How Psychiatrists Team with Teachers and Prey upon Normal Children
How to Recognize and Defend Against It
Fred A. Baughman Jr., MD, 8/25/00
Your child seemed normal at birth, walked and talked on time and as
quickly and well as all the other kids, and seemed normal, still, on their
first day of school. But once in school they start catching all sorts
of thingspsychiatric disorders, mainly, by which, theypsychiatrists
and teachers–mean brain diseases, due to chemical imbalances of the
brain. And they catch them in school because teachers, nowadays,
learn all about the things found in the American Psychiatric
Associations Diagnostic and Statistical Manual. The DSM allows
teachers to become instant diagnosticians. They get a behavior
checklist for each of the 300-odd psychiatric disorders/diseases, begin
watching, observing all the normal-looking boys and girls, checking
this behavior and that, over the days and weeks. Next, getting together
with the team, they add up the abnormal behaviors and voila!– a
psychiatric diagnosisa brain disease, a chemical imbalance of the
brain. Then, of course, a pill, a chemical balancer with which to treat
With every teacher (and aide) a diagnostician, it becomes easy to
understand the burgeoning epidemic, growing 100% a
yearproportionate to the number of diagnosticians. It is apparent that
the epidemic wont stop until the last child is diagnosed.
If we do not wake up as a nation, we will seal our own fate. Our
entirely normal children (normal until these drugs/poisons course
through their system) have become fodder for the
psychiatric-pharmaceutical cartel. That they will continue to serve in
this capacity is assured by our own federal government, bought and
paid for at most every level by an obscene amount of drug dollars that
pollute the political system and represent individuals no longer.
Already 6-7 million (13% of US schoolchildren) are said to have ADHD and
are on Ritalin and other amphetamines and an additional 2-3 million (5%
= a total of between 15 and 20% of all US schoolchildren) have other
labels and are on other psychiatric substances as treatment. Where there
are no diseases (and there are none in psychiatry or among the normal
children we send to our public, government schools) we must, no longer
allow them to speak of disorders, diseases, disabilities, or treatments.
Coercion of the sort brought to bear on the Carroll family of Albany,
New York, is the rule, not the exception. Most families, and parents of
divorce, are isolated, powerless, and voiceless–their plight unheard.
Jill and Michael Carroll faced child abuse charges for taking their son
off Ritalin. A family court judge ruled they must continue medicating
him. SOCIAL SERVICES CHARGES against them were dropped last week on the
condition that they keep their 7-year-old son, Kyle on Ritalin. Jill
Carroll said Social Service workers will visit the family throughout
the next year.
Any family, anywhere in the country, with a child in public school could
find themselves in the Carrolls situation: Accept the diagnosis and
treatment dictated by schoolteachers, upheld by cooperating
psychiatrists and other physicians, child protective services, and
family court, or find yourself declared unfit parents, standing to
lose your very own, God-given children. Believe it or notand you had
better believe ityou, just like every other family in the United States
of America, today, at the start of the new millennium runs the risk of
losing your child and/or control over his/her life if they go to a
public, government school.
Steve Keene, a parent of divorce, of Houston, Texas, (for whom I
testified, in 1995) was thrown in jail, and lost his share of custody,
when he threw his son’s Ritalin down the toilet. He went bankrupt,
fighting for his son. The court was not interested in the science of
the matter: the fact that ADHD is not a disease having a confirmatory,
physical or chemical abnormality by which to prove its presence. As in
virtually all local courts, the DSM and belief in biological
psychiatry prevailed, when there is no such thing as a biological proof
in psychiatrynot one!
Steve Lyons of Fargo, ND, lost his share of custody of his son, William
in March, 2000, over his resistance to ADHD and Ritalin. A bad
influence the judge called him, similarly, indisposed to hear the
science of the matter (I testified for Steve and William Lyons in early,
2000), that which the Supreme Court, in Daubert, in 1993, said should be
upheld as the law. Nor are the children heard when they seek to tell
the judge how these drugs make them feel. Severe headaches lead the
Carrolls to take their son Kyle off of Ritalin. “No excuse” said
his teachers”teachers” mind you! What is wrong with this picture?
William Lyons plaintively told the judge he didnt like taking the
Ritalin. He had taken the DARE course at his school and knew it was
speed, he explained. But all to no avail. The majority of
professionals in Williams life and in the life of his mother were
ADHD/Ritalin advocates. That view and that prescription were likely to
prevail. Such is the state of affairs all over the US todaythe
propaganda of biological psychiatry, spread ad nauseum with unlimited
pharmaceutical/drug moneys, prevails. You, Mom and Dad of the child
just sent to public school, or due to head there next year or the year
after, will not stand a chance.
Did you see on the evening news the angered, grief-stricken mother of a
doomed Russian submariner? She caught the eye of the camera and the
attention of the world, and this wasnt to be allowed. A team of four,
lead by a Navy nurse, injected her with something powerful and
fast-acting. The other three caught her as she collapsed and spirited
her away for who knows what other treatments.
