THE CASE AGAINST
DIAGNOSIS AND TREATMENT OF ADHD AND RELATED DISORDERS AND THEIR TREATMENT WITH
STIMULANTS

�

(presentation to the
Parlimentary Assembly, Council of Europe, November 23, 2001)

�

by Fred A. Baughman
Jr., MD—Neurologist/Pediatric Neurologist

El Cajon, California,
USA 

�

First, I must explain that I am a neurologist, not a
psychiatrist.  It is essential that the
reader know this, because neurologists, not psychiatrists, are medically and
legally responsible for the diagnosis and treatment of actual
abnormalities/diseases of the brain. 
Psychiatrists, on the other hand tend to the emotional and behavioral
problems of physically/medically normal children/persons.  Actual abnormalities/diseases, are ruled out
by non-psychiatric physicians before they refer them to psychiatrists or to
other ‘mental health’ practitioners. 

�

Throughout the eighties and nineties, I witnessed the
exploding ADHD epidemic. Just as it was my duty to my every patient to diagnose
actual disease when it was present, it was equally my duty to make clear to
them that they had no disease, when that was the case—when no abnormality could
be found.  That was the case with every
child and adult referred with a diagnosis of ADHD.  Moreover, it was my duty to know the scientific literature
concerning every real, neurological disease, and every purported neurological
disease as well.  Neither could I find
validation of ADHD in the medical/scientific literature.  Finally, I am a neurologist who has
discovered and reported real neurological  
and genetic diseases [1-13].  
By contrast, in 40 years of pseudo-scientific research, ‘biological
psychiatry,’ has yet to validate a single psychiatric condition/diagnosis as an
abnormality/disease, or as anything ‘neurological,’ ‘biological,’ ‘chemically-imbalanced’
or ‘genetic.’ Out of deference to the almighty, psychiatric-pharmaceutical
cartel, other neurologists and neurological associations neglect to speak of
these false representations of emotional and behavioral patterns as “brain
diseases” due to “chemical imbalances of the brain.”

 

Announcing the November, 1998, National Institutes of Health
(NIH), ADHD-Consensus Conference,
Planning Committee Chairman, Peter Jensen [14] , of the  National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH),
also a member of the Professional Advisory Board of Children and Adults with
Attention Deficit Disorders (CHADD), 
wrote: 

�

“…AD/HD has been surrounded by
long-standing controversy.  This
controversy surrounds the actual diagnosis of AD/HD—that is, whether the
diagnosis simply ‘pathologizes’  (labels
abnormal/diseased) normal child behavior and whether it is a function of large
(school) classes, to busy parents, or the machinations of a
medical/pharmaceutical cabal.” 

�

Here, Jensen defines the essence of the controversy–not
Ritalin or amphetamines and the   risks
they bear—all drugs bear risks– but whether or not ADHD is a bona fide
disease. 

�

In testimony at 1970 Congressional Hearings on whether or
not to fund research into pharmacological (drug) treatment for school problems,
Dr. John D. Griffith [15], Assistant Professor of Psychiatry, Vanderbilt
University School of Medicine, posited:

�

“I would
like to point out that every drug, however innocuous, has some degree of
toxicity.  A drug, therefore, is a type
of poison and its poisonous qualities must be carefully weighed against its
therapeutic usefulness.  A problem, now
being considered in most of the Capitols of the Free World, is whether the
benefits derived from Amphetamines outweigh their toxicity.  It is the consensus of the World Scientific
Literature that the Amphetamines are of very little benefit to mankind.  They are, however, quite toxic.” 

�

Nor is the essence of the controversy whether or not ADHD is
‘misdiagnosed’ or ‘over-diagnosed.’  If
it doesn’t exist (as a physical abnormality/disease)—and it does not—it is, as
I [16] testified at the National Institutes of Health, November, 16-18, 1998,
Consensus Conference on ADHD, a ‘total, 100% fraud.’  

�

I am against the treatment of ADHD and of all psychiatric
conditions with Schedule II, stimulants because none are actual diseases having
confirmatory, demonstrable/diagnosable, objective, abnormalities.  For simplicity’s sake, I urge all
non-physicians to remember that the abnormality is the disease; no abnormality,
no disease. 

�

[slide #1: no abnormality = no disease = normal; whole
body/brain  abnormality (diabetes);
focal body abnormality (stomach cancer); focal brain abnormality (stroke,
cancer); psychiatric conditions (all) = no abnormality = no disease =
medically/physically normal.]

�

The first duty of all physicians, with the notable
exception of psychiatrists, is to determine whether a disease/abnormality is
present, or not present.  A third to
a half of all persons who visit their physician have complaints/symptoms
(subjective), but no abnormality/disease (objective).  It is from this group, in whom abnormality/disease has been ruled
out/excluded, that patients in need of psychiatric/mental health referral are found.  

�

The fundamental issue before us, and before all countries of
the developed world is whether or not ADHD is a bona fide, diagnosable disease
or not.  If not, if the children are
normal, as I know them to be, they are not medical patients and no medical
treatment is necessary, or justified. 
Rather, their unmet needs lie, as in generations-past, with their
parents, teachers, and with their communities. 
In my generation, fortunately, psychiatry and psychology had not yet
invaded the schools, and literacy-, achievement-, and graduation- rates were
infinitely higher than they are today.

�

Debate of the issue of whether or not ADHD and other
psychiatric conditions/diagnoses are abnormalities/diseases, as psychiatry
claims, is well-framed in the presentation of Jan Buitelaar and Ad Bergsma [17]
to the Pompidou Group, December 8-10, 1999. 
I will refer to and comment upon the main point they make

 

Page 19, paragraph 2:

�

“From the standpoint of child
psychiatry, ADHD is a categorical (absolute, unequivocal) diagnosis that
may be conferred following a systematic evaluation and eventually using
validated behavior checklists and interview procedures.  ADHD is associated with functional and
morphological abnormalities of the brain and is predominantly due to genetic
factors.”

