COMMENTS
OF FRED A. BAUGHMAN JR., MD REGARDING THE:
(all of my
comments are in brackets[..] within the test of the draft report)
Preliminary draft report
Social, Health and Family Affairs Committee
Rapporteur: Mr Ovidiu
Brînzan. Romania, Socialist Group
April 27, 2002
……………………………..
Parliamentary assembly
Council of Europe
AS/Soc(2002)7
20 February 2002
Controlling the
diagnosis and treatment of
hyperactive children in
Europe
[FB: It is the “diagnosis” that must be
controlled. To control it we must
assert, as is medical fact, that only the demonstration/diagnosis of an
objective, physical abnormality establishes the presence, in the individual, of
an actual disease. From the 1960’s to
the present, psychiatry and the pharmaceutical industry have conspired to
produce a “neuro-biological” propaganda which has deceived the public and lead
it to believe that all problems emotional and behavioral/psychological and
psychiatric, are organic, physical, chemical, biological, or neurological, when, in fact none of them
are; when in fact, none have an objective abnormality by which to confirm their
“disease” status, or, by which to diagnose them—prove they are present,
individual by individual. At the
March, 5-8, 1998, American Society for
Adolescent Psychiatry, James M. Swanson, of the University of California,
Irvine, a leading ADHD propagandist,
acknowledged (tape recording): “ I would like to have an objective diagnosis
for the disorder (ADHD). Right now
psychiatric diagnosis is completely subjective…We would like to have biological
tests--a dream of psychiatry for many years.”
At this point in time 4 million in the US were thus labeled and
drugged. The state of their “science”
is the same today; all of the claims that they diagnose and treat actual
diseases are carefully crafted illusions—lies.
Regardless of specialty, all
physicians learn what diseases are and how to distinguish them from the absence
of disease. This knowledge, alone, is
what distinguishes us from the laity.
More than anything else, throughout our professional careers, we remain,
medically and legally responsible for knowing, and imparting to our patients,
whether or not they have a disease; whether they are physically normal or not.
]
Preliminary draft report
Social, Health
and Family Affairs Committee
Rapporteur: Mr Ovidiu Brînzan. Romania, Socialist
Group
I. Preliminary draft recommendation
1. The Parliamentary
Assembly is concerned that increasing numbers of children in certain Council of
Europe member States are being diagnosed as suffering from “attention
deficit/hyperactivity disorder” (ADHD), “hyperkinetic disorder”
[FB: aka HKD] or related
behavioural conditions and treated by means of central nervous system
stimulants such as amphetamines or methylphenidate, which are controlled drugs
listed in Schedule II of the 1971 United Nations Convention on Psychotropic
Substances because they have been judged by the World Health Organisation to be
liable to abuse, to constitute a substantial risk to public health, and to have
little to moderate therapeutic usefulness.
2. This issue
is of particular concern to the Council of Europe as a human rights
organisation which aims, among other things, to protect the rights of children
and to seek European responses to social and health problems including drug
use.
3. Although their
precise causes are unknown, the validity
of ADHD and hyperkinetic disorders, defined in terms of persistent and severe
behavioural symptoms centred on inattention, hyperactivity and impulsiness and
resulting in functional impairment, is widely recognised by professional
medical, psychological and scientific organisations, including the World Health
Organisation.
[FB: There is a fundamental mistake
here. Psychiatry, the pharmaceutical
industry, and most agents and agencies of the US Government represent ADHD
(HKD) to be a disease (medical) due to a physical abnormality needing medical
treatment—medication. Saying the cause
or causes are not known they propagate the notion there is a disease—an abnormality--the
cause/causes of which are not yet known—the only deficiency, they maintain, in
their knowledge. Just as diseases are
confirmed by adducing/demonstrating a physical abnormality in one said to have
it, epidemics are made of individuals shown to have the same, characteristic
abnormality. Whether or not something
is a disease or that a person has a disease is not a matter of consensus, or
vote, it is a matter of physician’s finding an objective abnormality/pathology/disease,
individual-by-individual. The
abnormality is the disease; no abnormality, no disease. It is thus throughout medicine and
pathology. Psychiatry and psychology
deal with emotions and behaviors in medically, physically normal persons, all
physicians are responsible for knowing this.
All non-psychiatric physicians know it is their duty to have ruled out
organic disease anywhere in the body as a condition for referral to a
psychiatrist or psychologist.]
4. The consensus view is that these behaviourally defined disorders can significantly
impair the social, educational and psychological development of some children,
resulting in poor self-esteem and emotional and social problems and severely
hampering attainment of their educational potential.
[FB: No behavioral or “behaviorally-defined”
disorders, now called “diseases” in the US have an identifiable physical
abnormality needing physical/medical treatment, or, for which any medical or
other physical treatment would be rational and scientifically based, as in the
treatment of the insulin deficiency of diabetes with insulin]
The symptoms of ADHD may continue
into adolescence and adulthood, and may be accompanied by continuing emotional
and social problems, resulting in unemployment,
criminality and substance abuse. The toll on those suffering from these
disorders, as weIl as on their families and on society cannot be measured
precisely but may be considerable.
[FB: Here it is suggested that these
‘disorders,’ never proved to be other than situationally determined, i.e., due
to less than optimal parents, schools, communities, have invariable
life-courses or “prognoses” just as real diseases do because of the physical
abnormality that constitutes that disease (disease = abnormality). Saying this they deny that such fundamentally
important life circumstances play a causal role and that correction of any of
these circumstance might lead to a happy, normal outcome. Instead, they diagnose just as if they
practiced medicine and they medicate, just as if they practiced medicine and they
prognosticate just as if they practiced medicine. Given that no psychiatric/psychological disorder/ “disease” is an
actual disease with physical determinants, nothing they presume to do is
medical or the true practice of medicine.
They never demonstrate, as they claim, a brain abnormality or any other
physical abnormality. Their incessant
talk of medicine, the brain, and disease, is fraud and propaganda and nothing
else. The authors and perpetrators of
this fraud-propaganda are (1) Big Pharma, the world-wide pharmaceutical
industry (the paymaster), US and world-wide psychiatry and “mental health”, and
the US federal government and it’s every agent and agency having to do with
health and “mental health.” This,
today, is the world’s biggest drug cartel, and, so far, it is perfectly
legal. That must be changed.
5. Controversy
surrounding ADHD hinges not only on whether it may validly be described as an
abnormality or disease, but above aIl on whether it is justified to treat such
cases with central nervous system stimulants, which psychiatric studies have claimed have been shown to be
effective in reducing the symptoms of those diagnosed, allowing them to focus
more on what they are doing and reducing their hyperactivity, but whose
long-term effects are uncertain and which cannot effect a cure.
[FB: In medicine,treatment should
never begin before (1) the presence of pathology/disease, has been established,
and (2) differential diagnosis; determining which disease it is, has been
accomplished. We do not start chemotherapy based on suspicion of malignancy;
radiotherapy on suspicion of cancer; insulin on a suspicion of diabetes. ]
6. The Parliamentary Assembly, emphasising
that the precautionary principle should prevail where doubt exists in regard
to the long-term effects of medicaments and aware that behavioural
disorders of childhood and adolescence, like aIl mental and behavioural
disorders, are known to stem from a complex interaction of biological,
psychological and social factors, believes that stricter control should be
exercised over the diagnosis and treatment of these disorders and that more
research should be conducted into the
effect of proper tutoring and educational solutons to children exhibiting such
symptoms, and the handling of somatic conditions such as allergies, toxins or
other medical problems, and alternative forms of treatment such as diet.
[FB: The Pariamentary Assembly is to be congratulated for
#6. However, where doubt exists as to
the presence of organic disease, i.e. biological factors, there is no justification for the initiation of
medical/biological treatment, especially not with medications known to be
dangerous. All children diagnosed/labeled
ADHD, brain-abnormal, chemically-imbalanced are, no doubt, stigmatized and psychologically
damaged. They are invariably damaged by
being lead to believe this of themselves and by having all persons in their
lives come to believe this as well, all in their family, their teachers, their
peers.
Next, the belief they are ill, sick, abnormal, diseased, brain-diseased is driven home when they
are made to take medication—any medication.
In the absence of proof of
disease this is a crime against the children, their family and the societies
they are the fabric of for the simple reason that one and all are lied to,
being told, in however many words, in whichever words, that they have a disease, a brain disease. Thus lied to, their informed consent rights
have been wholly abrogated and any medical/physical treatment then applied is,
in the legal parlance of this country: assault and battery.]
7. The Parliamentary
Assembly is concerned to ensure that the medical and scientific community is
acting in the best interests of society, of patients, and in particular of
children and in accordance with ethical standards corresponding to the values
and principles of the Council of Europe.
[FB: See my response to
6. Starting with the never-proved,
never-provable lie that they diagnose and treat a disease—diseases, they are
committing a brazen, heinous crime against the children, their families,
society]
8. Therefore, the Parliamentary Assembly recommends that
the Committee of Ministers:
i. instruct the European
Health Committee, in consultation with the Pompidou Group, the European
Committee for Social Cohesion, the Steering Committee on Bioethics and the
Steering Committee on Education, and in close cooperation with the appropriate
international organisations:
a. to make a study of the
diagnosis and treatment in Europe of children showing symptoms of attention
deficit/hyperactivity and similar disorders;
[FB: First there should be just the diagnosis of
ADHD/HKD. When that is complete, but
only then, should their be a study of the whatever treatments seem appropriate. ]
b. to identify best
practice fully reflecting the rights and interests of such children; and
c. to draft a
recommendation to the governments of the member States designed to regulate
more strictly the diagnosis and treatment of children showing symptoms of
attention deficit/hyperactivity and similar disorders based on the
precautionary principle and on the ethical standards corresponding to the
values and principles of the Council of Europe;
[FB: Their should be a
restatement of the informed consent rights of all such children/patients and
renewed oversight to assure that such rights are not being violated. Wherever a
psychiatric/psychological/emotional/behavioral condition is said or is inferred
to be a disease or anything organic or medical, as is the standard of practice
in the US today (and, increasingly, in mental health practice around the world)
the informed consent rights of the children, their families, your constituents
have been violated, and, in turn, such children are being exposed to the very
real physical risks of the medications proffered, where their conditions
(psychiatric) to that point, had put them at no physical risk whatsoever. ]
ii. to invite the Pompidou Group, in
cooperation with the appropriate international organisations, to strengthen
guidelines on the promotion of psychotropic drugs;
[FB: Speaking of “appropriate
international organizations“, on 4/12/00, I wrote to Herbert Schaepe,
Secretary of the United Nations, International Narcotic Control Board:
“… Upon the occasion of the release of the 1998 annual report of
the INCB, Professor Ghodse, expressed
alarm not only about the continued growth of the already unbelievable
(5-6 million) ADHD/Ritalin epidemic in the US, but also about it’s ‘spread’ to the
Britain, Australia, and many other developed countries where, in many cases, it
was growing at over a hundred percent per year. And all of this, not only without a pathogen (cause of a disease), but without a pathology—the physical or chemical abnormality establishing that it
is a disease in so much as a single case… “There was no legitimacy in 1980 when
our American Psychiatric Association invented ADD and there is none today,
embodied in the label, ADHD. Normal
children are being drugged with the only difference being that the ‘pushers’ are
in white coats, ‘treating’ illusory, invented, concocted diseases.”
iii. invite the
governments of the member States:
a. to monitor more
closely the diagnosis and treatment of children showing symptoms of attention
deficit/hyperactivity and similar disorders;
[FB: Calling all mental/psychiatric
conditions/diagnoses “diseases“ making “patients“ of normal children (normals
of all ages) is the lynch-pin of the fraud and conspiracy.]
b. to co-ordinate and
step up research into the prevalence, causes, diagnosis and treatment (in
particular alternative treatments such as diet,
as well as proper medical treatments of allergies, toxicity, or other medical
problems if these are found) of these disorders and in particular into
the long-term effects of the psychostimulants prescribed for treatment as weIl
as into the possible social, educatonal
and cultural factors involved.
