PDF of full thesis available at Martin Whitely PhD Thesis Copy – ADHD and Regulatory Capture in Australia PDF

“Personalities, rhetoric and charisma are driving the direction of mental health rather than science and evidence.” (Martin Whitely MLA, Parliament of Western Australia, 25 September 2012)

Related Media

Sue Dunlevy, News Limited Sunday papers, 7 October 2012, Doubts cast on youth mental health program. Available at  http://www.news.com.au/national/doubts-cast-on-youth-mental-health-program/story-fndo4eg9-1226489760605

Also see Patrick McGorry’s ‘Ultra High Risk of Psychosis’ training DVD fails the common sense test http://speedupsitstill.com/patrick-mcgorrys-ultra-high-risk-psychosis-theory-fails-common-sense-test

MARTIN WHITELY (Trancript of speech in the Legislative Assembly, Parliament of Western Australia, 25 September 2012): I want to use this opportunity to talk about some very serious concerns I have about the direction of the mental health policy in Australia. My basic contention is that personalities, rhetoric and charisma are driving the direction of mental health rather than science and evidence.

In May 2011, the Gillard government announced that it would spend $2.2 billion on mental health initiatives over five years. The biggest program it announced expenditure on, costing $222.4 million and which would be matched by state governments, was for the rollout of 16 Early Psychosis Prevention and Intervention Centre sites nationally, which would have “the capacity to assist more than 11 000 Australians with, or at risk of developing, psychotic mental illness.”[1]

A month later, amid growing criticisms of the ability to help those at risk of becoming psychotic, Patrick McGorry, the chief architect of EPPIC services, told The Australian “EPPICs do not treat people with psychosis risk but only patients who have had their first psychotic episode…”[2]

That is in direct contravention to what was said in the May 2011 announcement. Since then the Minister for Mental Health and Ageing, Mark Butler, once in December 2011[3] and again in June 2012[4] indicated that EPPICs may not treat those perceived to be at ultra-high risk of becoming psychotic; which is in conflict with what he said in the May 2011 rollout.

Frankly, confusion reigns supreme. I asked a question in the May 2012 estimates process in the Western Australian Parliament about the functions of the planned Western Australian EPPIC services. The response that came back as supplementary information after the estimates process stated “The Early Psychosis Prevention and Intervention Centre (EPPIC) services are for young people with first episode early psychosis and for detecting those with ultra high risk of developing psychosis.”[5]

Members can see the confusion. The initial announcement was that they would be for the purpose of assessing those at ultra-high risk of developing psychosis. Then there was a backdown by both McGorry, the architect of EPPIC, and the mental health minister. Then the state government indicated that that was one of the chief functions.

How could the functions of the most expensive program that is being rolled out nationally be so confused? There are two reasons for this: first, because we have been let down by the politicians in Canberra on all sides—I am one of the rare critics in politics of what is happening—and, second, because we have been let down by the media. They have been inattentive to the detail of what is on offer.

The problem is that the politicians have let a handful of gurus relying on rhetoric, charisma and hype drive the direction of the mental health policy in Australia. They have accepted their overblown claims without scrutiny. The danger is that young Australians will suffer as a result.

Patrick McGorry is undoubtedly the biggest of those gurus. EPPIC is very much his baby. Patrick McGorry has two claims to fame. The first is obviously the fact that in 2010 he was made Australian of the Year. The second is that he is one of the world’s most prominent advocates of preventive psychiatry. The philosophy of preventive psychiatry is basically the idea that a stitch in time saves nine. In other words, if we get in pre-emptively before people become mentally ill, we can help them—we can prevent it.

He uses the language of early intervention when he is really (often talking about prevention and) not talking about early intervention. He is (often) not talking about getting people when they become psychotic; he is talking about getting in there prior to the advent of psychosis. The theory is that we can spot and stop psychosis and a range of mental illnesses before they happen. Intuitively, it seems like a reasonable theory. However, the independent evidence that is available shows that there are two problems with the theory.

First, we cannot predict with any accuracy who will become mentally ill. In the case of psychosis, the accuracy of predictions are somewhere between eight per cent and 36 per cent. Second, even when we do predict those who will go on to become psychotic, the interventions that are on offer simply do not help in the long term. There is little evidence of sustained benefits.

The problem that we are all saddled with is that Patrick McGorry has been unable to accept that his theory does not stand up to the evidence. He has been unable to accept that even when this theory has been rejected internationally. We should be doing a double take on what we are doing in Australia.

We can thank Professor McGorry for putting mental health on the political agenda in the lead-up to the 2010 election. His status as Australian of the Year allowed him to do that, but we cannot continue to blindly follow him where he tells us to go. Frankly, that is just what is happening.

In the lead-up to the 2010 election, as I said, mental health was on the agenda for the first time. Anybody who watched Insight on SBS in July 2010 would have noticed just how deferential the presenters and the politicians were to Patrick McGorry—in particular Peter Dutton on behalf of the Liberal Party and Mark Butler on behalf of the Labor Party. Peter Dutton went the furthest; he said “we’re going to roll out a national scheme based on advice by people like John Mendoza, Pat McGorry, Ian Hickey, David Crosby and others.”[6] He added that “early intervention is proven, without any doubt, to work”. Frankly, that is just complete and utter rubbish. The independent evidence shows us anything but that.

In fact, Patrick McGorry used an address to the National Press Club in the lead-up to the 2010 election to say that we had “twenty-first century solutions” that were just waiting to be implemented if only government would urgently fund these “proven approaches”.[7]

The rhetoric continued after the election. In March 2011 Professor McGorry was the co-author of a blueprint for mental health that significantly said — “EPPIC has the largest international evidence base of any mental health model of care, demonstrating not only their clinical effectiveness but also their financial and social return on investment. This is a mature model simply requiring implementation in Australia.”[8]

Frankly, the hype is not backed up by the evidence. In 2011 the Cochrane Collaboration, which is acknowledged internationally as one of the world’s most rigorous, systematic and comprehensive sources of independent, reliable medical information, found that there was “inconclusive evidence” that early intervention could prevent psychosis and that “there is a question of whether the gains are maintained”.[9] Professor McGorry responded by attacking the Cochrane review, saying it used flawed methodology.[10] As I pointed out, Cochrane is widely regarded as the gold standard for international research. ` Other evidence that the claims are not supported by the facts was provided by a Queensland psychiatric registrar and economist—he has dual training—Andrew Amos, who wrote an article in the June edition of the Australian and New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry entitled “Assessing the cost of early intervention in psychosis: A systemic review”.[11] He wrote about the methodology used in his study, saying that 11 articles were included in the review. He made reference to one that was co-authored by Patrick McGorry, writing, “one small case-control study with evidence of significant bias concluded annual early-intervention costs were one-third of treatment-as-usual costs.”

That is the only one that found positive outcomes. He said there was significant bias in that study. Andrew Amos’s paper concluded “the published literature does not support the contention that early intervention for psychosis reduces costs or achieves cost-effectiveness.”

We have to bear that against Professor McGorry’s claim that EPPIC is supported by “the largest international evidence base of any mental health model of care”.[12] It simply does not stack up.

The problem is that after the 2010 election, there was no independent review process. The mental health minister, Mark Butler, tried in a sense when he set up the Mental Health Expert Working Group, which included a number of mental health practitioners, including Professor McGorry and Ian Hickey, and Monsignor David Cappo, who was the vice-chair. For some unknown reason, those three gentlemen decided to step outside the process and produce their own blueprint for mental health. They termed themselves the Independent Mental Health Reform Group.

Basically, they produced a $3.5 billion, five-year wish list, which was completely devoid of evidence.[13] Mark Butler should have resisted it at that stage but the media pressure was enormous because there is an enormous cheer squad for this group. He should have ordered an independent review of the evidence underlying the claims that were made in that blueprint. Instead, he adopted so much of it, which led to the $2.2 billion announcement and the $222.4 million for EPPIC, being half of the total expenditure when it is supplemented by the states.

Soon after the debate started to change for Professor McGorry. In fact, science started to catch up with some of his claims last year when international debate about the inclusion of Attenuated Psychosis Syndrome (often called Psychosis Risk Syndrome) in DSM5 took place. The basic theory underlying Professor McGorry’s work and the proposed diagnosis of Attenuaed Psychosis Syndrome was that mental illness has a prodromal phase, and in that phase mental illnesses can be predicted, treated and prevented. There was very strong international backlash to that.

As a result of that, we saw a change in the attitude of Professor McGorry to the inclusion of Attenuated Psychosis Syndrome in DSM5. In May 2010 he was quoted in an article in in the Psychiatry Update entitled “DSM5 ‘risk syndrome’: a good start, should go further” as saying “The proposal for DSM5 to include a ‘risk syndrome’ reflecting an increased likelihood of mental illness is welcome but does not go far enough.”[14]

Also, Professor McGorry wrote a piece for Science Digest in 2010, entitled “Schizophrenia Research” in which he stated, “The proposal to consider including the concept of the risk syndrome in the forthcoming revision of the DSM classification is innovative and timely. It has not come out of left field, however, and is based upon a series of conceptual and empirical foundations built over the past 15 years.”[15]

It is a very strong endorsement saying it was based on 15 years of research. That was Professor McGorry, the great enthusiast for its inclusion in DSM5.

Then the heat started to go on. In June 2011, McGorry the great enthusiast, became McGorry the indifferent, when he wrote a blog on my website at my invitation. He wrote, “Personally, I am not concerned whether it (Attenuated Psychosis Syndrome) enters the DSM5 or not.”[16] So he began backing away from it.

Later, when pushed on the issue, McGorry the great enthusiast, who had become McGorry the indifferent, went on to become McGorry the denier, denying his previous position. He was on the ABC World Today program of 12 May 2011. I had said that Professor McGorry was a leading international proponent of Psychosis Risk Syndrome as a new psychiatric disorder for inclusion in the next edition of DSM5. Professor McGorry responded by saying, “contrary to Mr Whitely’s statements, I haven’t been pushing for it to be included in DSM5. Now that hasn’t been my position. But it’s a new area of work. It’s only been studied for the last 15 years.”[17]

So if we take those three positions—the great enthusiast, the indifferent, the denier—and recap, in 2010 he described the proposal to put Attenuated Psychosis Syndrome in the DSM5 as “innovative and timely … has not come out of left field and is based upon a series of conceptual and empirical foundations built over the past 15 years.”

The heat goes on. In 2011 the response becomes, “I haven’t been pushing for it to be included in DSM5. Now that hasn’t been my position.… It’s only been studied for the last 15 years or so, so you know we haven’t got all the answers.”

Frankly, I was aware of the hypocrisy in that statement, but I did not actually make much of it at the time because Professor McGorry and I were engaged in some very productive discourse. I was very encouraged when in February 2012 in the Sydney Morning Herald, in an article entitled “About-turn on treatment of the young”, Professor McGorry acknowledged the widespread international concern, with the inclusion of psychosis risk syndrome in DSM5 and said that he now opposed it.[18] In fact I wrote a blog entitled “Patrick McGorry deserves praise for about-turn on Psychosis Risk Disorder”. I was very encouraged. I was prepared to forgive him the dishonesty and the inconsistency of his position.

It is important to understand why the idea of Psychosis Risk Disorder, Attenuated Psychosis Syndrome, was removed from DSM5. It was removed basically for three reasons, the first being the rate of false positives. It is an accurate diagnosis of between eight per cent In 2012 in the Medical Journal of Australia Professor David Castle a critic of the rollout of EPIC’s stated that the diagnosis was accurate in only 8% of cases. [19] In the same edition of the MJA McGorry’s close colleague Professor Alison Yung identified the conversion rate from UHR to first episode psychosis was 36%.[20] So, the false positive rate it is somewhere between a 64% per cent and a 92%.

The second was the idea that labelling someone as being pre-psychotic could be stigmatising and could be a self-fulfilling prophecy. The third concern was the inappropriate use of antipsychotics in people who had never been psychotic and are unlikely to go on and become psychotic.

As I said, when Professor McGorry seemingly abandoned supporting Psychosis Risk Disorder’s inclusion in DSM5, that was the high point of the trust that had developed between Professor McGorry and me. But I have to say that I now distrust him for two very clear reasons.

One is that he has acknowledged that it is a problem when other people do it but not a problem when he diagnoses it. He wrote in 2010 that “both of these concerns are valid”—the concern about extending the use of antipsychotic medication and the concerns about labelling and stigmatising people —”Both of these concerns are valid, though both can and have been addressed in our work and systems of care in Melbourne.”[21]

Basically he is saying; Look, nobody else is good enough to do it, but we are good enough to do it in our Melbourne-based system.

What really turned me around was when I got access to training DVD produced by Patrick McGorry’s Orygen Youth Health, which actually teaches mental health clinicians how to diagnose and treat Psychosis Risk Syndrome otherwise known as Attenuated Psychosis Syndrome.[22] This DVD is still for sale, even though Attenuated Psychosis Syndrome has been removed from DSM5 and even though Professor McGorry said he did not support its inclusion.