�

The diagnostic tools of psychiatry: behavior checklists,
structured interviews, achievement and aptitude tests, never seek or
demonstrate actual physical abnormalities/diseases.  And yet, having proven no such things, they claim: ‘ADHD is
associated with functional and morphological abnormalities of the brain and
that it is due, predominantly, to genetic factors.’

�

�

Swanson, a psychologist, presenting for he and Castellanos
[18], spoke at the ADHD Consensus Conference (1998) on the subject of
“Biological Bases of ADHD: Neuroanatomy, Genetics, and Pathophysiology.” In
fact there is no one or several biological bases of ADHD—not anatomic, not
genetic, and not physiologic.  Nor are
there today.  Did Swanson intend to
deceive?      

�

As a speaker at the American Society of Adolescent
Psychiatry, March 6-8, 1998, Swanson [19] reported that the MRI (brain scan)
research of Castellanos, et al [20] and Filipek, et al [21] showed brain
atrophy in children with ADHD, but not in controls.

�

From a floor microphone, I 
pointed out that 93% of the subjects in the Castellanos [20] study had
been on chronic stimulant therapy, and inquired as to the stimulant status of
those in the Filipek [21] study, which I had not yet read.   Swanson 
acknowledged that the ADHD subjects in the Filipek study, as well, had
been on chronic stimulant therapy–an acknowledgment not heard in his lecture
or seen in his review of the same research in a  February, 1998, Lancet article [22]. Instead of confirmation of
brain atrophy due to ADHD, i.e., an ADHD phenotype—we had strong, replicated,
evidence that it was the stimulant therapy (methylphenidate/amphetamine) that
was the cause of the brain atrophy.  
Swanson [19] lamented:

�

“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.”

�

Saying “psychiatric diagnosis is completely subjective,”
when–absent an objective abnormality, there is no disease–is a confession,
from Swanson–a leading ADHD researcher– that there is no such thing as a
psychiatric/psychological disease. 

�

19;2:

“From a different standpoint—one
that has been popularized in the media—ADHD is viewed as a stigmatizing and
harmful label attached to children who are difficult to handle.”

�

Finding no abnormality in the “ADHD child” the
pseudo-medical label is nothing but “stigmatizing; ” the unwarranted drug
treatment that invariably follows–nothing but “harmful”—a  physical assault.

�

[slide #2: “ADHD” = no abnormality = no disease = NORMAL =
“stigmatizing and harmful”]

�

19;2:

“‘ADHD is a manifestation of a
‘deficiency in family, school, society and medicine’ [23].  These words show that there are serious
doubts about the diagnosis and treatment of ADHD…one should investigate if
there is something wrong with child psychiatry.  The claim that children are harmed  is serious enough to investigate.”

�

Absent evidence of an abnormality/disease, DeGrandpre is
entirely correct.  Claiming these are
diseases, with no proof whatsoever, there is, undoubtedly, something wrong
with child psychiatry.  

�

All who are “diagnosed” and “treated”—6 million previously
normal schoolchildren, in the US—are being harmed.  Surely this is serious enough to launch a criminal
investigation. 

�

The US Food & Drug Administration (FDA), MedWatch*
program, a wholly voluntary system for the reporting of post-marketing
complications of drugs, reported the following   adverse reactions (AR) from methylphenidate (Ritalin and all
generic and proprietary forms), from 1990-1997: 

   
160 deaths**

   
569 hospitalizations–36 life-threatening.

   
949 central or peripheral nervous system occurrences

   
126 cardiovascular occurrences:    

         6 cases of 
“cardiomyopathy”

       12 of “arrhythmia”

         7 of “bradycardia” (slow pulse)

         5 of “bundle branch block” (impairment of
heart’s conduction apparatus)

         4 of “EKG abnormality”

         5 “extrasystole” (heart rhythm abnormalities)

         3 “heart arrest”

         2 heart failure, right”

       10 “hypotension,” (low BP)

         1 “myocardial infarction”

       15 “tachycardia” (rapid pulse).

�

*Figures from post-marketing, voluntary reporting systems,
such as this, in which the physicians having had bad luck with a drug are the
one’s deciding whether to report or not, are estimated to report no more than 1
to10 percent of actual adverse reactions. 
All of these are real, bona fide instances of abnormality/disease,
while, by comparison, no psychiatric condition/diagnosis for which the drug
treatment was undertaken, is. 

�

**Between 1997 and 2000 there have been an additional 26
deaths attributed to methylphenidate (all prescription forms of it) bringing
the total reported to FDA, MedWatch for the decade, 1990-2000, to 186.

�

The following children are no longer hyperactive or
inattentive–they are dead.  Between
1994 and the present I have been consulted, medically or legally, formally or
informally, in the following death cases.   

�

Stephanie Hall, 11 y.o., Canton, OH.  “ADHD,” Ritalin,  cardiac arrhythmia.

Matthew Smith, 13 y.o., Clawson,
MI. “ADHD,” Ritalin, cardiomyopathy.

Macauley Showalter, 7 y.o. Ritalin
and 3 other psychiatric drugs. Cardiac arrest.

Travis Neal 13 y.o., Chattanooga,
TN.  Ritalin, cardiomyopathy

Randy Steel, 9 y.o.  San Antonio, TX.  Dexedrine + several drugs, cardiac arrest.

Cameron Pettus, 12 y.o, Austin, TX.
Desipramine, hyper-eosinophilic syndrome. 

�

In the Ventura County (California) Star, Friday, October 19,
2001, we learned of another such death. 
The article read:

�

“California heart death of 17 year
old Ritalin case…Ventura High teen’s death a mystery, tests pending. Many mourn
popular senior found dead in bed by stepbrother at Oxnard home…She functioned
with attention deficit disorder (ADD) all her life.  From age 10, she was on Ritalin for three years before she was
taken off it because it caused severe 
heart problems.”