Delude yourselves if you will, but this is exactly the relationship
forged by money between psychiatry, the pharmaceutical industry, the
government and judiciary, here in the USA, today. Doubt me at your own
peril. Read, if the truth does not frighten you, of mother and grandmother
Kathleen Garrett, given electroshock therapy against her will, yesterday
and the day before by court order, upon request by psychiatrists at a Tenant
Corporation, for-profit psychiatric hospital, in St. Louis, MO.
Back to the matter of your/our children. Your only chance, if you are
inclined not to believe in chemical imbalances and mandatory chemical
balancerspills, is to hope that a case like that of the Carrolls, the
Lyons, the Sosas (L.A., CA), the Boskovichs (Tacoma, WA), the
Stenzels (L.A., CA.), the Desmonds (Reno, NV), the Goodmans
(Caldwell, NJ), or the Heutehaus (Toronto, Canada)–all of whom I have
assisted with local court actionsgets to a higher court where
*Daubert v. Merrill Dow Pharmaceuticals1993 (decided in 1993 by the
U.S. Supreme Court), will be upheld.
Whether or not a disease exists and can be diagnosed, that is,
confirmed, patient-by-patient, is really quite a simple matter.
In 1971, I discovered the curly hair-anklyoblepharon (fused
eyelids)-nail dysplasia syndrome (CHANDS) . Its description was
published in a single article in the Birth Defects: Original Article
Series. In 1979, Toriello, et. al.  (myself included) established
its autosomal recessive mode of transmission and published our findings
in the Journal of Medical Genetics . In 1959, Turcot, et al ,
suggested that the combination of polyposis of the colon with gliomas of
the brain was an autosomal recessive trait. In 1969, Baughman, et al,
 described the second, “confirmatory” example of the
glioma-polyposis syndromeTurcots syndrome.
1. Baughman FA. CHANDS: the curly hair-ankyloblepharon-nail dysplasia
syndrome. Birth Defects: Original Article Series. 1971;7:100-102.
2. Toriello HV, Lindstrom JA, Waterman, DF, Baughman FA. Re-evaluation
of CHANDS. Journal of Medical Genetics. 1979;16:316-317.
3. Turcot J, Despres JP, St. Pierre F. Malignant tumors of central
nervous suystem associated with familial polyposis of the colon: report
of two cases. Dis Colon Rectum. 1959;2:465-468.
4. Baughman FA, List CF, Williams JR, Muldoon JP, Segarra JM, Volkel
JS. The Glioma-Polyposis Syndrome. N Engl J Med. 1969;281:1345-1346.
Anyone asking whether or not CHANDS exists, whether or not it has been
proven to be “genetic” or, whether or not Turcots syndrome exists, can
look up the references and access the proofs. Such is the way of
medical sciencewith the notable exception of psychiatry! In psychiatry
there has never been a single biological proof making so much as one of
their disorders something biological, physical, that is, a disease.
For this reason their claims of neurology, biology and genetics are a
In the last few formal declarations or affidavits that I have filed on
behalf of families caught up in this fraud and victimization I have
testified, under penalty of perjury, that nowhere in the worlds
scientific literature has ADHD been proven to be a disease with a
confirmatory physical or chemical abnormality.
It has long since been the obligation of all courts in the US, under the
Supreme Courts ruling in Daubert1993, to ask the ADHD experts of CHADD
(including P. Jensen, R. Barkley, J. Biederman, J. Swanson), of the NIMH
(including S. Hyman, P Jensen, F.S. Castellanos, A. Zametkin, J
Rapoport, J. Giedd) , of the American Academies of Pediatrics (AAP), of
Neurology (AAN), of Family Practice (AAFP), of Child and Adolescent
Psychiatry (AACAP) and the Child Neurology Society:
(1) Is ADHD a disease having a confirmatory physical or chemical
abnormalityYes or No?
(2) If yes, cite the article, by title, author (s), journal, year,
volume, page numbers.
Further, their responses whether verbally or by written declaration,
should be under penalty of perjury.
The abject lying, and the perversion of science and medicine must be
brought to an end.
*Prior to 1993, the U.S. Supreme Court held that scientific testimony
constituted competent evidence if it was “generally accepted as reliable
in the relevant scientific community.”
However in 1993, Daubert v. Merrill Dow Pharmaceuticals changed that,
holding that the Federal Rules of Evidence must require more than
“general acceptance” of the scientific views expressed. Daubert
stipulated that expert testimony must be “scientific knowledge. The
adjective scientific implies a grounding in the methods and procedures
of science. Similarly the word knowledge connotes more than
subjective belief or unsupported speculation. The term applies to any
body of known facts or to any body of ideas inferred from such facts or
accepted as truth on good grounds.” (509 U.S. at 589-590)
Since Daubert, the term “junk science” has been applied to any supposed
expert views that warrant rejection due to a lack of scientific
foundation. According to Daubert, virtually all of so-called
biological psychiatrythat which claims that all emotional and
behavioral conditions are actual diseases having confirmatory physical
or chemical abnormalities of the brainis “junk science.” More than
that, when such allegations are the basis of informed consent in
research and in practice, it is deception, the violation of informed
consent, and fraud. That such has been standard practice in psychiatry
for 20 to 30 years, would have found legal acceptance prior to Daubert
(1993), but is not scientific and is acceptable no longer.