ADHD advice secretly paid for by drugs co | ADHD Information
ADHD advice secretly paid for by drugs
companies
By Daniel Foggo
(Filed: 09/10/2005)
Support and advice groups for parents of children with so-called behavioural disorders are being secretly funded by pharmaceutical firms, it can be revealed.
The groups give out advice on stimulant drugs and other
controversial medical treatments for young children diagnosed with
attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). Their internet sites provide
extensive details of medications that doctors can prescribe.
But at the same time they are also being secretly financed by the pharmaceutical companies which make the controversial "chemical cosh" drugs.
Last night one of the groups, a government-funded charity, admitted receiving five-figure sums from the drug giants and one of the companies involved conceded that a desire to sell more of its product was one of its motives for providing the finance.
The revelation comes amid increasing concern over the huge increase in children being fed powerful drugs in order to control overly exuberant behaviour.
Prescriptions of methyl-phenidate, a stimulant sold under several brand names, have increased 180-fold in the past 14 years.
Nicknamed "the chemical cosh" for its ability to slow down children, methyl-phenidate is predominantly prescribed to under-16s and its side-effects include insomnia, unresponsiveness and loss of appetite.
Critics claim that its use is unnecessary in many instances, as the children are exhibiting natural traits for their age which can be alleviated with dietary measures.
The National Attention Deficit Disorder Information and Support Service (ADDISS) is a Department of Health-funded charity set up to "provide people-friendly information and resources about ADHD" and its website provides a factsheet giving details of the drugs that can be supplied to children.
It has received funding from three of the major pharmaceutical companies that make methylphenidate and other ADHD medications, which have been accused of sparking suicidal behaviour and liver problems in children.
However, the drug firms' financing is not acknowledged on the site and nor do their names show up on the accounts lodged with the Charity Commission.
Andrea Bilbow, the founder and chief executive of ADDISS, admitted that her group had solicited and received total funding of around £20,000 from Janssen-Cilag, which makes Concerta, a form of methylphenidate, UCB Pharma, which also produces another branded form of the drug, and Eli Lilly, which makes a form of atomoxetine, another ADHD drug which is linked to an increased suicide risk in children.
She said: "From time to time we do go to the pharmaceutical companies to ask for money, but we are not getting massive amounts. We don't sell our soul to the devil but we can't survive without them."
Ms Bilbow said that she did not identify the companies which have funded her charity on its internet site because to do so would be giving them "something in return".
"If we put the names on the site that would be promoting the companies and I've told them I won't do that," she said. "That would be advertising and I'm not getting enough money from them for that."
Another website, Adders.org, run by the Thanet ADDers non-profit support group, also gives detailed instructions on which drugs are available. Thanet ADDers has received money from at least one drug company. A spokesman for Eli Lilly confirmed that it had provided support in the form of a "small grant". Caroline Hensby, who runs the website, did not respond to calls.
The Eli Lilly spokesman said that the company wanted to help educate people about ADHD, but she conceded that there was a degree of self-interest in it doing so.
A spokesman for Janssen-Cilag confirmed that financial support had been given to ADDISS for a "specific meeting" organised by the charity.
A spokesman for UCB Pharma said: "Whilst we have good working relationships with ADDIS and Adders, we have not provided any significant funding or sponsorship."
Not all ADHD help groups take money from the pharmaceutical companies.
Glenn Slater, who has a child with ADHD and runs the website ADDvice.co.uk, which does not receive such funding, said: "Pharmaceutical companies giving money is not a good idea as people on the outside might get the wrong idea about the sites' motives."
Jim Mackie, former chairman of the Overload Network, which provides support for families affected by ADHD, said: "If they [the charities] are being funded by drug companies who are interested in promoting their products then that should be made clear on the websites."A good SAD article and it mentions the company,product, again here we have the same "Modus Operandi" of" there is no such thing as bad publicity" Cheap Advertising"... to promote. Creative, Clever and extremely dubious, Eh! Curus.
"The Trolls" are Coming to get us!!!......Again...
More on the same topic:
http://www.santa.inuk.com/support%20groups.htm
More of the operational side, particularly the para starting "The modus operandi..." and then further down again.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Archive/Article/0,4273,4471963,00. html
Brookelea! Nice One!!! I am glad that some of reality this article shows is, at last, in the public domain. Our experience at TRADD is, if members do anything publically it comes out of street giving and member's donations. Each person accepts responsibility for something and finances it themselves as a "Project".
Personal longterm committment is what gets things done! Not allowing dubious self-interest of Business wishing to profit from helping. Right?
"Thought" Drug Company Uses ADHD Support Group as Cheap form of Advertising their Product and Scoring Cheap Brownie Points...Right/Wrong?
Surely is clever. And devious, and worrying results for some people.
Mm....Again ! 
[/QUOTE]
Concealing the link the way they did - well even I, a pro-med individual admit that's something to be concerned with.