�

This is a high price to pay for the ‘treatment’ of a
‘disease’ that does not exist.  Much to
the liking of the psycho-pharm cartel, we, in the US, have no nation-wide data-
gathering system that allows us to know the exact number of Ritalin-induced
deaths, or, of those induced by any other psychiatric medications.  

�

22;2:

“The first of the three core
symptoms of ADHD is a developmentally inappropriate level of attention and
concentration.”  

�

Saying “developmentally inappropriate” they mean
subnormal/abnormal/diseased, as they must to make ‘medical patients’ of normal
children. Addressing the subject:  Is
ADHD a Valid Disorder? at the November 16-18, 1998, NIH, Consensus Conference
on ADHD, Carey [24] concluded:

�

“…common assumptions about
ADHD include that it is clearly

distinguishable from normal
behavior, constitutes a neurodevelopmental

disability, is relatively
uninfluenced by the environment…  All of
these

assumptions…must be challenged
because of the weakness of empirical

(research) support and the strength
of contrary evidence…What is now

most often described as ADHD in the
United States appears to be a set of

normal behavioral variations…
This discrepancy leaves the validity of

the construct (ADD/ADHD) in
doubt…” 

�

With no proof with which to counter Carey’s assertions, the
final statement of the Consensus Conference Panel read (p.3, lines 10-13):

�

“…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.”

�

Remarkably,
this wording appeared in the version of the final statement of the Consensus
Conference Panel distributed at the press conference, the final session of the
conference, November, 18, 1998.  This
‘confession’ appeared for an indeterminate few weeks on the NIH web site, but
was subsequently removed and replaced with wording claiming ‘validity’ for
ADHD. 

�

22;4-23;1:

“…ADHD can co-occur with various
other child psychiatric disorders.  This
is called comorbidity … forty percent
may also meet the diagnostic criteria for ‘oppositional defiant disorder’
(ODD)… twenty percent…have a conduct disorder (CD)…Learning disorders, especially
trouble with reading…are more prevalent. To put it simply: when ADHD
children are in trouble they know only one way out: violence.”

�

They refer to each behavior pattern as a disease.  None of them are.  When ADHD is comorbid
with CD and ODD, violence–biologically determined–they would have you
believe–is inevitable.   In 1972,
Baughman and Mann [10], reported that XYY was not a “criminal” genotype,  as previously thought.  Nor have, “mean genes” or a criminal
genotype otherwise, ever been validated [25]. 
Writing: “ADHD children know only one way out: violence” could not
possibly be more demonizing/stigmatizing. 
And they do it with not a shred of scientific evidence.

�

 24;3:

“The evidence suggests that ADHD is
caused by interplay between genetic and environmental factors, with the genetic
factors being most important [18,19].”  

�

Again, they refer to behavioral patterns–as separate
diseases, each with it’s own causal, genetic defect.  None are abnormalities/diseases/abnormal phenotypes due to a gene
defect–an abnormal genotype.  Normal
women have a 46 XX genotype and a normal physique/phenotype.  In psychiatry there is no abnormality/no
abnormal phenotype, begot by an abnormal genotype—not even one! 

�

[slide:  no
abnormality =  no disease = normal
phenotype = normal genotype = NORMAL]

�

25;1:

“It has been shown that ADHD is
associated with several abnormalities of the brain.  The frontal lobes of the brain…are about seven percent smaller
than average in children with ADHD.”  

�

The title of the Swanson and Castellanos, [18] Consensus
Conference presentation was  “Biological
Bases of Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder,” as if there was a
biological basis or bases.  Reviewing
the brain scanning literature, they reported 
that the brains of ADHD subjects were, on average, 10% smaller than
those of normal controls.   What they  neglected to say, until Baughman [26]
challenged Swanson (presenting), from a floor microphone, was that virtually
all ADHD subjects, in the 12 years of brain scanning research reviewed,
1986-1998, had been on long-term methylphenidate/amphetamine therapy, and, that
this—their medication–was the only physical difference between the ADHD
subjects and normal controls, and the probable cause of their brain atrophy.          

�

25; 3:

“The medication (stimulants) is
addictive for animals, but surprisingly, not for children with ADHD when
prescribed and used appropriately.”

�

Incredibly,  they
claim that methyphenidate/amphetamines, classified, since 1971, as highly
addictive, Schedule II, are not addictive by virtue of their being “prescribed
and used appropriately.”  Regarding the
addictive potential of methylphenidate, Vastag 
[27]  recently wrote, in the
prestigious Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA): 

�

“Taken orally, in pill form,
methylphenidate rarely produces a high and has not been reported to be
addictive.” 

�

The US Drug Enforcement Administration [28] makes no such
exception:

�

 “In reality… there is an abundance of scientific literature which indicates that methylphenidate shares
the same abuse potential as other Schedule II stimulants.”

�

In a prospective, longitudinal study of 492 ADHD subjects,
Lambert [29] finds that childhood use of stimulant treatment “is
significantly and pervasively implicated in the uptake of regular smoking, in
daily smoking in adulthood, in cocaine dependence, and in lifetime use of
cocaine and stimulants.

�

Biederman [30], assessing substance use disorders (SUD) in
56 medicated subjects (with ADHD) and in a mere 19 (nineteen) non-medicated,
subjects, conclude (1) that untreated ADHD—a non-disease, mind you—was a risk
factor for SUD in adolescence, and (2) that treatment with psychostimulants
was associated with an 85% reduction in risk for SUD in ADHD youth.   In other words, the greater the percentage
of those with ADHD who take their Schedule II, controlled,
methylphenidate/amphetamine, “appropriately,” and, “as prescribed,” the fewer
who will develop SUD.  Those who favor
this view regularly site Biederman [30], while failing to site Lambert [29] .

 

�

26; 2: 

“The overall aim of psychosocial
treatments is to try to change the environment in a way that compensates for ADHD
children’s lack of self-regulation”

�

Here, psychiatry reiterates that we are dealing with an
abnormality within the child.  “It’s
Nobody’s Fault.”  This is the name of a
popular book by NYU psychiatrist, Harold S. Koplewicz who says such “no-fault”
brain disorders” are the result of “DNA Roulette”—psychiatry’s  mysterious, never proved, genetic
abnormality.  They site the high
prevalence of familial cases, ignoring the fact that classrooms and whole
elementary schools with more than 50% affected, abound in the US, defying
scientific explanation.