[FB: Which treatments are
appropriate and which are not depends entirely upon the nature of the
condition; whether organic/physical/medical or situational—due to deficiencies
of home, school, society.]
Il. Preliminary draft explanatory
memorandum
by Mr Brînzan
Introduction
1. Following
a trend set in the USA, increasing numbers of children in certain Council of
Europe member States are being diagnosed as suffering from “attention
deficit/hyperactivity disorder” (ADHD), “hyperkinetic disorder”
or related behavioural conditions and treated by means of central nervous
system stimulants such as amphetamines or methylphenidate (better known by its
trade name Ritalin). These controlled drugs are listed in Schedule Il of the
1971 United Nations Convention on Psychotropic Substances because their
“Iiability to abuse constitutes a substantial risk to public health”
and they “have little to moderate therapeutic usefulness”.1
[FB: On page 48, of the 1970
Gallagher (US Congressional) Hearings
on the funding of research on
pharmacological therapy for school problems. Dr John D. Griffith, Assistant Professor of Psychiatry,
Vanderbilt University School of Medicine. –“I would like to point out that
every drug, however innocuous, has some degree of toxicity. A drug, therefore, is a type of poison and
its poisonous qualities must be carefully weighed against its therapeutic
usefulness. A problem, now being
considered in most of the Capitols of the Free World, is whether the benefits
derived from Amphetamines outweigh their toxicity. It is the consensus of the World Scientific Literature that the
Amphetamines are of very little benefit to mankind. They are, however, quite toxic...after many years of clinical
trials it is now evident that this antidepressant effect of Amphetamines is
very brief- on the order of days. If a
patient attempts to overcome this tolerance to the drug, he runs the risk of
becoming addicted and even more depressed.”
This, when ADHD/HKD has never been validated as a disease/abnormality
within the child. Narcolepsy is the
only real disease—a neurological disease for which Schedule II psychostimulants
can legally be prescribed and accounts for just 0.1% of all such prescriptions
with the fraudulent, contrived disease ADHD/HKD accounting for 99.9%.]
2. The International
Narcotics Control Board (INCB), a United Nations agency, is increasingly
concerned about the rapid increase in the use of such psychostimulants for the
purposes of medical treatment over the last decade, primarily in the United
States but also in several mainly Western European countries.2
3. This issue is of
particular concern to the Council of Europe as a human rights organisation
which aims, among other things, to protect the rights of children, to examine
social and health issues including drug use, and to make recommendations to
governments.
4. On 16 May 2000 the
Parliamentary Assembly’s Bureau referred this question to the Social, Health
and Family Affairs Committee on the basis of a Motion for an Order presented by
Mr Gustafsson and others (Doc. 8727), which called for “a study and
investigation into this subject so that possible legal measures can be taken to
curtail the abuse of psychiatric drugs by children”.
[FB: as long as
psychiatry-entirely beholden to Big Pharma and Government succeeds in getting
the people of the world to believe that their every diagnosis is a disease—a
brain disease, due to a chemical imbalance, needing a chemical balancer, the
epidemic drugging will only increase.
It is a brazen, total, 100% fraud which officialdom must
reject. Author, Robert J. Lifton writes
of Nazi mass murder thusly: “ My argument in this study is that the
medicalization of killing—the imagery of killing in the name of healing—was
crucial to that terrible step. ADHD and
all of psychiatry’s “neurobiological diseases”
is the medicalization of the drugging of normals, exactly—except for the
medical imagery-- as in the cocaine and opium cartels of the world]
5. Five months earlier,
on 8-10 December 1999, the Council of Europe’s Co-operation Group to Combat
Drug Abuse and lllicit Trafficking in Drugs (Pompidou Group), together with the
World Health Organisation (WHO) had organised a Seminar on Attention deficit/hyperkinetic disorders:
their diagnosis and treatment with stimulants, which produced a
preliminary evaluation of the situation in Europe.3 This seminar was
organised on the recommendation of the Joint Pompidou Group/lnternational
Narcotics Control Board (INCB) Conference on the Control of Psychotropic Substances in Europe, held in Strasbourg
on 7-9 December 1998.
6. Following up the Pompidou Group/WHO seminar, the Social, Health and Family
Affairs Committee’s Sub-Committees on Children and on Health organised a joint
hearing on 23 November 2001 on the diagnosis
and treatment of hyperactive children, to which some of the same experts
who had attended the seminar were invited to testify.
7. As that hearing demonstrated, the
whole subject is highly controversial. Most psychiatric experts recognise that
some children suffer from ADHD as a diagnosable behavioural disorder
characterised by such symptoms as inattentiveness, hyperactivity and
impulsiveness, resulting in problems with learning and socialisation, and that
this disorder responds weIl (paradoxically) to treatment with certain stimulant
drugs.
8. Other observers claim that the
disorder “has no known cause, no scientific basis, and was literally voted
into existence by the American Psychiatric Association in 1987, leading to
millions of children the world over being erroneously prescribed powerful and
potentially addictive drugs like Ritalin”.4
[FB: Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder—ADD was voted into
existence in 1980 for the DSM-III.
Never validated as a disease, as anything medical/biological it was
revised for DSM-III-R in 1987. This
construct, never validated as a disease, as anything medical/biological was
revised for DSM-IV in 1994. All of the
revisions prove nothing and serve no actual scientific purpose. All they do is cast a broader marketplace
net. In the meantime, no psychiatric
disorder/disease in any issue of the DSM has been validated as a
disease/abnormality or anything biological.
]
9. The
critics intimate, moreover, that such drugs may be responsible for some of the
recent highly publicised outbursts of violence, including killings, committed
by American teenagers taking psychiatric drugs known to cause violent reactions.
[FB: such claims remain
speculative. However, with no disease,
no abnormality, there is nothing medical to treat and no indication or
justification to commence medical treatment.
Further, parents and patients in the US, and I am sure— world-wide, are
told, by way of informed consent that they, their child, has a disease (all are
told this and lead to believe it in so many word). Their informed consent rights are uniformly violated/trampled. All such medical-surgical touching
thereafter is assault and battery. From
my letter to the Medical Board of California of November 3, 2001: In the November 20, 2001, Family Circle
magazine, the psycho-pharmaceutical cartel has a 7-page "special
advertising supplement" in which its leaders, including the Richard K.
Harding, President of the American Psychiatric Assn. and Surgeon General, David
Satcher, cast aside the term "disorders" and forthrightly proclaim
that they diagnose and treat "diseases"—brain diseases. So saying they lie to all Americans and trample
their right to informed consent and self-determination. In 1948
“neuropsychiatry” was split into the “neurology” and “psychiatry,” the former
dealing with organic diseases of the nervous system, the latter with emotional
& behavioral problems in physically/medically normal persons. All non-psychiatric physicians know it is we
who rule out organic disease before referring patients to a psychiatrists. Only the public is deceived. Psychiatry’s claims of “diseases” and
“chemical imbalances” have no basis in medical science and is nothing more than
a contrived, market-place deception—one authored and orchestrated by the
American Psychiatric Association, the American Academy of Child &
Adolescent Psychiatry, the NIH, the NIMH, the American Academy of Pediatrics,
and the American Medical Association….Claims such as those I have cited from
Family Circle, and such as are posited daily by organized psychiatry are in
violation of SB 836, Figueroa, under which: “… it is unlawful for any person
licensed in the healing arts to disseminate or cause to be disseminated any
form of public communication, as defined, containing a false, fraudulent,
misleading, or deceptive statement or claim, for the purpose of inducing the
rendering of professional services …”
It is also, in violation of the California Uniform Controlled Substances
Act which states [page 36, Article 2, 11190. Prescriber’s Record for Schedule
II Substance]: “The prescriber’s record shall show the pathology and purpose
for which the prescription is issued, or the controlled substance administered,
prescribed, or dispensed.”]
10. Yet others, while
accepting the need to address the problem of hyperactive, inattentive and
impulsive children, believe that there is no need to treat them with drugs. It
may suffice to alter the child’s diet. It may even suffice to alter the way in
which the child is being educated and brought up.
[FB: Not merely “no need”
but no indication, no justification.
Nor is there an indication/need for a dietary prescription unless a
nutritional abnormality—a disease, is first identified and defined. ]
11. Whatever the case, as
this report will seek to show, it seems there is sufficient reason to
recommend, if only on the precautionary principle, that member states’ medical
authorities should closely monitor and regulate the diagnosis and treatment of
this disorder.
[FB: What is attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder
(ADHD)? Has ADHD or any other actual
disease been objectively identified (diagnosed) in the individual—Yes or No? This question must be answered before
treatment/treatments can be prescribed rationally, scientifically.]
12. ADHD is widely
recognised as a behavioural disorder that is defined by a set of diagnostic
criteria in the fourth edition (1994) of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM IV) of the American Psychiatric
Association (see Appendix 1). The essential behavioural characteristics are inattention
(for which nine symptoms are listed, e.g. disorganisation, distractability) and
hyperactivity (six symptoms, e.g. inability to sit still, excessive
talking) linked with impulsivity (three symptoms, e.g. frequent
interruption of others). The diagnosis may specify which type of behaviour
predominates (“combined” for aIl three, “predominantly
inattentive”, or “predominantly hyperactive impulsive”). For a
positive diagnosis, at least six symptoms have to be present in either the
“inattention” category or the “hyperactivity-impulsivity”
category, or in each for the combined type. Moreover, the signs must have
persisted for at least six months, must be inappropriate to the developmental
level of the child, must be associated with impairment in social or academic
functioning (at least in part before the age of seven and in two or more
environments (usually home and school), and must not be attributable to some
other mental disorder such as schizophrenia, depression or anxiety.
[FB: No number of
symptoms (all subjective) in any or all of these categories constitutes a
disease/abnormality within the brain/body of the individual]
13. The World Health
Organisation (WHO), in the tenth edition of its International Classification of Diseases (ICD-10), defines diagnostic criteria very similar to,
but somewhat more strict than, the combined type of ADHD under the label
“Hyperkinetic disorder” (HKD) (see Appendix 1). This classification
is more widely used in Europe.5
14. In as many as 65 per
cent of cases, ADHD occurs together with other (co-morbid) psychiatric
disorders, some of which are also defined in DSM-IV according to behavioural
criteria. For example, it is estimated that about 40 per cent meet the criteria
for “oppositional defiant disorder” (ODD, characterised by a pattern
of persistent and abnormally negativistic, hostile and defiant behaviour), and
20 per cent for “conduct disorder” (CD, characterised by a repetitive
and persistent pattern of behaviour that violates the rights of others or major
age-appropriate societal norms). Other problems that may occur at the same time
as ADHD are obsessive behaviour, motor dysfunction, speech impediments,
language problems, depression, anxiety neurosis, tics, Tourette’s syndrome,
etc. Comorbidity obviously complicates and aggravates the whole situation and
makes the diagnostic process more difficult.
[FB: Idiopathic tics,
also known as Tourette’s syndrome is a known neurological disease.
Psychiatry often “couples” known neurological diseases with psychiatric
conditions in hopes of convincing the naïve that both are “biological.” . The other reason they choose idiopathic tics
or Tourette’s disease, is that Ritalin and amphetamines which they use as
treatment cause tics, often persistent tics (Tourette’s syndrome/disease) and
whenever this complication arises they make the claim they were due to a genetic predisposition to TS/tics. In fact where there have never been
preexisting tics, the tics are Ritalin-amphetamine caused, iatrogenic, not
idiopathic. Both "oppositional
defiant disorder" (ODD) and "conduct disorder" (CD) are invented
psychiatric “diseases” having no scientific basis.]
