Posted by

Fred A Baughman Jr., MD

Neurology & Child Neurology (board certified)

1303 Hidden
Mountain Drive

El Cajon, CA 92019

619 440 8236

Deborah V. Ortiz, Chair, & Members                                               May 15. 2002

Committee on Health and Human Services

Capitol, Room 2191


SB 1290, Informed Consent in ADHD

Chairwoman Ortiz & Committee Members,

am sorry I was not able to attend the hearing of 2/13/02 on “Children’s Mental
Health Care.”  I appreciate the
opportunity, today, to address you on this immensely important issue.

burden of proof rests with physicians 
who says a disease is present, i.e., with those who would prescribe
treatment (s), all of which bear risks. 
Unlike those who testified before you 2/13/02, who maintained that ADHD
is a disorder (by which they mean disease) one needing medical treatment–I
contend, and can prove, that there is no such proof in the scientific
literature.  For that reason, I will
critique the claims made by those who testified before you 2/13/02, and by
those who submitted  written  testimony.

McCracken, MD, Professor of Psychiatry, UCLA, and Howard Taras MD, of UC San
Diego, representing the American Academy of Pediatrics, and the various Fact
Sheets placed on the record (from the National Institute for Mental Health, the
US Surgeon General, the Centers for Disease Control, and other agents and
agencies) all portrayed ADHD as a disease, due to abnormalities within the
brain and genes of the individual.  Lacking
proof, such statements, whether by individual physicians to patients and
parents, or from health care organizations and institutions, to the community
at large, are violations of the informed consent rights of all patients and
constituencies.  I will analyzed this
testimony and critique it point by point. 


Physicians go to medical school to learn about
diseases (which are physical abnormalities) and how to evaluate individuals to
determine whether they are normal– not diseased or abnormal–diseased.  Physicians know that between a quarter and a
half of all patients who see general physicians turn out be normal– not
diseased.  All physicians know, and are
responsible for knowing, that patients to be referred to psychiatrists (or any
mental health professional) come from among those found to be   normal—not diseased/abnormal. 

All physicians know that mental health professionals
deal with the emotional and behavioral problems in physically normal,
disease-free, individuals
.  All physicians
know that it is the specialty of neurology, my specialty, that deals with
organic, medical diseases of the brain and nervous system—not psychiatry. 

first duty of physicians, with the exception of psychiatrists, is to determine
whether the patient is normal/disease-free or abnormal/diseased
. Having determined that the
patient is abnormal/diseased, determining which, of several possible diseases,
is  called “differential


in the laity believe that informed consent applies only to an explanation of
the medications or surgical treatment that might be applied.  They must be made aware that all of the
potential risks and benefits posed by the patient’s condition must be weighed
against all of the potential risks and benefits of the treatment(s)

available for consideration.

medicine and surgery we deal with physical, organic, diseases—ones having
objective abnormalities that can be demonstrated/diagnosed by examination or by
some diagnostic technology.  Neurology,
my specialty, which deals with organic disease of the brain and nervous system
is among the medical and surgical specialties while psychiatry is not.  This is where the problem with diagnosis and
informed consent in psychiatry arises; they claim to diagnose and treat
“diseases” and “chemical imbalances” of the brain when no such things have been
proved to exist, and then proclaim, to their patients and parents, and to the
public-at-large (most of them patients at one time or another) that they have   “diseases” and “chemical imbalances” of the
brain.  Having made such
statements—and in “mental health they always do–informed consent has been
hopelessly abrogated.

Elliot Valenstein [1], author of Blaming the Brain,
is unequivocal: “There are no tests available for assessing the chemical
status of a living person’s brain.”[i]  Nor has any “biochemical, anatomical, or
functional signs have been found that reliably distinguish the brains of mental
patients.”[ii]  “The theories are held on to…because
they are useful in promoting drug treatment.”[iii]

In Prozac Backlash, Joseph Glenmullen [3]
writes: “…not one (disease, chemical imbalance) has been proven… In every
instance where such an imbalance was thought to have been found, it was later
proven false.”[iv]


In The Anti-depressant Era, David Healy [4],
banished from a prestigious appointment at the University of Toronto for his
affinity for science and the truth, opines: 
The advent of the psychotropic drugs has also given rise to a new
biological language in psychiatry. The extent to which this has come to be part
of popular culture is in many ways astonishing… It can reasonably be asked
whether biological language offers more in the line of marketing copy than it
offers in terms of clinical meaning.”