�

29;1 Regarding the evolution of psychiatry:

“Mental disorders changed from
being intra-psychic problems, to the consequences of unhealthy social
environments, and finally to biological abnormalities in the neurotransmitter
balances of the brain.  Psychotropic
medication is the product of biological psychiatry and has revolutionized the
treatment of psychiatric patients.”  

�

In 1948 the American Board of Psychiatry and Neurology [31]
decreed that “neuropsychiatry,” be split into the two, new, specialties:
“neurology” and “psychiatry.”   By
mutual understanding, neurology would deal with physical abnormalities/diseases
of the brain/nervous system, while psychiatry would confine it’s attention to
the emotional and behavioral problems of physically/medically normal persons.  All non-psychiatric physicians know it is they
who do the ruling out of abnormalities/diseases before referring patients to a
psychiatrists.  Only the public is
deceived.  Psychiatry’s claims of
“diseases” and “chemical imbalances” have no basis in medical science and is
nothing more than a contrived, market-place deception—one authored and
orchestrated by the American Psychiatric Association in collusion with Big
Pharma (the world-wide pharmaceutical industry.  In this scenario every emotional/behavioral problem becomes a
“brain disease” due to a “chemical imbalance 
of the brain,” needing a “chemical balancer”—a pill. 

�

Pearlman
[32], a concerned psychiatrist,  wrote
to the American Psychiatric Association:

�

 “…elimination of the term ‘organic’ (from DSM-IV) conveys the
impression that psychiatry wishes to conceal the nonorganic character of many
behavioral problems that were, in previous DSM publications, clearly differentiated
from known central nervous system diseases.”

�

30;2

“While a child psychiatrist claims
that ADHD has to do with genetically determined deficiencies in…the brain,
parents or teachers may think the real problem is lack of motivation.”

�

All that matters are the scientific facts.  In calling ADHD an abnormality/disease,
without scientific facts,  psychiatry
knowingly lies, and violates the informed consent rights of the patient and his
parents.  This is de facto medical
malpractice.  

�

31;1:

“Armstrong [33] has found an
emotional way of saying that all the scientific talk about ADHD just does not
feel right.  Texts like this are not
uncommon among authors opposed to the medical treatment of ADHD…” 

�

Psychiatry has demonstrated no abnormality/disease within
the children, but proceeds to drug them nonetheless—by the millions.  An emotional reaction, even outrage, seems
entirely appropriate.  

 

 32;1:

“The first question is whether ADHD
is a disease or not.  The second is the
situation specificity of ADHD.  The
third subject is at the heart of the controversy and deals with
medication for ADHD.” 

�

There is no abnormality/disease to treat–to make
normal.  The disease/no disease question
is the heart of the controversy.  Claims that ADHD and all other psychiatric
conditions/diagnoses are abnormalities/diseases is the lynch-pin of the psycho-pharmaceutical fraud.   

�

32; Table.

“Summary of opposing views of the
concept of ADHD and its treatment with stimulants”

�

*Opposing: “ADHD is not a real disease or disorder but a
social stigma…”

Psychiatry: “…well-defined ADHD is associated with brain
abnormalities…”

Baughman: no abnormality/disease has been proven in
untreated subjects with ADHD.  The
only   brain abnormalities/dysfunction
in ADHD are those due to it’s drug treatment. 

�

**Opposing: “there is no biological or psychological test
available to diagnose ADHD.”

Psychiatry:  “true,
but (this) applies to all psychiatric syndromes like schizophrenia, depression
and even dementia.”

Baughman: the term ‘syndrome,’ in medicine means the same
thing as disease.  There must be an
objective abnormality.  No psychiatric
condition is an abnormality/syndrome/disease. 
The dementias, as in Alzheimer’s and Huntington’s disease, are
neurological, not psychiatric entities—actual diseases.  Diffuse, abnormality/disease of the brain
can always be verified, if not during life, then at post-mortem
examination.  This cannot be said of any
psychiatric condition/diagnosis, schizophrenia and depression included.  A favored lexical stratagem of theirs is to
co-mingle psychiatric names/terms with neurological, hoping the reader will
think that the psychiatric entities of which they speak/write, are brain
diseases, as well.  

�

***Opposing: 
“treatment with medication medicalizes a psycho-social problem.”

Psychiatry: “wrong.”

Baughman: ADHD is not at all an abnormality/disease/medical
problem.  To the extent it is believed
to be, efforts to address it as the psycho-social-educational problem that it
is, will be diverted.  Treatment with
medication, once begun, furthers the mistaken belief it is a medical
problem.  

 

Opposing: “side-effects of treatment with psychostimulants
are underestimated and outweigh beneficial effects.”

Psychiatry: “wrong; the side-effects of stimulants have been
thoroughly studied and found to be mild.”

Baughman: Both wrong. 
There is no abnormality/disease, the children are not medical patients;
there is no justification for any drug treatment—all of which bear risks.

�

Opposing: “the abuse potential of psychostimulants…is
underestimated.”

Psychiatry: “wrong; there are hardly any cases of ADHD
reported  who are abusing stimulants.”

Baughman:  The DEA
[28], observes 

“Whereas the majority of children
experience only minor side effects under medically supervised controlled
conditions, there are a significant number of case reports documenting more
severe abuse.  The reports and
scientific studies of abuse potential are routinely down-played, if referenced
at all.  As a consequence, parents of
children and adult patients are not being provided with the opportunity for
informed consent or a true risk/benefit consideration in deciding whether
methylphenidate therapy is appropriate.”