Prevalence estimates
15. According to the
National Institutes of Health (NIH) in the United States, ADHD “is the
most commonly diagnosed behavioral disorder of childhood, estimated to affect 3
to 5 percent of school-age children…although the reported rate in some other
countries is much lower.”6 Nevertheless, the figure for England
and Wales is around 5 per cent, while approximately one per cent meet the
diagnostic criteria for the more severe HKD.7 ADHD affects about 2
per cent of adolescents and one per cent of adults. It affects boys more often
than girls by a factor of between four and nine.8
[FB: with no physical abnormality,
there is no objective means of identifying an individual with the
“disease“. Epidemics are made up
of individuals with the disease. With no individuals with objective
abnormalites (abnormality = disease ) there can be no epidemic, much less
reliable estimates of one. A noted US
psychologist/columnist recently published a father’s letter telling of his son
being coerced with the ADHD label when 65% in the class were already labeled
and drugged. Nor is it rare to hear
reports of 50% with it. In the December 22/29, 1999 Journal of the American Medical
Association [JAMA. 1999;282:2290], we find the musings of heads of the
constituent institutes of the National Institutes of Health, as to what the
future protends for their disciplines.
Targeting the year 2020, Steven E. Hyman, MD, Director of the NIMH
states, remarkably enough:
By 2020
it will be a truth, obvious to all, that mental illnesses are brain
diseases that result from complex gene-environment interactions…We
will also routinely analyze real-time movies of brain activity derived from
functional magnetic resonance imaging, optical imaging, or their successor
technologies, working together with magnetoencephalography or its successor
technology. In these movies, we will
see the activity of distributed neural circuits during diverse examples of
normal cognition and emotion; we will see how things go wrong in mental
illness; and we will see normalization with our improved
treatments.
Amazingly, not a single mental,
emotional or behavioral disorder has been validated as a disease or a medical
syndrome with a confirmatory physical or chemical abnormality or marker within
the brain, and Hyman knows this. What
Hyman does here is pledge to apply scientific tools—tools with which to measure
biological/physical changes to DSM constructs, all invented in-committee, none
of them actual diseases/abnormalities, discovered, in nature, in patients, as
is true of all diseases. What they do
is generate a biological literature, all of which is without scientific
validity, all of which is fraud and propaganda. The NIMH and the NIH, along with the Surgeon General are
conspirators in the representation of psychiatric “diseases” to be actual
diseases. The American Psychiatric
Association and the American Academy of Pediatrics are other of the
conspirators.]
16. Although the National
Institutes of Health (NIH) in the United States in their 1998 Consensus
statement on ADHD admitted that “our knowledge about the cause or causes
of ADHD remains largely speculative”…9
[ FB: alludes to cause, causes being
speculative as if an
abnormality/disease is known to exist.
This is a semantic “shell” game.
Of most types of cancer it can be said the cause, causes are unknown,
speculative, but we know, nonetheless that cancer exists and is an
abnormality/disease. They say this of
ADHD and mental illnesses, perfectly aware--knowing, as they do that they are
not diseases/abnormalities within the children or within anyone of any
age. They conspire, thusly, to make
patients of normals and they are succeeding—their “epidemics” are in the
millions—not really diseases, not epidemics--the greatest health care fraud of
all time.]
…and the National
institute for Clinical Excellence in the United Kingdom concedes that “there
is still controversy over the causes and diagnostic validity of ADHD.”10
[FB: this is a more scientific
statement but should be amended to read “there is still controversy over the
validity of ADD/ADHD/HKD—regardless of criteria said to diagnose it/them,
it/they have never been validated as a disease/abnormality]
E. Taylor, Professor of
Child and Adolescent Psychiatry at the University of London told the
Parliamentary Assembly’s Sub-Committees on Children and Health on 23 November
2001 that:
“The causes have recently been clarified by extensive
research, with major contributions from
European centres…
[FB ADD/ADHD/HKD has never been validated as an abnormality/
disease. For that reason its “causes“
cannot have been “clarified“.] .
There is a strong genetic contribution (evidence from many twin
studies is of
80-90% heritability), and there is definitive evidence of
association with inherited variants of
genes controlling aspects of dopamine neurotransmission, and also
abnormalities of structure
and function in regions of frontal lobes and basal ganglia.
[FB there is no proof of a physical abnormality = abnormal
phenotype = disease, and, for that reason no proof of an abnormal gene =
abnormal genotype causing it. Causing
what? ]
This alteration of neurological function
leads to alteration of psychological functions, so that children
fail adequately to suppress
inappropriate responses. The results include a cascade of failures
in various kinds of cognitive
performance.
Most
children with hyperkinetic disorder (the severe form of the problem) show other
evidence of
neurodevelopmental
problems, eg in language, or motor coordination, or psychological tests of
impulse
control. No single problem is present in aIl affected children, but most show
at least one;
and
these are included in clinical assessment.”
17. Professor Taylor’s
evidence…
[FB: Professor Taylor presented no proof that
children said to have ADD/ADHD/HKD have any physical abnormality/disease, or
that they are other than biologically/medically normal. Put another way, there is no medical/biological
factor/variable shown to contribute to the behaviors thus named, and none
therefore, toward which medical/biological treatment need be directed, or that
is medically justifiable.]
…was strongly
corroborated by Professor Dr. A. Rothenberger, Director of Child and Adolescent
Psychiatry at the University of Göttingen, who said that “facts from
family investigations, molecular genetics, neurochemistry, brain imaging,
neurophysiology and drug studies show there is a clear and disorder-specific
cluster of neurobiological abnormalities in weIl diagnosed ADHD”
[FB: Whether or not a
disease = physical abnormality exists is not a matter of consensus, vote, or
show of hands, but that is what substitutes for scientific proof in all of
psychiatry’s “research” and “scientific literature” on “neurobehavioral”
disorders/diseases. Insisting these are
neurological/brain abnormalities, my specialty, nowhere in their sham
biological research and sham biological literature, is there proof that even
one psychiatric/emotional/behavioral condition is a bona fide disease (much
less one that can be objectively diagnosed, individual by individual) having—as
it must—a confirming (and distinctive) physical or chemical abnormality. I have authored descriptions of newly discovered
diseases, have presented the objective
evidence to editorial boards and have had acceptance and the promise of
publication, all within a month or two—a very simple, straightforward
procedure. Psychiatry’s, and now all of
medicine’s claims that the mental health conditions it treats are diseases, go
back 35 years. This market strategy is
clearly a conspiracy with Big Pharma, psychiatry (now all of medicine) and most
agents and agencies of the US government, the primary conspirators.
Before writing
legislation that legitimizes ADHD or any psychiatric condition/diagnosis as a
disease legislators have a duty to
establish whether iot is an actual disease or not. This is very simple, all you need do is ask for the article or
articles describing the “confirmatory (and distinctive) physical or chemical
abnormality in individuals with ADHD.
Next, regarding any individual said to have it ask for the test result
that has confirmed in that individual the “confirmatory (and distinctive)
physical or chemical abnormality diagnostic of ADHD.” It is not enough to say the disease has been found in a subject
in a far off research institute, every parent should ask for just such a test
result and should be given proof of just such a confirming result in their case
or that of their child. No test, no demonstrated/diagnosed
abnormality, individual by individual: there is no disease, no need for
treatment, no epidemic. What is needed,
now, 35 years after launching their claims of emotional, behavioral psychiatric
“diseases” and having millions in North America and all over the world come to
believe it, is not more of their “research” but wide-ranging criminal
investigations—many of them, in all of the targeted, victimized countries. ]
18. In his testimony to
the Sub-Committees on Children and Health on the same occasion, Dr F. Baughman,
speaking as “a neurologist, not a psychiatrist” and as such
“medically and legally responsible for the diagnosis and treatment of
actual abnormalities/diseases of the brain”, inveighed against the evidence:
“Throughout the eighties and nineties, I witnessed the
exploding ADHD epidemic. Just as it was
my duty to my every patient to diagnose actual disease when it was
present, it was equally my
duty to make clear to them that they had no disease, when that was
the case – when no
abnormality could be found. That was the case with every child and
adult referred with a diagnosis
of ADHD. Moreover, it was my duty to know the scientific
literature concerning every real,
neurological disease, and every purported neurological disease as
weIl. Neither could I find
validation of ADHD in the medical/scientific literature. Finally,
I am a neurologist who has
discovered and reported real neurological and genetic diseases. In
contrast, in 40 years of
pseudo-scientific research, ‘biological psychiatry,’ has yet to
validate a single psychiatric
condition/diagnosis as an abnormality/disease, or as anything
‘neurological,’ ‘biological,’
‘chemically-imbalanced’ or ‘genetic.’ Out of deference to the
almighty, psychiatric pharmaceutical
cartel, other neurologists and neurological associations neglect
to speak of these false
representations of emotional and behavioral patterns as
“brain diseases” due to “chemical
imbalances of the brain.”
19. Some evidence has
been adduced for a relationship of ADHD with diet .
[FB: adduced—yes,
proved—no]
Following up earlier
research, Dr L.M.J. Pelsser of the Research Centre for Hyperactivity and ADHD
in Middelburg, the Netherlands, found that 62 per cent of children diagnosed
with ADHD showed significant improvements in behaviour as a result of a change
of diet over a period of three weeks. Such research shows that it is possible to speak of a food-dependent form
of ADHD. The food test also eliminated any symptoms of co-morbid conditions in
those children who tested successfully.11
20. To argue about the
causes of ADHD in terms of “genetic”, “biological”, and
“neuro-chemical” factors in opposition to social and environmental
factors may seem somewhat sterile. As the World Health Organization points out
in its World Health Report 2001:
Mental Health: New Understanding, New
Hope:
“The artificial separation of biological from
psychological and social factors has been a formidable obstacle to a true
understanding of mental and behavioural disorders. In reality, these disorders
are similar to many physical illnesses in that they are the result of a complex
interaction of aIl these factors.
[FB:
This is the script direct from the Big Pharma-World Psychiatry market strategy,
authored by the American Psychiatric Association. See this re the DSM IV. Writing in the Journal of the American
Medical Association (JAMA), in 1995, psychiatry spokesmen, Marzuk and Barchas
[5] stated: “Perhaps the most significant conceptual shift (from DSM-III-R,
1987, to DSM-IV, 1994) was the elimination of the rubric organic mental
disorders, which had suggested improperly that most psychiatric disorders…had
no organic basis.“ Notice that these authors have assumed, but not proven, that
“most psychiatric disorders” have an organic basis, making it improper for
anyone to suggest otherwise. What they
and the American Psychiatric Association (APA), with it’s DSM-IV, have done,
was to absolve psychiatry of every physician’s obligation to make a fundamental,
patient-by-patient, “organic”/ “not organic,”
“disease”/ “no disease” determination.
They have absolved themselves, and, anyone wishing to join them in such
diagnosing, of having to demonstrate an abnormality—pathology, by way of
proving that psychiatric “disorders”/
“diseases” are actual diseases.
In
the Clinical Psychiatric News if December, 1994, Houston psychiatrist, Theodore Pearlman wrote: “I take issue with
Dr. Harold Alan Pincus’ (of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual Committee of
the American Psychiatric Association) assertion that elimination of the term
“organic” in the DSM-IV has served a useful purpose for psychiatry…Far from
being of value to psychiatry, the 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.“
Psychiatrists, like all
physicians, having gone to medical school, and having studied pathology
(disease), physical, and clinical diagnosis know and understand their
responsibility, as the first step of diagnosis, to distinguish the presence
from the absence of organic disease.
Individual physicians eschewing this responsibility would be deemed
unscientific and unethical. Here we
have an entire specialty perverting science, giving their members (and,
nowadays, pediatrics, family practice, neurology, and anyone wishing to
practice ”mental health“) license to
do the same.]
For years, scientists
have argued over the relative importance of genetics versus environment in the development of mental and
behavioural disorders. Modern scientific evidence indicates that mental and
behavioural disorders are the result of genetics
plus environment or, in other words, the interaction of biology with
psychological and social factors. The brain does not simply reflect the
deterministic unfolding of complex genetic programmes, nor is human behaviour
the mere result of environmental determinism. Prenatally and throughout life,
genes and environment are involved in a set of inextricable interactions. These
interactions are crucial to the development and course of mental and
behavioural disorders.”12
21. To decide what is normal and what is abnormal in terms
of behavioural disorders, and to assess the risks associated with such
disorders, is the task of expert diagnosticians.
