Status of PATS--Preschool ADHD Treatment Study 12/6/01 (4824 words) - Commentary by Fred A. Baughman Jr., MD (12/6/01) - Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder

Posted July 3, 2013 by dbaughman-admin

Status of
PATS–Preschool ADHD Treatment Study 12/6/01

from Fred A.
Baughman Jr., MD

(4824 words, 12
pages)

�

Herein, Vera Hassner Sharav comments on the NIMH-sanctioned,
funded PATS research (Preschool ADHD Treatment Study) and upon the article of
12/3/01, New York Post article of Douglas Montero on the same subject. Six medical schools are collaborating in
this ‘research.’ One should hesitate to
call this ‘research’ or ‘science’ for reasons that will shortly become clear to
the reader. In NYC, the NYU Medical
Center and the New York Psychiatric Institute, at Columbia University, are the
participating academic medical centers.
Here on the west coast, UCLA and the University of California at Irvine,
are the participating medical centers.
My comments, both on the remarks of Ms. Sharav and those of Douglas
Montero are enclosed in brackets. At
the end I have posted the letter I have sent to the district attorneys
appropriate to both UCLA and UCI, setting forth the medical and legal reasons
for my request that this research be declared illegal and be shut down. In the event that it goes forward, and
normal children and their parent are deceived and injured then the charges
would have to be changed. There is no
medical justification to proceed with such drugging either as practice or as
research. It must be stopped—now.

�

I have not had an answer from either of these two district
attorneys.

�

I would appreciate it if someone would get the names and
addresses of the district attorneys for the jurisdictions of NYU and the
Columbia University/New York Psychiatric Institute and the names of the other
two PATS-participating universities. I
believe them to be Johns Hopkins and Duke, but am not sure.

�

Sincerely,

�

Fred A. Baughman, Jr., MD

�

From: “VERACARE” <veracare@rcn.com>

Subject: Are Ritalin Studies on 3 year olds “‘Child
Abuse”?

Date: Mon, 3 Dec 2001 17:25:19 -0500

�

ALLIANCE FOR HUMAN RESEARCH PROTECTION (AHRP)

Contact: Vera Hassner Sharav

Tel: 212-595-8974 veracare@rcn.com

�

FYI

�

Steven Hyman, M.D., Director of the National Institute of
Mental Health, is

a preeminent expert on molecular neurobiology and the
mechanisms by which

psychotropic drugs work.
His extensive research has led Dr. Hyman to

conclude that repeated exposure to psychiatric drugs–whether
abused or

prescribed–produces profound, long-lasting, functional
alterations in the

brain, including changes in the pattern of gene expression.

�

[Fred A. Baughman Jr.,
MD: Psychiatrist, Peter
Breggin correctly makes the point that all psychiatric drugs are brain
damaging. I would add that this is so
no matter the dose and no matter how short or how long the exposure. The higher the dose, and the longer the
exposure the more likely the damage is to be manifested, i.e., to be
conspicuous, such as with the bizarre, incessant and painful contortions of
tardive dyskinesias, which, in time, almost always eventuate from taking
neuroleptic, anti-psychotic, anti-schizophrenic drugs, both ‘typical and
atypical.’ Another example is the tic
disorder often induced by Ritalin and the amphetamines used for the
never-validated, pseudo-disease, ADHD.
Nor are these to be called Tourette’s syndrome which is a naturally
occurring, idiopathic, tic disorder.
These are Ritalin- amphetamine-induced tics, which while visually
indistinguishable from TS, differ in that these occur and are due to exposure
to this one group of drugs.]

�

In an important (much cited) 1996 article in the American
Journal of

Psychiatry [vol. 153:151-162], Dr. Hyman explained that
psychotropic

drugs–including psychostimulants (such as Ritalin and
cocaine),

antidepressants (such as Prozac) and antipsychotics (such as

Zyprexa)–create “perturbations in neurotransmitter
function” and that

repeated such perturbations “usurp normal homeostatic
mechanisms within

neurons, thereby producing adaptations that lead to
substantial and

long-lasting alterations in neural function.” Dr. Hyman
concedes that these

adaptations may not be beneficial to the organism.

�

[Fred A. Baughman Jr.,
MD: In this context ‘perturbations’
means physical/organic damage and dysfunction.
Always bear in mind, that in psychiatry and psychopharmacology, there is
no known disease/abnormality to begin with.
ADHD, CD and ODD, for which Ritalin/amphetamine treatment is usually
prescribed or even court-ordered, is a pseudo-disease. No physical or chemical abnormality has ever
been proved in the body or brains of any psychiatric patient (not ADHD,
depression, schizophrenia, not any single psychiatric condition/disorder) that
any pharmaceutical ‘treatment’ is known to make normal—or even more nearly
normal. Rather the ‘perturbation’ of
Hyman; the damage or dysfunction surely done by whatever drug or drugs they are
given, is their first and only abnormality.
It is for this reason the proposition—risk vs. benefit analysis--of
psycho (psychiatric)-pharmacology can never possibly be a net positive. See
Hyman’s concession that these ‘adaptations’/ ‘perturbations’—actually brain
damages, dysfunctions—‘may not be beneficial to the organism.]