In his book Mad in America: Bad Science, Bad Medicine,
and the Enduring Mistreatment of the Mentally Ill
in  Robert Whitaker [5] states that “At the top
of this wish list, though, would be a simple plea for honesty.  Stop telling those diagnosed with
schizophrenia that they suffer from too much dopamine or serotonin activity and
that the drugs put these brain chemicals back into ‘balance.’ That whole spiel
is a form of medical fraud, and it is impossible to imagine any other group of
patients—ill say, with cancer or cardiovascular disease—being deceived in this


of Howard Taras, MD, Professor of Pediatrics, UC San Diego, representing the
American Academy of Pediatrics:

Taras states:  “Under-diagnosed and
under-medicated? Or over-diagnosed and over-medicated.”  “The answer is that both are true.”  Next, Taras speaks of the AAP guidelines of
May, 2000 [6] and October, 2001 [7] which he described as not being “opinion
pieces, but “research studies.”  Regarding
“diagnosis,” nowhere does Taras say what the abnormality is that ADHD a
disease.  We are lead to believe that it
is a medical condition, a disease, one needing medication.  Nowhere in his presentation, or in either
of the AAP guidelines is there a specific reference to an article or articles
setting forth the proof of a confirming abnormality in ADHD, or which test we
would use to diagnose its presence in an individual.
 This discussion would not suffice for
purposes of informed consent, yet Taras moves on to a discussion of treatment.

AAP “diagnostic guideline” [6] refers to ADHD as the most common
‘neurobehavioral’ disorder of childhood. 
Baughman [8] responded: “ ‘Neurobehavioral’,” implies an abnormality of
the brain, a disease.  And yet, no confirmatory,
diagnostic, abnormality has been found…It is apparent that virtually all
professionals of the extended ADHD ‘industry’ convey to parents, and to the
public-at-large, that ADHD is a ‘disease’ and that children said to have it are
‘diseased’-‘abnormal.’  This is a
perversion of the scientific record and a violation of the informed consent
rights of all patients and of the public-at-large.”  

of James McCracken, MD, Professor of Psychiatry, Child & Adolescent
Division, UCLA: “The diagnosis of ADHD can be made reliably and consistently
using  well-researched interview and
observational instruments.” 

said this, McCracken references no article or articles proving there is a
confirming physical abnormality in ADHD to make of it an actual disease.

“However, as is the case for all other psychiatric disorders, there is no
laboratory test available with which to confirm the diagnosis.”  At the March, 5-8, 1998 meeting of the
American Society for Adolescent Psychiatry, James M. Swanson, of the University
of California, Irvine, 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.”

all physicians know, and are responsible for knowing, there are no laboratory
tests in psychiatry because not as single psychiatric
condition/entity/diagnosis has been proved to be a physical

of them as if they were, leading parents and patients to believe they are
diseases, needing treatment, while an abrogation of informed consent, has
become standard practice, not just in psychiatry, but, throughout “mental

“Although brain imaging studies examining differences in structure and function
of the brain have been revealing, currently there is no role for the use of
imaging tests in diagnosis.  In the
future, tests may be developed to assist in clarifying diagnosis of complicated

like Taras, offers no references to proofs from within the scientific
literature.  He knows perfectly well
that no brain scanning abnormality has been proven in non-medicated cases of

At  the National Institutes of Health, Consensus
Conference on ADHD, November 16-18, 1998, James Swanson, PhD [9], summarized: “
Recent investigations provide converging evidence that a refined phenotype of
ADHD/HKD is characterized by reduced size in specific neuroanatomical regions
of the frontal lobes and basal ganglia.” 

did Swanson leave any doubt that he was claiming that the brain atrophy he  described was part and parcel of ADHD—it’s
long-sought biological basis.   Saying
these brain abnormalities were a component of the ADHD ‘phenotype,’ Swanson
posited that it had genetic basis—an abnormal ‘genotype.’  Speaking of 
‘phenotype’ one speaks of the somatic or physical manifestation of all
of our genes—our genotype.  Saying one
has one has an abnormal ‘phenotype,’ one implies an abnormal gene or genes—an
abnormal ‘genotype’ as it’s cause.