I encourage people to go to my blog and look at an excerpt from that DVD. There is a video blog there and members can look at an excerpt from the training DVD and see if it passes the commonsense test. Jon Jureidini, a professor of psychiatry at University of Adelaide, somebody who I have great respect for, looked at the training DVD and said that it is a great training tool, because it “demonstrates how not to carry out a psychiatric interview and interact with young people”—a damning comment. (see Patrick McGorry’s ‘Ultra High Risk of Psychosis’ training DVD fails the common sense test )

The diagnosis of Attenuated Psychosis Syndrome is a very controversial issue, but more controversial than that has been the role of the use antipsychotics in the treatment of people who are not psychotic, who are considered to be at risk of being psychotic. Again, Professor McGorry has spun his own position.

In 2010 in response to my blog, he wrote, “our clinical guidelines do not (and have never done so in the past) recommend the use of anti-psychotic medication as the first line or standard treatment for this Ultra High Risk group.”[23]

It is true in the sense that final endorsed clinical guidelines have never actually recommended it, but Professor McGorry has produced draft guidelines recommending their use and, for well over a decade, Professor McGorry has experimented with and it appears likely he continues to experiment with the pre-emptive prescription of psychotropics to adolescents.

Three examples of his earlier advocacy were that in 2006 in the Australian and New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry he proposed a clinical staging framework for psychosis and identified “atypical antipsychotic agents” as one of the “potential interventions” for individuals who are at “ultra-high risk” of developing first-episode psychosis.[24] In 2007 in an article in the British Medical Journal that he jointly authored he extolled the potential of pre-psychotic use of pharmacological interventions.[25] Again in the British Medical Journal in 2008, in an article entitled “Is early intervention in the major psychiatric disorders justified?” he wrote — “Early intervention … It should be as central in psychiatry as it is in cancer, diabetes, and cardiovascular disease … Several randomised controlled trials have shown that it is possible to delay the onset of fully fledged psychotic illness in young people at very high risk of early transition with either low dose antipsychotic drugs or cognitive behavioural therapy.”[26]

I easily found three instances when he advocated for it, which is in conflict with his December 2010 claim that he has not been an advocate.

After the pressure from the debate on the inclusion of Attenuated Psychosis Syndrome in DSM–5, Professor McGorry began to adjust his position. In December 2010 he wrote that, “Antipsychotic medications should not be considered unless there is a clear-cut and sustained progression to frank psychotic disorder meeting full DSM 4 criteria.”[27] He outlined that the only exception to the previous statement is when there has been a definite failure to respond to the first and second line interventions. That was written in late 2010 in response to some concerns I had raised with him.

In November 2010 in an article in The Weekend West titled “Mental health guru stumbles into public policy minefield”, a spokesman from Orygen Youth Health said on Professor McGorry’s behalf that antipsychotics are not recommended as a standard treatment and “there has been a substantial amount of research and we do change according to the research.”

All of that kept me happy at the time, as I thought Professor McGorry had realised that the research showed that antipsychotics are not a good way to treat people perceived to be at risk of becoming psychotic. The problem is that he continued to do research on this topic.

A 2011 article referred to the NEURAPRO-Q trial that was being conducted by Professor Patrick McGorry. Thirteen international critics lodged an appeal against the trial, saying that it was unethical because of the potential harms of the use of Seroquel, an antipsychotic, in this nonpsychotic group, the very high false positive rate of misdiagnosis, which I have talked about, and a number of other reasons.

The heat was on and in August 2011, Melbourne’s The Age quoted Professor McGorry as saying that the trial had been abandoned because of “feasibility issues recruiting participants”.[28] It seems he never gave up on his treasured theory. He has acknowledged, we have all this evidence that we should not use antipsychotics in this way, yet he continued to do this trial. I contend that if he cannot prove it in 15 years of trialling antipsychotics on people who are not psychotic and are never likely to become psychotic, why would he continue to do it?

That is not the only evidence. There are more reasons to be concerned that Professor McGorry has still not abandoned his favourite theory, which is that we can use psychotropic medication as a preventive measure and a way of immunising young people against future mental illness.

He has 10 million good reasons not to abandon this research—a grant that was provided to Professor McGorry and others. He is the principal investigator for a National Health and Medical Research Council grant for “Emerging mental disorders in young people: using clinical staging for prediction, prevention and early intervention”.[29] They received a $10 million grant from the NHMRC. He said “this money will allow us to continue our research into the causes of mental illness and help the one in four young people suffering a mental disorder.”[30]

This $10 million trial may include the testing of psychotropic drugs as a preventive measure—in other words, as an attempt to immunise people against getting future mental illness.

So, go back to the claim that Professor McGorry used in the lead-up to the 2010 election. He said that the Early Psychosis Prevention and Intervention Centre has “the largest international evidence base of any mental health model of care”.[31] If that were true, after 15 years of trialling, we would have a mature model and there would not have been these back-downs.

We also need to be concerned about some of the disease mongering that comes out of the mouth of Professor McGorry and his allies. In March 2010 on the ABC’s Lateline program he said, “4 million Australians have mental health problems in any given year… there are 1 million young Australians aged 12 to 25 with a mental disorder in any given year. … And 750,000 of them have no access to mental health care currently.”[32]

I was at an excellent conference in Perth in June, hosted by the Richmond Fellowship of Western Australia. Patrick McGorry cited a New Zealand study, from memory, and claimed that between the ages of 18 and 25 years, 50.1 per cent of people had a psychiatric disorder.[33] This is disease mongering. This is turning normality into disease. People who are ill and need treatment will be denied resources because we spread resources too thin.

It is very upsetting that not only these statements are being made, but also the media is not questioning them. They are letting them go straight through to the keeper as though they are the absolute truth.

Professor McGorry has appropriated the language of early intervention, but in truth he is engaged in preventive psychiatry—preventive being pre-intervening; that is, stepping in and aggressively interfering with people who will probably never go on to be diseased.

In June 2012 in response to an article I wrote in The West Australian, Professor McGorry criticised me for describing him as a proponent of preventive psychiatry, but his own organisation, Orygen Youth Health Research Centre, registered EPPIC as a trademark in 2011. Part of its registration program listed Orygen as providing “education and training services”, including in the “field of youth-specific preventive psychiatry”.[34] They registered it in their trademark and then a year later criticised me for describing him as an advocate of preventive psychiatry.

One of his great debating tricks is to describe people such as me and those who work in the field, such as Jon Jureidini and others, as being proponents of “late intervention”.[35] We are not. We are arguing for early intervention. When people become psychotic or become mentally ill, we should get in there and intervene and help them. It is completely disingenuous of Professor McGorry to paint his opponents as being proponents of late intervention.

There are other things of concern. In July 2012 The Sunday Age in Melbourne published an article on a 2007 Orygen Youth Health antidepressant prescribing audit. The article highlighted the concern that antidepressants were being prescribed at Orygen “to a majority of depressed 15 to 25-year-olds before they had received adequate counselling”. It also found that “75 per cent of those diagnosed with depression were given the drugs too early”.[36]

Orygen’s own “Evidence Summary: Using SSRI Antidepressants to Treat Depression in Young People: What are the Issues and What is the Evidence?”, produced in 2009, builds a very compelling case for not using anti-depressants in young people, but then goes on to conclude that we should use them.[37] The only rationale that is offered—all the evidence is ignored—is that it is better to do something than nothing.

Am I alone? It is a relevant question. I am not an expert; I am a politician. I am probably the only politician who has stood and said, “We need to be concerned about this major investment in mental health in Australia.” I may be alone in politics, but I am not isolated within psychiatry. A range of very prominent psychiatrists are very critical of where we are going.

One of the most revealing things was that Psychiatry Update in October 2011 published a survey of psychiatrists in Australia. It revealed, “Almost 60% of psychiatrists think the Federal Government’s focus on EPPIC is inappropriate.”[38]

Others who have had plenty to say include Professor Allen Frances, the chief author of the DSM–IV, the current edition of the bible of psychiatry. He has been a fierce critic of Professor McGorry, although he is very charitable in what he says about McGorry’s intentions. He said “McGorry’s intentions are clearly noble, but so were Don Quixote’s. The kindly knight’s delusional good intentions and misguided interventions wreaked havoc and confusion at every turn.”[39] Professor Frances goes on to warn that Australia is really in danger of following him blindly down “an unknown path that is fraught with dangers”.

Another who has been critical is Professor George Patton, who told The Age that the Orygen antidepressant prescribing audit revealed how much we needed to look at the evidence base of these programs.[40] Clinical Professor David Castle, a very high profile psychiatrist from Melbourne, is also critical.[41] Professor Vaughan Carr from the University of New South Wales wrote an opinion piece that was very dismissive of Professor McGorry’s claims that this was the most cost-effective treatment. He described his claims as “a utopian fantasy” based on “published evidence that is not credible.”[42] [43]

I have run out of time. The message I want to put out there is that we need to go back to the evidence. I have met Patrick McGorry and I like him. He is a very charismatic individual and I think he is well intentioned, but that is not the point. The point is that we cannot have mental health policy driven by rhetoric; it needs to be driven by evidence.

Note: this transcript has contains endnotes and minor corrections not in the official Hansard record.

[1] National Mental Health Reform Statement by Hon. Nicola Roxon Minister, Hon. Jenny Macklin and the Hon. Mark Butler 10 May 2011 http://www.budget.gov.au/2011-12/content/ministerial_statements/health/download/ms_health.pdf

[2] Sue Dunlevy ‘Schism opens over ills of the mind’ The Australian June 16, 2011. http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/features/schism-opens-over-ills-of-the-mind/story-e6frg6z6-1226075910650

[3] The Hon Mark Butler MP Minister for Mental Health and Ageing, Media Release 8 December 2011 More Early Psychosis Services for Young Australians. http://www.health.gov.au/internet/ministers/publishing.nsf/Content/B9CCE606D4092CE1CA257960000474FE/$File/MB222.pdf

[4] Mark Butler A bright future for mental health in Australia Ramp Up 8 Jun 2012 http://www.abc.net.au/rampup/articles/2012/06/08/3521451.htm

[5] Western Australian Legislative Assembly Hansard available at http://www.parliament.wa.gov.au/Hansard/hansard.nsf/0/57de02ae107600d148257a220046f171/$FILE/A38%20S1%2020120531%20p636b-639a.pdf

[6] Insight SBS television 27 July 2010 transcript available at http://news.sbs.com.au/insight/episode/index/id/272#transcript

[7] Address to the National Press Club Canberra by Prof. Patrick McGorry July 7, 2010

[8] Including, Connecting, Contributing: A Blueprint to Transform Mental Health and Social Participation in Australia, March 2011. Prepared by the Independent Mental Health Reform Group: Monsignor David Cappo, Professor Patrick McGorry, Professor Ian Hickie, Sebastian Rosenberg, John Moran, Matthew Hamilton http://sydney.edu.au/bmri/docs/260311-BLUEPRINT.pdf (accessed 26 April 2011)

[9] “There is emerging, but as yet inconclusive evidence, to suggest that people in the prodrome of psychosis can be helped by some interventions. There is some support for specialised early intervention services, but further trials would be desirable, and there is a question of whether gains are maintained. There is some support for phase-specific treatment focused on employment and family therapy, but again, this needs replicating with larger and longer trials.” Marshall M, Rathbone J. Early intervention for psychosis. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2011, Issue 6. Art. No.: CD004718. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD004718.pub3 June 15, 2011 http://summaries.cochrane.org/CD004718/early-intervention-for-psychosis

[10] Stark, J. 2011, August 21. Drug trial scrapped amid outcry. The Age. http://www.theage.com.au/national/drug-trial-scrapped-amid-outcry-20110820-1j3vy.html

[11] Andrew Amos Australia New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry – Assessing the cost of early intervention in psychosis: A systematic review 13 June 2012 http://anp.sagepub.com/content/46/8/719

[12] Including, Connecting, Contributing: A Blueprint to Transform Mental Health and Social Participation in Australia, March 2011. Prepared by the Independent Mental Health Reform Group: Monsignor David Cappo, Professor Patrick McGorry, Professor Ian Hickie, Sebastian Rosenberg, John Moran, Matthew Hamilton http://sydney.edu.au/bmri/docs/260311-BLUEPRINT.pdf (accessed 26 April 2011)

[13] Including, Connecting, Contributing: A Blueprint to Transform Mental Health and Social Participation in Australia, March 2011. Prepared by the Independent Mental Health Reform Group: Monsignor David Cappo, Professor Patrick McGorry, Professor Ian Hickie, Sebastian Rosenberg, John Moran, Matthew Hamilton A Blueprint to Transform Mental Health and Social Participation in Australia http://sydney.edu.au/bmri/docs/260311-BLUEPRINT.pdf (accessed 26 April 2011)