�

How then, can anyone defend exposing children with no proven
illness

�

[Fred A. Baughman Jr., MD: whose behaviors
may not be liked or tolerated, but whose brains are normal]

�

to high risk experiments? How can anyone defend exposing
children whose brain is

still in development

�

[Fred A. Baughman Jr., MD: whose brain is
normal and is still in development]

�

–to a drug which works by causing “perturbations in
neurotransmitter functions?” Can Dr. Hyman, or anyone, give assurance that
these children’s brain will not be damaged forever before they are given a
chance to outgrow their mischievousness?

�

[Fred A. Baughman Jr., MD: Dr. Hyman
cannot, no one can for the reason that all such drugs are invariably brain
damaging no matter what the dose, no matter the duration of treatment, no
matter whether such damage is detectable or conspicuous or not.]

�

This NIMH-funded experiment is likely to earn the
condemnation of the

judiciary, as happened when
a Johns Hopkins / Kennedy Krieger Institute

lead poisoning experiment was examined by the Maryland Court
of Appeals, Aug

16, 2001:
http://www.courts.state.md.us/opinions/coa/2001/128a00.pdf

�

[Fred A. Baughman Jr.,
MD: Dr. Hyman and every last
NIMH-sanctioned, supported, researcher
knows beyond any doubt that no
disease exists in the 3-5 year olds to be treated under the Preschool ADHD
Treatment Study (PATS). Further, they
know, just as in the 1996 Hyman article in the American Journal of Psychiatry
[vol. 153:151-162], that the drugs they would give/give these physically, medically
normal children, invariably cause—whether over the short-term or the long—brain
‘perturbations,’ abnormalities, damage, dysfunction. They know, therefore that the brains of all such children will be
damaged by what they will do. What they
do not know is just how abnormal they will make the brains of each of their
previously normal infant, toddler, child subjects. They do not know and they do not want to know, and they do not
want you, I, or the parents to know how much actual brain damage will accrue. Their only hope, as with every
psychopharmaceutical prescription they write, is that the damage will not show;
that it will not be conspicuous. If it
is they will deny it, claiming as they always do that it is due to their
disease; the one that lead to their treatment in the first place the one, which
unlike the brain effects of the drugs they are given, could never ever be
demonstrated, diagnosed, proved to exist.
But unlike all other physicians, psychiatrists have no need to prove the
existence of their ‘diseases’—and a good thing too—not one is a reality.]

~~~~~~~~

�

THE NEW YORK POST

http://www.nypost.com/cgi-bin/printfriendly.pl

�

STUDIES ON RITALIN ARE ‘CHILD ABUSE’

�

By DOUGLAS MONTERO

�

December 3, 2001 — THE federally funded abuse of children,
some as young as

3, has begun in New York City, critics charge.

The alleged torture chambers are located at two city
locations where doctors

will conduct Ritalin experiments on more than 80 city kids
between the ages

of 3 and 8.

�

Advocates, handcuffed by the lack of money, are waging a
battle to stop the

nationwide $6 million, 72-week study at the six
institutions, which include

NYU Medical Center and the New York Psychiatric Institute.

�

[Fred A. Baughman Jr., MD: the once-great
NYU School of Medicine, my alma mater, has become a leader in biological
psychiatry, which is to say, the making of mental/medical patients of entirely
normal, if troubled, troublesome human beings.
It is one thing to deceive and drug adults who have some capacity to
defend themselves, and another to spearhead the drugging of millions of
captive, wholly normal, US schoolchildren (for ADHD), but now in a ‘treatment’
initiative, mindful of Mengele, they call normal infants, toddlers and
preschoolers, ‘diseased’/ ‘abnormal’ to provide themselves license to drug
them, doing the business of their now-master: Big Pharma.]

�

Two-thirds of the 264 kids will be under 5. Researchers want
kids with

symptoms of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD)
who have never

been medicated.

�

[Fred A. Baughman Jr., MD: I testified in
Congressional hearings, 9/29/00, that it would be a fraud for any physician
(psychiatrists included) to call ADHD or any psychiatric condition/diagnosis a
‘disease.’ Disease = objective
physical abnormality; no abnormality = no disease = normal.]

�

Advocates who have seen the protocol describing the study
say the experiment

will subject kids to a “horrific” psychological
hellride.

�

[Fred A. Baughman Jr., MD: nowhere in the informed consent document to
be signed by parents of subjects in the PATS study is their a clear statement
as to whether ADHD is a behavioral disorder or an actual disease. There are allusions to a biological basis
but no clear statement as to where it is or is not a disease. Failing to make clear that these are normal
infants, toddlers, preschoolers, assures that any consent given cannot possibly
be a true informed consent. Further,
the document I got, direct from the NIMH, is apparently that which is in use in