[FB: At the heart of all medical diagnosis is the
determination of whether or not organic disease is present and is a
factor. Ruling out organic disease (or the
brain or body), allows—in fact, demands, the presumption that only
situational/circumstantial factors are at play in this disease-free, physically
normal, individuals behavioral/emotional problems. This is why organic disease must be ruled out before directing a
patient to a psychologist or psychiatrist.
All non psychiatric physicians know psychiatrist do not examine patients
and do not diagnose or treat organic/biological diseases]
Diagnosis and prognosis
22. Since for the time
being the precise causes of ADHD and HKD are not known it has to be admitted
that there can be no objectively and universally valid biological test, such as
a blood test, for establishing a diagnosis, nor is primary prevention possible.
Thus diagnosis can only be made starting with observation and using well-tried
diagnostic interview methods.
[FB: Diagnostic interview
methods, and pencil-paper psychometrics tests never demonstrate objective
physical abnormalities but are inherently subjective.]
These are necessarily
subjective and may produce different results depending on who conducts the
test. Nevertheless, it must also be said that a similar situation prevails with
regard to other psychiatric and neurological conditions, including
schizophrenia, depression, dementia and Parkinson’s disease.
[FB: more semantic
deception co-mingling things psychiatric with things neurologic, hoping
the reader will not notice. In the neurological entities dementia and
Parkinson’s disease and in all neurological diseases, objective abnormalities
can be proven in life by some test, biopsy or autopsy while this is true of no
psychiatric entity. They must be held
to account for their ever-present semantic slight of hand. Leading to the violation of informed consent
for millions it is criminal.]
23. Given that lack of
attention, overactivity and impulsiveness are common features of most
children’s behaviour, what is the cut-off point between normality and
abnormality? J. Buitelaar and A. Bergsma, of the Department of Child Psychiatry
at the University Hospital Utrecht, give the following answer:
“Any decision about
this is to a certain extent arbitrary, but is guided by diagnostic criteria
that are derived from statistical information about the seriousness of the
situation. There are indications on severity, duration, and impairment of
functioning. Only in serious cases can a diagnosis be made. But clearly, there
is room for disagreement here, as can be seen from the fact that the criteria
for the ICD-10 hyperkinetic disorder are more stringent than the criteria for
ADHD.
[FB: which were changed,
in committee at the APA in 1980 and then in 1987 and, for DSM IV, in 1994,
never with confirmation of an objective abnormality to make of it a
disease. And yet virtually all in the US, at least, are told firmly,
coercively, forcibly, it is a disease.
Increasingly treatment for it is being court-, government-ordered. Parents obstructing the process are losing
custody of their children by the hundreds of thousands. This is a monstrous crime, not the
legitimate practice of medicine.]
However, this problem is
not unique to child psychiatry. The borderline between normal and high blood
pressure or normal body weight and overweight is just as arbitrary.
[FB: More semantic,
pseudo-medical, deception.]
In these cases,
researchers also had to draw the line based on statistical information on what
degree of high blood pressure or overweight in general leads to adverse
consequences in health, such as heart failure. In a similar vein, the cut-off
point for ADHD (six out of nine criteria in DSM-IV) has been established
because of the general relationship between the number of criteria endorsed and
the risk of serious impairment of functioning at home, in school, and in
relationships with peers.”13
24. As stated by E.
Taylor, Professor of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry at the University of
London, in testimony to the Parliamentary Assembly’s Sub-Committees on Children
and Health on 23 November 2001:
“The longitudinal course
of the disorder has been studied through epidemiological surveys. They make it
clear that childhood hyperactivity is a strong risk for later mental health
problems; about 40% have a diagnosed mental health problem after 10 years if
treatment has not been given. Psychological factors – especially, rejection by
family members and peers influence whether or not the risk is translated into
actual disorder. As with other medical conditions such as blood pressure, the
level of problem that should be recognised and treated is set at the level that
constitutes a harmful influence – specifically, that predicts later mental
health problems. The level of symptoms that constitutes a risk may vary with
cultural expectations and other qualities of the child and family; and symptoms
are sometimes secondary to other problems such as brain damage or severe
psychosocial deprivation.”
[FB: there is no disease,
but when normal, troubled, troublesome children are told they have a brain
disease, when they come to believe it, when all in their life come to believe
it, and when they come to believe they cannot control themselves without the
amphetamine, their life-courses assume a damaged, downhill trajectory—a
prognosis, which psychiatry would have you believe is the prognosis of ADHD a
disease.]
25. Moreover, according
to the National Institute for Clinical Excellence in the United Kingdom,
“The consequences of
severe ADHD for children, their families and for society can be very serious.
Children can develop poor self-esteem, emotional and social problems and their
educational attainment is frequently severely impaired. The pressure on
families can be extreme. The signs of ADHD may persist into adolescence and
adulthood, and may be associated with continuing emotional and social problems,
unemployment, criminality and substance misuse.”14
26. What do the critics
say? As U.S. neurologist Dr F. Baughman, ardent campaigner against the
diagnosis and treatment of ADHD with drugs, told the Assembly’s Sub-Committees
on Children and Health on 23 November 2001:
“The first duty of aIl
physicians, with the notable exception of psychiatrists, is to determine
whether a disease/abnormality is present, or not present. A third to a half of
aIl persons who visit their physician have complaints/symptoms (subjective),
but no abnormality/disease (objective). … The fundamental issue before us,
and before aIl countries of the developed world is whether or not ADHD is a
bona fide, diagnosable disease or not. If not, if the children are normal, as I
know them to be, they are not medical patients and no medical treatment is
necessary, or justified. Rather, their unmet needs lie, as in generations-past,
with their parents, teachers, and with their communities….lt would be a fraud
for any physician to calI ADHD or any psychiatric condition an actual disease.
…there is no such thing as a psychiatric/psychological disease.”
[FB: What I am saying,
and what is orthodox-medical/diagnostic procedure and what Taylor, Rotherberger
and organized psychiatry are saying cannot be reconciled--either they are lying
or I am lying. I will gladly swear to
the truth of what I have testified and subject myself to the penalty for
perjury. So as not to be wasting the committees
time, they should consider asking those who testify before it to be sworn. Or perhaps this should await the criminal
hearings which are obviously needed to
determine who has been lying to millions the world over.]
27. Whatever the case, the World Health
Organisation is clearly alarmed by the potential for misdiagnosis of
ADHD/hyperkinetic disorder, pointing out in its World Health Report 2001: Mental
Health: New Understanding, New Hope:
[FB:
Saying there is “misdiagnosis” or “overdiagnosis”, presumes there is such a
thing as appropriate diagnosis when, with no disease, there is not. The language of science is quite simple and
straightforward. It is that language
that they routinely pervert for the purpose of making “patients” of normals and
selling drugs]
“ All too often, hyperkinetic
disorders are diagnosed even though the patient does not meet the objective
diagnostic criteria.
Failure to make an
appropriate diagnosis leads to difficulties in establishing the patient’s
response to therapeutic interventions. Hyperkinetic symptoms can be seen in a
range of disorders for which there are specific treatments that are more
appropriate than the treatment for hyperkinetic disorder. For instance, some
children and adolescents with symptoms of hyperkinetic disorder are suffering
from psychosis, or may be manifesting obsessivecompulsive disorder. Others may
have specific learning disorders. Still others may be within the normal range
of behaviour but are seen in environments with a reduced tolerance for the
behaviours that are reported. Some children manifest hyperkinetic symptoms as a
response to acute stress in the school or home. A thorough diagnostic process
is thus essential, for which specialist help is often needed.”15
28. What should such a thorough
diagnostic process consist of? As J. Buitelaar and A. Bergsma explain:
“Over the last
years, both the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry and the
European Society for Child and Adolescent Psychiatry have published clinical
guidelines for the assessment and treatment of children with ADHD. … These
guidelines specify the essentials of a thorough and balanced evaluation that
should include a parent interview, a developmental history, information from
the school, an interview with and observation of the child, a medical
evaluation and an assessment of family context and parenting skills. Treatment
plans should be designed not only to affect the core symptoms of ADHD, but also
to direct comorbid problems such as disobedience, aggression, learning
disabilities and social problems. Usually, multi-model interventions are
indicated, among which psycho-educational approaches, parent training, and
medication are the most important ones.”16
[FB:
Recently the AACAP authored the following booklet and exhibit with its sole
purpose to obscure the difference between real diseases and mental/emotional
problems in disease-free normal persons.
Are they to be believed. I think not. They are among those who need to be cross-examined under oath on
exactly this question, which mean to obscure to make patients of normals, and to
medicate normals. Here is the
letter:
Randall
Kaye, MD
October 18, 2001
Director-Team
Leader, Pediatric Health
Pfizer
Inc.
235 East
42nd Street
New York,
NY 10017-5755
Dear Dr.
Kaye,
I just
received your guide, “Talking to Kids About Brain-related Conditions,” prepared
by the American Academy of Child and
Adolescent Psychiatry (AACAP), published and distributed by Pfizer.
This brochure was created along with the exhibit: “BRAIN: The World
Inside Your Head, now at--of all places, the Smithsonian Institute in
Washington, DC. This exhibit, like the
brochure, was made possible by Pfizer
and was produced by BBH Inc. in collaboration with the National Institutes of Health.
Referring
to the guide/exhibit, Pfizer’s cover letter states: “It also teaches people
that brain-based diseases are like any other diseases.” The first page of the guide begins: “Understanding
brain-related conditions such as mental
illnesses can be challenging for adults and for children. Like any other disease of the body, they can
be treated.”
Here,
make no mistake, Pfizer, AACAP and
the NIH refer to mental/psychiatric
conditions, as diseases, when none of them are.
On page 2
we read: “There are 2 kinds of brain-related conditions: neurologic
disorders and mental illness. People
usually find it easier to understand that neurologic disorders are diseases
because they can see the symptoms. For
example, people with Parkinson’s disease might shake or have tremors of their
hands.”
Here,
those responsible for the guide/exhibit (Pfizer,
AACAP, NIH) mean to impart that it is easier to perceive of neurological
disorders as actual diseases than mental illnesses. Next they say it is easier to understand that neurological
disorders are diseases because you “can see the symptoms.” The psychiatrists of the AACAP--physicians all, know perfectly
well that symptoms are subjective and cannot be seen. When one sees a tremor or feels a mass in the abdomen or hears a
significant heart murmur, we speak not of symptoms
but of signs, of objective
abnormalities, those which confirm the presence of disease.
You, Dr.
Kaye, and all physicians (including all of the AACAP and the NIH) know this is
a misuse of the term “symptoms.” Hardly
accidental. In psychiatry/mental health
there are only symptoms, only things
subjective. In psychiatry there are no signs /objective abnormalities, and
therefore, no disease. This wording,
like the wording throughout, is deceptive, and is contrary to science and to
the ethical practice of medicine, which demand full and true disclosure for
purposes of informed consent.
Here, it
seems to me, a concerted effort is underway to erase the line between disease
and absence of disease; neurology and psychiatry (the 2 specialties were
officially divided along organic/non-organic lines in 1948); abnormality and
normality, chemical imbalance and chemical balance. Might this have something to do with selling “chemical
balancers”—pills?
Page 2
continues: “Mental illnesses such as depression are more difficult to
recognize because the symptoms may not be so obvious.” Saying “mental
illnesses” they mean disease. Saying
“because the symptoms may not be so obvious” they mean, once again to confuse
the reader as to the fundamental difference between symptoms which are
subjective, and never confirmation of disease, and signs; objective
abnormalities, confirming the presence of disease. While depression is regularly said, by psychiatrists, to be a
disease having a presumed brain abnormality or chemical imbalance, not a
single, solitary psychiatric entity is known that has a confirming physical or
chemical abnormality anywhere in the brain or body.