[10] took a microphone and asked:   “Dr.
Swanson, why did you not mention that virtually all of the ADHD subjects in the
neuroimaging studies have been on chronic stimulant therapy and that this is
the likely cause of their brain atrophy?” 

Swanson:  “I don’t know the exact numbers of how many
were or were not on medication and as I indicated I understand that this is a
critical issue and in fact I am planning a study to investigate that.  I haven’t yet done it.”

without referencing the article or articles, from within the scientific
literature, constituting proof, closed his discussion on the nature of ADHD
with this, meant to keep the illusion alive: “ Major reviews and consensus
papers…have come to the same solid conclusion, namely that ADHD is one of the
best validated mental disorders in medicine.” 
“There is little evidence to suggest that ADHD is the “product of toxic
or unreasonable influences of modern society.” Herein, McCracken posits that
there is little evidence that ADHD behaviors are determined by the
life-situations of the child-patient. 
In mental health, the entirety of one’s life-situations can hardly be
known.  Whether adverse life-situations
or physical abnormality/disease is responsible in any given case depends
primarily upon ruling out physical abnormality/disease.  As a neurologist, this has always been my
role in psychiatric diagnosis; I have always ruled out disease-abnormality
before referring patients to psychiatrists for whatever they do by way of
classification that comports with their specialty but has nothing to do with
the presence or absence of actual disease. 

[11], reporting on “Is ADHD a Valid Disorder?” to the 11/16-18/98 NIH,
Consensus Conference, concluded: “What is…described as ADHD in the United
States appears to be a set of  normal
behavioral variations…”


[12] countering claims of “misdiagnosis” and “overdiagnosis,” testified:

…ADHD is a total, 100% fraud.”


final statement of Consensus Conference Panel [13], November 18, 1998, was: “
…we do not have an independent, valid test for ADHD, and there are no
data to indicate that ADHD is due to a brain malfunction.”

Dr. Taras, Dr. McCracken, I
would like you to direct me to the reports in the literature which constitute
proof that ADHD is an organic/biological, abnormality/disease/syndrome.  This is what you should have submitted to
the Committee on 2/13/02. 

CHADD (testimony by E. Clarke Ross, CEO).

CHADD, funded by
Ciba-Geigy/Norartis (manufacturer of Ritalin) for Ciba-Geigy/Novartis, also
fails to reference reports that constitute proof that ADHD is an
abnormality/disease and thus organic/biologic. Rather, they refer to the
“…best, evidence-based science,” language that deceives the public but not
scientists or scientific physicians.

Since its inception, in
1987, CHADD has claimed that ADHD is a “neurobiological disorder,” implying an
abnormality of the biology of the brain—a disease, with no proof
whatsoever.  As such they have lied too
the public, its legislators, and have abrogated the  informed consent rights of the public.  Nor has any single organization been as influential a source of
information on the subject as CHADD. 
Since 1988, when CHADD and Ciba-Geigy (now Novartis), the manufacturer
of Ritalin, began their financial relationship, Ciba has given almost a million
dollars to CHADD.


In “ADHD-Questions and
Answers, from the NIMH (updated, 4/19/2000), the leading federal agency having
to do with mental health, we read: “ ADHD refers to a family of related chronic
neurobiological disorders that interfere with an individuals capacity to
regulate activity level (hyperactivity), inhibit behavior (impulsivity), and
attend to tasks (inattention) in developmentally appropriate ways.” Referring
to those with ADHD behaviors as having a “neurobiological” abnormality-disease,
and to manifest behaviors that are “developmentally inappropriate,” and,
therefore, abnormal, the NIMH lies to the public and abrogates their right to
informed consent. 

They continue: “As of yet,
there is no independent test for ADHD. 
This is not unique to ADHD, but applies as well to most psychiatric
disorders, including other disabling disorders such as schizophrenia and
autism.” Again, there are no objective, biological tests because there are no
objective, biological abnormalities in any wholly psychiatric
conditions-disorders, to test for. 
Autism is almost always due to diffuse damage of the brain with definite
mental subnormality and is a neurological, not a psychiatric disease. 