[14] Available at http://www.psychiatryupdate.com.au/news/DSM-V-risk-syndrome-a-good-start-should-go-further posted 20 May 2010 accessed 28 May 2011

[15] McGorry, P.D. Risk Syndromes, clinical staging and DSM V; New diagnostic infrastructure for early intervention in psychiatry, Schizophr, Res. (2010), doi;10.1016/j.schres.2010.03.016 http://www.ecnp-congress.eu/~/media/Files/ecnp/communication/talk-of-the-month/mcgorry/McGorry%20RIsk%20Syndrome%202010.pdf

[16] Professor Patrick McGorry June 2011 AUSTRALIA’S MENTAL HEALTH REFORM: AN OVERDUE INVESTMENT IN TIMELY INTERVENTION AND SOCIAL INCLUSION June 2011 available at www.speedupsitstill.com

[17] The World Today – Professor McGorry hits back at critics, 20 May 2011 www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/content/2011/s3222359.htm (accessed 28 May 2011)

[18] Amy Corderoy, About-turn on treatment of the Young,Sydney Morning Herald, February 20, 2012 http://www.smh.com.au/national/health/aboutturn-on-treatment-of-the-young-20120219-1th8a.html

[19] Professor David Castle, Medical Journal of Australia 21 May 2012 Is it appropriate to treat people at high-risk of psychosis before first onset — No Available at https://www.mja.com.au/journal/2012/196/9/it-appropriate-treat-people-high-risk-psychosis-first-onset-no http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/337/aug04_1/a695 (accessed 3 August 2010)

[20] Professor Alison Yung, Medical Journal of Australia 21 May 2012 Is it appropriate to treat people at high-risk of psychosis before first onset — Yes Available at https://www.mja.com.au/journal/2012/196/9/it-appropriate-treat-people-high-risk-psychosis-first-onset-yes

[21] In response to my blog titled Australian of the Year Patrick McGorry’s call for early intervention to prevent Psychosis: A Stitch in Time or a Step too Far? (available at http://speedupsitstill.com/patrick-mcgorry-early-intervention-psychosis-stitch-time-stitch-up ) Professor McGorry wrote a blog titled Responding at the earliest opportunity to emerging mental illnesses http://www.patmcgorry.com.au/blog/pmcgorry/responding-earliest-opportunity-emerging-mental-illnesses

[22] Orygen Youth Health Centre, 2009, “Comprehensive Assessment of At Risk Mental State (CAARMS) Training DVD”, The PACE Clinic, Department of Psychiatry, University of Melbourne. see http://www.eppic.org.au/risk-mental-state accessed 3 September 2012

[23] Right of Reply – Patrick McGorry on Early Intervention for Psychosis December 11, 2010 refer http://speedupsitstill.com/reply-patrick-mcgorry-early-intervention-psychosis

[24] McGorry, P., Purcell, R., Hickie, I. B., Yung, A. R., Pantelis, C., & Jackson, H.J. (2006) Clinical staging of psychiatric disorders: a heuristic framework for choosing earlier safer and more effective interventions. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry, 40:616-622. Note: A similar article is available online at http://www.mja.com.au/public/issues/187_07_011007/mcg10315_fm.html (accessed 26 April 2011)

[25] Yung, A.R. & McGorry, P.(2007) Prediction of psychosis: setting the stage, British Journal of Psychiatry, 191: s1-s8. http://bjp.rcpsych.org/cgi/content/full/191/51/s1 (accessed 7 December 2010)

[26] McGorry P.D. (2008) Is early intervention in the major psychiatric disorders justified? Yes, BMJ, 337:a695 http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/337/aug04_1/a695 (accessed 3 August 2010)

[27] Right of Reply – Patrick McGorry on Early Intervention for Psychosis December 11, 2010 http://speedupsitstill.com/reply-patrick-mcgorry-early-intervention-psychosis

[28] “Professor McGorry insists the decision to scrap the trial was made in June and is unrelated to the complaint, which he said he was only alerted to just over a week ago. He maintained the trial received ethics approval in July last year but was abandoned due to “feasibility issues” with recruiting participants in European and American sites, which were to form the international arm of the study”.Stark, J. (2011, August 21). Drug trial scrapped amid outcry. The Age. http://www.theage.com.au/national/drug-trial-scrapped-amid-outcry-20110820-1j3vy.html

[29] Refer to http://www.nhmrc.gov.au/grants/research-funding-statistics-and-data/mental-health-0

[30] Professor Patrick McGorry Emerging Mental Disorders in Young People: Using Clinical Staging for Prediction, Prevention and Early Intervention.http://blogs.unimelb.edu.au/musse/?p=417 accessed 27 September 2009

[31] Including, Connecting, Contributing: A Blueprint to Transform Mental Health and Social Participation in Australia, March 2011. Prepared by the Independent Mental Health Reform Group: Monsignor David Cappo, Professor Patrick McGorry, Professor Ian Hickie, Sebastian Rosenberg, John Moran, Matthew Hamilton http://sydney.edu.au/bmri/docs/260311-BLUEPRINT.pdf (accessed 26 April 2011)

[32] ABC (11 March 2010) Mental health system in crisis: McGorry, Lateline, Australian Broadcasting Corporation. Reporter: Tony Jones http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2010/s2843609.htm (accessed 26 April 2011)

[33] Professor Patrick McGorry wrote in a blog on 25 May 2011 “A recent New Zealand study has shown between 18 and 24 years that 50 per cent of young people will manifest diagnosable mental disorders, over half the time repeated episodes, which, far from being trivial or “normal”, will significantly affect their social, vocational and economic well-being at age 30.” See http://www.patmcgorry.com.au/blog/pmcgorry/government-has-thrown-black-dog-bone accessed 20 September 2012

[34] Details of the EPPIC trademark is available at http://www.trademarkify.com.au/trademark/1391532?i=EPPIC-ORYGEN_Research_Centre_ACN_ARBN_098_918_686#.T_OeZpEuh8E and the trademark for ‘E EPPIC’ that has been applied for is available at http://www.trademarkify.com.au/trademark/1447441?i=E_EPPIC-ORYGEN_Research_Centre_ACN_Street_MELBOURNE_VIC_3000_AUSTRALIA#.T_OfP5Euh8E

[35] Sweet, M. (17 August 2010) Patrick McGorry defends early intervention on youth mental health, Croakey: the Crikey Health Blog http://blogs.crikey.com.au/croakey/2010/08/17/patrick-mcgorry-defends-early-intervention-on-youth-mental-health/ (accessed 26 April 2011)

[36] Jill Stark, The Sunday Age, Youth mental health team too free with drugs: audit July 8, 2012 http://www.theage.com.au/national/youth-mental-health-team-too-free-with-drugs-audit-20120707-21o29.html

[37] In the U.S.A. a Black Box warning was put on in 2005 after an analysis of clinical trials by the FDA found statistically significant increases in the risks of ‘suicidal ideation and suicidal behavior’ by about 80%, and of agitation and hostility by about 130%. Headspace’s evidence summary also acknowledged that ‘no antidepressants (including any SSRIs) are currently approved by the Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) for the treatment of major depression in children and adolescents aged less than 18 years’. In addition the evidence summary acknowledges that research indicates that in terms of managing the symptoms of depression, ‘the only SSRI with consistent evidence of its effectiveness in young people is fluoxetine (Prozac)….The effectiveness of fluoxetine however is modest…Young people on fluoxetine do not appear to be functioning better in their daily lives at the end of the trials.’ Despite this, it concludes by recommending: ‘In cases of moderate to severe depression, SSRI medication may be considered within the context of comprehensive management of the patient, which includes regular careful monitoring for the emergence of suicidal ideation or behaviour’. Evidence Summary: Using SSRI Antidepressants to Treat Depression in Young People: What are the Issues and What is the Evidence? Headspace, Evidence Summary Writers Dr Sarah Hetrick, Dr Rosemary Purcell, Clinical Consultants Prof Patrick McGorry, Prof Alison Yung, Dr Andrew Chanen Copyright © 2009 Orygen Youth Health Research Centre http://www.headspace.org.au/core/Handlers/MediaHandler.ashx?mediaId=4896

[38] 6 October, 2011 Michael Slezak Psychiatry Update EPPIC disagreement over early intervention: poll http://www.psychiatryupdate.com.au/politics-practice-issues/eppic-disagreement-over-early-intervention–poll

[39] Australia’s Reckless Experiment In Early Intervention – prevention that will do more harm than good by Allen J. Frances, M.D. at http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/dsm5-in-distress/201105/australias-reckless-experiment-in-early-intervention ]

[40] Professor George Patton quoted in the The Age, ”This paper illustrates how much we need to be looking at these new services (EPPIC) to determine the extent to which we’re following best clinical practice and to ask the questions, are we getting value for money out of these investments, and are we actually seeing better clinical outcomes?” Jill Stark, Youth mental health team too free with drugs: audit, The Sunday Age, July 8, 2012 http://www.theage.com.au/national/youth-mental-health-team-too-free-with-drugs-audit-20120707-21o29.html

[41] David Castle (St Vincents Melbourne) Medical Journal of Australia 21 May 2012- Is it appropriate to treat people at high risk of psychosis before first onset? NO

[42] Carr, Vaughan. (2010, July 10). Letter to the Editor, Mental health funding. The Australian. http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/mental-health-funding/story-fn558imw-1225890005936

[43] Carr V. (8 July 2010) Mentally ill of all ages need services. The Australian. http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/mentally-ill-of-all-ages-need-services/story-e6frg6zo-1225889141003 (accessed 30 April 2011)

By Martin Whitely MLA

The off colour Australian colloquialism ‘you can’t polish a turd but you can cover it in glitter’ is a fitting analogy for the danger of legitimising ADHD as a diagnosable mental illness by developing treatment guidelines. However, treatment guidelines are being developed and the more conservative the treatment guidelines, the fewer children risk damage with the long-term administration of amphetamines.

That is why I welcome the release by the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) of the Australian ADHD Clinical Practice Points (CPPs) as a small but significant step in the right direction. (The CPPs available at http://www.nhmrc.gov.au/_files_nhmrc/publications/attachments/mh26_adhd_cpp_2012_120903.pdf )

Eventually ADHD will be regarded as an embarrassing footnote of history and society will collectively wonder how anyone ever thought it would be a good idea to give amphetamines to children. But in the meantime improvements like those in the ADHD CPPs, although modest, will hopefully see fewer children diagnosed and drugged.

That said, the CPPs are far from perfect. The statement that, “…stimulants might be considered for this age group (under 7 years)” leaves the door open for drugging very young children.[1] The manufacturers prescribing information for all stimulants state they should not be used in children under 6 years, since safety and efficacy in this age group have not been established.[2] Any clinician ignoring the manufacturers warning is inviting a future law suit for negligence.

The ADHD CPPs were developed as a stop gap replacement for the corrupted NHMRC 2009 Draft Australian Guidelines on Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder which in turn replaced the deeply flawed 1997 NHMRC ADHD Guidelines that were rescinded in 2005.[3] The ADHD CPPs state the 2009 Draft Guidelines were “not approved by NHMRC” as “…undisclosed sponsorship may have affected the findings of a large number of publications (co-authored by Prof Joseph Biederman and Drs Thomas Spencer and Timothy Wilens) relied on for the Draft Guidelines”.(Page 4)

Undue drug company influence went much deeper than simply relying on corrupted research. While I am not suggesting they were individually corrupt; the majority of members of the guidelines development group had ties to ADHD drug manufacturers and were enthusiastic proponents of ADHD child drugging. (For more detail on the corrupted guidelines development process refer to Open book approach a good start for the new National ADHD Guidelines Committee)

It took six years of determined advocacy to expose the connections and prompt the intervention of Mental Health Minister Mark Butler. In contrast to the indifference and incompetence of previously responsible ministers Nicola Roxon and Tony Abbott, Minister Butler established the relatively conflict of interest free[4] and transparent ADHD CPPs development process.

Although the ADHD CPPS are described as being “based on expert consensus” it would probably have been more accurate if they were described as being “based on expert compromise”. This was an inevitable product of a committee which contained members with diametrically opposed views like ADHD sceptic, Professor Jon Jureidini, and ADHD prescribing enthusiast, Professor Michael Kohn. (see Where is the evidence to support ‘ADHD expert’ Prof Kohn’s claim that amphetamines aid brain development? ) As a result in several places the ADHD CPPs are contradictory.

Despite their limitations Mental Health Minister Mark Butler deserves credit for establishing the ADHD CPPs process. There was significant opportunity for public input with approximately 140 submissions spanning the divergent range of views on ADHD and resulting in significant differences between draft and final guidelines.[5]

One of the more notable improvements from the draft was the removal of the statement that “as with any medical intervention, the inability of parents to implement strategies may raise child protection concerns”.[6] This statement attracted widespread media attention and condemnation.[7]  On 23 November 2011 the NHMRC issued a media release denying that a failure to medicate may result in the intervention of child protection authorities.[8] This statement was welcome however it should never have been included in the draft ADHD CPPs in the first place.

