{"id":125617,"date":"2025-04-21T06:00:04","date_gmt":"2025-04-21T10:00:04","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.send2press.com\/wire\/?p=125617"},"modified":"2025-04-19T15:34:58","modified_gmt":"2025-04-19T19:34:58","slug":"new-york-times-expose-vindicates-cchr-adhd-isnt-biological-says-watchdog","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.send2press.com\/wire\/new-york-times-expose-vindicates-cchr-adhd-isnt-biological-says-watchdog\/","title":{"rendered":"New York Times Expos\u00e9 Vindicates CCHR: ADHD Isn’t Biological, Says Watchdog"},"content":{"rendered":"

LOS ANGELES, Calif., April 21, 2025 (SEND2PRESS NEWSWIRE) — A recent expos\u00e9 in The New York Times Magazine will send shockwaves through the psychiatric community, affirming what the Citizens Commission on Human Rights International (CCHR) has warned for decades: there is no medical proof that Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) is a biological disorder.[1] Yet, over 3.4 million American children are labeled with ADHD and prescribed powerful, mind-altering stimulants.<\/p>\n

\"New
Image caption: \u201cThis is a reckoning. But it must become a reform. It\u2019s not enough to admit the science was wrong. The system must now be held accountable for what it did with that false science\u2014and ensure it never happens again.\u201d \u2013 Jan Eastgate, President CCHR International.<\/em><\/p>\n

According to Jan Eastgate, President of CCHR International, The Times\u2019 revelations \u201cshould prompt federal lawmakers and public health officials to investigate how millions of children could be drugged under a false premise\u2014and why dissenting voices were ignored.\u201d<\/p>\n

The New York Times Magazine article by Paul Tough details how ADHD was long marketed as a neurobiological disorder requiring medication, despite lacking any objective test. Tough writes that the entire system rests on shaky assumptions: \u201cthat ADHD is a medical disorder that demands a medical solution; that it is caused by inherent deficits in children\u2019s brains; and that the medications we give them repair those deficits.\u201d But many of those once involved in building this narrative are now disowning it.<\/p>\n

As the article concedes: \u201cUnlike with diabetes, there is no reliable biological test for ADHD,\u201d and diagnosis often relies on \u201csubjective judgment.\u201d<\/p>\n

Eastgate underscores the damage: \u201cMillions of parents were led to believe their children had a brain disorder\u2014one that science now admits it cannot medically confirm. That\u2019s not mental healthcare. That\u2019s institutional betrayal.\u201d<\/p>\n

EXPERTS RETREAT FROM ADHD\u2019S SCIENTIFIC FOUNDATION<\/strong><\/p>\n

Among the most striking revelations is the reversal of leading researchers who once championed the disorder and its treatments.<\/p>\n

Dr. James Swanson, a research psychologist and one of ADHD\u2019s early proponents, was central to efforts in the 1990s that drove public acceptance of the diagnosis. At that time, CCHR was actively protesting the mass drugging of children, warning that the supposed science behind ADHD was fundamentally flawed. Their concerns are now echoed by Swanson himself.<\/p>\n

After three decades of research, Swanson told the Times: \u201cI don\u2019t agree with people who say that stimulant treatment is good. It\u2019s not good.\u201d He also found that children taking the drugs were still symptomatic years later and were shorter than their peers.<\/p>\n

Other prominent scientists quoted include:<\/em><\/p>\n