ADHD expert James Swanson, Ph.D.,
a speaker at a the American Society for Adolescent Psychiatry, March 7, 1998,
surprised his audience with this confession: “I would like to have an
objective diagnosis for the disorder (ADHD).
Right now psychiatric diagnosis is completely subjective…We would like
to have biological tests—a dream of psychiatry for many years… I think we will validate it.”
Swanson,
and all present-day practitioners of “biological” psychiatry, regularly tell us
they will validate mental/psychiatric/psychological disorders, as actual
diseases. Having said this, they
believe they are justified in telling patients and the public at large, that
such consensus-contrived inventions are actual brain diseases.
On page 5
we read: “We still do not know exactly what causes most mental illness. They appear to result from a complex
interaction of any of the following factors. Biologic factors, temperament,
coping abilities, vulnerability, family stress, environment.”
Saying “…mental
illness appears to result from a complex interaction of any of the following
factors,” they can disavow in any particular instance that they claimed
that “biological factors” exist. Very
cute indeed. And, think of it, our very
own National Institutes of Health (NIH) is a party to this deception. But this should not come as a surprise;
Surgeon General, David Satcher has been hard at work since his December,
1999 statement on mental health, trying
to get the US to believe that all things psychiatric, emotional and behavioral
are actual diseases.
Page 5
(continuing) : “Biological factors can include brain chemistry and
structure, as well as genes.” As
all parties to the statement know, not a single psychiatric/mental,
illness/disorder, has been shown to have an abnormal biological factor such as
one of brain chemistry, structure, or of the genes.
Page 7: “Some
types of mental illness go away completely with treatment and time, while
others can have ongoing symptoms.”
Saying “mental illness” they mean disease and they clearly state that
mental illnesses/diseases (which they are not) go away, if at all, only with
“treatment and time.” This is as if to
say being depressed, being anxious, being panic-stricken, or being
over-excited, are states that do not go away with time alone and with besting
one’s personal dilemmas. That is
exactly the impression they wish to convey, for if believed, everyone would
have to see a psychiatrist and everyone would need a “chemical balancer,” a
pill.
Page 7: “For
some mental illnesses, medicines can be helpful. They work by affecting the brain’s chemistry and function.” Saying mental illnesses they mean diseases
and they imply and state this having no proof /signs/objective abnormalities in
the patients they call “diseased”/ “abnormal.” Saying “They (medicines,
pills) work by affecting the brain’s chemistry and function,” they would have
us believe there was an abnormality of the brain’s chemistry and function to
begin with. There was not. The only demonstrable abnormalities of
chemistry or function are those induced by the drugs themselves.
Page 7: “It
is very important that a doctor monitor anyone who is taking a medicine for a
brain-related condition” Saying
“brain-related condition,” who among us would doubt they mean brain
disease. Again—there are none are.
Page 8: “It
is very important to emphasize that brain-related conditions are just like any
other disease.” Who doubts now
they are telling you that mental/psychiatric/psychological/emotional/behavioral,
diagnoses/conditions/disorders are diseases.
They are fraudulently saying this to you and to the parents and children
of the nation, that’s what. And this
fraud and disinformation is now an exhibit at the Smithsonian Institute.
Page 10: “Talking
with your child about brain-related conditions—especially mental illnesses—can
be difficult.” Here they speak of
mental illnesses as if they were the best known of all the brain diseases, better known brain/neurological diseases,
perhaps, than Parkinson’s disease.
Page 10:
“Educating our children is the first
step in helping all people understand that mental illnesses can and should be
treated like any other physical disease or condition.” The prime aim of this exhibit/guide, there
can be no doubt, is to have you believe that mental/psychiatric/psychological
conditions, entirely subjective, devoid of the objective signs/physical &
chemical abnormalities which, alone, throughout all other medical specialties,
confirm/equate with organic disease.
All other
physicians, in referring patients with mental/psychiatric/psychologic symptoms
to psychiatrists, do so only after they have determined that no organic
disease; no physical or chemical abnormalities are present. This is the single, most important aspect of
diagnosing a mental/psychological/psychiatric condition. This being the case, it is all other
physicians, not psychiatrists, that shoulder the lion’s share of responsibility
for psychiatric diagnosis; of determining that no organic disease is present,
that, by process of elimination, the patient’s symptoms must be
psychogenic.
Your
guide/exhibit is intent, from start to finish, not upon informing but upon
mis-informing, misleading; deceiving and violating the informed consent rights
of all Americans, starting with the children. Tragically, the AACAP, the NIH,
and the Smithsonian, who, most of all, should be champions of the people, have
joined together in an effort to deceive the American people and to have them
believe that they are disease/ill/sick/abnormal, when they are not, so that the
now-favored constituent—Pfizer and the rest of Big Pharma can sell them
medications—medications, when there is nothing at all medically wrong with
them.
For the
moment, Americans cannot imagine the deception and betrayal.
Sincerely,
Fred A.
Baughman Jr. MD
1303
Hidden Mountain Drive
ElCajon
CA 92019
CC
President, Am. Acad. Child & Adolescent Psychiatry
CC
Secretary, Dept. Health & Human Services, Tommy Thompson
CC
Director, National Institutes of Health
CC
Director Smithsonian Institute]
Treatment
[FB:
throughout medicine and surgery, treatment cannot be formulated until (1) it
has been determined whether or not
disease is present, and (2) which disease (of a few or several possiblities) it
is. Rarely we know an
abnormality/disease is present an think, but are not sure, for example, that it
is infectious and so we launch treatment
with antibiotics. However, we
never initiate treatment before knowing whether the patient is
abnormal/diseased or normal, except throughout psychiatry where we only have
their word—their insistence—that it is.
Treatments are not the issue, not should they be. When children/parents/adult patients are
told they have a disease, a brain disease, a chemical imbalance of the brain,
and are lead to believe essentially that, when there is no such scientific
proof and, more importantly when no test or exam has shown an abnormality in
them, their informed consent rights, without a word about treatment, have been
irretrievably violated. When a
treatment, no matter how innocuous or
dangerous is then commence, based to the invalid consent, each and every
treatment is an assault and battery.
That this has become the standard of practice throughout psychiatry and
all who ascribe to this brand of mental health“ practice, does nothing whatever
to legitimize it or make it legal (we
should hope) or validate it a scientifically valid and efficacious. The lynch-pin of the conspiracy to defraud
and of the total violation of informed consent that is universal today, at
least in the US is tantamount through most jurisdictions in the US to medical
malpractice, without a word being said about the treatment or treatments
discussed by way of informed consent and how truthful or untruthful those statements
might be ]
29. As might be expected, controversy about the treatment
of ADHD, particularly in so far as it involves Schedule Il controlled drugs, is
if anything even more intense than about its causes and diagnostic validity.
Essentially, the critics of treatment with medication assert that there is no
justification for prescribing drugs if there is no disease and that aIl drugs
are poisonous in some degree. They argue that psycho-stimulants, favoured for
the treatment of ADHD, can be addictive, are subject to abuse and diversion,
and may lead to abuse of other substances. Such drugs can have adverse side
effects, including loss of appetite, nervous and cardiovascular system problems
and even death,17 and have long-term effects that are little known.
Finally, in the best case drugs can only alleviate the symptoms, not effect a
cure.
30. There are other forms of treatment and intervention,
ranging from psychotherapy and behaviour therapy to school-based intervention,
counselling, parent training, and change of diet. Indeed, these may be applied
alone, in combination, or together with medication.
31. As to the comparative effectiveness of the various
forms of treatment, Professor E. Taylor of London University, in his testimony
to the Parliamentary Assembly’s Sub-Committees on Children and Health on 23
November 2001, gave the following assessment:
“A recent major
trial (the MTA study)18 has compared medication with the best
available psychological treatments, and has concluded that medication is more
effective. Nevertheless, most European practitioners consider that the most
effective treatment (medication) is best reserved, as a first line of therapy,
for the most severe and handicapping problems.
[FB: I have reviewed
informed consent documents from many NIMH sanctioned, ADHD research
studies. In virtually all of them the
description of ADHD supplied leaves little doubt that ADHD is a disease,
something biologic, neurologic. Having
said that and gotten the patient/research subject to believe as much, the bias
toward medical-biological interventions or treatments, and away from talk
therapy or behavioral therapy, is assured.
Their “scientific literature” lies as to the fundamental disease/no
disease point, leading me to doubt anything whatsoever that they conclude. They rarely publish a negative report about
a drug, any drug. Professor William
Carey observed at the November, 1998, NIH, ADHD Consensus Conference that virtually
all textbooks and journals refer to ADHD as a disease, something neurobiological. His review of the literature at the
Consensus Conference found ADHD behavior to be normal behaviors, leaving no
empirical support for the ADHD as a disease.
Psychiatry would have us believe that to convince normal children and
all others in their lives they have a brain disease, then to treat them with
known encephalopathic, addictive drugs, lead to a better life-outcome than
finding them normal and capable, treating them respectfully, aspiring for them,
believing in them, providing them love, discipline, literacy, and a sound,
expectant education and preparation for life.
I am straying from the lynch-pin of the fraud, crime, medical
malpractice and assault and battery perpetrated upon all US, and Canadian
children and, increasingly, all of the world’s children, in the name of medical
treatment. This is the crime that
urgently needs investigation in every country in which it is being perpetrated.
]
Consensus guidelines
recommend that less severe problems should first of aIl be managed by psychological
methods including education and behaviour therapy; and that medication should
then be considered for cases that have not responded. This view is considerably
more cautious than conventional US practice, which emphasises medication as the
first line of treatment. The “European” view is based on randomised
controlled trial evidence for a significant effect of psychological therapy and
on the greater frequency of adverse effects such as loss of appetite when the
treatment is medication. Even so, stimulants are generally considered to be
acceptably safe -especially because any adverse effects that may be induced
stop quickly when the drug is discontinued, making harm to the child very
improbable.”
32. Nevertheless, the
National Institute for Clinical Excellence in the United Kingdom points out
that “the MTA researchers have warned that there were some features of the
study design that could have favoured medication over behavioural
treatment.”19
[FB: see my statement
above about the allegations within research informed consent documents that
ADHD is a disease—a lie and abrogation of informed consent both in psychiatric
practice and research. Here in an
example. 5/19/98- Regarding informed consent
documents from NIMH-Study #85-M-0115- Principal investigator, Judith L.
Rappaport, entitled “Biologic Markers in Childhood Psychiatric Disorders, ADHD
Sibling Study”. “This study is designed to increase the understanding of “the
genetic basis for hyperactivity and impulsivity in children and adolescence.” Informed consent document for study #85-M-0115, principal
investigator, Judith L. Rappaport, entitled “Biological Markers in Childhood
Psychiatric Disorders Follow-up Study, 6/13/94.” Under nature of this study, it says, “This study is designed to
increase our understanding of the biologic basis for hyperactivity, conduct
disorder, tic disorders, and impulsivity in children and to determine whether
those biologic factors affect a child’s eventual outcome. You and your child participated in the
earlier phase of this study, which included a spinal tap, or a lumbar
puncture.” “Purpose: a great deal of research has been conducted
here at the National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH) and elsewhere to learn
about the neurospecific brain structures and brain chemicals in psychiatric
disorders.” (FAB- Here they speak of
the biological basis for these things as though a biological basis has been
proven. They speak about specific
“brain structures”, and “brain chemicals” and psychiatric disorders, as though such
things have been shown to have a proven role.
This alone invalidating the research.)
“We would also like to obtain a blood sample from your child to see if
we can find genetic clues to the origins of his hyperactivity.” Of interest, attached to this study is form
A, entitled assent for child. In study
#85-M-0115, J. L. “Rappaport, Cerebral Spinal Fluid in Childhood Behavior
Disorders” 1992 version, it says, “This study is designed to increase our
understanding of the biologic basis for hyperactivity, conduct disorder, and
impulsivity in children. This project
includes a procedure called lumbar puncture (LP) to obtain cerebrospinal fluid
(CSF), which may be done once or twice, and a blood test before, which your
child will be given a single pill of a drug called Fenfluramine.”
