S @aol.com wrote: Fred, I saw you on PBS Frontline tonight. What an incredibly sick, pathetic garbage broadcast. It was billed in the paper as showing both sides. Turns out it was a one hour long infomercial on the wonders of Ritalin and Adderal. Oh yeah -- 5 or ten minutes covering the "scientologist wackos" ... and of course attempts to show you during that discussion. So tell me, how much did the drug companies have to contribute for that advertisement? Sickened, Steve
*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*
Fred A. Baughman Jr., MD wrote:
thanks steve, it airs here 4 12, I will get back to you then. The A& E piece, Monday, 4/9/01, missed the mark–the fact that there is no such thing as a psychiatric ‘disease,’ that psychiatrists do not examine, test diagnose, that they, of all physicians, do not diagnose and treat actual diseases. Not even when the Consensus Conference Panel on 11/18/98, slipped up and admitted ADHD does not exist, did the media bring a true science reporter to bear, not even when they fraudulently re-edited that ‘confession’ on the NIH web site x number of weeks later. The appended letter is to be published in the journal PEDIATRICS in May. Such programs as that by A&E assure that the fraud and the drugging will continue.
Best, Fred.
cc Bridget Rowley, A&E
cc Bill Kurtis, A&E
*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*
LETTER TO JEROLD F. LUCEY, MD, EDITOR OF PEDIATRICS. (2/1/01)
Jerold F. Lucey, MD,
Editor
February 1, 2001
PEDIATRICS Editorial Office,
Fletcher Allen Health
Care,
Burlington, VT 05401
Re: Clinical Practice Guideline: Diagnosis and Evaluation of the Child with
Attention-Deficit/Hyperactiviity Disorder. Committee on Quality
Improvement, Subcommittee on Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder.
PEDIATRICS. 2000;105:1158-
To the Editor,
Clinical Practice Guideline opens: “Attention-deficit/hyperactivity
disorder is the most common neurobehavioral disorder of childhood.”
“Neurobehavioral,” implies an abnormality of the brain; a disease. And
yet, no confirmatory, diagnostic, abnormality has been found.
With six million children said to have it, most of them on addictive,
dangerous, stimulants, ambiguity as to the scientific status of ADHD is not
acceptable.
Goodwin [1], acknowledged the: ‘…narrow definition of disease
that requires the presence of a biological abnormality.’
Carey [2] testified at the 1998, Consensus Conference (CC): ”
…What is now most often described as ADHD in the United States appears to be a
set of normal behavioral variations… This discrepancy leaves the validity of
the construct in doubt…”
The CC Panel [3] concluded: “…we do not have an independent, valid test for
ADHD, and there are no data to indicate that ADHD is due to a brain
malfunction.” *
More recently, Castellanos [4], confessed: “Incontrovertible evidence is
still lacking!”
Where has the notion come from that it is a disease?
Carey [2] observed: “ADHD behaviors are assumed to be largely or entirely due
to abnormal brain function.” The DSM-IV does not say so, but
textbooks and journals do.”
If not science, what are textbooks and journals to purvey?
Later in the conference, Carey [3] issued the plea: ” … we see…that
the causes of these behaviors called ADHD are entirely speculative. And yet…
parents and children are being told that these behaviors are due to a brain
malfunction. Can you not please strengthen the statement to discourage
practitioners from making this statement when there is not adequate proof to
support that at this time?”
Pearlman [5], wrote: “I take issue with…Pincus’ (DSM-IV Task Force )
assertion that the elimination of the term ‘organic’ in DSM-IV has served a
useful purpose for psychiatry…elimination of the term ‘organic’ conveys the
impression that psychiatry wishes to conceal the nonorganic character of many
behavioral problems that were, in previous DSM publications, clearly
differentiated from known central nervous system diseases.”
It is apparent that virtually all professionals of the extended ADHD
‘industry’ convey to parents, and to the public-at-large, that ADHD is a
‘disease’ and that children said to have it are ‘diseased’-'abnormal.’
This is a perversion of the scientific record and a violation of the informed
consent rights of all patients and of the public-at-large.
The wording of the AAP Guideline should be changed, forthwith, to reflect the
scientific and medical facts of the matter.
Sincerely,
Fred A. Baughman Jr., MD
Fellow, American Academy of Neurology (board
certified, N, CN)
1303 Hidden Mountain Drive
El Cajon, CA 92019
fred-alden@worldnet.att.net
fax 619 442 1932
References
1. Goodwin D. Is Alcoholism Hereditary? Ballantine Books, New York, NY.
1989.
2. Carey, WB. Is Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder a
Valid Disorder? Invited presentation to the NIH Consensus Development Conference
on ADHD, November 16-18, 1998, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD.
3. NIH Consensus Development Conference on ADHD (transcript), November
16-18, 1998, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD.
4. Pekkanen
J. Making Sense of Ritalin (interview of F.X. Castellanos). Readers
Digest, January, 2000:159-168.
5. Pearlman T. Clinical
Psychiatric News (letters). December, 1994.
*This wording appeared in the version of the final statement of the CC Panel
distributed at the press conference, the final part of the CC, November, 18,
1998. This wording, which appeared for an indeterminate time on the NIH
web site, was subsequently removed and replaced with wording claiming ‘validity’
for ADHD.