Overall the final September 2012 ADHD CPPs represent a significant improvement on the November 2011 draft ADHD CPPs and a vast improvement on the corrupted 2009 Draft Australian Guidelines. Below I have listed both positive and negative features of the final ADHD CPPs.

Positive features of the final ADHD CPPs include the statements that:

• “The clinician should always be mindful of seeking a more meaningful explanation of the child/adolescent’s behaviour than simply labelling it as ADHD because it meets diagnostic criteria.” (Page 14)
• “ADHD is a description rather than an explanation of a pervasive, persistent, disabling pattern of inattentiveness, overactivity and/or impulsivity. A child/adolescent who meets diagnostic criteria for ADHD may not be always best served by making that diagnosis. For example, their behaviour could be understood as a reaction to specific cognitive difficulties or family/environmental circumstances.” (Page 6)
• Comment- A very good statement, however I would argue that a child is never best served by applying a one size fits all label that fails to explain their unique circumstances.

• “All children and adolescents can display active, impulsive and inattentive behaviour as part of normal development. This does not mean that they have a disorder, and important controversies exist about the use of ADHD as a diagnosis for children and adolescents.” (Page 10)
• “Parents/carers must be given information on the diagnosis and management plan, including any potential adverse effects of treatment in order to fully inform them and to have them make a decision regarding the treatment that is offered to their child.” (Page 16)
• Potential “adverse-effects” of stimulants identified in the ADHD CPPs include sleep disturbance, reduced appetite, abdominal pain, headaches, crying spells, repetitive movements, slowed growth (height and weight), restlessness, dizziness, anxiety, irritability cardiovascular effects such as tachycardia, palpitations and minor increases in blood pressure and psychosis or mania.  In addition the ADHD CPPS say where to report side-effects in Australia (to the TGA) and acknowledge that stimulants are Schedule 8 drugs because they can be addictive and are abused.  (Page 20)
• “Children/adolescents on stimulant medication require 3-6 monthly clinical assessment and review to ensure the management strategies remain appropriate and effective. Monitoring should include assessment of side effects and particularly psychological symptoms and plotting of growth parameters, pubertal development, heart rate and blood pressure.” (Page 8)
• “Not all children and adolescents with ADHD will require, or benefit from, pharmacological management.”  (Page 8)
• Comment- A double edged sword but nonetheless an improvement from previous guidelines that promoted the use of ADHD amphetamines as the first line treatment for all children diagnosed with ADHD.

• “Practical supports for families, such as respite care, parenting education and guidance and counselling, may be helpful or even a sufficient intervention perhaps obviating the need for specific treatment and psychological management of the child.” (Page 17)
• “When stimulant treatment is used it should only be continued if there is demonstrated benefit in the absence of unacceptable side effects. “ (Page 8).
• Comment- Again a double edged sword but an improvement from previous guidelines.

• “There is no one single known cause of ADHD….” (Page 10).
• Comment- Would have been more accurate to say there is no one single known cause of the inattentive and/or impulsive behaviours characterised as ADHD

• “….the effect of medication and behavioural or educational interventions on long-term outcomes such as academic and social and emotional outcomes, has not been established…..“ (Page 11) AND “Considering that there is insufficient evidence on the long-term outcomes and long-term adverse effects following use of stimulants, the continuing benefit from, and need for medication should be regularly assessed.” (Page 21)
• Comment- The limited long term evidence available indicates that children diagnosed with ADHD and never medicated do much better than children diagnosed with ADHD and medicated. Therefore the prudent ‘first do no harm’ step would be to never medicate or time limit the use of stimulants by children to a year. For more information on the long term effects of stimulants see One year on from the Raine Study ADHD Medication Review – Will the analysis of this unique long term data source continue and if so can we trust those doing the analysis?

• “….there are no specific treatments to ‘cure’ ADHD…..” (Page 16)
• “In the absence of another diagnosis, neuroleptics (anti-psychotics) have no role in the treatment of ADHD.” (Page 18)On the negative side the ADHD CPPs include the statements that:

• “The risk of not making a diagnosis is that the child/adolescent may not receive appropriate management and care.” (Page 12)
• Comment-This is one of the most disturbing statements in the CPPs. ADHD is a dumbed down label that does nothing to explain a child’s individual circumstances. It prevents understanding and invites a dangerous one size fits all treatment, stimulants, that mask behaviours without addressing any underlying problems. 

• “Regardless of whether the cause is explicable or not these symptoms impact so adversely on the child or adolescent and their family that the symptoms cannot be left untreated.” (Page 11)
• Comment- These first two statements may panic clinicians and parents in premature treatment with unnecessary and potentially dangerous drugs, i.e. amphetamines. The statements are inconsistent with the precautionary first do no harm principal of medicine. Understanding the cause of any problem is essential to identifying appropriate long term solutions.

• “Use of stimulant medications (methylphenidate and dexamphetamine sulphate) can reduce core ADHD symptoms and improve social skills and peer relations in children and adolescents diagnosed with ADHD in the short term (up to 3 years).” (Page 8)
• Comment- I agree that drugs will alter behaviour immediately and in some cases make boisterous, even annoying and in some cases traumatised children more compliant. However, achieving social control and compliance in that manner is a violation of the rights of the child and frequently covers up underlying serious problems including in some cases the traumatic effects of child abuse and neglect.

• “Both medication and combined medication and behavioural treatment have been shown to be more effective in treating ADHD symptoms than psychosocial or behavioural interventions alone.” (Page 19)
• Comment- Again I agree that drugs will alter behaviour immediately, however achieving compliant behaviour in the short term is not an appropriate way to measure child welfare. The only consideration that should matter is the long-term welfare of the child not the convenience of others. The limited long term evidence available indicates that children diagnosed with ADHD and never medicated do much better than children diagnosed with ADHD and medicated.

• “For young children (under 7 years) psychological, environmental and family interventions should, if possible, be trialed and evaluated before initiating pharmacological treatment. If all these other interventions have not been effective then stimulants might be considered for this age group in consultation with the parents or guardians and including when appropriate teachers or other carers.” (Page 9)
• Comment- This is the most concerning recommendation as it leaves the door open for drugging very young children. The manufacturers prescribing information for all stimulants state stimulants should not be used in children under 6 years, since safety and efficacy in this age group have not been established.[9]

• “It is rare that symptoms of ADHD occur in isolation. In the assessment of a child/adolescent with ADHD the specialist clinician should assess for other psychological, social, emotional and behavioural difficulties that might coexist with ADHD (comorbidities).” (Page 11)
• Comment – Psychological, social and emotional difficulties are often the causes of ADHD type behaviours. In these cases ADHD doesn’t coexist, rather the ADHD type behaviours are caused by psychological, social and emotional difficulties.

• “Children/adolescents with ADHD may have other mental health problems, such as depression, which may be associated with an increased risk of suicidal ideation. Conducting a mental health assessment, where indicated, can detect mental health problems and inform appropriate management.” (Page 15)
• Comment – Inviting multiple diagnoses invites poly-pharmacy in the minds of some medical practitioners. Antidepressants are not approved for use in young people as studies show they increase suicidality by approximately 80%.[10]

• “Assessment of response to treatment and periodic review of progress is facilitated by the use of questionnaires from parents/carers, teachers and if possible the child/adolescent using psychometrically sound, evidence-based checklists such as the Conners’ ADHD/DSM-IV Scales (CADS).” (Page 16)
• Comment- Please let’s all stop pretending the diagnosis of ADHD involves scientific testing. These so-called psychometrically sound, evidence-based checklists are no more than loosely defined behavioural tick-lists and are reminiscent of a Dolly Magazine find your perfect boyfriend tick-box questionnaire.

• “Heredity, genetic, neuro-imaging and neuro-psychological studies provide evidence for a biological basis for inattention and impulsiveness.” (Page 10)
• Comment- This is concerning for two reasons. Firstly it overstates the validity of this evidence. Secondly and most significantly even if a biological basis for ” for inattention and impulsiveness” is established this does not make a disease or disorder any more than other genetic variations like height or skin colour. Refer to The ‘Genetic basis of ADHD’ – much ado about nothing

• “Data from 2000 indicates the prevalence rate of ADHD symptoms among 6–17 year-olds in Australia is around 11%.” (Page 11)Related Media
•  Experts alarmed at new ADHD guidelines | News.com.au Sue Dunlevy, News Limited Network, October 03, 2012
• Comment- This is a massive overestimate of the proportion of children who would qualify for a DSMIV diagnosis as when conducting this research there was no assessment for impairment or requirement for children to display sustained ADHD in multiple settings. Nonetheless the garbage research continues to be quoted by the ADHD industry, the NHMRC and even Commonwealth Ministers.[11]

[1] Page 9 of the ADHD CPPs available at http://www.nhmrc.gov.au/_files_nhmrc/publications/attachments/mh26_adhd_cpp_2012_120903.pdf

[2] Ritalin prescribing information says “Ritalin should not be used in children under 6 years, since safety and efficacy in this age group have not been established” see http://www.pharma.us.novartis.com/product/pi/pdf/ritalin_ritalin-sr.pdf   Concerta’s says “safety and efficacy has not been established in children less than six years old or elderly patients greater than 65 years of age” see http://www.concerta.net/sites/default/files/pdf/Prescribing_Info-short.pdf#zoom=56  Dexedrine’s (brand of dexamphetamine) says “Long-term effects of amphetamines in pediatric patients have not been well established. DEXEDRINE is not recommended for use in pediatric patients younger than 6 years of age with Attention Deficit Disorder with Hyperactivity” see http://www.dexedrine.com/docs/dexedrine_PI.pdf

[3] National Health and Medical Research Council, Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD), Canberra, 1997. http://www.nhmrc.gov.au/_files_nhmrc/publications/attachments/ch36.pdf

[4] Conflict of Interest details available at http://www.nhmrc.gov.au/guidelines/adhd-conflicts-interest

[5] For details of the effect of the submissions on the final ADHD CPPs see appendix D page 16 available at http://www.nhmrc.gov.au/_files_nhmrc/publications/attachments/mh26_adhd_cpp_appendices_120903_0.pdf

[6] National Health and Medical Research Council, Public Consultation on the Draft Clinical Practice Points on the Diagnosis, Assessment and Management of Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder in Children and Adolescents, Australian Government, November 2011 p15. Available http://consultations.nhmrc.gov.au/open_public_consultations/a-d-h-d

[7] Sue Dunleavy, The Australian medicate ADHD kids or else parents told 21/11/2011 http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/medicate-adhd-kids-or-else-parents-told/story-fn59niix-1226200652633

[8] 8. see http://www.nhmrc.gov.au/media/releases/2011/reassuring-parents-new-draft-adhd-clinical-practice-points-do-not-mandate-medica

[9] Ritalin prescribing information says “Ritalin should not be used in children under 6 years, since safety and efficacy in this age group have not been established” see http://www.pharma.us.novartis.com/product/pi/pdf/ritalin_ritalin-sr.pdf   Concerta’s says “safety and efficacy has not been established in children less than six years old or elderly patients greater than 65 years of age” see http://www.concerta.net/sites/default/files/pdf/Prescribing_Info-short.pdf#zoom=56  Dexedrine’s (brand of dexamphetamine) says “Long-term effects of amphetamines in pediatric patients have not been well established. DEXEDRINE is not recommended for use in pediatric patients younger than 6 years of age with Attention Deficit Disorder with Hyperactivity” see http://www.dexedrine.com/docs/dexedrine_PI.pdf

[10] See http://www.fda.gov/Drugs/DrugSafety/InformationbyDrugClass/ucm096273.htm

[11] Draft ADHD Guidelines Released, Joint Media Release, 30 November 2009.  The Hon Nicola Roxon MP, Minister for Health and Ageing, National Health and Medical Research Council, and Royal Australasian College of Physicians.]

]]> http://speedupsitstill.com/2012/10/02/australian-adhd-clinical-practice-points-6-years-frustrated-advocacy-small-step-direction/feed/ 5 http://speedupsitstill.com/2012/09/05/patrick-mcgorrys-ultra-high-risk-psychosis-theory-fails-common-sense-test/ http://speedupsitstill.com/2012/09/05/patrick-mcgorrys-ultra-high-risk-psychosis-theory-fails-common-sense-test/#comments Wed, 05 Sep 2012 03:55:00 +0000 http://speedupsitstill.com/?p=3397
Part One – Is Nick Sick?   (11 minutes)
Part Two – Is Nick Sick?   (9 minutes)

Response to the ‘Is Nick Sick?’ video blog

by Professor Jon Jureidini

“Patrick McGorry’s Orygen Youth Health, CAARMS training video[1] on how to diagnose ‘Attenuated Psychosis’ demonstrates how not to carry out a psychiatric interview and interact with young people.”

