Posted by


Chester, IL

Fred A. Baughman Jr., MD.12/4/02

I was not allowed to testify as to psychiatric/psychological diagnosis, not
being a psychologist or psychiatrist. I maintained that based on my
history taking from Rodney and review of admittedly small portions of the
medical record and my not-quite-complete neurological examination I, and any
experienced neurologist could be in the order of 99% certain and accurate
in concluding that NO ORGANIC DISEASE OF THE NERVOUS SYSTEM exists. The
first part of all organic, medical surgical diagnosis is to find some, any,
abnormality; this establishing that abnormality/disease is present (not
which disease). This too, is the first, most fundamental part of diagnosis.
Only having found an abnormality does one turn to the question of WHICH
ABNORMALITY?/WHICH DISEASE? There are no exceptions to this order in the
practice of scientifically based, organic medicine.

Psychiatrists and psychologists were ruled in, qualified, as experts in this
case. I made or tried to make the point that
psychiatric/psychological/mental diagnoses were classifications of various
emotional symptoms and behaviors in organically, medically (and
neurologically) normal persons, but this distinction seemed unclear to the
court as it does to most of the lay public because of present-day,
biological psychiatry’s concerted attempts to give the false, fraudulent
impression that the things they diagnosis according to the DSM-IV, IV-R, are
organic diseases. What has to be stressed is that NO “INSTRUMENT,”

We are all aware that they pervert the language of science and medicine so
as to create the illusion that all they do is science and medicine when none
of it is—zero! The illusion, the fraud is total, 100%; this is the only way
to understand it.

In my questioning 12/4, the state’s attorney posed many questions seeking a
yes or no answer for which there were no yes or no answers. He too sought
to blur the organic/non-organic line between psychiatry and neurology and
psychiatry and all of the rest of medicine. He spoke of “mental illness”
without allowing definition of the term knowing, as we know, that “illness”
is used because it is confused with “disease” and that that is the
impression they wish to leave about all they diagnose and treat with their
wholly, never-objective, never-organic tests.

What we should have conveyed to the judge/court but did not is that no
psychologist or psychiatrist is qualified to diagnose organic/physical
abnormalities/diseases. At the founding of neurology as a formal specialty
in 1948, sanctioned by the American Board of Psychiatry and Neurology, it
was declared that, thereafter, neurology would be that specialty dealing
with organic diseases of the brain/nervous system while psychiatry, by
mutual understanding and agreement would deal only with the emotional and
behavioral problems of physically (including neurologically) normal
individuals. Practicing psychiatrist make little or no pretence at standing
responsible for neurological diagnosis or any organic, medical diagnosis.
Nor will they admit to standing responsible, medico-legally for such
diagnosis in their practices day-to-day.

And yet now with direction from on high; the American Psychiatric
Association, it has become a marketing plan to CALL all psychiatric
disorders brain diseases; organic, biological neurological; this when no
such diagnosis is physical diagnosis; when all of it is via
psychological/psychiatric/neuropsychological, interview and pencil-paper,
wholly subjective “instruments.”

As long as psychologists and psychiatrist make no claim of organicity; as
long as their only claim is, as in 1948, at the founding and delineation of
psychiatry from neurology; that they classify emotional symptoms and
behaviors in medically/organically normal individuals, I have no problem
with their thus disqualifying me and any neurologist. However the moment
any psychiatrist, or psychologist, whether in practice or testifying in a
court of law, claims they have diagnosed a physical abnormality/disease,
they are practicing neurology, and either they should be disqualified, from
so testifying, implying, or inferring, or all should be qualified and
allowed to testify on the issue on it’s merits. Given the wide array of
practitioners of all sorts, physicians and otherwise, it is probably best
that all be qualified, allowing the jury to weight their relative
qualifications as brought out in court.

Again the very moment there is the least inference that psychologists,
psychiatrists and any practitioners of mental health infer that a
mental/psychiatric entity diagnosed with mental/psychiatric “instruments”
diagnoses/demonstrated/ “proves” a physical/organic
illness/disorder/disease/abnormality, neurologists and all organic
physicians have a rightful, necessary place in that court and in that
debate. I venture to say that there is no trial or proceeding in any court,
family and juvenile court including in which the DSM IV psychiatric
disorders are not referred to to some extent as diseases/organic. This
being the case, there is never justification for excluding neurologists and
other physicians and scientists having to do with medicine, biology,
neurology and organic abnormalities/diseases. They—psychiatry, psychology
and all who practice mental health must be made to defend their every claim,
allegation, inference, innuendo that they demonstrate, diagnose, or “treat”
actual brain diseases.

I am reminded here of the fact that in this case, psychologists were the
main experts for the other side and it was one or both of them that
testified about psychoactive drugs; this when they are not allowed to
prescribe (except, I believe in New Mexico). If they are not allowed to use
(prescribe) such drugs they could not possible, legally, have experience
with the, not clinical experience, in human beings. They should surely be
asked if the make recommendations for drugs that are then prescribed by an
MD, with they, the psychologist being the de facto prescriber. This would
be illegal and the practice of medicine without a license. This goes on all
over the country with the physician having writ the prescription having done
and recorded nothing constituting a good faith examination.

Leave a Reply

  • (will not be published)