the role of genes, the NIMH says: “Research shows that ADHD tends to run in
families, so there are likely to be genetic influences.”  In that an abnormal physical trait, a.k.a.,
a phenotype or disease, has yet to be identified-proved, there is nothing to
have a genetic cause—an abnormal genotype. 
Nonetheless the claim of a genetic basis remains a staple in their
propaganda campaign, another lie to the public.  Consider too, that ADHD not only runs in families (I have
encountered whole families with it) but in classrooms and schools, and
throughout the foster care system.  On
November 10, 2001,  a parent wrote to
columnist, John Rosemond: “I discovered that 65 (sixty-five) percent of the
kids in the fifth grade at his school have been diagnosed with ADD and are
taking medication.”  Surely, all of
these classmates are not related—10% of all US schoolchildren said to have
ADHD.  Something other than “genetic” is
going on.  

brain scans, the NIHM says: “…the brains of children with ADHD differ fairly
consistently from those of children without the disorder (by which they mean
disease) in that several brain regions and structures (pre-frontal cortex,
striatum, basal ganglia, and (cerebellum) tend to be smaller.  Overall brain size is generally 5% smaller
in affected children than children without ADHD.  While this average difference is observed consistently, it is too
small to be useful in making the diagnosis of ADHD in a particular individual.”

“research directions for ADHD,” those of the NIMH write: “This research should
include…brain imaging studies before the initiation of medication and following
the individual through young adulthood and middle age.”  This, it should be recognized, is a
confession that the CT and MRI brains scanning research, dating from 1986 to
the present has been carried out on ADHD subjects who have been chronically
exposed to psychostimulants.  This
means—and they know it, that the only physical variable, and therefore, the
likely cause of the brain atrophy is the stimulant exposure, not ADHD,
never-yet proved to be an abnormality disease. 
Further—throughout this period, 1986 to the present, psychiatry’s
researchers have known the medications were the likely cause of the brain
atrophy, but chose to represent this as it’s primary line of proof that ADHD
was an actual disease.  Knowing this
full-well, they have steadfastly refused to do the study that would tell
whether the brain atrophy was due to ADHD or to the stimulants themselves—to
scan the brains of ADHD-labeled children, not yet exposed to stimulants. 

have repeatedly said, as in this document, that this is what it would take, but
have avoided doing just such a definitive study, all the while, knowingly,
representing the drug-induced atrophy to be the “proof” that ADHD is, in fact,
an abnormality-disease. 

final thing about the NIMH.  It is an
Institute of the National Institutes of Health of the Department of Health and
Human Services, and yet, it’s researchers are regulars on the professional
advisory board of CHADD, putting forth the CHADD lie that ADHD is a
“neurobiological disorder,” knowing all the time, it is no such thing–lying to
the people.  It turns out that in all of
CHADD’s considerable literature written for the public, there is rare mention
of Ciba. In fact, the only instance of the connection Merrow [14] could
find on the record was a small-print citation on an announcement of a single
CHADD conference.

CHADD Information and Resource Guide to AD/HD (not dated) repeats the lie:
“AD/HD is a neurobiological disorder that affects three-five-percent of
school-age children.” In fact, the number, nationally, has risen from 1 million
in 1990 to 6 million today—13 % of US schoolchildren, not 3-5%– another

another NIMH statement on ADHD, this one updated, 1/1/01, we find more
disinformation.  It reads: “…magnetic
resonance imaging (MRI) has shown that differences exist between the brains of
children with and without ADHD,” and cites a 1996 article by F.X. Castellanos
(also a member of CHADD’s professional advisory board), et al, of the

this study, Castellanos et al  [15],
took magnetic resonance images (scans) of the brains of 57 boys, 5-18 years of
age, said to have attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and of 55
“healthy” age-matched controls.  Those
in the ADHD group were found to have significantly smaller, atrophic brains
(diminution of total cerebral and cerebellar volume relative to the “ healthy”
controls), and the loss, at many sites, of right more than left asymmetry
(where right-sided structures are normally larger than that on the left)
leading The authors conclude that the differences found in the ADHD group were
“consistent with (previously) hypothesized (but never proven) dysfunction of
right-sided prefrontal (front, right half, of the brain)-striatal (right sided,
deep-lying nuclei, or cell groups) systems in ADHD.”