As identified by Martin Whitely in his commentary about the CAARMS training DVD, describing Nick as being at ultra-high risk of psychosis (UHR) fails the common-sense test. Even more concerning is that Nick is labelled as having Attenuated Psychosis – in ordinary language, he is already mildly mad.

Professor McGorry justifies diagnosing young people like Nick as being at ‘ultra high risk’ because within the next 12 months they are ‘between two and four hundred times’ more likely to become psychotic than the ‘the general population’.[2]

But we must respect the ordinary everyday language meaning of ultra high risk. If I am labelled as being at ultra-high risk of something, I assume that I will probably be affected. I do not interpret that label as meaning I am simply much more at risk than my peers.

Even Professor McGorry acknowledges that nearly two-thirds of the people identified as being at ultra high risk of developing psychosis, don’t become psychotic.[3] Independent evidence shows the conversion rate is as low as 8%[4] With between 64% and 92% false positives, the true ‘ultra high’ risk is the risk of being incorrectly labelled.

The pay-off for testing for UHR is simply not sufficient to justify the cost. One cost is that Nick is now being taught to see himself as sick. Who knows if this might not even increase this vulnerable young man’s risk of ultimately being diagnosed with full-blown psychosis? And as Martin Whitely points out, it stigmatises him.

But more important to me than stigmatisation is the fact that the UHR label is an unexplanation; it ignores what is going on in Nick’s life. Unexplaining is different from saying ‘I don’t know’ (something we doctors would do well to say more often). Unexplanations distract from the difficult but rewarding task of working with a young person towards finding an explanation for their stress.

Nick makes it pretty easy for the listener. He tells us about being bullied into a trade that he doesn’t want to be in, and he invites the interviewer to explore his relationship with his father. The interviewer doesn’t notice, or chooses to ignore this invitation, instead sticking to a stereotyped list of questions that generate the sterile unexplanation of UHR.

It might be argued that the interviewer would come back to this later. However, in my experience, young people prefer us to show an interest in their difficult and intimate predicaments when they first get the courage to put them into words.

I am grateful to Martin Whitely for putting the CAARMS training video into the public domain because it provides a potential teaching tool for medical students in how not to carry out a psychiatric interview and interact with young people.

For more on this subject see Whitely tells Parliament – It’s time to confront Patrick McGorry’s disease mongering and end the guru-isation of Australian mental health policy

Related Media

Byron Kaye, Medical Observer, McGorry stands firm on ‘flimsy’ accusations 11th Sep 2012 http://www.medicalobserver.com.au/news/mcgorry-stands-firm–on-flimsy-accusations

The following is a transcript of the interview with Nick and the introduction to the CAARMS Training DVD

Associate Professor Alison Yung.:

Hello and welcome to the CAARMS Training DVD. The CAARMS has two functions; First, to assess whether the person meets the ultra-high risk criteria for psychosis or not and second, to assess the range of psycho-pathology which we see typically in people in the prodrome preceding a first episode of psychosis. For this training video we’ll just focus on the first function,  that of assessing the ultra high- risk criteria.

For this function we need only the first four sub-scales of the CAARMS; Unusual thought content, non bizarre ideas, perceptual abnormalities and conceptual disorganization. These four sub-scales assess sub-threshold and threshold versions of positive psychotic symptoms, delusions, hallucinations and formal thought disorder.

You notice that the interviewer assesses both the intensity, frequency and duration of these phenomena.

We’re going to show you four interviews of typical people who present to the Pace clinic.

Also in the DVD there will be slides showing the ratings for each of these people.

By viewing the DVD you’ll see both how the interviewer asks the questions and the responses that we commonly encounter at the clinic.

DVD also contains additional information. We hope that this resource assists you in your work.

INTERVIEW 1.

Narrator: Nick is an 18 year old apprentice electrician in his first year of training. He is self-referred to PACE, encouraged by his sister, after confiding in her that he has been extremely anxious and has had great difficulty sleeping. He has not previously sought help for psychological issues but there is a family history of depression in the maternal aunt and of an unknown psychiatric condition in his mother’s grandmother. Nick is single and lives with his parents and three younger sisters. The family is of Italian origin. Nick did reasonably well at school and completed Year 12. He has a large circle of friends, enjoys playing sports and has had girlfriends in the past but is not in a relationship at the moment. He does not mind if his mother knows about his current problems but does not want his father informed.

Interviewer: Okay Nick, so you’ve told me that um things haven’t been going very for a little while now  since you started work, I just want to ask you some more detailed questions about the sorts of things you’ve been experiencing. So can you tell me, have you had the feeling that something odd is going on that you can’t explain?

Nick: No, not really, no. (shakes head)

Interviewer: No, Have you been feeling puzzled by anything?

Nick: No.

Interviewer:  Do you feel that you have changed in any way, who you are has changed?

Nick: No.

Interviewer: Or that people around you have changed in in some way?

Nick: No, not not really.

Interviewer:    Okay, have you felt that things around you have ahh a special meaning or that people have arranged things especially for you?

Nick: No.

Interviewer: No?

Nick: No.

Interviewer:  People been trying to give you any messages?

Nick: No.

Interviewer:  No? Now sometimes people have the feeling that someone or something outside of themselves are controlling their thoughts or their feelings – wondering if you’re having any experiences like that?

Nick: No, not like that.

Interviewer:  So you haven’t had any feelings or impulses that seem to come from someone else not yourself?

Nick: No.

Interviewer: No?

Nick: No.

Interviewer:  Okay. Do you ever have the feeling that um ideas or thoughts are put into your mind that aren’t yours?

Nick: No.

Interviewer: Okay. And what about the reverse process – having the the feeling that thoughts are being taken out of your head?

Nick: No, that’s never really happened.

Interviewer: Okay. Sometimes people feel that other people can read their minds or hear their thoughts. Does anything like that happen to you?

Nick: No.

Interviewer: No?

Nick: No.

Interviewer:  Can you tell me, has anyone been giving you a hard time or trying to hurt you in any way?

Nick: Well yeah, I suppose that’s that’s been a big thing for me um It’s gotten really bad. I feel like that all the time. Umm, I’ve actually started a new apprenticeship about three months ago ahm, and my dad got me into it because ahh one of his mates is doing doing him – doing him a favour so he is taking me on, umm, and my dad’s an electrician and he wants me to come in and take over the family business so, so I feel that I have to do it but I really don’t want to be there and I really don’t think that I’m really good at being an electrician so, since I started work um I’ve I’ve really felt while I was at work that I was really bad at what I was doing, ahhm and I actually felt – I actually felt at the time, I was starting to feel that the guys at work were thinking um that I’m really bad at what I’m doing and that they’re laughing at me behind my back and talking about me behind my back, so um, I mean the the guys that I work with they’ve all got families and you know they go fishing together so they’re all a close group of friends um whereas I’ve got nothing in common with them. So whenever we go on smoko breaks they all talk with each other, um and I tend to smoke by myself because I’ve got nothing to say to them really and um when during the smoko breaks you know when they’re laughing, ahh when they’re talking sometimes they look over in my direction and I feel that they’re actually talking about me and they’re laughing at me and you know and they think that I’m really bad at what I do, ummm, and I I mean I’ve made quite a few mistakes at work, umm and and I feel that they’re just waiting for me to stuff up because they know they they I just think that they know that I’m going to stuff up.

Interviewer: So has this been going on the whole time you’ve been at work?

Nick: Well it is it was alright when I started, umm, and then a few weeks into it I I really started to get worried because I’d made a few small, small mistakes, I started to think that you know they really were thinking well you know who have we hired here – he doesn’t know what he is doing, um and that actually got really bad about a month ago. Um, we had a really important deadline that we had to meet and we were quite stressed and um everyone was really busy and I was quite anxious because, um it was just a stressful time during that time and it got really bad there where every time I was at work and every minute I was actually just looking over my shoulder and looking at ah the other workers and seeing if they were looking at me and if they were talking about me and I felt that they were waiting for me to stuff up and and um, so so it got bad about a month ago- it’s not as bad now-it’s still, it’s still pretty bad but it’s not as bad as what it was about a month ago.

Interviewer: Ahuh, so in what way is it a bit better now, then it was a month ago?

Nick: Well I suppose back then it was a really stressful period um and everyone was busy at work and I was really stressed  at work so I think it got worse around that time ahh but I suppose now it’s it’s a bit less stressful at work and not so busy so, it’s not as bad  but I still look around and I still feel that as if they’re talking about me as if I’m really bad, they think that I’m really bad at my job.

Interviewer: Uhuh. How does, how do you respond to this? Has it made you do anything differently or?

Nick: Um, well, I’m, I’m always really  nervous about going to work and and I hate going to work now, um, and I I don’t really do anything differently, ah, but, I’m always looking and and listening and and um trying tryna catch them out- trying to catch them talking about me, um.

Interviewer: Do  you -Have you been getting to work every day?

Nick: Well, the past, the past few months I’ve, I’ve taken a few days off. Well I’ve been taking nearly one day off a week um, which has been really good, um.

Interviewer: That’s what I’m wondering  about. What’s it like for you when you’re at home?

Nick: Oh, when I have the days off and and when I’m home I’m fine you know. I don’t think about work and um I don’t worry about what they’re thinking of me and a lot of the times when I get home from work and I think about what’s happened earlier in the day you know, I feel that it’s – you know what I was thinking at the time was pretty, you know ,pretty silly and you know, it was, like they care what I’m doing and how good I am um.

Interviewer: So you can see it differently when you are at home?

Nick: Yeah, when I’m at home I’m I’m less worried about it and and, you know, sometimes I think that what I was thinking was pretty silly at the time but then when I’m at work I’m I get really anxious and worried about it.

Interviewer: Okay so you’re having this really hard time at work and things are okay at home.

Nick: Hmm, yeah.

Interviewer: You had these, this sort of stuff happen to you anywhere else or is it just at work?

Nick: Aww not really anywhere else. There’s there was this time um, it was about a month ago, still during that period.

Interviewer: During that time-

Nick: Yeah there was a couple of times um when I was actually on the train on my way to work and I was really tired and really really stressed and I just didn’t want to go to work, um and I was just standing up on the train and um I saw a couple talking to each other and I saw another guy um start laughing and um I I started to think at the time that um, they were actually talking about me and and they were laughing about me and um I was, I was  starting to to think they thought I was really bad at what I was doing; they, they knew that I was a bad electrician and I was really bad at what I was doing, so I got really anxious and really worried about that and really stressed; um and that that happened for, for two days.

Interviewer: Two days..

Nic: That happened twice. Yeah.

Interviewer:  Yep. And what happened when the journey ended and you got off the train and you were away from those people. Where you still-did you still have those worries?

Nick: Well, I I was really umn stressed getting off the train, um, and then you know, as I was walking to work I was sort of thinking about it a bit and– you know, I was thinking you know, those people don’t even know me and I’ve never met em before and they don’t even know what I do, so you know I was starting to think you know how would they know that I’m bad at what I do, so I started to think that you know maybe what I was thinking was a bit, you know, a bit over the top, a bit stupid, but you know at the time I really was convinced that they were.

Interviewer: It sounds like a really hard time and then you got to work and the worries would have come again.

Nick: Yeah yeah, like, like on those days walking to work I sort of cleared my head a bit and you know thought that it was all pretty stupid and then I got to work and you know, when work started again and the guys came in to work and you know, again, I still started to sort of worry about what they were thinking and yeah.

Interviewer: Okay, so you’re using, um, marijuana with your friends on the weekends.

Nick: Yeah.

Interviewer: How are you feeling when you’re, when you’re stoned with your friends?

Nick: Oh, um it feels pretty good. I mean the reason I do it is is to relax um.

Interviewer: And that’s the effect that it has?

Nick: Yeah, yeah. I don’t, I just do it just to get away from things, and not to think about things or anything like that so.

Interviewer: Some people find that when they use marijuana they get more worried but that doesn’t sound like your experience?

Nick: Ah no, no never, never been worried or nervous or stressed when I’ve been with my mates and smoking so I suppose that’s why I do it with them, just to chill out on the weekends.

Interviewer: Mkay. Have you been feeling that you’re especially important in some way or that you’ve got special powers to do things?

Nick: No. Not really. No that hasn’t happened.

Interviewer: Okay. Now have you been feeling that there’s anything odd going on with your body that you can’t explain?

Nick: No.

Interviewer: Or that your body’s changed in any way?

Nick: No.

Interviewer: No?um, what about feeling guilty or that you deserve punishment. Does that come up for you at all with..

Nick: No. No.

Interviewer: With these things? Okay, fine.

Nick: Some-Sometimes at work I feel that, um, just with,ah with my stuff ups I think that, you know, the boss will, will catch me out and he’ll find me out and um that I will get punished but yeah I don’t actually feel the need that I need to be punished or anything like that.