   

The largest such study, the prospective, longitudinal study
of 492 ADHD subjects of Lambert [29] who finds that childhood use of
stimulant treatment “is significantly and pervasively implicated in the uptake
of regular smoking, in daily smoking in adulthood, in cocaine dependence, and
in lifetime use of cocaine and stimulants. 
Saying to individual patients and to the public-at-large that “there are
hardly any cases of ADHD reported who are abusing stimulants,”
psychiatrists/psychiatry is violating the informed consent/self-determination
rights of one and all.  This, in most
jurisdictions in the US, is tantamount to medical malpractice.  More fundamental, by far than claiming
these drugs are not addictive or dangerous is the total, 100% fraud of saying
that ADHD is a disease, for the purpose of making normal children into medical
patients and then, medicating them.

 

“A significant amount of data from school surveys, emergency
room reports, poison control centers, adolescent drug treatment and law
enforcement encounters all indicate a growing problem with the abuse of MPH
among school children,” wrote Gretchen Feussner [34], a DEA pharmacologist, in
a recent report.   The DEA cited a 1997,
Indiana University survey of 44,232 students that included a question about the
non-medical use of Ritalin.  Nearly 7
percent of high school students surveyed reported using Ritalin recreationally
at least once in the previous year, and 2.5 percent reported using it monthly
or more often.  The DEA also counted
nearly 2,000 cases of methylphenidate theft from January 1990 to May 1995 -
ranking the drug among the top 10 controlled pharmaceuticals most frequently
reported stolen.  Emergency room
admissions studied by the federal Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services
Administration found that in 1995 and 1996, patients ages 10 to 14 were just
as likely to mention methylphenidate as cocaine in a drug-related emergency
room episode. Nearly 75 percent said they had been using the drug for
psychic effects or recreation.

�

Assessing substance use disorders (SUD), in ADHD in 56
medicated, and 19 (nineteen) non-medicated, subjects, Biederman, et al [30],
conclude (1) that untreated ADHD (a non-disease) was a risk factor for SUD in
adolescence, and (2) that treatment with psychostimulants was associated with
an 85% reduction in risk for SUD in ADHD youth.  They would have us believe that the greater the number of ADHD
patients who take their Schedule II, controlled, methylphenidate/amphetamine,
“appropriately,” and, “as prescribed,” the fewer who will develop SUD.  Those who favor this view regularly site
Biederman, et al [30], while failing to site Lambert [29] .  

�

Opposing: “the risk of promoting substance abuse is
underestimated.”

Psychiatry: “wrong, treatment with stimulants by contrast
may decrease the risk for later substance-abuse.

Baughman: Here again, we have not just a denial of the
truth–a statement that the Schedule II, psychostimulants are not addictive—but
an inversion of the truth, a claim that “treatment” with these substances of
addiction for a disease that does not exist, will result in less
addiction—‘substance use disorder’—than would result were there no such
“treatment.”  This is the view
promulgated by Biederman et al [30] with follow-up of just 19 non-medicated
ADHD subjects.  This same view, always
citing the Biederman study, is championed by none other than Alan I. Leshner,
Director of the National Institute of Drug Abuse (NIDA), just as he pushes ADHD
(the non-disease) itself, as a disease/physical variable which predisposes to
addiction (just as obesity predisposes to diabetes).  

�

The burden of proof always lies with those who say an
abnormality/disease is present; with those who would start treatment without
having first demonstrated the abnormality/disease.  In diabetes we do not inject insulin before having proven the
blood sugar is low, and exactly how low. 
We do not remove the amino acid phenylalanine from the diet of the
newborn without having proved they have the real chemical
imbalance—phenylketonuria (PKU).  The
burden of proof never rests with the questioning parents or patients, or their
advocates who say “show me proof of the abnormality; proof of the
disease.”   It always resides with those
who say an abnormality/disease is present that must be treated, and before treatment is begun

�

A young father-of-divorce, a podiatrist, was meeting his
son’s psychiatrist for the first time. 
He asked the psychiatrist why his son was on Ritalin.  The psychiatrist responded, “that’s because
he has a ‘chemical imbalance of the brain.’ 
To that, the father responded: ‘Please show me the laboratory
results.’  The psychiatrist, immediately
uncomfortable, managed: ‘Those charts are filed away…I can’t get to them just
now.’  But the father persisted in his
demands to see confirmatory laboratory tests. 
To this, the psychiatrist became increasingly flustered, finally ‘losing
it,’ banishing father and son from his office—permanently.  Exposing the fraud was that simple.  

�

(end of table)

�

34;5:

“…it is certainly untrue that the
diagnostic criteria apply to almost any normal active child.” 

�

To this Carey [24] responds:

�

“What is now most often
described as ADHD in the United States appears to be a set of normal behavioral
variations…This discrepancy leaves the validity of the construct (ADHD) in
doubt.”

�

36;2:

“For child psychiatry the
question of whether or not ADHD is a disease, cannot be answered for certain,
but this should not be an obstruction. 
The answer is simply not that important.” 

�

It is absolutely unbelieveable that they—psychiatry–would
say such a thing and at the same time press ADHD, and all psychiatric
conditions/diagnoses, upon troubled, but normal ,children and adults as a
diseases, with no purpose in mind other than to make ‘medical patients’ of them
and drug them, throughout their life-span. 

�

Consider the July 15, 1996, statement from influential, US Congressman, Christopher Shays,
Republican of Connecticut:   

�

 “In ADHD, we are trying to draw the line between personality and
pathology, and we are placing millions of children and adults on either side of
the social, medical and legal boundary that divides the healthy from the
sick.  We should do so only with the
greatest care, and with particular reticence to make our children medical
patients…”

�

We, in the US, have said one thing and done the
opposite.  Nor would it have been
possible, in the US, without the federal government legitimizing, in law, that
which science and medicine cannot possibly validate. 

�

To what extent do we legitimize ADHD?  Consider this, from Clinical Psychiatric
News [35].

 “Approximately 2.1 – 4.1 million children, aged 9-17 years have a
serious mental or emotional disorder. 
Last year, 23% of parents of children with behavioral disorders were told that they needed to relinquish
custody to obtain intensive mental health services for their children; 20%
actually gave up custody.”

