to check that out later today....

Thanx for replies guys, this is a very important subject, we're all the drug comapies "Guinea Pigs" & its unacceptable. Time to dig deeper....

posted on Nov, 24 2009 @ 05:47 PM
reply to post by SpinifexPrincess

Yes, Prozac is the famous fluoxetine, with toxic fluorine halogen.

In my opinion, fluoxetine is overrated and too much focused on, while many other antidepressants that have fluorine go unnoticed.

In my personal case I was a victim of risperidone, a less known drug compared to fluoxetine.

To comment on Stilnox, it is very weird. When I took it to sleep, after some 20 minutes my visual field started to go messy and my sleep quality wasn't that good.

I also took twice as long in the bathroom due to inability to see clearly. I had to rely on touch and muscle/motor memory.

Stilnox has mild hallucinogenic properties.

The double standard...

You can be legally prescribed a hallucinogen and legally buy it in a drug store/pharmacy...

[edit on 24-11-2009 by jjjtir]

new topics

top topics


log in