“Purpose: “A great deal of research has
been conducted here at the NIMH and elsewhere on chemicals found in the
cerebral spinal fluid which are involved in the normal and abnormal functioning
of the brain. Our studies of these
chemicals may significantly advance our knowledge of psychiatric and neurologic
illness, and our knowledge of the medications used to treat these
illnesses.” Regarding the just-begun
Preschool ADHD Treatment Study—PATS, the NIMH and participating psychiatric
institutes, refer to ADHD in these tots
as “diseases” and as being due to “chemical imbalances of the brain.” See below:
Robert Temple, M.D. March 3,
2001
Associate Director Center for Drug
Evaluation and
Research
U.S. Food and Drug Administration
Dear Dr. Temple,
Referring to the Preschool ADHD
Treatment Study, you write "in the present case the children will have
what skilled observers consider a real disease. " What is needed, is not “what skilled observers (hand-picked) consider a real
disease," but objective proof of real disease, for one and all to
see. This, as you, and all at the NIMH
and throughout the leadership of “biological psychiatry” know, does not exist
for
ADHD or any single DSM I-IV
psychiatric disorder. This being the
case, the debate as to whether this research should go forward or not, need go
no further.
With no “disease” on the “risk”
side of the “risk” vs. “benefit” equation, only a normal child, the only physical
“risk” the child is “at risk” for, is that borne by the drugs to be given to
the normal, young, subject/children.
In short, this “risk” vs. “benefit” analysis makes going forth with the
PATS, wholly, medically, and morally unacceptable.
I am a career, practicing
neurologist/child neurologist. It is my
charge to determine whether or not neurological/brain disease is present or
not, and, if so, to determine which one.
This is not the charge of psychiatrists, who do not undertake
examinations or diagnostic testing to determine whether organic disease is
present or not. Instead, psychiatrists
are sent patients with emotional and behavioral problems in whom organic causes
for their symptoms have been excluded by neurologists and by all other types of
physicians—by physicians who diagnose and treat organic diseases.
Knowing that psychiatry’s
‘neuro-biological’ research on emotions and behaviors in normal human beings is
doomed never to discover or validate a disease, I have found it impossible to
conclude that this is other than a market-motivated deception meant to
create/contrive psychiatric “diseases”/ “chemical imbalances,” without which
psychiatry would have no “diseases” / “chemical imbalances” for which to
prescribe the pills/ “chemical balancers,” it invariable, one-dimensionally,
prescribes.
The “Prescriber’s Record for
Schedule II Substance,” Drug Laws, 1998, including the The California Uniform Controlled
Substances Act (page 36, 11190), states “The prescriber’s record shall show the
pathology and purpose for which the
prescription is issued, or the controlled substance administered, prescribed or
dispensed. Here too, Dr. Temple, you,
Dr. Stephen Hyman, all at the NIMH, and all in the leadership of US, child,
adolescent, and adult psychiatry, know there is no ‘pathology’ in any
psychiatric diagnosis, including a diagnosis of ADHD at any age.
The only actual
disease/abnormality/pathological process for which Schedule II Substances are
presently prescribed in the US is the neurological disease, narcolepsy. It accounts for less than 1% of all such
prescriptions. ADHD, never validated as
an actual disease with a validating abnormality/pathology, and therefore, not a
valid or legal reason for Schedule II Substance prescriptions, accounts for
more than 99% of all such prescriptions.
I urge that you do what is
medically, morally and legally correct: permanently embargo the Preschool ADHD Treatment Study. Where there is no disease, giving drugs such
as this cannot be called “treatment” or “research.”
Truly yours,
Fred A. Baughman Jr. MD
1303 Hidden Mountain Drive
El Cajon, CA 92019
fax 619-442-1932]
It adds that “common
side effects of methylphenidate are relatively mild and short-lived, and that
more severe side-effects are very rare”, but that this conclusion is
“based on treatment and follow-up of less than one year” and that
“none of the studies included assessment of longer-term side effects or
the risk of addiction or abuse with methylphenidate.”20
33. The question whether
addiction can be triggered by treatment of ADHD with stimulants over the long
term was the subject of a study presented by Dr M. Huss, a researcher in child
and adolescent psychiatry at the Humboldt University in Berlin, to the
Parliamentary Assembly’s Sub-Committees on Children and Health on 23 November
2001. The study was undertaken as a result of a sharp increase in stimulant
prescription in Germany, particularly since 1996. While it was difficult to
determine the causal links due to the complexity of factors that influenced
addiction, the study had nevertheless shown that methylphenidate treatment did
not have a strong effect on addictive behaviour. The preliminary results had
even shown that the non-treated control group had an increased risk of substance
use disorder. Such puzzling results could perhaps be explained by the stimulant
treatment’s effect in improving school performance and preventing school
failure, thus reducing the risk of drug addiction. Furthermore, stimulant
medication influenced the reward system in the brain, which had links to
addictive behaviour. 21
34. Further insight into
how methylphenidate (trade name Ritalin) works in the brain stems from research
conducted on 11 healthy adult males, using brain scans by positron emission
tomography, at the Brookhaven National Laboratory in the United States.22
This showed that the substance, used in that country for more than 40 years to
treat ADHD, significantly increases levels of dopamine in the brain, thereby
stimulating attention and motivational circuits that enhance ability to focus
and complete tasks.
35. The results showed that brain dopamine levels increased
significantly approximately 60 minutes following ingestion of the drug. This
would seem likely to increase a sense of motivation and purpose, and to make
the tasks that children are performing seem more exciting, raising their level
of interest and their ability to focus on the task.
36. Apparently methylphenidate also
works to suppress “background” firing of neurons not associated with
task performance, allowing the brain to transmit a clearer signal. Random
activation of other cells can be distracting, and children with ADHD are easily distracted. Methylphenidate suppresses the background firing and accentuates the
specific activation, basically increasing the signal-to-noise ratio and
increasing a child’s ability to focus.
37. Dr N. Volkow, director of the
study, is following up this research with a study of subjects suffering from
ADHD, on the hypothesis that ADHD sufferers have decreased function of dopamine
circuits and are therefore easily distracted, and that the effect of
methylphenidate should be to normalize these levels, allowing them to focus and
pay attention.
38. The
findings also have important implications for another research area -
understanding why methylphenidate, which is chemically quite similar to highly
addictive cocaine, is not addictive when taken in pill form. One thing in
common with aIl drugs of abuse is that they increase dopamine levels. Since
oral doses of methylphenidate do not produce a “high,” the Brookhaven
researchers did not expect to see a significant increase in dopamine levels.
Since they did see a significant increase, Dr Volkow postulates that another
factor is at work.
“We’ve found that
for drugs of abuse to be effective, they must get into the brain very quickly,
and for that reason, when injected, Ritalin can become addictive. However, when
Ritalin is given in pill form it takes at least 60 minutes to raise dopamine
levels in the brain. So, it is the speed at which you increase dopamine that
appears to be a key element in the addiction process.”23
[FB: Regarding how the psychostimulants are
generally described in the US for purposes of informed consent, the
October, 1995, Drug Enforcement Administration, Background Paper on
Methylphenidate (Ritalin) had this to say (page 4): “Whereas the majority of
children experience only minor side effects under medically supervised
controlled conditions, there are a significant number of case reports
documenting more severe abuse. These
reports and scientific studies of abuse potential are routinely down-played, if
referenced at all. As a consequence,
parents of children and adult patients are not being provided with the
opportunity for informed consent…” No single source of information about the diagnosis and treatment
of ADHD has been as influential as CHADD, created and financed by Ciba/Norartis
with it’s professional advisory board
dominated by researchers and scientists for the NIMH. They have invariably insisted, to the public
that ADHD is a “neurobiological disorder,“ meaning “disease,“ due to an
abnormality within the brain and that methylphenidate and amphetamines are safe
and non-addictive and are the essential, first-line treatment. In other words they have consistently,
throughout their history lied to the public both as to the nature of ADHD as
well as to the nature of methylphenidate and the other amphetamines used to
treat it. ]
Controlling the promotion and diversion of
stimulants used for treatment of ADHD
39. In his testimony to
the Parliamentary Assembly’s Sub-Committees on Children and Health on 23
November 2001, Mr T. Yoshida of the World Health Organisation confirmed that
consumption of methylphenidate had increased rapidly in recent years,
particularly in the United States (see Table 1). This phenomenon needed
explanation given that ADHD is not a new disorder and that methylphenidate is
not a new drug. One explanation could be the active promotion of the drug by
pharmaceutical companies that began in the early 1990s. For example, two
leaflets had been prepared targeting parents and teachers.
[FB: Would you please
identify these two leaflets for me. I
would like to review and critique them and know who the authors and sponsors
were.]
These emphasised the link between ADHD and
learning disabilities, described very broad diagnostic criteria, and
recommended drug treatment without mentioning the possibility of other
treatments.
[FB: Neither ADHD or any
“learning disability” has been validated as a disease due to an diagnosable
abnormality within the child. All are
thus-identified to patients and the public.]
They also emphasised drug
efficacy, stating that treatment by medication made the child
“normal” by correcting for neurochemical imbalance.
[FB: This, apparently, is
the manufacturer saying they will make the child “normal” by correcting the
child’s abnormality, their “chemical imbalance.” This is a blatant lie, the
lynch-pin of the fraud; making patients of normals. Having said this the patient’s/public’s informed consent rights,
regardless of what would later be said about the drugs to be used, were
irreversibly abrogated.]
They also emphasised the
safety of the drug and argued against the prescription of periods off medicine
as practised by some doctors in order to reduce the risk of long-term side
effects. US pharmaceutical companies spent an estimated 2.6 billion US dollars
in 2000 on direct-to-consumer advertising for prescription drugs.
40. Such practices
clearly contravene WHO’s Ethical
Criteria for Medicinal Drug Promotion, which state, among other things,
that “to fight drug addiction and dependency, scheduled narcotic and
psychotropic drugs should not be advertised to the general public.” More
generally, scientific and educational activities should not be deliberately
used for promotional purposes. WHO defines drug promotion to include aIl
informational and persuasive activities undertaken by manufacturers and
distributors, the effect of which is to induce the prescription, supply,
purchase and/or use of medicinal drugs. In contrast to advertising, which is
regulated in most countries, promotion without indication of substance name is
generally not regulated. The distinction between advertising and promotion
creates space for disguised promotion.
41. Since methylphenidate
is a scheduled psychotropic substance subject to international control, several
diversion control measures are applicable to the distribution of this drug :
licensing of handlers; international trade and export/import permits; safe
storage; prescription requirements; and recordkeeping obligations. However, these
diversion control measures may become less effective when consumption levels
increase rapidly as has been the case in recent years. It is therefore
important to ensure that diagnosis and treatment is kept as far as possible in
the hands of specialists.
[FB Saying that
“diagnosis and treatment is kept as far as possible in the hands of
specialists,” is as if to say there is such a thing, in anyone’s hands, as an
appropriate, valid diagnosis of this “disease” that does not exist. All agents and agencies of government who
contend this, collude with those who make “patients,” by the millions, of
normal individuals. All such agents and agencies of the government have a duty
to acquaint themselves with the essential scientific facts of the matter—is it
a true, bona fide, diagnosable disease/abnormality or not? ]
Conclusions
42. The validity of ADHD
and hyperkinetic disorders, defined in terms of persistent behavioural symptoms
centred on inattention, hyperactivity and impulsiveness resulting in functional
impairment, is widely recognised by professional medical, psychological and
scientific organisations, as attested to by their consensus statements and
guidelines, many of which have been cited in this report.
[FB:
In medical science, validation of a disease hinges only upon the demonstration
of an objective physical abnormality (that is the disease) and upon the person-by-person
demonstration/diagnosis of that abnormality.
