CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 32Bipolar Disorder and TreatmentChild and Adolescent Psychosocial and Emotional DevelopmentPersonality Disorders and Psychopathology

Your Child Does Not Have Bipolar Disorder: How Bad Science and Good Public Relations Created the Diagnosis

·2011
DOI 10.5040/9798216040057
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

An eminent child psychiatrist provides an insider's, whistle-blowing perspective on the promotion of a diagnostic entity that does not exist. Your Child Does Not Have Bipolar Disorder: How Bad Science and Good Public Relations Created the Diagnosis examines this diagnostic fad through a variety of lenses. Author Stuart L. Kaplan, MD, draws heavily on his forty years of experience as a clinician, researcher, and professor of child psychiatry to make the argument that bipolar disorder in children and adolescents is incorrectly diagnosed and incorrectly treated. As Dr. Kaplan explains, the dramatic rise in this particular diagnosis is not based on scientific evidence, nor does it reflect any new discovery or insight about the etiology or treatment of the disorder. In fact, the opposite is the case: the scientific evidence against the existence of child bipolar disorder is so strong that it is difficult to imagine how it has gained the endorsement of anyone in the scientific community. Your Child Does Not Have Bipolar Disorder: How Bad Science and Good Public Relations Created the Diagnosis explains to parents and professionals the faulty reasoning and bad science behind the misdiagnosis of childhood bipolar disorder. Dr. Kaplan critiques the National Institute of Mental Health, academic child psychiatry, the pharmaceutical industry, and the media for their respective roles in advocating this diagnosis. He describes very clearly what the children and adolescents actually do have, explains how it should be treated, and provides real-life clinical scenarios and approaches to treatment that work.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.5040/9798216040057

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • In Charles Bradley's historic studies of benzedrine, he noted that the children he treated had greater control over the expression of their emotions.

    “In Charles Bradley’s historic studies of benzedrine (the first studies documenting stimulants’ beneficial effects in children), he noted that the children he treated had greater “control…over the expression of their emotions” [29].”

    From Using Stimulants to Treat ADHD-Related Emotional Lability (2014) · cites this paper as [29]

  • Clinical experience has long suggested that stimulants can have positive, favorable effects on emotional lability.

    “Though debate persists over the neural mechanisms by which stimulants improve emotional lability, clinical experience has long suggested that stimulants can have positive, favorable effects on emotional lability.”

    From Using Stimulants to Treat ADHD-Related Emotional Lability (2014) · cites this paper as [29]

Cites

Still being checked.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Publisher
ABC-CLIO, LLC
Published
2011
DOI
10.5040/9798216040057
OpenAlex
W4392075267
Cited by
32
References
0
Citations by year
2025: 2 · 2023: 1 · 2021: 25 · 2020: 1 · 2014: 2 · 2013: 1
FWCI
0.52
Type
book
Language
en
Open access
closed
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Bipolar Disorder and Treatment
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Child and Adolescent Psychosocial and Emotional Development
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Personality Disorders and Psychopathology
Keywords
pediatric bipolar disorder, misdiagnosis, diagnostic criteria, child psychiatry, pharmaceutical industry influence, National Institute of Mental Health, bipolar disorder treatment

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review