“Subjects with ADHD,” it was written: “Fifty-three of them (of the 57 with
ADHD) had been previously treated with psychostimulants, and 56 participated in
a 12-week, double-blind trial of methylphenindate, dextoamphetamine and

“Comment,” running fully a page and a half, is found the brief acknowledgement:
Because almost all (93%) subjects with ADHD had been exposed to stimulants,
we cannot be certain that our results are not drug related.”
  This did not, however, deter Castellanos, et
al, from stating, at the end of their “Comments”: “In summary, we have found
decreased volume of several candidate brain regions previously hypothesized to
be involved in the pathophysiology of ADHD…”

appearing in this NIMH statement is reference study published in 1990 by AJ
Zametkin, et al [16] said to show that “In adults with ADHD, the brain
areas that control attention use less glucose and appear to be less active,
suggesting that a lower level of activity in some parts of the brain may cause
inattention.”  As is true not of
science, but of pseudo-science and propaganda, this particular report, which
was never repicated, never-verified, has been perhaps the most-quoted of
reports in “biological” psychiatry. 


“Causes” we read: “ The exact etiology of ADHD is unknown although
neurotransmitter deficits, genetics, and perinatal complications have been
implicated.”  Also: “Research to
pinpoint abnormal genes is honing in on two genes: a dopamine-receptor gene on
chromosome 11 and the dopamine-transporter gene on chromosome 5.” Notice,
Satcher said “honing in on two genes,” not proved, or established.  Nowhere in this report did the Surgeon
General reference proof that ADHD or any “mental illness” is a bona fide diagnosable
disease-abnormality.  Also within his
report on mental health Satcher, declared: “Mental illness is no different than
diabetes, asthma or other physical ailments … 
Mental illnesses are physical illnesses, evidenced by changes in brain
chemicals and other physical causes…”  
Baughman [18] called for Satcher’s resignation stating:  “…you put the considerable weight of your
office behind representing the scientifically unproven ‘disorders’ of the
psychiatric/pharmaceutical cartel to be actual ‘diseases.’” 

a meeting ADHD: A Public Health Perspective, 9/23-24/99 at the Centers
for Disease Control, P.S. Jensen said: “ADHD is the most common behavioral
disorder of childhood and is generally thought to account for the lion’s share
of referrals for mental health treatment.” Also: “…it is the most widely
studied of all of the behavioral/emotional disorders affecting children and
adolescents, having been the focus of literally thousands of studies since the
mid 1960’s.”  Again, nowhere in his
presentation does Jensen cite/reference articles constituting proof that ADHD
is an abnormality/disease. 

“Validity of the syndrome,” Jensen writes: “As noted by the consensus
conference    final statement, there is
substantial evidence for the validity of the disorder.” 

I pointed out previously, the final statement of the consensus conference
panel, delivered, in print, to attendees of the press conference, 11/18/98
read: “The final statement of Panel [13], November 18, 1998, was: “ …we
do not have an independent, valid test for ADHD, and there are no data to
indicate that ADHD is due to a brain malfunction.”  This statement, consistent with the evidence heard 11/16-18/98,
should have been the only “final” statement of the consensus conference panel,
but it was not.  It was placed on the
NIH web site, just as above, and stayed there for an indefinite few weeks, at
which time it was altered to read: “Although an independent diagnostic test for
ADHD doe not exist, evidence supporting the validity of the disorder can be
found.”  In psychiatry, as nowhere else
in medicine or surgery, “disorder” is taken to mean “disease.”

proof existed then or now that ADHD is a disease/abnormality.

cautious in his wording, Jensen posits: “Most recent evidence indicates that
ADHD symptoms have a central nervous system basis (as do all normal and
abnormal behaviors, thoughts, and emotions). However, such brain-behavior
correlations do not constitute proof that ADHD reflects a disordered biologic
state.”  Here, it seems to me, Jensen is
becoming ever so cautious about saying or implying that ADHD is a
disease/abnormality, when he knows very well it is not. 


a special advertising feature in the November 20, 200, Family Circle magazine,
Richard K. Harding, President of the American Psychiatric Association (APA),
pronounced: “We now know that mental illnesses–are not “moral weaknesses” or
“imagined” but real diseases caused by
abnormalities of brain structure and imbalances of chemicals in the

California Psychiatric Association wrote: “…SB 119 is flawed … because it operates on the incorrect assumption that
mental illnesses are not physical illnesses of the complex organ, the brain,
i.e., that these are “not real illnesses.”

testified before the Congressional hearing, “Behavioral Drugs in Schools: “ It
would be a fraud for any physician to call ADHD or any psychiatric condition an
actual disease.” 

