Posted by

Letter to Orange County District Attorney 5/29/01

  Tony Rackaukas, District Attorney  (Attention: Vickie Hix)          May 29, 2001
  Orange County
  401 Civic Center Dr.
  Santa Ana, CA 92701

  Dear Mr. Rackaukas; Ms. Hix

  A November 17, 2000 article in the journal SCIENCE [1] announced the
  National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH) Preschool ADHD Treatment
  Study (PATS), to commence, in December, 2000, AT 6 academic
  centers--UCLA and UC-Irvine, among them--to determine whether or not
  Ritalin is safe and effective in preschool children (3 to 6) with
  attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (AD/HD).
  The article acknowledged "ethical concerns about using young subjects in
  clinical trials," also that  "science seems a bit thin when it comes to
  giving drugs to young children."  Harvard psychiatrist Joseph Coyle
  worried, "psychoactive drugs might affect the development of visual
  processing, language, motor skills, and memory of young children."
  Marshall treated other critics dismissively, writing: "These doubters
  range from the die-hard variety, like .psychiatrist Peter Breggin, to
  moderate skeptics like pediatrician William Carey of the Philadelphia
  Children's Hospital." Carey has written that the "assumption that ADHD
  symptoms arise from cerebral malfunction has not been supported, even
  after extensive investigations."   "Breggin," Marshall observed, "has
  signed up as an expert witness for parents of ADHD children who this
  year filed lawsuits against the manufacturer of Ritalin and psychiatric
  organizations in several states, alleging that they conspired to promote
  the drug.  Breggin and California neurologist Fred Baughman Jr. blasted
  the use of Ritalin in congressional testimony on 29 September. Baughman
  called the ADHD diagnosis "a total fraud." Enrolling young children in a
  trial of MPH, he adds, is "outrageous" and "immoral."
  Writing in SCIENCE, Marshall avoided addressing the science, preferring,
  instead, to attack the "critics."  The main question about AD/HD, today
  and throughout it's 21 year history, is whether it is an actual disease
  at all (abnormality  = disease.  No abnormality = no disease = normal).
  The controversy is not over the fact that the children to be studied
  are so young, but whether or not they have an actual disease--whether or
  not, they are normal?
  Marshall, the editors or SCIENCE, and the leaders of psychiatric
  research, left it for me, in a letter to the editor, January 26, 2001
  [2], to address the science.  I wrote (copy, complete with bibliography
  "Regarding the Preschool Treatment Study that Marshall describes in his
  article--there is no disease. No proof exists that ADHD is a disease
  with a validating abnormality. Yet the public is told it is a "disease"
  (1), that it is  neurobiologic" (2) or "neurobehavioral" (3). W.B.
  Carey, a professor of pediatrics at the University of Pennsylvania,
  School of Medicine, testified at the National Institutes of Health (NIH)
  Consensus Conference on ADHD in 1998 that "ADHD.appears to be a set of
  normal behavioral variations" (4). The Consensus Conference Panel
  concluded: "we do not have an independent, valid test for
  data.indicate that ADHD is due to a brain malfunction" (5).  Every
  physician has the responsibility to distinguish disease from absence of
  disease and to communicate this to their patients and the public.  In
  that children who would be the research subjects in the Preschool ADHD
  Treatment Study (PATS) have no demonstrable disease, there is no
  justification for giving them Schedule II, stimulant medications."
  James M. Swanson is Director of the Child Study Center at the University
  of California, Irvine, and director of the PATS there.  Speaking at the
  American Society of Adolescent Psychiatry, May 7, 1998, Swanson
  deserted, if briefly, the psychiatric/pharmaceutical propaganda line
  that insists that all psychiatric "disorders" are "diseases" due to
  "chemical imbalances" of the brain.  His unwitting mention of the truth
  (from the tape recording of the session):
  "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."
  Nor has any single psychiatric "disorder"/ "disease" been  validated, as
  such, between then and now.  Completely subjective and without an
  objective abnormality by which to diagnose/confirm their presence-there
  is no such thing as a bona fide psychiatric disease.  There is no
  abnormality to treat, medically or surgically, to make more nearly
  normal, or normal.  This being the case there is no difference between
  children given Ritalin and other amphetamines within the confines of the
  school, legally, and those give the same drugs outside of
  school-illegally.  The only thing that separates them is the illusory,
  fraudulent "disease" labels appended within the schools and throughout
  the psychiatric, psychological, mental health community.
  In Los Angeles County, in the year 2000, 3891, 2 year-olds, and 5,311, 3
  year-olds were legally prescribed Ritalin and other Schedule II
  amphetamines.  At the same time, in Orange County,  2,311, 2 year-olds
  and 2,873, 3 year-olds were legally prescribed drugs of the same

  From Drug Laws, 1998--California Edition (including the California
  Uniform Controlled Substances Act) we read (11190.):

  "The prescriber's record shall show the pathology and purpose for which
  the prescription is issued, or the controlled substance administered,
  prescribed or dispensed."

  The word "pathology" means disease or abnormality, of which there are
  none in ADHD, or in any psychiatric disorder/diagnosis in Diagnostic and
  Statistical Manual-IV, of the  American Psychiatric Association.
  My article  Psychiatric drugs for infants and toddlers: Treatment or
  crime? Has just been published in the International Journal of Risk and
  Safety in Medicine [Vol. 23 Number 2].
  It is time for a thorough, un-biased, analysis of all child-adolescent
  psychiatric practice practice where the prescribing of Schedule II,
  controlled substances is concerned.  This analysis should begin with
  the  Preschool ADHD Treatment Study (PATS) just launched in the
  Departments of Psychiatry both at UCLA and UC-Irvine.
  Fred A. Baughman Jr., MD--Neurology/Child Neurology
  1303 Hidden Mountain Dr.
  El Cajon, CA 92019
  619 440 8236
  1. Marshall, Eliot.  Planned Ritalin Trial for Tots Heads Into Uncharted
  Waters. SCIENCE, November 17, 2000; 1280-1282
  2. Baughman, FA.  Questioning the Treatment for ADHD.  SCIENCE.

Leave a Reply

  • (will not be published)