Holland Advertisement Code Commission: ADHD not a Disease - Commentary by Fred A. Baughman Jr., MD (Revised 9-8-02)

Holland Advertisement Code Commission: ADHD not a Disease 

The simple elegance of the decision of the Advertisement Code Commission 
(Holland) in the case: Nederlands Comite voor de Rechten van de Mens 
(CCHR) vs. the Brain Foundation Netherlands, defendant, is not to be 
missed. It appears to me that this is the first such determination by a 
national government concerning the fraudulent representation of a 
psychiatric diagnosis as a physical/medical disease within normal 
children and adults. It is a model by which past and future victims of 
biological psychiatry in all countries can, and must, rise up, challenge 
and destroy the fraud of "biological" psychiatry--that which would drug 
us all, by government order if that's what it takes.

The plaintiffs deserve our congratulations---Fred A. Baughman Jr., MD, 
September 6, 2002 .

[Fred A. Baughman Jr., MD:
What follows is the English translation with my comments
within]

.
Dossier 02.0249

Decision of the Advertisement Code Commission (Chamber II)

In the case:Nederland Comite voor de Rechten van de Mens (CCHR), 
domiciled in Amsterdam, plaintiff.
:The Brain Foundation Netherlands, domiciled in the Hague, defendant.

1.Procedure

Plaintiff filed a complaint against an advertisement of the defendant, 
on the 24th of April, 2002. Defendant did respond to the complaint in 
the letter of the 21st of May, 2002.

Plaintiff filed her reply on the 19th of June 2002. The defendant did 
the same on the 1st of July 2002.

The Advertisement Code Commission (after this the Commission) held a 
hearing about the complaint on the 4th of July 2002.

For the plaintiff appeared Mrs. H. Teunisse-Bruinsma and Mr. E. van Ede. 
For the defendant appeared Mr. A. Ederveen and his wife and Mrs. 
Ir.H.A.M. van Nies.

2. The text under discussion

The defendant stated in the attached advertisement, among other, that 
ADHD (attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder, is an "inborn 
(genetic/inherited) brain dysfunction."

3. The complaint

Defendant states that ADHD is an inborn brain dysfunction though the 
cause of ADHD is not scientifically proven yet. The defendant gives a 
wrong and misleading representation of the facts, this is in conflict 
with articles 5,7, and 15 of the Dutch Advertisement Code (NRC).

[Fred A. Baughman Jr., MD:
In fact ADHD has never been shown to be other than
normal, if troublesome, behaviors in normal children/persons. No
physical abnormality or dysfunction has been discovered and reported in
the medical/scientific literature. Speaking of it cause/etiology being
yet unknown is a common semantic strategy within "biological"
psychiatry, meant to distract from the fact that no abnormality =
disease is known to exist. Nor has any wholly psychiatric
diagnosis/entity been validated as an organic disease or dysfunction,
the reason being, that all are arbitrarily grouped behaviors decided
upon in committee at the American Psychiatric Association. The history
within the medical/scientific literature of any real medical disease
begins with the discovery and description of the objective
organic/physical abnormality that is, itself, the disease]

4.The defense

First the defendant states that this text is not an advertisement as 
meant in the Dutch Advertisement Code. Defendant is a charitable 
organization which stimulates scientific research and gives information, 
it has no commercial activities, the people who support the Brain 
Foundation get nothing in return.

[Fred A. Baughman Jr., MD:
Just as CHADD, NAMI and every existing psychiatric
"disease" foundation in existence in the US today.]

In respected international and national medical professional literature 
the view of the cause of ADHD of the scientific world is discussed. 
Defendant present five articles. She states that there is no conflict 
with the Dutch Advertisement Code.

[Fred A. Baughman Jr., MD:
It is likely the those representing the defendant are
themselves deceived as to the true, fraudulent nature of ADHD. I would
be happy to review the 5 articles submitted as proof. Nowhere in the
medical/scientific literature of the world is there proof that a single
psychiatric "disease," ADHD included, is an actual organic/physical
abnormality = disease. With no existing abnormality/disease, there can,
of course be no cause/etiology or place/reason for conjecture about
cause/etiology. And yet, throughout both the research and practice of
psychiatry and medicine, all psychiatric diagnoses/conditions are
represented in just this way--as if they were brain
dysfunctions/disorders/diseases/abnormalities. This means that
throughout psychiatric/mental health research and practice, this--the
"disease" lie is pivotal, abrogating the right to informed
consent--universally. This is what they do to make "patients" and
"research subjects" of normals]

5. The hearing

Both parties kept to their statements and explained them further.