All claims that psychiatric diagnoses are “diseases”
are in violation of California, SB-836, Figueroa, under which: “It is unlawful
for any person … to disseminate or cause to be disseminated any form of public
communication… containing a false, fraudulent, misleading, or deceptive
statement or claim…”

are also (in regard to ADHD and the use of Schedule II, controlled substances)
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.” 

only actual disease/abnormality/pathology for which Schedule II Controlled
Substances are prescribed is narcolepsy.  It accounts for approximately 1/10th
of one percent of all such prescriptions while contrived, invented, fraudulent,
ADHD accounts for 99.9 percent. 
Further–we see to it that our children—American children—consume 90-95
percent of the world’s supply of such addictive, dangerous, drugs.

lead normal persons to believe that they are abnormal/diseased, to gain their
consent to treat, all subsequent medical or surgical treatment constitutes
assault and battery pursuant to Penal Code sections 242/243. 

been lied to about their diagnosis, what are patients told about the
drugs?   The October, 1995 DEA
Background Paper on Methylphenidate, concludes: “…reports and scientific
studies of abuse potential are routinely downplayed, if referenced at all…
parents of children and adult patients are not being provided with the
opportunity for informed consent or a true risk/benefit consideration…”

mental health, deception is the standard of practice and the violation of
informed consent is total.  I urge you
to support  SB 1290 


  1. Elliot
    S. Valenstein, Ph.D., Blaming the
    (The Free Press, New York, 1998)

  2. van Praag[1] Hermann. “Make-Believes” in

  3. Joseph Glenmullen, M.D., Prozac
    , (Simon & Schuster, NY, 2000)

David Healy, The Anti-Depressant Era, (Harvard
University Press, 1999)

Whitaker, Mad in America: Bad Science, Bad Medicine, and the Enduring
Mistreatment of the Mentally Ill, 
(Perseus Publishing, 2002)

  1. The American Academy of Pediatrics Guideline (diagnostic) on ADHD.
    PEDIATRICS. 2000;105:1158

  2. The American Academy of Pediatrics Guideline (treatment) on ADHD.
    PEDIATRICS. 2001.

  3. Baughman FA. The American Academy of Pediatrics Guideline
    (diagnostic) on ADHD.  PEDIATRICS.
    May, 2001:1239.

  4. Swanson, J.S., University of California, Irvine, Speaker, NIH,
    Consensus Conference on ADHD, November 16-18, 1998.

  5. Baughman, FA (comments from the floor)  NIH, Consensus Conference on ADHD, November 16-18, 1998.

  6. Carey, WB.  Invited
    presentation: “Is ADHD a Valid Disorder” at the November 16-18, 1998, NIH,
    Consensus Conference on ADHD.

  7. Baughman, FB. Speaker, NIH, Consensus Conference on ADHD, November
    16-18, 1998.

  8.  Final Statement of the Panel
    of the NIH, Consensus Conference on ADHD, November 18, 1998,

  9.  Merrow, John ADHD—A
    Dubious Diagnosis
    , 1995 (video) 

  1. Castellanos FX, et al. Quantitative brain magnetic resonance
    imbaging in ADHD. Arch. Gen. Psychiatry, 1996;53:607-616. 

  1. Zametkin AJ, et al. Cerebral glucose metabolism in adults  with hyperactivity of childhood
    onset.  New England Journal of
    Medicine, 1990; 323:1361-1366.

  1. Surgeon General’s Report on Mental Health, December 13, 1999.  

  2. Dr. Fred Baughman, Jr. SAN DIEGO, Feb. 11, 2000/PRNewswire/ –
    Neurologist Calls for Surgeon General’s Resignation Over Mental Health

[i], p.4.

[ii]Elliot S.
Valenstein, Ph.D., Blaming the Brain (The
Free Press, New York, 1998), p. 125.

[iii]Elliot S.
Valenstein, Ph.D., Blaming the Brain (The
Free Press, New York, 1998), p.4.

Glenmullen, M.D., Prozac Backlash,
(Simon & Schuster, NY, 2000), p. 196.

Intro p 5

Robert Whitaker, Mad in America: Bad Science, Bad Medicine, and the Enduring
Mistreatment of the Mentally Ill
(Perseus Publishing, 2002), p. 290.

Leave a Reply

  • (will not be published)