Interviewer: Are you very religious Nick, have you had any religious experiences?

Nick: Ahh, no, not really.

Interviewer: Okay. And um, do you have a girlfriend?

Nick: Ah, I I used to a couple of years ago but I can’t be bothered looking after one at the moment.

Interviewer: Another area that I need to ask you about is the area of ah perceptions, what you see and hear

Nick: Yeah

Interviewer: And that kind of thing. Um so I’m wondering if you’ve noticed any changes in in your vision, do you, um are things looking different to you?

Nick: NarI needed, I needed glasses. I need to get glasses, um so um things were getting a bit blurry um, but.

Interviewer: So glasses have improved your vision?

Nick: Yeah. Yeah.

Interviewer: In more recent times has there been a change in the way things look to you?

Nick: No

Interviewer: The colours brighter?

Nick: No, no that’s all the same

Interviewer: Anything like that

Nick: Yeah

Interviewer: Um. Okay. And what about um hearing things. Have you been hearing things that other people can’t hear?

Nick: No.

Interviewer: Any changes to the way you perceive sound at all?

Nick: No. No.

Interviewer: Any strange sensations in smell, smelling strange things, or things smelling different?

Nick: No.

Interviewer: And, um, I asked you whether you had any strange sensations on your skin. Whether you’ve um felt things crawling on your skin or underneath your skin?

Nick: No.

Interviewer: Anything like that?

Nick: No. No.

Interviewer: No. And what about your ability to communicate with people Nick? Have you felt like um, you’re able to communicate clearly, that people understand what you’re saying? You’re able –

Nick: Yeah.

Interviewer: to get your message across?

Nick: Yeah, never really had problems with that.

Interviewer: Uhuh.

Nick: No.

Interviewer: Okay. Do you have um trouble finding the correct word to use at all?

Nick: Aw, sometimes, I mean I’m I’m not the best at English so sometimes I, you know I can’t find the right – I’m thinking of the word that I’d use or I heard a couple of days ago and I just can’t think of it at the time, um, I think of it later on sometimes but- so sometimes I find- have trouble finding the right word, but, it doesn’t happen very often.

Interviewer: It doesn’t happen very often, it’s not something that you’re really worried about?

Nick: No.

Interviewer: No?

Nick: No.

Interviewer: Okay.

Nick: I still, they still understand what I’m trying to say.

Interviewer: Yep. Do you ever have the feeling that, um, you go off on tangents and that people don’t follow what you’re on about?

Nick: No.

Interviewer: No? So do you think your activity level has dropped off a bit? Are there things you used to do that you don’t do now?

Nick: Well, I, I mean I always used to go out with my friends. Go out drinking. Go out clubbing and go to the gym with them, um but, since, since work has started I really haven’t been in the mood to do anything like that. So I haven’t been in the mood to go out with them.

Interviewer: So does that mean you’re not going out at all now?

Nick: Oh, sometimes they drag me out like a lot of the times I don’t want to go but sometimes they just drag me out, and when we actually go out I have a great time with them. So it’s like, it’s like nothing.

Interviewer: So you are still able to enjoy yourself at times but-

Nick: Yeah.

Interviewer: But it’s a bit hard to get yourself going?

Nick: Yeah, yeah. I just feel I don’t have the energy and just don’t want to do it anymore.

The DVD is paused. Take each of the 4 subscales and rate the Global Assessment and Frequency and Duration for each. Press Continue and the answers will follow.

UNUSUAL THOUGHT CONTENT – GLOBAL RATING SCALE

Alison Yung: Unusual thought content. Nick receives a zero for unusual thought content as he does not answer positively to any of the questions.

Non-Bizarre ideas. He does rate on the Non-Bizarre ideas sub-scale however because of the experiences he has been having at work lately. He receives a Global score of 5 with his persecutory ideas – feelings that other people know that he is bad at his job. As he has experienced these thoughts about strangers on the train it is highly unlikely that they are true. However these thoughts are not held with delusional conviction as he is able to question these thoughts. Thus the intensity is not as high as a score of 6. These thoughts have resulted in Nick taking some time off work. Hence they have resulted in some change in behavior. They are not very easy for Nick to dismiss which means that the intensity is not as low as a score of 3.

Because these thoughts occur most days when he is at work. and last for more than an hour he rates a frequency and duration score of 4.

Frequency and Duration

Pattern of Symptoms

Level of Distress (In Relation to Symptoms)

Not At All Distressed                                                                                                                  Extremely Distressed

Perceptual Abnormalities – Global Rating Scale

Perceptual Abnormalities – Nick states that he needed glasses. However, he does not report experiencing any perceptual abnormalities so for this sub-scale he rates a zero.

Disorganised Speech – Global Rating Scale

Disorganised speech – Nick reports that he sometimes has trouble finding the correct word at the right time. However people still understand what he is saying so he rates a global score of 2 for disorganized speech. He said that this does not happen very often so he rates a frequency and duration score of 1.

Nick meets the PACE  intake criteria for Group 2, the Attenuated Psychosis group. He also meets the drop in functioning criteria.

Note: Nick is played by an actor, however the interviewer is a doctor employed by Orygen Youth Health

[1] Orygen Youth Health Centre, 2009, “Comprehensive Assessment of At Risk Mental State (CAARMS) Training DVD”, The PACE Clinic, Department of Psychiatry, University of Melbourne. see http://www.eppic.org.au/risk-mental-state accessed 3 September 2012

[2] McGorry P. Right of Reply – Patrick McGorry on Early Intervention for Psychosis. December 11, 2010. http://speedupsitstill.com/reply-patrick-mcgorry-early-intervention-psychosis#more-1075

[3] Professor McGorry wrote “the false positive rate (for UHR) may exceed 50-60%” McGorry P.D. ‘Is early intervention in the major psychiatric disorders justified? Yes’, BMJ 2008;337:a695 http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/337/aug04_1/a695 (accessed 3 August 2010) Professor McGorry’s close colleague Alison Yung identified the conversion rate from UHR to first episode psychosis was 36% in an article in the Medical Journal of Australia titled Is it appropriate to treat people at high-risk of psychosis before first onset — Yes Available at https://www.mja.com.au/journal/2012/196/9/it-appropriate-treat-people-high-risk-psychosis-first-onset-yes

[4] Professor David Castle, Medical Journal of Australia, 21 May 2012, Is it appropriate to treat people at high-risk of psychosis before first onset — No Available at https://www.mja.com.au/journal/2012/196/9/it-appropriate-treat-people-high-risk-psychosis-first-onset-no

8 July 2012

An article in today’s Sunday Age, available at http://www.theage.com.au/national/youth-mental-health-team-too-free-with-drugs-audit-20120707-21o29.html, highlights the results of a prescribing audit of Patrick McGorry’s Orygen Youth Mental Health Service.  It found the service “prescribed medication to a majority of depressed 15 to 25-year-olds before they had received adequate counselling, despite international guidelines advising against the practice.”[1]

The audit of 150 patients treated in 2007 found “75 per cent of those diagnosed with depression were given the drugs too early. Clinical guidelines recommend that in most cases antidepressants should only be given to young people after they fail to respond to four to six sessions of psychotherapy, which usually takes about six weeks. However, the audit, carried out by Orygen’s own researchers, found on average patients received the drugs after just 27 days. It also showed that fewer than half were followed up to see whether their symptoms had improved or to check for side effects, which can include an increased risk of suicide.”[2]

It is commendable that Orygen[3] published the results of the audit, however the results make a mockery of Professor Patrick McGorry’s often repeated assertion that drugs are not the first-line treatment in any but the most serious cases.

In response Professor George Patton, director of adolescent research at the Centre for Adolescent Health at the Royal Children’s Hospital, told The Age, ”This paper illustrates how much we need to be looking at these new services [EPPIC and headspace] to determine the extent to which we’re following best clinical practice and to ask the questions, are we getting value for money out of these investments, and are we actually seeing better clinical outcomes?”[4]

At the very least there is an obvious need for an independent scientific review of the EPPIC and headspace programs identified for national rollout and for tight real time program wide auditing of medication practice.

Note: The issues raised in today’s Age article reinforce similar concerns I voiced last year about antidepressant prescribing at Professor McGorry’s other favourite project headspace.  I raised my concerns in the WA State Parliament and on my blog last year titled “Is Patrick McGorry’s and the Independent Mental Health Reform Group’s $3.5b blueprint for Australian mental health the way forward, or a prescription for more ‘psychiatric disorders’, ‘off label’ prescribing and youth suicide?” available at http://speedupsitstill.com/patrick-mcgorry%e2%80%99s-independent-mental-health-reform-group%e2%80%99s-3-5b-blueprint-australian-mental-health-forward-prescription-%e2%80%98psychiatric-disorders%e2%80%99-%e2%80%98off-label

[1] Jill Stark, Youth mental health team too free with drugs: audit, The Sunday Age, July 8, 2012

http://www.theage.com.au/national/youth-mental-health-team-too-free-with-drugs-audit-20120707-21o29.html

[2] Jill Stark, Youth mental health team too free with drugs: audit, The Sunday Age, July 8, 2012

http://www.theage.com.au/national/youth-mental-health-team-too-free-with-drugs-audit-20120707-21o29.html

[3] Orygen runs a range of youth mental health services, including EPPIC (Early Psychosis Prevention and Intervention Centre), PACE (Personal Assessment and Crisis Evaluation), YMC (Youth Mood Clinic) and HYPE (Helping Young People Early, for people with emerging borderline personality disorder).  In addition, Orygen is a partner in headspace.

[4] Jill Stark, Youth mental health team too free with drugs: audit, The Sunday Age, July 8, 2012

http://www.theage.com.au/national/youth-mental-health-team-too-free-with-drugs-audit-20120707-21o29.html

The central characteristics of ‘Disruptive Mood Disregulation Disorder’ proposed for inclusion in DSM5 are childhood “irritability” and “temper outbursts” occurring, ”on average, three or more times per week”.[1] Disruptive Mood Disregulation Disorder represents a disturbing evolution of the absurd and dangerous practice of diagnosing children, even very young children, with ‘Juvenile Bipolar Disorder’.  Although not an official psychiatric disorder Juvenile Bipolar Disorder was enthusiastically and successfully promoted by disgraced Harvard University Professor of Psychiatry, Joseph Biederman.

Biederman, who was also Director of the Johnson & Johnson Centre for Paediatric Psych-Pathology research at Massachusetts Hospital and according to the New York Times is the “the world’s most prominent advocate of diagnosing bipolar disorder in even the youngest children and of using antipsychotic medicines to treat the disease”.[2] He is largely responsible for the enormous growth in US antipsychotic prescribing rates to children including Johnson & Johnson’s very profitable antipsychotic Risperidone (brand name Risperidal).  In April Johnson & Johnson were fined US$1.2Billion by an Arkansas court for making misleading claims about the safety of Risperidal. This followed similar outcomes in other US states.[3]

In 2011, US congressional investigations led by Iowan Senator Charles E. Grassley exposed that Biederman received at least US$1.6m in undisclosed fees from drug-makers from 2000 to 2007 and only revealed a tiny fraction of this income to Harvard University.[4] The New York Times reports “court documents dating over several years that Dr. Biederman wants sealed showed that he told the drug-giant Johnson & Johnson that planned studies of its medicines in children would yield results benefiting the company”.[5]

Taking and not disclosing drug company money and planning beneficial research results is reprehensible behaviour. Harvard University’s decision to effectively give Biederman little more than a rap on the knuckles brings discredit to one of the world’s most prestigious universities.[6] Perhaps Harvard was motivated more by the funding that Biederman and his cronies attract to the university than by the damage they bring to the university’s reputation. Harvard’s failure to take strong ethical action against Biederman has meant that his influence, although waning, is still considerable.

Thankfully Juvenile Bipolar Disorder is not officially recognised as a diagnosable condition in the current DSM (DSMIV). Supporters lobbied to have it included in the DSMIV, however the DSMIV development committee “found scientific support unconvincing and refused to do so”.[7] Regardless, hundreds of thousands, possibly millions, of children have been diagnosed with the unofficial disorder and treated with anti-psychotics like Johnson & Johnson’s Risperidal.[8] These medications “can cause serious complications – major weight gain, obesity, diabetes, cardio vascular disease and possibly shortened life expectancy.  Sudden death has occurred in a few cases where excessive doses and/or multiple drugs were given to very young children.”[9]

The proposal to include Disruptive Mood Disregulation Disorder is in part a reaction to criticisms of the use of anti-psychotics for Juvenile Bipolar Disorder.  The authors of DSM5 are proposing Disruptive Mood Disregulation Disorder as an alternative to the diagnosis of Juvenile Bipolar Disorder, using the rationale that this will help curb anti-psychotic prescribing rates to children.  In effect, they are proposing a “juvenile bipolar light” disorder.

Given the unrestrained enthusiasm for prescribing psychotropics ‘off label’ to children exhibited by many clinicians, particularly paediatricians, the opposite is likely to occur.[10] The inevitable outcome is that more children will be diagnosed and experience tells us the more children diagnosed with a ‘psychiatric disorder’, the more children are subjected to the cheap and convenient practice of speculative ‘off label’ prescribing.

The only sensible course of action for the American Psychiatric Association is to reject out-of-hand the notion of Juvenile Bipolar Disorder or any lighter version thereof including Disruptive Mood Disregulation Disorder.  Failure to do so will drag the American Psychiatric Association into another epidemic of childhood drugging for which, unlike ADHD, they currently bear no responsibility.

[1] For a full description of the proposed diagnostic criteria see http://www.dsm5.org/proposedrevision/pages/proposedrevision.aspx?rid=397

[2] New York Times Topic Page for Professor Joseph Biederman available at http://topics.nytimes.com/topics/reference/timestopics/people/b/joseph_biederman/index.html]

[3] Companies belittled risks of Risperdal, slapped with huge fine, Los Angeles Times 11 April 2012. Michael Muskal available at http://articles.latimes.com/2012/apr/11/nation/la-na-nn-risperdal-arkansas-20120411

[4] New York Times Topic Page for Professor Joseph Biederman available at http://topics.nytimes.com/topics/reference/timestopics/people/b/joseph_biederman/index.html

[5] New York Times Topic Page for Professor Joseph Biederman available at http://topics.nytimes.com/topics/reference/timestopics/people/b/joseph_biederman/index.html

[6] For more detail see http://speedupsitstill.com/world-leading-adhd-%e2%80%98expert%e2%80%99-harvard-professor-joseph-biederman-sanctioned-hidden-drug-company-money-allegations

[7] Dr Allen Frances, Huffington Post, The false epidemic of Childhood Bipolar Disorder available at http://www.huffingtonpost.com/allen-frances/children-bipolar-disorder_b_1213028.html

[8] There are no reliable estimates of child prescribing patient numbers. In the U.S. outpatient office visits for children and adolescents with bipolar disorder increased 40-fold from 20,000 in 1994–95 to 800,000 in 2002–03. http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2011/06/19/mommy-am-i-really-bipolar.html

[9] Dr Allen Frances, Huffington Post, The false epidemic of Childhood Bipolar Disorder available at http://www.huffingtonpost.com/allen-frances/children-bipolar-disorder_b_1213028.html

[10] A recent study of psychiatrists in Christchurch New Zealand revealed that 96% of them prescribed antipsychotics off label. While it is unlikely that rate is replicated across the globe it is nonetheless an alarming statistic and indicates the practice is very common. M. Slezack, Psychiatry Update, 26 April 2012, 96% of psychiatrists prescribe off-label anti-psychotics  http://www.psychiatryupdate.com.au/latest-news/off-label-anti-psychotics-almost-universally-presc

Mental health policy in Australia, for so long ignored, is finally getting attention.  The Australian and West Australian governments have appointed their first Mental Health Ministers and significant resources are being identified for new and expanded services.  In addition sport stars, celebrities and politicians have publicly shared their personal battles with depression, bipolar and a host of other mental health problems – helping to ‘de-stigmatise’ mental illness.

To casual observers it may appear at last we are on track to a happier, mentally healthier tomorrow, however appearances can be misleading.  The future direction of mental health in Australia is far from certain.

Just about everybody involved in the debate agrees things need to change, but this is where the consensus ends.  There are at least three different directions on offer.  For the want of better descriptions, I will call them the ‘Americanisation’, the ‘Preventative Psychiatry’ and the ‘Recovery’ approaches.

Apart from spiraling mental health prescribing rates the most obvious evidence of the Americanisation of Australia’s mental health system is the dominance of the American Psychiatric Association’s Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) diagnostic model.  Often referred to as the ‘Bible of Psychiatry’, the current edition, DSM-IV, outlines the diagnostic criteria of 297 psychiatric disorders.

Like the yellow pages, subsequent editions of the DSM have thickened as new disorders have been added.  This expansion has been exploited by aggressive pharmaceutical company marketing, resulting in the ‘medication’ of people who would previously have been regarded as ‘normal’.

With the benefit of hindsight Professor Allen Frances, the Chairman of the Task Force that developed the DSM-IV, regrets aspects of the DSM-IV as having helped to trigger “false epidemics” including “the wild over-diagnosis of attention deficit disorder.”[1]

Professor Frances is particularly worried about the next edition, DSM-5, due for publication in 2013.  He contends that further diagnostic expansion driven by the inclusion of pet disorders of enthusiastic researchers will see even more ‘normal’ people made patients and more over-prescribing of psychotropic drugs.

Thankfully there is a significant international revolt, led by Professor Frances, from within the psychiatric and psychological professions, against the further medicalisation of behaviours proposed for DSM-5.  This has already caused the American Psychiatric Association to abandon some of its more controversial DSM-5 proposals including ‘Psychosis Risk Disorder’ and the expansion of the already absurdly broad diagnostic criteria for ADHD.

Australia’s most prominent psychiatrist, former Australian of the Year, Professor Patrick McGorry, has also expressed concern about the over-prescription of psychiatric drugs in the US, however he argues the risks aren’t as great here.[2] Unlike the US we don’t allow direct advertising to consumers, however the pharmaceutical industry aggressively market their drugs to the Australian doctors who prescribe them.  They also sponsor medical research, conferences, educational opportunities and even patient support groups that ‘raise awareness’ of the disorders their drugs treat. Australia is far from immune from undue pharmaceutical company influence.

Professor McGorry is arguably the world’s most prominent advocate of Preventative Psychiatry. He believes that prior to the onset of psychosis, depression and other serious mental illness there is a ‘prodromal phase’ and that intervening then will help save many the misery of full blown mental illness.

Critics of Preventative Psychiatry, including Professor Frances, contend it simply doesn’t work. They argue you can’t predict with sufficient accuracy, who will go onto become ill and that even when it is accurate, independent evidence indicates that preventative measures don’t work.

Even Professor McGorry acknowledges that the vast majority of people that are identified as being at Ultra High Risk of developing psychosis, his specialist area, never do.[3] Nonetheless, he argues the benefits of predictive intervention massively outweigh the risks of doing nothing.

The belief intervention could prevent psychosis was part of the rationale for the Gillard Government’s 2011 decision to allocate $222.4million for the role out of Early Psychosis Prevention Intervention Centres (EPPICs) across Australia.  At the time of the decision it looked very likely that DSM5 would include a ‘Psychosis Risk Disorder’. Now that is not happening, the future of the ‘preventative’ function of EPPICs is uncertain.

Adding to this uncertainty is Preventative Psychiatry’s long and continuing history of unsuccessfully experimenting with psychotropic drugs as a means of ‘immunizing’ people considered at elevated risk of future mental illness.  While EPPICs will provide a broad range of psychosocial services and also treat patients who are already psychotic, significant questions remain unanswered.

The final option, the Recovery approach, centres on developing a patient’s own capabilities and resilience.   As opposed to the ‘ongoing disability’ or ‘impending doom’ assumptions inherent in the Americanisation and  Preventative Psychiatry approaches, the Recovery approach is more optimistic about the capacity for recovery and less reliant on pills.  It supports mentally ill patients with housing, educational, employment and psychosocial support – building blocks for a healthy and happy mind that can’t be replaced by drugs.

While the Recovery approach is more optimistic about human resilience, it is more realistic about the limits of psychiatry than either of the other approaches.  The Americanisation approach is based on the unrealistic assumption that psychiatric science can accurately identify at least 297 different disorders, and the Preventative Psychiatry approach on the fanciful notion that mental illness can be reliably spotted before it happens.

Unfortunately a significant disadvantage for the Recovery approach is that it offers a pessimistic outlook for the profitability of pharmaceutical companies.  If history is any predictor of the future this could prove to be its’ fatal flaw.

Related Media

The above was originally printed as an opinion piece in the West Australian Newspaper Wednesday 13 June 2012 available at http://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/opinion/post/-/blog/13939119/mental-health-needs-rethink/

[1] Prof. Allen Frances, ‘Psychiatrists Propose Revisions to Diagnosis Manual’, PBS Newshour, 10 February 2010. Available at http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/health/jan-june10/mentalillness_02-10.html

[2] Amy Corderoy, About-turn on treatment of the Young,Sydney Morning Herald, February 20, 2012http://www.smh.com.au/national/health/aboutturn-on-treatment-of-the-young-20120219-1th8a.html]

[3] McGorry P.D. ‘Is early intervention in the major psychiatric disorders justified? Yes’, BMJ 2008;337:a695 http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/337/aug04_1/a695(accessed 3 August 2010)]

The article states;

A new synthesis of behavioral, cognitive and pharmacological findings emerged at the recent Experimental Biology meeting, held last month in San Diego, where experts in ADHD research and treatment gathered to present their work. Their findings suggest that behavioral and cognitive therapies focused on reducing impulsivity and reinforcing positive long-term habits may be able to replace current high doses of stimulant treatment in children and young adults…

Psychologist Claire Advokat of Louisiana State University has been looking at the effects of stimulant medications in college students to see what improves with medication and what does not. As expected, she found that people diagnosed with ADHD had lower grades and ACT (American College Testing) scores; they also dropped more classes than their peers. But she also found that these issues were not improved by stimulant medication treatment.

Instead, Advokat’s new findings indicate that the ADHD students naturally divided into those who had good study habits and those who did not, regardless of treatment. If students had good study habits, they did not need the medication to bolster their grades.

(The full article is available at http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=adhd-behavioral-therapy-more-effective-drugs-long-term&WT.mc_id=SA_CAT_MB_20120516 )

Temporarily putting aside concerns with the validity of ADHD as a diagnosable disorder, I welcome the long overdue recognition of what should be obvious. That is, cheap and messy drug interventions may immediately alter behaviour but there are no chemical short cuts to long-term academic success.

1- Tends to act without thinking, such as starting tasks without adequate preparation or avoiding reading or listening to instructions. May speak out without considering consequences or make important decisions on the spur of the moment, such as impulsively buying items, suddenly quitting a job, or breaking up with a friend.

2- Is often impatient, as shown by feeling restless when waiting for others and wanting to move faster than others, wanting people to get to the point, speeding while driving, and cutting into traffic to go faster than others.

3- Is uncomfortable doing things slowly and systematically and often rushes through activities or tasks.

4- Finds it difficult to resist temptations or opportunities, even if it means taking risks (A child may grab toys off a store shelf or play with dangerous objects; adults may commit to a relationship after only a brief acquaintance or take a job or enter into a business arrangement without doing due diligence).[2. for full details of the now abandoned DSM5 ADHD proposal refer to http://speedupsitstill.com/dsm-5-proposal-adhd-%e2%80%93-making-lifelong-patients-healthy-people ]

It is good news that these ridiculous additions have been removed along with the extremely worrying proposal to lower the bar for anyone over 16 years so that exhibiting 4 criteria of a subtype instead of 6 could be enough to get a diagnosis of ADHD.  However, the existing 18 diagnostic criteria have been reworded to be equally applicable to adults as well as children, reflecting the ADHD industries persistent and successful efforts to expand the adult market. (The revised proposed criteria are listed at the end of this blog)[3. see http://www.dsm5.org/ProposedRevision/Pages/proposedrevision.aspx?rid=383 ]

Another remaining concern is the proposal for an ADHD category titled Attention Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder Not Elsewhere Classified must be removed.  This additional category reads: Attention Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) Not Elsewhere Classified may be coded in cases in which the individuals are below threshold for ADHD or for whom there is insufficient opportunity to verify all criteria. However, ADHD-related symptoms should be associated with impairment, and they are not better explained by any other mental disorder.[4. see http://www.dsm5.org/ProposedRevision/Pages/proposedrevision.aspx?rid=102] The inclusion of this additional category effectively enables clinicians to diagnose and prescribe without even the flimsy protection offered by the already extremely broad DSM4 diagnostic criteria. It cannot be allowed to stand unchallenged.

While the back-downs from the original DSM5 proposals for Psychosis Risk, ADHD and a number of other dubious disorders are welcome they do not begin to go far enough.  Continued pressure through protest and common-sense advocacy must be brought to bear on the American Psychiatric Association (APA).

The APA only responded after significant past users of the DSM, including the British Psychological Association and chapters of the American Psychological Association threatened a boycott of DSM5.[5. refer to http://speedupsitstill.com/sign-on-line-petition-proposed-dsm5 and http://speedupsitstill.com/dr-allen-frances-lead-author-dsmiv-british-psychological-association-lead-chorus-opposition-disease-mongering-proposals-dsm5] This demonstrates that the APA’s DSM development process is driven by politics and money, rather than science and patient welfare. If their proposals were scientifically robust they would have defended them rather than compromising when the going got tough.

The resistance of DSM5 must continue.  Ideally Australia should reject the permanent disability model of mental health embedded in the DSM and develop a model of treating mental illness designed to enhance individual resilience and assist the natural capacity of most mentally ill people to make a full recovery.

Continuing to follow the APA’s lead, will unnecessarily doom many more Australians to a vicious cycle of difficult personal circumstances, behavioural difficulties, dumbed down labelling, inappropriate prescribing and further prescribing to manage adverse side effects.

Nonetheless yesterday’s back-downs are a welcome first step in the right direction.  More than any other individual former DSMIV chairperson, Doctor Allen Frances, deserves credit for leading the ongoing fight against the excesses of DSM5. Doctor Frances’ blog which deals with progress made and the need for continued advocacy is copied below.[6. The original is available at http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/dsm5-in-distress/201205/wonderful-news-dsm-5-finally-begins-its-belated-and-necessary-retreat ]

Hear Martin Whitely interviewed on Brisbane Radio 4BC about the backdown on ADHD for the proposed DSM5 at http://www.4bc.com.au/blogs/4bc-blog/adhd-and-its-psychosis-listing/20120524-1z6rg.html

Hear the ABC World Today Program interview Patrick McGorry and Martin Whitely regarding the DSM5 Psychosis Risk Disorder backdown at http://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/content/2012/s3511017.htm

Wonderful News: DSM 5 Finally Begins Its Belated and Necessary Retreat

Perhaps this will be the beginning of real reform.

Published on May 2, 2012 by Allen J. Frances, M.D. in DSM5 in Distress

Sigh of relief. The DSM 5 website announced this morning that two of its most controversial proposals have finally been dropped. We have dodged bullets on Psychosis Risk and Mixed Anxiety Depression. Both are now definitively rejected as official DSM 5 diagnoses and instead are being exiled to the appendix. And one other piece of good news; the criteria set for Attention Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder has been tightened (not enough, but every little bit helps).

The world is a safer place now that ‘Psychosis Risk’ will not be in DSM 5. Its rejection saves our kids from the risk of unnecessary exposure to antipsychotic drugs (with their side effects of obesity, diabetes, cardiovascular problems, and shortened life expectancy). ‘Psychosis Risk’ was the single worst DSM 5 proposal—we should all be grateful that DSM 5 has finally come to its senses in dropping it.

For the first time in its history, DSM 5 has shown some flexibility and capacity to correct itself. Hopefully, this is just the beginning of what will turn out to be a number of other necessary DSM 5 retreats. Today’s revisions should be just the first step in a systematic program of reform—a prelude to all the other changes needed before DSM 5 can become a safe and scientifically sound document.

The turnabout here can be attributed to the combination of: 1) extensive criticism from experts in the field; 2) public outrage; 3) uniformly negative press coverage and; 4) the abysmal results in DSM 5 field testing. The same factors working together should deep six many of the other risky DSM 5 proposals. This is certainly no time for complacency. Much of the rest of DSM 5 is still a mess. The reliabilities achieved for many of the other disorders are apparently unbelievably low and the writing of the criteria sets is still unacceptably imprecise. The following specific questions need to be answered.

1) Why introduce Disruptive Mood Dysregulation Disorder when it has been studied by only one research team for only six years and risks further encouraging the inappropriate use of antipsychotic drugs for kids with temper tantrums?

2) Why have a diagnosis for Minor Neurocognitive Disorder that will unnecessarily frighten many people who have no more than the memory problems of old age?

3) Why insist on removing the Bereavement exclusion—thus allowing the inappropriate diagnosis of Major Depressive Disorder in people who are experiencing normal grief?

4) Why open the floodgates to even more over-diagnosis and over-medication of Attention Deficit Disorder (by raising the allowed age of onset to 12)?

5) Why dramatically lower the threshold for Generalized Anxiety Disorder when this will confound mental disorder with the anxiety and sadness of everyday life?

6) Why combine substance abuse with substance dependence under the rubric of Addictive Disorders—when this confuses their different treatment needs and creates unnecessary stigma for many young people who will never go on to ‘addiction’?

7) Why include a category for Behavioral Addictions that will open the door to the mislabelling as mental disorder all sorts of normal interests and passions? The DSM 5 suggestion to include ‘internet addiction’ in the Appendix is an ominous first step.

8) Why include wording in the Pedophilia criteria set that will invite further forensic abuse of the already much misused Paraphilia section?

9) Why label as mental disorder the experience of indulging in one binge eating episode a week for three months?

10) Why introduce a system of personality diagnosis so complicated it will never be used and will give dimensional diagnosis an undeserved bad name?

11) Why not delay publication of DSM 5 to allow enough time to complete the previously planned and crucial second stage of field testing that was abruptly cancelled because of the constant administrative delays in completing the first stage? This is the only way to guarantee acceptable reliability. We should not accept ambiguously worded DSM 5 diagnoses whose reliability barely exceeds chance?

12) And most fundamental. Why not allow for an independent scientific review of all the remaining controversial DSM 5 changes. This has been proposed by fifty-one mental health organizations as the only way to guarantee a credible DSM 5?

The public has 6 weeks to comment on the current DSM 5 suggestions. Then there will be a round of final decisions- with everything probably sewn up by mid-fall. This opening chink in the previously impervious DSM 5 armour should spur renewed efforts to get the rest of DSM 5 right.

For more on the latest revisions of the DSM 5 criteria sets, see here.

Take this last opportunity to be heard.

To comment directly to the American Psychiatric Association on their proposals click on http://www.dsm5.org/Pages/Registration.aspx

Related Media

Psychiatry Manual Drafters Back Down on Diagnoses by BENEDICT CAREY in New York Times 8 May 2012

Sue Dunlevy, Medical ‘Bible’ Squabble, The Weekend Australian, 19 May 2012 available at http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/health-science/medical-bible-squabble/story-e6frg8y6-1226359242372

Below are the (revised) proposed DSM5 diagnostic criteria for ADHD

(see http://www.dsm5.org/ProposedRevision/Pages/proposedrevision.aspx?rid=383 )

AD/HD consists of a pattern of behavior that is present in multiple settings where it gives rise to social, educational or work performance difficulties.

A. Either (A1) and/or (A2).

A1. Inattention: Six (or more) of the following symptoms have persisted for at least 6 months to a degree that is inconsistent with developmental level and that impact directly on social and academic/occupational activities.

a.   Often fails to give close attention to details or makes careless mistakes in schoolwork, at work, or during other activities (e.g., overlooks or misses details, work is inaccurate).

b.   Often has difficulty sustaining attention in tasks or play activities (e.g., has difficulty remaining focused during lectures, conversations, or reading lengthy writings).

c.   Often does not seem to listen when spoken to directly (e.g., mind seems elsewhere, even in the absence of any obvious distraction).

d.   Often does not follow through on instructions and fails to finish schoolwork, chores, or duties in the workplace (e.g., starts tasks but quickly loses focus and is easily sidetracked;  fails to finish schoolwork, household chores, or tasks in the workplace).

e.   Often has difficulty organizing tasks and activities (e.g., difficulty managing sequential tasks; difficulty keeping materials and belongings in order; messy, disorganized, work; poor time management; tends to fail to meet deadlines).

f.    Often avoids, dislikes, or is reluctant to engage in tasks that require sustained mental effort (e.g., schoolwork or homework; for older adolescents and adults, preparing reports, completing forms, or reviewing lengthy papers).

g.   Often loses things necessary for tasks or activities (e.g., school materials, pencils, books, tools, wallets, keys, paperwork, eyeglasses, or mobile telephones).

h.   Is often easily distracted by extraneous stimuli (for older adolescents and adults, may include unrelated thoughts).

i.    Is often forgetful in daily activities (e.g., chores, running errands; for older adolescents and adults, returning calls, paying bills, keeping appointments).

A2. Hyperactivity and Impulsivity: Six (or more) of the following symptoms have persisted for at least 6 months to a degree that is inconsistent with developmental level and that impact directly on social and academic/occupational activities.

a.   Often fidgets with or taps hands or feet or squirms in seat.

b.   Often leaves seat in situations when remaining seated is expected (e.g., leaves his or her place in the classroom, office or other workplace, or in other situations that require remaining seated).

c.   Often runs about or climbs in situations where it is inappropriate. (In adolescents or adults, may be limited to feeling restless).

d.   Often unable to play or engage in leisure activities quietly. 

e.   Is often “on the go,” acting as if “driven by a motor” (e.g., is unable or uncomfortable being still for an extended time, as in restaurants, meetings, etc; may be experienced by others as being restless and difficult to keep up with).

f.    Often talks excessively.

g.   Often blurts out an answer before a question has been completed (e.g., completes people’s sentences and “jumps the gun” in conversations, cannot wait for next turn in conversation).

h.   Often has difficulty waiting his or her turn (e.g., while waiting in line).

i.    Often interrupts or intrudes on others (e.g., butts into conversations, games, or activities; may start using other people’s things without asking or receiving permission, adolescents or adults may intrude into or take over what others are doing).

B.   Several inattentive or hyperactive-impulsive symptoms were present prior to age 12.

C.   Criteria for the disorder are met in two or more settings (e.g., at home, school or work, with friends or relatives, or in other activities).

D.   There must be clear evidence that the symptoms interfere with or reduce the quality of social, academic, or occupational functioning.

E.   The symptoms do not occur exclusively during the course of schizophrenia or another psychotic disorder and are not better accounted for by another mental disorder (e.g., mood disorder, anxiety disorder, dissociative disorder, or a personality disorder).

 Specify Based on Current Presentation

Combined Presentation: If both Criterion A1 (Inattention) and Criterion A2 (Hyperactivity-Impulsivity) are met for the past 6 months.

Predominantly Inattentive Presentation: If Criterion A1 (Inattention) is met but Criterion A2 (Hyperactivity-Impulsivity) is not met and 3 or more symptoms from Criterion A2 have been present for the past 6 months.

Inattentive Presentation (Restrictive): If Criterion A1 (Inattention) is met but no more than 2 symptoms from Criterion A2 (Hyperactivity-Impulsivity) have been present for the past 6 months.

Predominantly Hyperactive/Impulsive Presentation: If Criterion A2 (Hyperactivity-Impulsivity) is met and Criterion A1 (Inattention) is not met for the past 6 months. 

Coding note: For individuals (especially adolescents and adults) who currently have symptoms with impairment that no longer meet full criteria, “In Partial Remission” should be specified.

The eleven year study of children aged six to twelve in the Canadian province of British Columbia, titled Influence of relative age on diagnosis and treatment of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder in children[1. Richard L. Morrow MA (et al), ‘Influence of relative age on diagnosis and treatment of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder in children’ CMAJ, March 5, 2012, http://www.cmaj.ca/content/early/2012/03/05/cmaj.111619.full.pdf+html ], confirms the ADHD late birthdate effect found in two recent smaller US studies described in my previous blog post.

The late birthday effect in the massive new Canadian study was very significant. Boys who were born in December were 30% more likely to have a diagnosis and 41% more likely to have a prescription for ADHD than their peers born in January.

The effect was even stronger for girls.  Girls born in December were 70% more likely to have a diagnosis and 77% more likely, to have a prescription for ADHD than their peers born in January.

British Columbia children exhibited the general worldwide trend that ADHD diagnosis and prescribing rates for boys are approximately three times greater than for girls.[2. Boyles, S. ‘Study confirms ADHD is more common in boys’, WebMD Health News, 15 September 2004 <http://www.webmd.com/add-adhd/news/20040915/study-confirms-adhd-is-more-common-in-boys> (accessed 10 March 2011)]  This is consistent with the traditional wisdom that girls grow up faster than boys.

Drugging boys to make them behave more like girls in class demonstrates just how empty modern educational ‘philosophies of inclusion’ are.  But many girls are also chemically punished for their childishness when compared to their older classmates.

Obviously younger children are more likely to be immature with the youngest kindergarten children having 20% less life experience than their oldest classmates. However, it should not be lost that children develop at different rates.

If a child is less mature than other children their own age, or even younger, they are not diseased, they are different.  Classing relative immaturity as a disease to be treated with amphetamines, is a barbaric abuse of a child’s right to grow at their own pace.

If, as the ADHD Industry frequently claims, ADHD is a neurobiological disease, a child’s birth date should have no bearing on their chances of being diagnosed and ‘medicated’.  Yet the ADHD Industry will respond as it always does and ignore or spin yet another inconvenient truth revealed in this study.

 Related Media:

Martin Whitely interviewed by Greg Carey, Radio 4BC, Brisbane 20 March 2012. http://www.4bc.com.au/blogs/4bc-blog/adhd-misdiagnosis/20120320-1vh3e.html

Sue Dunlevy, Immature Children prone to ADHD Tag, The Australian, 20 March 2012 http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/health-science/immature-children-prone-to-adhd-tag/story-e6frg8y6-1226304525855

For more related information see Pseudoscience supporting ADHD and How is ADHD Diagnosed?