6. The Judgment of the Commission

As the defendant tries to raise funds with this advertisement, there are 
favors asked and thereby it is an advertisement as mentioned in Article 
1 of the Dutch Advertisement Code.

The Defendant states in her statement that ADHD is an inborn brain 
dysfunction and can rely on the result of scientific research and 
scientific articles about the cause of ADHD. The information that the 
defendant presented does not provide sufficient grounds for the definite 
statement that ADHD is an inborn brain dysfunction.

[Fred A. Baughman Jr., MD:
Either such has been proved and with such proof in
print within the medical/scientific literature of the world or it is, as
yet, not established that ADHD is (1) an "inborn brain dysfunction" or
(2) a "brain dysfunction"/disease/abnormality at all.]

"While searching for the cause of ADHD, the different research projects 
give different possibilities."

[Fred A. Baughman Jr., MD:
The Commission does not make note of the fact, that
more fundamental than cause/etiology, ADHD is not an
abnormality/disease, for which a cause should, logically, be sought.
They appear to recognize that something essential is missing but not
that the search for a cause/etiology, under the circumstances, is wholly
duplicitous, meant to keep us from asking the "where is the
abnormality/disease?" question and meant, at the same time to generate a
biological/medical research literature giving the appearance of
legitimacy when none of it--without a single proven biological/medical
abnormality/disease--is, in the least bit legitimate, i.e., other than
fraudulent. Surely throughout the lay press of Holland there will be
other ads about ADHD and the host of other psychiatric "diseases" to
bring like complaints about to the Commission, to be lauded for putting
the interests of their people first.]

"There is no unequivocal opinion on the cause of ADHD in the papers that 
the defendant presented."

[Fred A. Baughman Jr., MD:
And, more importantly, as I have pointed out above, no
proof of an abnormality/disease; no proof that infants, children and
adults thus labeled are, in the least, diseased/abnormal.]

"Under these circumstances the defendant has not been careful enough and 
the text in the advertisement is misleading."

7. The decision

"Grounded on the above, the Commission finds the advertisement in 
conflict with Article 7 of the Dutch Advertisement Code and recommends 
the defendant stop advertising in this way."

"Parties have, when they have been found wrong, the possibility to file 
an appeal in this case with the College of Appeal."


Amsterdam, 6 August 2002.

From M.L Hanneke Teunisse of

CCHR Holland, Amsterdam, 30-8-2002:

The Brain Foundation is a fund-raising foundation. They raise funds to
invest in brain research. They have top-psychiatrists as their advisors 
among them Professor Buitelaar one of the child-psychiatrists who 
publishes the most about ADHD. The Brain Foundation is founded by prof. 
J.M. van Ree, this is also the promoter of free-heroin for addicted 
people projects in Holland. He is still a member of the Board. In the 
year 2000 they received gifts from two major pharmaceutical companies, 
Glaxo Welcome and Janssen Cilag (as they state in their yearly report of 
2000). Their list of advisors is includes psychiatrists, people of 
industry (like AKZO, big chemical industry in Holland), people of the 
media, former members of parliament and the first chamber, bankers, the 
chairman of the biggest public Health Insurance company, and the 
president of the Health Organization in Holland

From M.L Hanneke Teunisse
CCHR Holland, 8/30/02

Dear Dr. Baughman,

We won the case against the Brain Foundation in Holland for 100%!

The Advertisement Code Commission made their decision known on the 6th of
August. The Brain Foundation could not validate their statements with the
papers they gave to the Commission. We were able to discredit them all. The
Commission ruled that their statement was uncareful and misleading. They
advised the Brain Foundation not to print this again.

The Brain Foundation appealed this decision on the 19th of August but they
could not say on what ground until they had the opportunity to consult some
experts. Yesterday I received the message that the cancelled their appeal
after they had consulted two experts and a juridical advisor.
So we won this case!
CCHR-Int already wrote a very nice press-release about it, you find this
attached.

Thank you very much for your support and very clear
data we have used to write the plea for the hearing.