Saying ADHD “is widely recognized by professional medical, psychological
and scientific organizations, as attested to by their consensus statements and
guidelines” refers to criteria in use today in psychiatry and mental health,
but nowhere else in medicine, to buttress their claims that every contrived
“disorder” is “biological,” a “disorder,” a “disease”. Accepting that such is the way of science
and medical science, the subcommittee, like most government health agencies in
the US and around the world, fail to consider the fact that the psychiatry is
not a science or even a true health care profession serving its patients,
serving the public. Rather, they long
ago sold out to Big Pharma and they did this long before other medical
specialties (pediatrics, family practice, neurology), and more totally. Regarding my charge that we are dealing here
with a fraud and a conspiracy, not medical science at all, consider the words
of psychiatrist-of-conscience
43. The consensus view is that these behaviourally defined
disorders can significantly impair the development of some children, resulting
in poor self-esteem and emotional and social problems and severely hampering
attainment of their educational potential. The symptoms of ADHD may continue
into adolescence and adulthood, and may be accompanied by continuing emotional
and social problems, resulting in unemployment, criminality and substance abuse.
The toll on those suffering from these disorders, as weIl as on their families
and on society cannot of course be measured precisely but may be considerable.
44. The controversy
surrounding ADHD hinges on whether it may validly be described as an
abnormality or disease, and whether it is justified to treat such cases with
psycho-stimulants, which have been shown to be effective in altering the
behaviour of those diagnosed, allowing them to focus more on what they are
doing and reducing their hyperactivity, but whose long-term effects are
uncertain. Indeed, the drugs of choice used in treatment are controlled drugs
listed in Schedule II of the 1971 United Nations Convention on Psychotropic
Substances because they have been judged by the World Health Organisation to be
liable to abuse, to constitute a substantial risk to public health, and to have
little to moderate therapeutic usefulness.
45. The fact is that
consumption of these drugs has increased considerably in recent years, and in
view of their controlled status, it is legitimate to ask why. In so far as the
increase is connected with an increase in the number of prescriptions written
to treat ADHD, the World Health Organisation as weIl as the International
Narcotics Control Board have sounded the alarm about the appropriateness of
such diagnoses in many instances and also about the connection between such
prescriptions and drug promotion by the pharmaceutical companies.
46. The precautionary
principle should prevail where doubt exists in regard to the long-term effects
of medicaments, stricter control should be exercised over the diagnosis and
treatment of these disorders and more research should be conducted into
alternative forms of treatment such as diet.
47. The Parliamentary
Assembly should be concerned to ensure that the medical and scientific community
is acting in the best interests of society, of patients, and in particular of
children and in accordance with ethical standards corresponding to the values
and principles of the Council of Europe.
48. Hence it seems
entirely appropriate for the Parliamentary Assembly to recommend to the
governments of the member States, many of which are certainly aware of the
problem, that they monitor the question more closely, that they co-ordinate and
step up research into the prevalence, diagnosis and treatment (in particular
alternative treatment) of these disorders and in particular into the long-term
effects of the prescribed substances as weIl as into the possible social and
cultural factors involved.
49. Moreover, it would
seem appropriate to recommend that the Committee of Ministers of the Council of
Europe should instruct the European Health Committee, in consultation with the
Pompidou Group, the European Committee for Social Cohesion, and the Steering
Committees on Bioethics and for Education, and in close cooperation with the
appropriate international organisations, to work out safeguards and guidelines
to be addressed to the governments of the member States.
{FB: I end my response to
this preliminary draft with this account of the conspiracy to medicalize normal
children and normal populations regardless of age, to drug them.
THE ADHD CONSPIRACY
by Fred A. Baughman Jr., MD
February 28, 2002
1970 (with the “hyperactivity” epidemic at 150,000)
Congressman C. Gallagher: “‘minimal brain dysfunction’ is one of at least
thirty-eight names attached to this condition… thirty percent in ghetto
areas…may not be pathological at all…”
1970, Elliot L. Richardson, Secretary, HEW to Gallagher:
“… stimulant drug treatment of children with this disorder began in the
late 1930’s and has been widely accepted as safe and effective...” [Fred A.
Baughman Jr., MD: 1970, and the “feds” were behind the drugging]
1986, RJ Lifton, The Nazi Doctors (p.12): “In Nazi mass murder… a barrier was
removed, a boundary crossed: that boundary between violent imagery and
killing… the medicalization of
killing—the imagery of killing in the name of healing—was crucial to that
terrible step. [Fred A. Baughman Jr.,
MD: in ADHD and every invented psychiatric “disease” the normal/abnormal boundary
is crossed and the medicalization of normal childhood and of all normal, human
traits allows drugging, shocking and cutting of normal brains—our ultimate
organ of adaptation]
Lifton, p.12: “My goal in this study is to uncover
psychological conditions conducive to evil…Every discipline courts illusions of
understanding that which is not understood…psychology, with its tenuous and
often defensive relationship to science, may be especially vulnerable to that
illusion.”
Lifton, p. 17: “ Among the biological authorities called
forth to articulate and implement “scientific racism”—including physical
anthropologists, geneticists and racial theorists of every variety—doctors
inevitably found a unique place.” [Fred
A. Baughman Jr., MD: Compare this to today’s “biological” psychiatry,
neurochemistry, genetics, brain scans, epidemiology and, to medical and
surgical “treatments” themselves, which—while damaging-- create illusions of
“diseases,” “medical patients,” and “epidemics”]
1990, Psychiatrist, Matthew P
Dumont: In his 1990 editorial “In Bed
Together at the Market: Psychiatry and the Pharmaceutical Industry,
psychiatrist-of-conscience, Matthew P Dumont, MD [Amer. J. Orthopsychiat. 60
(4), October, 1990:484-485] wrote: “Some years ago Nathan S Klein, one of the
luminaries of psychopharmacology, wrote that ‘The contacts of psychiatry with
the pharmaceutical industry have been so overwhelmingly beneficial that it
would be well-nigh criminal to jeopardize them.’ As if one could! The best this “well-nigh criminal” can do is
suggest that the profession give up its coquettish claims to psychotherapy and
social science and openly declare its identity as an arm of the drug
industry. It need fear no indignant
response from a federal government that defines private profit as it raison
d’etre. Indeed, the May-June 1990 issue
of the Alcohol, Drug and Mental Health Administrations newsletter featured a
front page announcement of its own ‘partnership to speed up and intensify the
development of medications for addictive and mental disorders.”
1994, The APA in the DSM-IV: “Mental disorder implies a distinction between
‘mental’ disorders and ‘physical’ disorders that is an anachronism of mind/body
dualism…there is much ‘physical’ in
‘mental’ disorders and much ‘mental’ in ‘physical’ disorders.” [Fred A.
Baughman Jr., MD: Here, psychiatry means to eradicate the boundary line between
“normal” & “abnormal;” “not diseased” & “diseased” so as to make
“patients” of normals]
1994, Pearlman (referring to DSM-IV): “I take issue with
the APA assertion that elimination of the term “organic” in the DSM-IV has
served a useful purpose for psychiatry… elimination of the term “organic”
suggests that psychiatry wishes to conceal the non-organic character of many
behavioral problems …”
1995
(with the ADHD epidemic at 3-4 million), Barry R. McCaffrey, White House Drug
Czar, accepts DSM-IV as “gospel,” ADHD as disease, making mockery of “war on
drugs.”
1996, Congressman Chris Shays: “In ADHD, we draw the line
between personality and pathology, placing millions on either side of boundary
that divides the healthy from the sick.
We should do so with particular reticence to make our children ‘medical
patients’…” [FB: labeling and
drugging 3-4 million children with no demonstrable pathology/disease;
reticence?]
1997, UN-INCB: “it
is the consensus of the Board that there are cases of improper diagnosis of ADD.”
[Fred A. Baughman Jr., MD: “improper
diagnosis” presumes proper diagnosis.
ADD/ADHD is not a disease with a confirmatory abnormality. This is why
I write of the “totality” of the ADHD fraud, urging that “official
accommodation must end.” This is why I write: “Normal children are being
drugged by ‘pushers’ in white coats, ‘treating’ illusory, invented, diseases.”]
1998, J. Swanson:
“Right now psychiatric diagnosis is completely subjective…We would like
to have biological tests—a dream of psychiatry for many years.” [Fred A. Baughman Jr., MD: which means,
psychology/psychiatry is not a science]
1998, Carey, NIH, Consensus Conference: “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.” [Fred A. Baughman
Jr., MD: While Carey errs in exonerating the DSM-IV of “disease” claims, he is
correct in observing that textbooks and journals of the day—the “peers” of the
“peer-reviewed” literature call it a “disease” with no scientific proof. They have orchestrated a scam for the joint
benefit of Big Pharma and all physicians choosing to add ‘mental health’ to
their practice to make “patients” of “normals.”]
1998, R. Degrandpre, to the Consensus Conference: “…you
define disease as a maladaptive cluster of characteristics. In the history of
science and medicine, this would not be a valid definition of disease.” [Fred A. Baughman Jr., MD: Degrandpre
signals their intent to deceive]
1998, N. Lambert to the Consensus Conference: “…childhood
stimulant treatment is significantly and pervasively implicated in the uptake
of regular smoking, in daily smoking in adulthood, in cocaine dependence, and
in the lifetime use of cocaine and stimulants.” [FB: Organized psychiatry and “mental health“ respond, 1999-2002
with their own brand of research which claims, instead, that the earlier, and
more consistently, methylphenidate/amphetamine therapy is prescribed, the less
the subsequent substance abuse in those with ADHD. On the heels of the Lambert research reported at the Consensus
Conference, it was predictable that their “research“ would prove just this.]
1998, Conclusion of Consensus Conference Panel: “there is
no valid test…no data indicate ADHD is due to brain malfunction. ” [FB: at which time, with no valid test and
no evidence of brain dysfunction, the US „epidemic“ stood at 4-5 million]
1998 AMA: “…there is little evidence of widespread
overdiagnosis or misdiagnosis or of widespread over-prescription of
methylphenidate.”
[Fred A. Baughman Jr., MD: “Once labeled ‘ADHD’ they are no
longer treated as normal. Once any drug
courses through their brain and body, they are, for the first time, physically,
neurologically and biologically, abnormal.”]
1998, AMA: Armed with no proof that the children are other
than normal, the AMA recommends that “physicians and medical groups work with
schools to improve teachers’ abilities to recognize (diagnose) ADHD and
appropriately recommend that parents seek medical evaluation,” and “The AMA
reaffirms Policy 100.975 to help ensure that appropriate amounts of
methylphenindate and other Schedule II drugs are available for clinically
warranted patient use.”
1999, Surgeon General, D. Satcher’s Report on Mental Health
(epid: 5 million): “Mental illness is no different than diabetes, asthma or
other physical ailments…Mental
illnesses are physical illnesses…”
2000, Baughman
calls for Satcher’s resignation:
“Having gone to medical school, studied pathology-disease &
diagnosis — you and I and all physicians know that the presence of any bona
fide disease, like diabetes, cancer or epilepsy, is confirmed by an objective
finding — a physical or chemical abnormality.
2000, American Academy of Pediatrics, Diagnostic Guideline:
“ADHD is the most common neurobehavioral disorder of childhood.” [FB: The collaborators in AAP, ADHD
guidelines are: Society for Pediatric Psychology, American Academy of Family
Physicians, Child Neurology Society, American Academy of Child and Adolescent
Psychiatry, American Psychiatric Association, American Academy of Neurology,
American Society of Adolescent Psychiatry.]
2001, Fred A. Baughman Jr., MD, letter to editor,
PEDIATRICS, journal of the AAP: “Neurobehavioral implies abnormality of
the brain, there is no abnormality, this is a perversion of science, a
violation of informed consent.