�

This–as if they had severe diabetes, otherwise fatal heart
disease, or tuberculosis, and would die without treatment which they had to be
sent away for.  But as we know not a
single psychiatric condition/diagnosis is an actual disease; not a single one
has an essential form of medical treatment, much less one that needs to be
court-ordered and enforced.  

�

36;3:

“Nowadays, child psychiatrists
would say that the children are suffering from a neurobiological disorder and that punishment is not nearly as
effective as treatment with medication.”

�

Clearly, the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) has also
adopted the ‘making-patients-of-normal-children’ brand of ‘mental health.’  In the May, 2001 issue of PEDIATRICS, the
journal of the AAP, Baughman [36] wrote: 

�

“Clinical
Practice Guideline (of the AAP) opens: 
“Attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder is the most common neurobehavioral disorder of
childhood.”  “Neurobehavioral,” implies an abnormality of the brain; a
disease.  And yet, no confirmatory,
diagnostic, abnormality has been found. 
With six million children said to have it, most of them on addictive,
dangerous, stimulants, ambiguity as to the scientific status of ADHD is not
acceptable. … 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.  The wording of the
AAP Guideline should be changed, forthwith, to reflect the scientific and
medical facts of the matter.”

�

No one from the AAP responded, not even it’s president,
Steven Berman, MD, to whom I wrote separately, of this stark medical/scientific
deception. 

�

Children and Adults with Attention-Deficit Disorders—CHADD,
is the nation’s largest ‘disease’ support group with over 600 chapters and  28,000 members nationwide.  CHADD sponsors parent support groups,
convenes meetings—both local and national, and works closely with schools,
nationwide.  CHADD calls ADHD a
‘neurobiological disorder;’ an abnormality/disease within the
child/person.  And they do so with their
professional advisory board dominated, through the years, by researchers from
the National Institute of Mental Health, who know, full-well, that no
‘neurological’ or ‘biological’ abnormality has ever been found in
children/persons, diagnosed by DSM-IV or any other criteria, as having
ADHD.  Further, Ciba-Geigy, manufacturer
of Ritalin contributed $748,000 to CHADD in the 1991-1994 period alone.  They continue to garner financial support
from virtually all who manufacture drugs prescribed for the invented
disease—ADHD—without which there would be nothing to prescribe them for. 

�

In 1995, the DEA [28] reported:

“A recent communication from the
UN-INCB, expressed concern about non-governmental organizations and parental
associations in the United States that are actively lobbying for the medical
use of methylphenidate for children with ADHD. 
The INCB further stated that ‘financial transfer from a pharmaceutical
company with the purpose to promote sales of an internationally controlled
substance would be identified as hidden advertisement and in contradiction with
the provisions of the 1971 Convention (Article 10, para 3).’”

�

The only bona fide neurological disease for which Schedule
II, psychostimulants can legally be prescribed is narcolepsy, which accounts
for no more than a fraction of one percent of all such prescriptions.  The remaining 99-plus percent is prescribed,
for US schoolchildren, for the fraudulent, invented, ‘disease’–ADHD. 

�

In the November 10, 2001, San Diego Union-Tribune, a parent
wrote to psychologist/columnist, John Rosemond:

�

“This is my son’s first year in a
new, private school.  Already, his
third-grade teacher has suggested that we have him tested for attention deficit
disorder.  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.”

�

Nor will the epidemic end when 100 percent of the children
have been diagnosed—ADHD—and a treated. As we are already seeing, more all the
time are getting other ‘comorbid’ labels/ ‘diseases’ and other
drugs—polypharmacy—to treat them.

 

37;2:

“…(the) slogan of a Dutch
association for people with depressive disorders: ‘a depression is a disease,
not a sign of weakness.’  The concept of
disease lessens the feeling of guilt. 
With depression, it is the patient who profits from the change of focus,
and with ADHD it is mainly the parents. …So, whilst the question of whether
ADHD is a disease may not have many consequences within child psychiatry it is
taken very seriously by the general public. 
Lay people may feel cheated if ADHD is not really a disease after
all.”  

�

Here, as is standard practice in  the US, that psychiatric ‘disease’ organizations, CHADD foremost
among them, spread the ‘disease’ propaganda that makes medical patients of
normals so that once labeled/diagnosed, they can be ‘prescribed’ for through
their ‘life-span.’  Through the ‘life-span’
is a favored expression in present-day ‘biological’ psychiatry, referring to
the fact that once labeled, their psychiatric diseases stay with them for
life. 

�

37;3:

“The ‘power’ of the disease concept
also has one big advantage and one serious side effect for child
psychiatrists,  If a certain
psychiatrist claims that ADHD is a disease, he or she will lessen the stigma on
the parent.  This is important, because
it is not uncommon for the disruptive actions of the child to lead to the
social isolation of the parents.”

�

Here we label/diagnose the child saying his brain is
defective and totally to blame, without ever giving the child the benefit of
un-ending parent/teacher love, aspiration 
or, effort; without ever taking responsibility for how they behave, or
whether or not they learn to read, do math, or are educated and thus prepared
for life.  Such is the overwhelming
appeal of the ‘disease’ interpretation to parents and teachers.  They are off the hook!  It’s Nobody’s Fault, just as child
psychiatrist, Harold S. Koplewicz [37], from NYU, my alma mater, says.  It is truly a seductive message.  Six million in the US have bought into the
ADHD label alone.  That’s a lot of
psychiatry, a lot of ‘mental health,’ a lot of Ritalin, a lot of Schedule II,
addictive, dangerous, deadly amphetamines. 

�

Peter Breggin [38], a US psychiatrist, true to science and
true to his patients, states:

�

39;2:

 “…we abuse our children with drugs rather than making the effort
to find better ways to meet their needs. 
In the end, we are giving out children a very bad lesson—that drugs are
the answer to emotional problems.  We
are encouraging a generation of youngsters to grow up relying on psychiatric
drugs rather than on themselves and other human resources.”

