Posted by

[Fred A. Baughman Jr., MD:
Fred Baughman's comments on Jon Rappaports comments on the total, 100% fraud
of ADHD...thanks Jon.]

  Monday, February 03, 2003
  FEBRUARY 3. To get an idea of the level of thinking involved in inventing
  ADHD, you have to go to the book. It's the DSM-IV, the official bible of
  psychiatric disorders and diseases, published by the American Psychiatric
  There is no higher authority for the profession than this book, which is
  written by a consensus process. Yes, science by committee.
  Let's look at a few criteria by which a diagnosis of ADHD can be made.
  "Individuals with this disorder ADHD may fail to give close attention to
  details or may make careless mistakes in schoolwork or other tasks
  (Criterion A1a)."
  "Work is often messy and performed carelessly and without considered
  thought.(Criterion A1b)."
  "They students often appear as if their mind sic is elsewhere or as if
  they are not listening or did not hear what has just been said (Criterion
  Now, you may be thinking, "These are just clues to orient the shrink in his
  assessment. What he REALLY does is run a diagnostic test."
  So, again, let's go to the DSM-IV: "There are no laboratory tests that have
  been established as diagnostic in the clinical assessment of
  Attention-Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder [ADHD]."
  Comes, then, in the same DSM-IV, a sub-category of ADHD called Conduct
  Disorder, the invention of which communicates a degree of utter fabrication
  that is stunning:

[Fred A. Baughman Jr., MD:
Jon, Conduct disorder is an entirely
separate "disease", one, which like most psychiatric "diseases" co-exists
with others but it can be free-standing, just as might oppositional-defiant
disorder. all three, adhd, cd, odd make up the 3 horrible dbd (disruptive
behavior disorders)]

  "The essential feature of Conduct Disorder is a repetitive and persistent
  pattern of behavior in which the basic rights of others or major
  age-appropriate societal norms or rules are violated. These behaviors fall
  into four main groupings: aggressive conduct that causes or threatens
  physical harm to other people or animals (Criteria A1-A7), non-aggressive
  conduct that causes property loss or damage."
  Again, no test, no biological or chemical cause---but instead the bald
  assertion that what we would take to be the commission of a crime or bad
  behavior is actually a "disorder" or "disease."
  Which of course requires TREATMENT.
  If you're getting strange glimmerings of 1984 here, you should.
  Speaking of treatment, let's go to another venerable bible, the Physician's
  Desk Reference (my copy of the PDR is the 1999 edition), which lists every
  medical drug under the sun and details its uses and effects and so on. Under
  Ritalin, the drug of choice for ADHD, we find this:
  "Specific etiology [cause] of this syndrome [ADHD] is unknown, and there is
  no single diagnostic test." 

[Fred A. Baughman Jr., MD:
You've got it Jon, speaking of
etiology they presume, would have you presume there is a disease having a
cause. This is duplicitous lingo. Using the word "syndrome" which is
synonymous with disease and ending with "there is no single diagnostic test"
they have lied three times in one sentence. In that this is in the PDR, the
"insert" this is the FDA lying, in collusion with Novartis, manufacturer of
Ritalin. And so sit goes with every single psychiatric "disease".]

  But on the basis of a bunch of behaviors, such as the ones I've listed
  above, Ritalin is nevertheless recommended.
  Further on in the PDR: "Sufficient data on safety and efficacy of long-term
  use of Ritalin in children are not yet available." That is a staggering
  remark. Particularly on the safety side. STAGGERING. 

[Fred A. Baughman Jr., MD:
all the more
so when within US medicine, psychiatry, education, standard
practice/preaching is that one should never, under any circumstances stop
taking the drug.]

  Finally, let's consult a third medical bible, Goodman and Gilman's The
  Pharmacological Basis of Therapeutics: "[Ritalin is] structurally related to
  amphetamines.Its pharmacological properties are essentially the same as the
  I think that about does it.
  In their own words. 

[Fred A. Baughman Jr., MD:
thanks Jon, we cannot point out the fraud
too often, the people, generally still havn't gotten it]


Leave a Reply

  • (will not be published)