2001, Senator Pete V. Domenici, author of mental health “parity”
bills: “All too often, insurance discriminates against illnesses of the
brain.” [FB: The pharm industry spent $262 million on political influence
in the 1999-2000 election cycle with 625 lobbyists: > one for every member of Congress]
2001, Drug Enforcement Administration: “Methylphenidate and
amphetamine are prescribed for children with ADHD who have abnormally
high levels of activity and/or difficulty concentrating.” [Fred A. Baughman
Jr., MD: making 6 million NORMALS into “patients”—“treating” them, with
government a conspirator]
2001, World Health Organization: To schoolchildren: “Most of your classmates are healthy and
happy…However, some are ill with diseases such as behavioral
problems, learning disabilities, brain damage or epilepsy and feel very hurt
not to be a part of the normal group.” [Fred A. Baughman Jr., MD: they
co-mingle mental “diseases” with real diseases—epilepsy]
2001, Pfizer, AACAP, NIH &
Smithsonian Institute, produce brochure/exhibit: “BRAIN: The World Inside Your
Head,” which states: “brain-based diseases are like any other diseases…Understanding brain-related conditions such as mental illnesses can be
challenging. Like any other disease of the body, they can be
treated.”
2001, Vastag, a JAMA editor, makes two fraudulent,
pro-industry statements: (1) methylphenidate is not addictive, (2) ADHD is a
bona fide disease. [Fred A. Baughman
Jr., MD: The role of the AMA as an accomplice, is secure]
2001, California Psychiatric Assn: “mental illnesses are
physical illnesses of the brain.”
2001, APA President, R.K. Harding, MD: “mental
illnesses—such as depression or schizophrenia—are not “moral weaknesses” or
“imagined” but real diseases caused by
abnormalities of brain structure and imbalances of chemicals in the
brain.” [Fred A. Baughman Jr., MD:
an absolute lie. If we never became
depressed in depressing circumstances, we would not be normal. CA, SB-836:
It is “unlawful to disseminate false,
misleading, deceptive, statements to induce rendering of professional
services. Controlled Substances Act:
“the record shall show pathology (abnormality) for which prescription is
issued.”]
1998, CHADD: “ADHD is a severe neurobiological condition…’
[Fred A. Baughman Jr., MD: “How does CHADD justify calling normal
children diseased, abnormal, to justify prescribing, for them, of addictive,
Schedule II, stimulant medications?”]
2000, Fred A. Baughman Jr., MD, Congressional (US) testimony: “It would be fraudulent of
anyone to claim that any psychiatric condition is an actual disease.”
2001, Australian psychiatrist, G. Halasz: “ADHD was a
‘manufactured epidemic.’ It had neither been proved to exist as an illness nor
established as a genetic disease.
2001, le Carre: BIG
PHARMA sustained by huge wealth, pathological secrecy, corruption and greed is
spending a fortune influencing, hiring and purchasing academic
judgment…unbought medical opinion will be hard to find.”
[Fred A. Baughman
Jr., MD: When it comes to ADHD, unbought opinion of any kind is impossible to
find. The only way the
pharma-psychiatry-government cartel differs from the cocaine and opium cartels
of the world is that the the pharma-psychiatry-government cartel targets
everyone, from cradle to grave—your parents, and grandparents in their nursing
home beds, those truly physically ill, adding their never-essential drugs to
essential drugs, compromising real medical and surgical treatment, and infants,
toddlers, preschoolers and all they can force or court-order to swallow their
brain-altering, brain-damaging, “chemical balancers.” We are warned by le Carre, that their power, in league with
government, is the greatest of all threats to our liberty and right of
self-determination.]
Appendix 1
Diagnostic criteria for ADHD listed
in the fourth edition (1994) of the Diagnostic
and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-IV) of the American
Psychiatric Association
“A. Either (1) or (2)
(1) six (or more) of the
following symptoms of inattention have persisted for at least 6 months
to a degree that is maladaptive and inconsistent with developmental level:
(a) often fails to give
close attention to details or makes careless mistakes in schoolwork, work, or
other activities
(b) often has difficulty
sustaining attention in tasks or play activities
(c) often does not seem
to listen when spoken to directly
(d) often does not follow
through on instructions and fails to finish schoolwork, chores, or duties in
the workplace (not due to oppositional behavior or failure to understand
instructions)
(e) often has difficulty
organizing tasks and activities
(f) often avoids,
dislikes, or is reluctant to engage in tasks that require sustained mental
effort (such as schoolwork or homework)
(g) often loses things
necessary for tasks or activities (e.g. toys, school assignments, pencils,
books, or tools)
(h) is often easily
distracted by extraneous stimuli
(i) is often forgetful in
daily activities
(2) six (or more) of the
following symptoms of hyperactive-impulsivity have persisted for at
least 6 months to a degree that is maladaptive and inconsistent with
developmental level:
Hyperactivity
(a) often fidgets with
hands and feet or squirms in seat
(b) often leaves seat in
classroom or in other situations in which remaining seated is expected
(c) often runs about or
climbs excessively in situations in which it is inappropriate (in adolescents
or
adults, may be limited to
subjective feelings of restlessness)
(d) often has difficulty
playing or engaging in leisure activities quietly
(e) is often “on the
go” or often acts as if “driven by a motor”
(f) often talks
excessively
Impulsivity
(g) often blurts out
answers before questions have been completed
(h) often has difficulty
awaiting turn
(i) often interrupts or
intrudes on others (e.g. butts into conversations or games)
B. Some
hyperactive-impulsive or inattentive symptoms that caused impairment were
present before age 7 years.
C. Some impairment from
the symptoms is present in two or more settings (e.g. at school [or work] and
at home).
D. There must be clear
evidence of clinically significant impairment in social, academic, or
occupational funtioning.
E. The symptoms do not
occur exclusively during the course of a Pervasive Developmental Disorder,
Schizophrenia, or other Psychotic Disorder and are not better accounted for by
another mental disorder (e.g. Mood Disorder, Anxiety Disorder, Dissociative
Disorder, or a Personality Disorder).”24
There are three sub-types
of ADHD: (i) the Combined Type, where both Criteria A1 and A2 are met for the
past 6 months; (ii) the Predominantly Inattentive Type, where Criterion A1 is
met but Criterion A2 is not met for the past 6 months; and (iii) the
Predominantly Hyperactive-lmpulsive Type, where Criterion A2 is met but
Criterion A1 is not met for the past 6 months.25
Diagnostic criteria for
“Hyperkinetic disorder” (HKD) listed in the tenth edition of the International Classification of Diseases
(ICD-10) published by the World Health Organisation (WHO)
A. Demonstrate
abnormality of attention and activity at HOME, for the age and developmental
level of the child, as evidenced by at least three of the following attention
problems:
1.
short duration to spontaneous activities
2.
often leaving play activities unfinished
3.
over-frequent changes between activities
4.
undue lack of persistence at tasks set by adults
5.
unduly high distractibility during study, e.g. homework or reading assignment
6.
and by at least two of the following activity problems: continuous motor
restlessness (running,
jumping etc.)
7.
markedly excessive fidgeting or wriggling during spontaneous activities
8.
markedly excessive activity in situations expecting relative stillness, e.g.
mealtimes, travel,
visiting, church
9.
difficulty in remaining seated when required
B. Demonstrate
abnormality of attention and activity at SCHOOL or NURSERY (if applicable), for
the age and developmental level of the child, as evidenced by at least two of
the following attention problems:
1.
undue lack of persistence at tasks
2.
unduly high distractibility, i.e. often orientating towards extrinsic stimuli
3.
over frequent changes between activities when choice is allowed
4.
excessively short duration of play activities
5.
and by at least two of the following activity problems: continuous and
excessive motor
restlessness (running, jumping etc.) in
school
6.
markedly excessive fidgeting and wriggling in structured situation
7.
excessive levels of off-task activity during tasks
8.
unduly often out of seat when required to be sitting
C. Directly observed
abnormality of attention or activity. This must be excessive for the child’s
age and developmental level. The evidence may be any of the following:
1. direct observation of the criteria in
A or B above, i.e. not solely the report of parent and/or
teacher
2. observation of abnormal levels of
motor activity, or off-task behaviour, or lack of persistence in
activities, in a setting outside home
or school (e.g., clinic or laboratory)
3. significant impairment of performance
on psychometric test of attention
D. Does not meet criteria
for pervasive developmental disorder, mania, depressive or anxiety disorder.
E. Onset before the AGE
OF 6 YEARS.
F. Duration of AT LEAST 6
MONTHS.
G. IQ above 50.
Note: The research
diagnosis of Hyperkinetic disorder requires the definite presence of abnormal
levels of inattention and restlessness that are pervasive across situations and
persistent over time, that can be demonstrated by direct observation, and that
are not caused by other disorders such as autism or affective
disorders…”26
Footnotes:
1 World
Health Organisation Technical Report Series, No.437, 1970.
2 Cf. in
particular INCB Reports for 1998 and 2000.
3 Council of
Europe, Pompidou Group, Attention
deficit/hyperkinetic disorders: their diagnosis and treatment with stimulants, Council
of Europe Publishing, March 2000, ISBN 92-871-4240-8.
4 Doc. 8727,
Ending the misdiagnosis of children, Motion
for an order presented by Mr Gustafsson and others.
5
In Sweden the condition is known as “deficits in attention, motor control
and perception” (DAMP) and is also subject to controversy (testimony of
Professor E. Kärfve to the Sub-Committees on Children and Health, 23 November
2001.
6
Diagnosis and Treatment of Attention
Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder. National Institutes of Health (NIH)
Consensus Statement Online 1998 Nov 16-18; 16(2): 1-37. http://odp.odnih.gov/consensus/cons/110/110
statement.htm
7
Guidance on the Use of Methylphenidate
(Ritalin, Equasym) for Attention Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) in
childhood, National Institute for Clinical Excellence, London, October
2000. http://www.nice.org.uk/Docref.asp?d=11653
8
Jan Buitelaar, Ad Bergsma, “Sociocultural factors and the treatment of
ADHD” in Council of Europe, op.
cit., p. 21
9
NIH, op. cit.
10
National Institute for Clinical Excellence, op. cit., para.2.4.
11
Mrs M. de Boer, testifying on behalf of Dr. Pelsser before the Parliamentary
Assembly’s Sub-Committees on Children and Health, 23 November 2001. Cf. also J.
Breakey, “The role of diet and behaviour in childhood”, in J. Paediatr. Child Health (1997) 33,
190-194.
12
WHO, World Health Report 2001: Mental Health: New Understanding, New Hope, chapter
1, p. 10, http://www.who.int/whr
13
Jan Buitelaar, Ad Bergsma, “Sociocultural factors and the treatment of
ADHD” in Council of Europe, op.
cit., p. 35.
14 National
Institute for Clinical Excellence, op.
cit., para.2.5.
15
WHO, World Heallh Report 2001,
chapter 3, p. 72.
16
J. Buitelaar, A. Bergsma, in Council of Europe, op. cil., p. 25.
17
The US Food and Drug Administration’s MedWatch programme registered 186 deaths
in the US attributed to methylphenidate for the decade 1990-2000.
18
Multimodal Treatment Study of Children with ADHD,
19 National
Institute for Clinical Excellence, op.
cit., para. 4.5.2.
20 ibid., para. 4,7.
21 Results
of earlier research conflicted: of the two major epidemiological studies
conducted, one showed more drug addiction in ADHD children taking
methylphenidate over the long-term than in those not taking it (Journal of Learning Disabilities, 1998;31:533-544),
the other showed the opposite (Pediatrics,
1999;104:e20) (as cited in Vastag, loc.cit.)
22 Nora D.
Volkow et al., “Therapeutic doses of oral methylphenidate significantly
increase extracellular dopamine in the human brain” in The Journal of
Neuroscience, 2001, 21:RC121:1-5 at http://www.bnl.gov/bnlweb/pubaf/pr/2001/bnlpr/011501a.html
. See also Brian Vastag, “Pay attention’ Ritalin acts much like
cocaine” in Journals of the American Medical Association, Vol. 286, No.8,
August 22/29, 2001 at http://jama.ama-assn.org/issues/v286n8/ffull/jmn0822-1.html
23
?????
24
Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of
mental Disorders - Fourth
Edition (DSM-IV), American Psychiatric Association, Washington, D.C.,
1994
25
Ibid.
26 International Classification of Diseases (10th
Ed. ) (ICD-10). World Health Organisation, Geneva, 1990