�

In spuriously making ‘medical patients’ of our normal
children and treating them, first and foremost with medications, these are the
absolutely essential human things that we are failing to do.  Is it any wonder that the ‘prognosis’ of
ADHD, even with Ritalin/amphetamine treatment, is so abysmal.  Think of all of the essential things they
fail to get, once labeled and drugged.  

�

39;4:

“…the ADHD syndrome has serious
consequences for the children involved and that the available
non-pharmacological treatment only offer solace to a certain extent. This
justifies the use of effective pharmacological treatment.”

�

This would be true if there was a demonstrable medical
problem/physical abnormality/disease—but there is none.

�

On November 3, 2001, I appeared before the Medical Board of
California, and testified as follows:  

�

“In the November 20, 2001 (already
on the news-stands), Family Circle magazine, the psycho-pharmaceutical cartel
has a 7-page “special advertising supplement” in which its leaders,
including the Richard K. Harding, President of the American Psychiatric Assn.
and Surgeon General, David Satcher, cast aside the term “disorders”
and forthrightly proclaim that they diagnose and treat
“diseases”—brain diseases.  So
saying they lie to all Americans and trample their right to informed consent
and self-determination.  Claims such as
those I have cited from Family Circle, and such as are posited daily by
organized psychiatry are in violation of Senate Bill (California) 836
(Figueroa) under which: ‘… it is unlawful for any person licensed in the
healing arts to disseminate or cause to be disseminated any form of public
communication, as defined, containing a false, fraudulent, misleading, or
deceptive statement or claim, for the purpose of inducing the rendering of
professional services or furnishing of products in connection with the licensed
person’s professional practice or business, as specified.’  It is also, 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.’ As we all
know, there is no pathology/objective abnormality/disease in ADHD—for which
Schedule II, controlled substances are invariably prescribed.  There is no pathology in any psychiatric
condition/diagnosis.” 

�

Between 1990 and the present, the ADHD “epidemic” in the US
has grown from one million to six million–virtually all of them on stimulant
drugs.  All the while, psychiatry’s
leadership, and ‘experts’ from CHADD and the NIMH have parried questioners/
critics/doubters with claims they were from one cult or the other, or that they
were not true ADHD “experts.”  At no
time do they answer the “Is it a disease—Yes or No?” question, and they
continually assert, regarding the phenomenal size of the epidemic, that the
only problems are those of ‘misdiagnosis’ and ‘over-diagnosis.

�

It was for this reason that I [39] responded to the Council
on Scientific Affairs of the American Medical Association (AMA):

�

“Once children are labeled with
ADHD, they are no longer treated as normal. 
Once methylphenidate hydrochloride, or any psychiatric drug, courses through
their brain and body, they are, for the first time, physically, neurologically,
and biologically abnormal.” 

�

It was for this reason, that on April 15, 1998, I wrote
Attorney General, Janet Reno:

 

“The single, biggest heath care
fraud in US history—the representation of attention
deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) to be an actual disease, and the
drugging of millions of entirely normal American children, as “treatment,” is
spreading like a plague—still.”

�

It was for this reason that I testified to the US Congress,
September 29, 2000 [40]:

�

“It would be a fraud for any
physician to call ADHD or any psychiatric condition an actual disease.”

�

You, ladies and gentlemen of the Council on Europe, have it
within your power to immunize your children against ADHD.  Please do so.  Please teach the US and Canada a lesson. 

�

_____________

�

�

BIBLIOGRAPHY

�

1.     
Baughman, F. A., Jr., Hirsch, B.:  Karyotyping of Cells from Cerebrospinal Fluid.  The Lancet, 2:417, 1963.

2.     
Benda, C. E., Baughman, F. A., Jr.:  Chromosomes and Thalidomide Med. Welt.,  34:16161, 1963.

3.     
Hardman, J. S., Allen, L. W., Baughman, F. A., Jr., Waterman,
D. F.:  Subacute Necrotizing
Encephalopathy in Late Adolescence. 
Archives of Neurology, 18:478-487, 1968.

4.     
Baughman, F. A., Jr., Vanderkolk, K. J., Mann, J. D.,
Valdmanis, A.:  Two Cases of Primary
Amenorrhea with Deletion of the Long Arm of the X-Chromosome (46, XXq),
American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, 102:1065-1069, 1968.

5.     
Forster, F.M., Paulsen, W. A., Baughman, F. A., Jr.:  Clinical Therapeutic Conditioning in Reading
Epilepsy, Neurology, 19:717-723, 1969.

6.     
Baughman, F. A., Jr., List, C. F., Williams, J. R., Muldoon,
J. P., Segarra, J. M.:  The
Glioma-Polyposis Syndrome.  New England
Journal of Medicine, 281:1345-1346, 1969.

7.     
Baughman, F. A., Jr., Klinefelter’s Syndrome and Essential
Tremor.  The Lancet, Letter to the
Editor, 545, 1969.

8.     
Baughman, F. A., Jr., Worchester, D. D.:  Agenesis of the Corpus Callosum in a Case of
Focal Dermal Hypoplasia.  Mount Sinai Journal
of Medicine, Volume XXXVII, No. 6, Nov.-Dec., 1970.

9.     
Baughman, F. A., Jr.: 
CHANDS: The Curly Hair-Ankylogle-pharon-Nail Dysplasia Syndrome. The
Clinical Delineation of Birth Defects, Volume XII, 100, 1972.

10. 
Baughman, F. A., Jr., Mann, J. D.:  Ascertainment of Seven YY Males in a Private Neurology
Practice.  JAMA 222:446-448, 1972.

11. 
Baughman, F. A., Jr., Higgins, J. V., Mann, J. D.:  Sex Chromosome Anomalies and Essential
Tremor.  Neurology 23:623-625, 1973.