all 6 of the institutions participating in the abomination referred to as the
PATS research. Neither Dean, Robert
Glickman, Psychiatry Chair, Robert Cancro, or Director of the Child Study
Center, Harold Koplewicz, would honor my request for a copy of the PATS
informed consent document to be used in the ‘research’ at my alma mater. Professor Cancro wrote ‘I have also taken
the liberty to review your opinions on this diagnostic category (ADHD). I can only conclude that your are certain
that the disorder does not exist, and it’s treatment is at best inappropriate
and at worst fraudulent. Under the
circumstances, it does not seem to me that a dialogue would be fruitful.’ This is their standard tactic: to dialogue
only with ‘believers’ but never to respond with proof when questioned on their
uniform claim that they, unlike their predecessors of the psychiatry of the
40’s 50’s and 60’s, diagnose and treat actual diseases of the brain. Recall: abnormality (like high blood sugar
equating to diabetes) = disease; no abnormality = no disease = normal.] A year
or so ago, reading that H. Koplewicz was to be speaking at alumni day on ADHD,
I wrote to Dean Glickman that representations of ADHD to be a disease were
fraudulent. NYU, lead by Koplewicz and
psychologist, Howard Abikoff appears to relish its role as a leader in the bold
new field of making medical/pharmaceutical patients of normal children, and
now, of normal infants and toddlers as well.
Koplewicz is author of the pop best seller ‘It’s Nobody’s Fault.’ In it
Koplewicz opines: ‘In fact, some 7.5 million children and adolescent have a
diagnosable mental disorders, such as ADHD, anxiety, obsessesive compulsive
disorder, depression…neither parents or children cause these problems…it is
simply the result of “DNA Roulette”; your child’s brain is wired differently
becaus of his or her genetic makeup.
This is the mantra of ‘biological psychiatry’ not a word of it true, not
a word of it supported by the least scientific proof. The children are normal and whatever they are they are the
product of their own will and that of their teachers and their parents and
their communities. But psychiatry,
firmly in the pocket of Big Pharma, has other interpretations and other plans
for them.]

�

The kids will start getting Ritalin at small daily dosages,
which will

gradually increase to 7.5 mg and 10 mg three times a day,
depending on how

the drug affects them.

�

The side effects that, in part, determine dosage limits are
headaches,

abdominal pain, difficulty sleeping, fever, nausea,
dizziness, chest pain

and, in some rare cases, Tourette’s disorder, depression and
psychosis.

�

[Fred A. Baughman Jr., MD: all symptoms and signs of
‘perturbations’/abnormalities/damages/dysfunctions of the body and brain. When tics (twitch-like involuntary
movements) appear, the appropriate designation is Ritalin/amphetamine induced
tics, not Tourette’s syndrome/disease, a naturally occurring, idiopathic
movement disorder. They neglect, in this short list to include growth
retardation (height and weight) also including the ‘on-average, 10% brain
atrophy which they always attribute to ADHD while ‘neglecting’ to mention that
all such brain scan research (1986 to the present) has been done on ADHD
subjects virtually all of whom have been on long term Ritalin/amphetamines—the
only known, proved, physical
variable—the only plausible cause.
Enough ‘perturbation’ and voila—10% brain atrophy!]

�

The kids who cope with 10 mg will get a dosage of 15 mg – so
researchers can

see what happens.

�

[Fred A. Baughman Jr., MD: by cope, they mean those having no
conspicuous, obvious, manifest ‘perturbations.’ We can’t actually see the ‘perturbations’/ the brain atrophy as
it is happening. And when, after a few
years of ‘help’/ ‘treatment’ we find the brain atrophy, they do what they
always due—blame it on their ‘disease’!]

�

“They want to see how much these children can
tolerate,” said Vera Hassner

Sharav, who heads the New York-based Alliance for Human
Research Protection.

“The research is absolutely child abuse.”

�

[Fred A. Baughman Jr., MD: In that they—one and all know, without a
doubt, that ADHD, their diagnosis, their justification to treat, is not a
disease, their is no medical indication or justification for any sort of
medical/surgical intervention whatsoever.
It is not the relative toxicity of Ritalin/amphetamine ‘treatment’ that
is at issue here, or anywhere in psychopharmacology/psychiatry, it is the
uniform absence of abnormality/disease in the persons/children/infants to be
‘treated’/ ‘drugged.’ When in this
situation, those giving ‘informed’ consent are lied to and told their is a
disease, it is a disease needing treatment, their has been no informed consent,
only deception, and the subsequent drugging, albeit by prescription, within
existing law, is poisoning and is assault, battery and abuse—be it adult,
child, toddler or infant.]

�

Once a dosage amount is established, researchers will spend
five weeks

alternating amounts and sometimes giving placebo sugar pills
to see how the

kids react. Parents and teachers who record the reaction
won’t be told about

the dosage change.

�

Fake classrooms with two-way mirrors will be set up to study
the kids like

lab rats when researchers wean them off Ritalin. The
“child’s behavior could

get worse,” the protocol states.

�

[Fred A. Baughman Jr., MD: a sign of drug-induced brain ‘perturbation’
there being no such thing as ADHD]

�

The protocol says kids will be referred by schools, clinics
and hospitals.

The authors apparently didn’t know recruiting for such
experiments in

schools violates city laws. In any case, parents can pull
their kids out at

any time.

�

An official at the Psychiatric Institute, who didn’t want to
be identified,

said more than a quarter-million
pediatricians already prescribe Ritalin to

children under 6, and the study will help doctors “make
intelligent

decisions.”

�

[Fred A. Baughman Jr., MD: the PATS research is intended to provide a
‘scientific’ basis for the no wholly unscientific such drugging of normal if
troublesome infants (many 1 year old and below are thus drugged in the name of
the practice of medicine)]

�

Advocates question why nearly 70 percent of the kids in the
Psychiatric

Institute study are black and Latino.
A racial breakdown for the NYU study

was unavailable because its researcher, Dr. Howard Abikoff,
didn’t return

messages left at his office.

�

Dr. Ellen Isaacs, a member of an advocacy group in
Washington Heights, where

the Psychiatric Institute is located, plans to meet with the
local community

board to complain.

�

“They want poor minority kids because their parents are
more easily coerced

to sign up,” she said.

�

_________________________________________________________________

Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at

http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp

�

Tony Rackaukas, District Attorney
(Attention: Vickie Hix)
May 29, 2001

Orange County

401 Civic Center Dr.

Santa Ana, CA 92701

714-834-3600

�

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 years of age) with attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD).

�

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 scientific “bottom
line.” I wrote (copy, complete with
bibliography enclosed):

�

“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 ADHD…no 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 briefly deserted the
psychiatric/pharmaceutical propaganda line that insists that all psychiatric
“disorders” are “diseases” due to “chemical imbalances” of the brain. His having stumbled onto the scientific
truth of the matter, went as follows(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 category.

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
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 at UCLA and
UC-Irvine. It must include and thorough
investigation of the scientific status of ADHD itself, and of all diagnoses for
which Schedule II substances are being prescribed.

�

Sincerely,

�

Fred A. Baughman Jr., MD–Neurology/Child Neurology

1303 Hidden Mountain Dr.

El Cajon, CA 92019

619 440 8236

�

References:

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. 2001;291:595

�

Los Angeles District Attorney May 29, 2001

c/o Major Narcotics Section

210 W. Temple Street

18^th floor

Los Angeles, CA 90012

213-974- 3611

�

Re: Ritalin, other amphetamine use in psychiatric research

�

Dear Ladies and Gentlemen,

�

“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 ADHD…no 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.”

�

References.

�

1.
NIH Publication No. 94-3572, Printed 1994, p.
7. (describes PET scan images as showing differences “ between an adults with
Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder and an adult free of the disease.”)

2.
Heavener,
J.C., Jr., CEO. Attention—The Magazine for Families and Adults with
Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder, Volume 6, Number 4. March/April, 2000, p. 7

3.
ADHD
Clinical Practice Guideline (Clinical Practice Guideline: Diagnosis and
Evaluation of the Child with Attention-Deficit/Hyperactiviity Disorder. Committee on Quality Improvement,
Subcommittee on Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder. PEDIATRICS. 2000;105:1158-).

4.
Carey,
W.B. Is Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder a Valid Disorder? Program and Abstracts of the NIH, Consensus
Conference on ADHD, November 16-18, 1998, p. 33-36.

5.
Final
Statement of the Panel of the NIH, Consensus Conference on ADHD, as distributed
to the Public and the Press, November 18, 1998.

�

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.

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.”

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]
.

�

Sincerely,

�

Fred A. Baughman Jr., MD–Neurology/Child Neurology

1303 Hidden Mountain Dr.

El Cajon, CA 92019

619 440 8236

�

References:

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. 2001;291:595

�

enclosures: (1) Pediatrics, May, 2001, Science, January,
2001

Fred A. Baughman Jr., MD

Protect your children against Mental Health Screening

Status of PATS–Preschool ADHD Treatment Study 12/6/01 (4824 words) - Commentary by Fred A. Baughman Jr., MD (12/6/01)

Leave a Reply