Admittedly - running a web page (especially one that's more than a homemade setup run out of some mom & pop's living room) isn't cheap. To rent the gear and bandwidth that we enjoy from the better forums is for most prohibitively expensive.
They have 2 choices to make: they can take on advertising - lots of it - and make each page virtually like a magazine page - with ads everywhere. Or - they can take on anonymous donations - where we don't see them on the front end.
When they are dealing with something related to health - I think total clean disclosure is necessary. When a group pays as much as is stated above, they should be required to have information regarding this donation located somewhere evident on the title home page. This way all people can see where the administrators are getting their funding.
Getting money as a donation from the pharmaceuticals is no big deal to me. Now - if they are paying and expecting either promotion of their medication over others or abstaining - well that's tantamount to payola and if it isn't illegal it should be.
If they pay without expectation of return - then they are doing what was mentioned - thinking that "any news is good news". Good or bad - the info gets out about alternatives for ADHD so that's good for their bottom line.
We could always see that laws go into place to ban all and any donations to sites from other than private individuals - but then we must face the fact that the next time we use pretty much any sophisticated forum for a cause we believe in - they'll be a "VISA/MC" request before we enter. Can't have it both ways.
Surely is clever. And devious, and worrying results for some people.
Mm....Again !
Surely is clever. And devious, and worrying results for some people.
Mm....Again !
[/QUOTE]
Yes! They use many methods to distract us.... Come in many disguises..? Use many titles.......But in the end reveal themselves with one "silly" statement, action or answer to a pointed question.
Glen, mostly agreed, but do know of some powerful websites that don't have funding, run by volunteers and costs shared between a few, sometimes by the sole 'owner' - and these can be just as effective in a lot of ways as far as support goes and then there is no 'conflict'.
100% agree re disclosure of funding on health boards particularly when medics are involved (plus any conflicts of interest should be made transparent) but when they're set up as in the modus operandi link, then the motives are generally wrong and also misleading, and its often difficult to trace the funding as they make a point of being 'non profit' or 'charity' status (as do some genuine ones of course).
Ryan - I thought the same. All the best re the other one.
I could murder a Brains SA right now. Hwyl
Glen, Your arguement on banning donations from all except "Private Donation" will not stop the covert funding from major drug companies that produce and market products for so called medical management of adhd as time and time again Private Donation was cover for back door financing. Just because money comes from one person's account doesnt mean it got to that account as a result of the persons own labour! U are right to bring a reality to the posting.
If we are self-responsible and honest then some realistic compromise as revealing exactly where funding stems from... another way of viewing it.. why not exploit the greed of profit hungry corporations and use the money to promote the ADHD agenda until such time we are effective enough to work from our own resources... 
Glen, mostly agreed, but do know of some powerful websites that don't have funding, run by volunteers and costs shared between a few, sometimes by the sole 'owner' - and these can be just as effective in a lot of ways as far as support goes and then there is no 'conflict'.
100% agree re disclosure of funding on health boards particularly when medics are involved (plus any conflicts of interest should be made transparent) but when they're set up as in the modus operandi link, then the motives are generally wrong and also misleading, and its often difficult to trace the funding as they make a point of being 'non profit' or 'charity' status (as do some genuine ones of course).
Ryan - I thought the same. All the best re the other one.
I could murder a Brains SA right now. Hwyl
[/QUOTE]
I agree with you. But - how many truly can be so philanthrophic and handle the charges by themselves - small group or otherwise? Anybody who tried to venture into the web hosting venue knows that even if it's low traffic (who wants that?), the charges for bandwidth haven't come down a whole lot.
Facts are that someone has to put up the dough. Is it going to be us - or special interest groups? As long as full disclosure up-front is kept and enforced we can go in and decide what we want to keep from it. If we see a site is almost 100 percent funded by Merck - we can probably take it with a grain of salt when their meds are talked about unless we know the person well who's talking.
It's the same on the anti-med forums. If you look at them - they are funded by anti-med SIGs, they pay heaps of cash to make sure if you type ritalin, etc. into a web search engine the first dozen pages are anti-med in their forums. I had trouble when I started my search for ADHD info as I saw very quickly that I had to page down a long way to find any kind of non-skewed anti-med talk at all!!
AMEN Brutha!!!AHEM,,,,Look, drug co. money can prop up as much as they like, It still is not going to matter if the drug works on what the claim is, and it makes life much more toloerable for us with the diagnosis.
If it works, it works. If it does not, it does not.
I see and hear alot of success stories. So if the pharm co. wants to prop up websites, so be it.
It is not like the gov. does not give grants to some .org special interest groups that are prescription laden, like aids and cancer, and ms, and many other worthwhile groups.
And furthermore, why would a bicycle company fund a adhd site, I think they would promote riding a bike, and outdoor events. So why can't a pharm co. do the same???
Your logic escapes me spock, enlighten me as to why this is wrong for one company and not the other??????