12. 
Baughman, F. A., Jr., Papp, J. P.:  Wernicke’s Encephalopathy with Intravenous
Hyperalimentation:  Remarks on
Similarities Betwen Wernicke’s Encephalopathy and the Phosphate Depletion
Syndrome.  Mount Sinai Journal of medicine,
Volume 43:48, 1976.

13. 
Toriello, H. V., Lindstrom, 
J. A., Waterman, D. F., Baughman, F. A., Jr.:  Re-Evaluation of CHANDS. 
Journal of Medical Genetics, 16:316, 1979.

14.  Jensen PS.
Announcement of the Consensus Development Conference on ADHD  , National Institutes of Health, Bethesda,
in the Spring,1998 ATTENTION magazine, published quarterly by Children and
Adults with Attention Deficit Disorders—CHADD.

15.  Griffith JD,
Assistant Professor of Psychiatry, Vanderbilt University School of
Medicine.  Testimony to: Federal
Involvement in the Use of Behavior Modification Drugs on Grammar School
Children of The Right to Privacy Inquiry Hearing Before Subcommittee on The
Committee on Government Operations House of Representatives 91^st
Congress, Second Session September 29, 1970.

16.  Baughman FA Jr.
Testimony at the NIH Consensus Development Conference on ADHD (transcript),
November 16-18, 1998, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD.

17.  Jan Buitelaar and
Ad Bergsma.  Sociocultural factors and
the treatment of ADHD. Attention Deficit/Hyperkinetic Disorders: Their
Diagnosis and Treatment with Stimulants. Council of Europe; 2000:19-54.

18.  Swanson J,
Castellanos FX. Biological Bases of Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder.
NIH Consensus Development Conference on ADHD (p 37-42, program and abstracts),
November 16-18, 1998, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD.

19.  Swanson J.
Transcript of presentation to the American Association of Adolescent Psychiatry
(ASAP), March 7, 1998. 

20.  Castellanos FX,
Giedd JN, March WL, et al.  Quantitative
brain magnetic resonance imaging in attention-deficit hyperactivity
disorder.  Arch Gen Psychiatry.  1996;53:607-616.

21.  Filipek PA,
Semrud-Clikeman M, Steingard RJ, Renshaw PF, Kennedy DN, Biederman J.  Volumetric MRI analysis comparing subjects
having attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder with normal controls.  Neurology. 
1997;48:589-601.

22.  Swanson JM,
Sergeant JA, Taylor E, Sonuga-Barke EJS, Jensen PS, Cantwell DP.
Attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder and hyperkinetic disorder.  Lancet. 1998;351:429-433

23.  DeGrandpre R.  Ritalin
Nation; Rapid-fire Culture and the Transformation of Human Consciousness,
New York, WW Norton and Company;1999

24.  Carey, WB.  Is Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder
a Valid Disorder? Invited presentation to the NIH Consensus Development
Conference on ADHD, November 16-18, 1998, National Institutes of Health,
Bethesda, MD.

25.  Balaban E, Alper
JS, Kasamon YL.  Mean Genes and the
Biology of Aggression: A critical Review of Recent Animal and Human
Research. 

26.  Baughman F.
(comments on presentation of J. Swanson, November 16, 1998) NIH Consensus
Development Conference on ADHD (transcript), November 16-18, 1998, National
Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD.

27.  Vastag B. Pay
Attention: Ritalin Acts Much Like Cocaine,  
JAMA, August 23, 2001

28.  METHYLPHENIDATE (A
Background Paper) US Department of Justice, Drug Enforcement Administration.
October,1995, pps. 4,7]

29.  Lambert N,
Hartsough CS.  Prospective study of
tobacco smoking and substance dependence among samples of ADHD and non-ADHD
subjects.  J Learn. Disabil.
1998;31:533-544

30.  Biederman J,
Wilens T,  Mick E,  Spencer T, 
Faraone SV.  Pharmacotherapy of
Attention-deficit/HyperactivityDisorder Reduces Risk for Substance Use
Disorder. PEDIATRICS Vol. 104 No. 2 August 1999, p. e20.

31.   American Academy of Neurology: The First 50
Years, 1948-1998. Cohen MM (ed).  AAN,
St. Paul, MN. 1998:1-8.

32.  Pearlman T.   Clinical Psychiatric News (letters).
December, 1994.

33.  Armstrong T. The
Myth of the ADD Child.  New York,
Plume:1997.

34.   Feussner G, quoted in Dizon NZ. Recreational
Use of Ritalin Feared, Associated Press  
CHICAGO (AP) May 5, 2000.

35.  “Practice Trends,”
Clinical Psychiatric News, May 2000, page 49 the Bazelon Center for Mental
Health reports.”

36.  Baughman FA Jr.
Diagnosis and Evaluation of the Cjhild With Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity
Disorder. PEDIATRICS, May, 2001:1239. 

37.  Koplewicz HS. It’s
Nobody’s Fault—New Hope and Help for Difficult Children and Their Parents.  Time Books, a division of Random House,
Inc., New York, 1996.

38.  Breggin PR.
Psychostimulants in treatment of children diagnosed with ADHD: Risks and
mechanism of action.  International
Journal of Risk and Safety in Medicine. 
1999;12

39.  Baughman FA.  Treatment of Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity
Disorder.  JAMA, 1999;281:1490.

40.   Baughman FA Jr.  THE MILLIONS OF CHILDREN LABELED ADD/ADHD WERE NORMAL ALL
ALONG.  Testimony to Committee on
Education and the Workforce, hearing entitled “Behavioral Drugs in Schools:
Questions and Concerns,” held September 29, 2000, 9:00 a.m.,  in Room 2175, Rayburn House Office Building,
Washington, DC, 20515-6100  

�

P.S.  It would be
helpful in reading the writings of modern-day, psychiatric researchers, if a
detailed financial statement was appended—one disclosing all sources of
financial support both for the spokesperson/researcher and for all of his/her
sponsoring institutions/organizations/companies.  I am 98 percent self-supporting. 
I have occasionally received funding for travel to meetings and to
testify before hearings from a variety of individuals and organizations. 

�

