former Harkness fellow at Harvard and columnist with the British Medical Journal, Dr Ray Moynihan is author of four books on the business of medicine. Dr. Ray Moynihan’s article "ADHD push warrants more attention" was published on page 11 of The Byron Shire Echo on November 15, 2023. The piece examines the sharp rise in attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder diagnoses and awareness campaigns as part of a broader academic focus on medical overdiagnosis. Read the full publication at The Byron Shire Echo. [1]
Mad in America: Bad science, bad medicine, and the enduring mistreatment of the mentally ill,
and Anatomy of an epidemic: magic bullets, psychiatric drugs, and the astonishing rise of mental illness in America
medical journalist Robert Whitaker youtube talk.
Major pharmaceutical companies often generate net profits reaching or exceeding $18 billion individually in a single fiscal year, with top firms like Johnson & Johnson and Merck reporting profits at or above that milestone. . The largest drug companies made over $130 billion in net earnings in 2025
https://www.protectourcare.org/greed-watch-drug-company-profits-skyrocket-as-trump-cuts-back-room-deals-that-screw-over-working-families/
Major Pharmaceutical Profits
- Johnson & Johnson: Reported net profits of approximately $27 billion.
- Merck: Recorded net profits around $18 billion.
The continued uneasiness around ADHD is perhaps owed to the fact that there is little scientific consensus about the disorder, argues scholar Susan Hawthorne. “Despite decades refining its diagnostic category,” she writes, “aspects of [medical, scientific, and social] understanding and practice remain unsettled or controversial.” To this day, scientists debate whether the disorder is a form of biological dysfunction or simply a medicalization of normal deviance, promoted by pharmaceutical companies to sell drugs to bigger and bigger populations.
https://daily.jstor.org/adhd-the-history-of-a-diagnosis/
A Disease Called Childhood: Why ADHD Became an American Epidemic
Marilyn Wedge
A surprising new look at the rise of ADHD in America, arguing for a better paradigm for diagnosing and treating our children
In 1987, only 3 percent of American children were diagnosed with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder, also known as ADHD. By 2000, that number jumped to 7 percent, and in 2014 the number rose to an alarming 11 percent. To combat the disorder, two thirds of these children, some as young as three years old, are prescribed powerful stimulant drugs like Ritalin and Adderall to help them cope with symptoms. Meanwhile, ADHD rates have remained relatively low in other countries such as France, Finland, and the United Kingdom, and Japan, where the number of children diagnosed with and medicated for ADHD is a measly 1 percent or less. Alarmed by this trend, family therapist Marilyn Wedge set out to understand how ADHD became an American epidemic. If ADHD were a true biological disorder of the brain, why was the rate of diagnosis so much higher in America than it was abroad?
Language: English
Published by Oxford University Press, 2013
Science adds to our understanding of ADHD by working out mechanisms of causation, symptom production, and intervention. So far, despite alternative hypotheses, the sciences have also stood by models that align with DSM-defined ADHD. Why? In part because—allowing for significant gaps in scientific knowledge—the data fit, by and large. But science’s commitment to certain reasoning patterns and methodologies also encourages adherence. For example, sticking with the same model makes it simpler to demonstrate data convergence across fields: researchers can be more certain that they are comparing apples to apples. Similarly, the common focus on _difference_ (typically difference of “ADHD” from “non-ADHD”) meshes well with the DSM’s categorical portrayal of ADHD. These under-recognized effects of methodology, among other factors, slow down exploration of alternatives. Common methodologies and scientific goals also encourage dichotomization, reductionistic biological perspectives, and reification of ADHD—three aspects of the predominant view that contribute to intolerance.
Mental Health vs Well-Being
More ambitiously, there are high-profile proposals to adopt a positive definition, identifying mental health with psychic or even overall well-being. We argue against both: a definition of mental health as mere absence of mental illness is too thin, too undemanding, and too closely linked to psychiatric value judgments, while the definition in terms of well-being is too demanding and potentially oppressive. As a compromise, we sketch out a middle position. On this view, mental health is a primary good, that is, the psychological preconditions of pursuing any conception of the good life, including well-being, without being identical to well-being.
psychoanalysis and all its attendant categories of trauma, repression, sublimation, and so on were getting purged from DSM-III,5 Boorse chose to ground his account of mental health, ostensibly scientific and objective, in the theory that was quickly losing ground in the psychiatric consensus.....Is health more than the “silence of the organs?”7 Boorse himself rejected the calls for a positive definition—they were prominent already in the 1970s—as entirely confused (Boorse, 1977, 568–70). The relevant medical concept is the negative one and the positive concept is mostly a rhetorical tool for enthusiasts of fitness, dieting, and other healthy living movements. Sure, prevention of disease is important, and these activities might be effective for that purpose, but nothing more than the standard negative definition is needed for that. Ideas that go under the label of positive health are only tools for reducing disease.
The capacities of each and all of us to feel, think, and act in ways that enhance our ability to enjoy life and deal with the challenges we face.
Diagnosis or Social Construct? - a 2025 ADHD Ph.D. thesis
While the
clinical paradigm predominantly defines ADHD as a biological disorder—a persistent
pattern of inattention and/or hyperactivity-impulsivity that interferes with functioning or
development (American Psychiatric Association, 2022)—alternative perspectives suggest
that ADHD may be more of a social construct than a medical condition.
The most vehement critiques of ADHD medicalization were addressed by the
sociologists. Psychiatrists or physicians attend to stakeholders in collecting information
about the students with ADHD, and not on the genetic and neuroanatomy investigations.
Some sociologists consider that ADHD is not a biological or psychiatric disorder, and it
can be better explained by environmental causes or even by personality type (Edmunds,
2011; Hacking, 2000; Timimi, 2015).
I just ordered the below "lulu" book!
They Say My Child Has 'adhd': Debunking the Bio-psychiatric Paradigm
De Dr. D.L. Edmunds, Ed.D.
ADHD drugs!
Disorders are only intelligible due to the normative and social context in which they are found, and so medical sociology can recognize the validity of biological claims about disorders, such as Attention-Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder, while still asserting the essential social nature of disorder.
really?
This chapter reviews the philosophical literature on health and disease. It discusses naturalism (the view that disease is a value-free concept), normativism (the view that the concept of disease is, essentially, value laden), and reasons why the polarizing opposition between naturalism and normativism may have to be rejected or, at least, nuanced.
Corporate Big Pharma Fascist norms
Ph.D. thesis - what is "abnormality" anyway?
Stein, D. J. (2008). Philosophy of psychopharmacology: Smart pills, happy pills, and pep pills. Cambridge University Press.
Language: English
Published by Scribner, 2017
- I vividly recall an instance of an unusually zealous drug rep. This representative, in an attempt to beguile our office with promises of a revolutionary new medicinal construct, decked out the meeting area with an assortment of themed cupcakes, followed by a painfully euphoric karaoke session that was, unfortunately, most decidedly off-key. And while this feels like a snippet straight out of comic folklore, we must always remember to view these actions in the appropriate light."
"Big Pharma Says You Have ADHD!" is an eye-opening exploration into the intricate relationship between Big Pharma and ADHD diagnoses. Dr. Jerry D. Smith Jr. delves into the controversial practices of pharmaceutical giants and their influence on public perception and healthcare. Through engaging anecdotes and rigorous research, this book unveils the impact of Big Pharma on ADHD awareness, diagnosis, and treatment. If you've ever questioned the prevalence of ADHD diagnoses or the motivations behind them, this compelling read offers a critical, thought-provoking perspective.
Meet the desktop setup community Skip navigation Create 9+ Avatar image Meet the desktop setup community The Selling of ADHD: Diagnoses, Prescriptions Soar After 20-Year Marketing Effort by Big Pharma 1/2
Taken at face value, the latest figures on Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) suggest a growing epidemic in the United States. According to the Centers for Disease Control, 15 percent of high school children are diagnosed with ADHD. The number of those on stimulant medication is at 3.5 million, up from 600,000 two decades ago. ADHD is now the second most common long-term diagnosis in children, narrowly trailing asthma. But a new report in the New York Times questions whether these staggering figures reflect a medical reality, or an over-medicated craze that has earned billions in profits for the pharmaceutical companies involved.
part 2
Sales for ADHD drugs like Adderall and Concerta topped $9 billion in the United States last year, a more than 500 percent jump from a decade before. The radical spike in diagnoses has coincided with a 20-year marketing effort to promote stimulant prescriptions for children struggling in school, as well as for adults seeking to take control of their lives. The marketing effort has relied on studies and testimonials from a select group of doctors who have received massive speaking fees and funding grants from major pharmaceutical companies. We are joined by four guests: Alan Schwarz, an award-winning reporter who wrote the New York Times piece, "The Selling of Attention Deficit Disorder"; Jamison Monroe, a former teenage Adderall addict who now runs Newport Academy, a treatment center for teens suffering from substance abuse and mental health issues; Dr. Gabor Maté, a physician and bestselling author of four books, including "Scattered: How Attention Deficit Disorder Originates and What You Can Do About It"; and John Edwards, the father of a college student who committed suicide after he was prescribed Adderall and antidepressant medications at the Harvard University Health Services clinic.
Marilyn Wedge - ADHD is a construct
Since the DSM 3 the "mental illness" - are "social constructions" not true diseases
Lies, damned lies, and medical science
DH Freedman - The Atlantic, 2010 - polaris.imag.fr
JJ Paris,
BM Cummings - The American Journal of Bioethics, 2021 - Taylor & Francis
… Sissela Bok wrote in the 1999 edition of her text on
Lying, “In any situation where a
lie is a
possible choice, one must first seek truthful alternatives. Only where a
lie is a ‘last resort’ can …
Cite Cited by 2 Related articles All 6 versions DP Kernick - The Lancet, 1998 - thelancet.com
… But no-one has tipped the glitterati of evidencebased medicine (EBM) the wink—that the
basis of modern science is one of uncertainty; that we live in a chaotic system where …
"cosmetic psychopharmacology" - means the mental disease is a shopping experience!!
"Consumer medicalism"
Thomas Insel who is a prime example of an exuberant psychiatrist. He pushed neuroscience and genetics and got papers published at a cost of about $20 billion, and even though this did not result in anything useful for the patients, he has no regrets about NIMH funding all this. Moreover, Insel wrote in his book that “The idea of mental illness as a ‘chemical imbalance’ has now given way to mental illnesses as ‘connectional’ or brain circuit disorders.” This is plain nonsense, with no supporting evidence.
psychiatry is characterised by delusions. As I have shown
in this book, the psychiatrists’ predominant idiosyncratic beliefs are not shared by people
considered sane - the general public - but the psychiatrists forcefully maintain them, even
when reality, including the most reliable science we have, and rational argument or logic
clearly show that their basic beliefs are wrong.
When people criticise psychiatry, they are often called “anti-psychiatry” or conspiracy
theorists, reactions which seem to have a persecutory delusional element.
"Delegated Narcissism" - the Psychiatrist shrinks worship the FDA-Big Pharma "captured agency" collusion. A Shrink can make $1 million a year by cranking out drug prescriptions! Wow.
David Healy, the psychiatrist from the University of Wales who sued the University of Toronto for $C9.4 million (£4.1m; $US6m; €6.6m), claiming violation of academic freedom and defamation as a scientist and physician, has been named visiting professor in the Canadian university's medical faculty. His supporters regard this as a vindication for Dr Healy.
In September 2000, Dr Healy accepted the post of director of the mood and anxiety disorders programme at the university's affiliated Centre for Addiction and Mental Health, which included a university professorship. After delivering a lecture at the Centre in November 2000, during which he voiced criticisms of psychotropic drugs, the offer was abruptly rescinded. Dr Healy and his supporters believed the rescindment was due to his remarks about the drugs, which included Prozac (fluoxetine), manufactured by Eli Lilly, which donated funds to the centre (BMJ 2001;323:591).
SSRIs causes your genitals to numb and it can remain for the rest of your life!!
In a letter to the university president, an international group of renowned scientists accused the university of violating academic freedom for fear of losing research funds, saying the decision to rescind Dr Healy's offer "besmirched" the name of the university and "poisoned the reputation" of the centre. It called the affair "an affront to the standards of free speech and academic freedom." Last October, Dr Healy launched a law suit against the university (BMJ 2001;323:770).
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC1174757/
https://feelinggood.com/2026/03/09/492-meet-the-fantastic-and-controversial-dr-david-healy/
Dr. David Healy for some of his highly controversial books, like “The Antidepressant Era,” “Let Them Eat Prozac,” and “Pharmageddon.” Interview with David Healy
Anti-Depressants are Pro-Suicide Drugs! Dang.
Weird - Googlebooks never brought those titles up?!
8% of children treated with pills developed mania or hypomania versus
only 0.2% on placebo.330 A systematic review including all ages also found an 8% rate.331
Fluoxetine is a horrible drug that should never have been approved. But Lilly was in finan-
cial trouble and turned their drug, which they had wanted to shelve, into a blockbuster.
Lilly’s frauds are second to none, but other drug companies also indulged in fraud and
organised crime and the drug regulators were complicit in this.332
David Healy had expected a firestorm when we published our review but there was total
silence. The only person that has cited it in a medical journal is me.333 No one took any
interest in our shocking revelations, which shows how corrupt psychiatry is.
The two prestigious journals that published the two fluoxetine trials are also corrupt. In
August 2023, I wrote to the editors and called for retraction of three fraudulent reports of
placebo-controlled trials of depression drugs in children and adolescents, including a study
of paroxetine (known as GSK study 329).334 Ten people who lost a child or spouse to suicide
as a consequence of being prescribed a depression drug for a non-psychiatric condition -
issues that all of us can experience - were co-signatories.
All three trial reports seriously underreported the suicide risk and provided false claims
that the drugs are effective.
We told the editors of Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry
and JAMA Psychiatry (previously Archives of General Psychiatry) that, “By retracting the
fraudulent trial reports and explaining why in accompanying editorials, you will provide a
much-needed service to the scientific community and the world’s citizens, which will reduce
the risk of additional meaningless suicides in children and young people. If you don’t act,
you will not only sully the reputation of your journals. You will also be seen as being com-
plicit in future suicides caused by antidepressants as a direct harm of these drugs.”
https://www.scientificfreedom.dk/wp-content/uploads/2024/08/2024-Gotzsche-Is-psychiatry-a-crime-against-humanity.pdf
Dr. Joseph Biederman, a prominent child psychiatrist at Harvard University and Massachusetts General Hospital, was the focus of a 2008 congressional investigation for failing to fully disclose millions in funding from pharmaceutical companies that manufactured ADHD medications.
[1, 2] Raymond Dolan et. al. expose the Emptiness of biological mind diseases A breakdown of his major Neuron reviews and their core takeaways provides a clear overview of his contributions:
1. Neuroimaging in Psychiatry: "Failing Better" (2022)
Co-authored with Matthew M. Nour and Yunzhe Liu, this highly discussed perspective piece, titled "Functional neuroimaging in psychiatry and the case for failing better," delivered a sobering critique of biological psychiatry.
[1] - The Three-Decade Impasse: Despite over 30 years of intense research and more than 16,000 published neuroimaging papers, the field lacks a definitive neurobiological or mechanistic account for any psychiatric condition. [1]
- Zero Clinical Utility: The authors note that functional neuroimaging (like fMRI) currently plays no role in clinical decision-making or diagnosis. [1]
As Dolan starkly summarized, “It remains difficult to refute a critique that psychiatry's most fundamental characteristic is its ignorance... while its attempts to lay bare the etiology of its disorders have been a litany of failures.” -- [Mad In America]. - The Path Forward: The review calls for a shift away from vague, cross-sectional correlation studies toward a rigorous computational psychiatry approach that tracks how mathematical models of the brain change during tasks. []
The Investigation and Findings
- Undisclosed Payments: A 2008 Senate probe led by Senator Charles Grassley revealed that Dr. Biederman received at least $1.6 million in consulting and speaking fees from drug makers
Ghostwriting of Articles: Pharmaceutical companies hire medical communication firms to draft research articles or reviews, and then get prominent academics or clinicians to put their names on the papers as the sole or primary authors, a practice known as ghostwriting. The named authors often have little to no involvement in the actual research or writing.
Hiding or Misrepresenting Data: Drug companies have concealed unfavorable data or miscoded raw data on drug risks, such as the link between antidepressants and suicidal acts. This manipulation can make a drug appear safer or more effective than it actually is.
Biased Clinical Trial Design: Healy notes instances where clinical trials are designed with “tricks,” such as using inadequate or excessive doses of comparison medications to make the company’s own drug look superior.
Marketing-Driven Education: A large portion of continuing medical education (CME) classes for doctors are sponsored by industry. Healy argues this leads to a bias in the information presented to doctors, with an emphasis on the benefits of brand-name drugs rather than an objective assessment of all treatment options.
Gifts and Payments to Physicians: Drug companies spend billions annually on marketing directed at doctors, including free samples, sales visits, and small non-educational gifts or lunches. Healy points out that while many doctors believe these gifts don’t affect their own prescribing, studies show they influence prescribing patterns and create subtle biases.
Industry Influence on Academia: Healy’s own experience with a job offer being rescinded at the University of Toronto, which had received a large donation from a drug company (Eli Lilly), is a prominent case he uses to illustrate how industry funding can infringe upon academic freedom and stifle critical research.
“Disease Mongering”: Healy argues that the pharmaceutical industry often engages in “disease mongering,” marketing conditions to the public and physicians to create a market for their products rather than simply addressing genuine medical needs. Open Payments website - HAVE to reveal how much money doctors have received from industry
