History Of The Fraud Of Biological Psychiatry

August 9, 2004

> SSRI-Research

> Sun, 8 Aug 2004 13:37:35 -0400

> [sSRI-Research] HISTORY OF THE FRAUD OF

> BIOLOGICAL PSYCHIATRY

>

> HISTORY OF THE FRAUD OF BIOLOGICAL PSYCHIATRY

>

> By Fred A. Baughman Jr., MD © July 19, 2000

>

> http://www.familylifehealthcenter.com/add.html

>

> The epidemic of psychiatric drugging in the US as

> nowhere else in the developed world has risen from

> 150,000 in 1970, to 9-10 million today; 15 to 20% of

> all US schoolchildren. The ADHD/Ritalin portion now

> stands at an estimated 6-7 million. Other ‘chemical

> imbalances’ treated with other ‘chemical

> balancers’—drugs--make for a total to 9-10

> million—all of them normal until the first

> brain-altering, brain damaging drug courses through

> their systems.

>

> From 1965 to the present, the number of physicians

> in the US has grown 5 times faster than the

> population, from 140 physicians /100,000 population

> to 280/100,000! [1] Today, each physician has half

> the number of patients they had 35 years ago. But

> their incomes have kept pace! To compensate they

> resort to 'physician-induced need,' or what the

> Health Care Finance Administration (HCFA) refers to

> as an increased 'volume' and 'intensity' of

> prescribing. When heightened prescribing no longer

> compensates, they take to the inventing of diseases,

> as typified by psychiatry. The physician glut and

> it’s attendant 'physician-induced need,' is the

> primary cause of the US health care crisis.

>

> WHEN DID PSYCHIATRY BEGIN DIAGNOSING ‘DISEASES’?

>

> In 1948, the combined specialty of 'neuropsychiatry'

> was divided into 'neurology,' dealing with organic

> or physical diseases of the brain, and 'psychiatry'

> dealing with emotional and behavioral problems in

> normal human beings. Nor was there any dispute as to

> the division of labor; psychiatrists made no claim

> that they diagnosed or treated actual brain

> diseases. Finding no organic disease in patients

> with non-specific symptoms, non-psychiatric

> physicians, refer patients to psychiatrists. In

> other words, finding no objective abnormalities

> (disease) it can safely be concluded that the

> patient’s symptoms are psychological in

> origin—psychogenic! This is the main pre-condition

> for referral of a patient to a psychiatrist or to

> any mental health professional.

>

> As the physician glut worsened, medical costs rose

> and health maintenance organizations (HMOs) evolved

> to control costs. HMOs demanded accountability in

> diagnosis and treatment that cut deeply into

> psychiatry’s open-ended, fictitious, diagnosing (and

> resultant prescribing). Psychiatry had already cast

> its lot with the pharmaceutical industry [2]. By the

> late 1960's psychiatric drugs were 'big' business,’

> growing ‘bigger.’

>

> By 1970, it was apparent that psychiatry and the

> pharmaceutical industry had agreed upon a joint

> marketplace strategy: they would call psychiatric

> disorders, that is, all things emotional and

> behavioral, 'brain diseases' and would claim that

> each and every one was due to a 'chemical imbalance'

> of the brain [3]. Further, they would launch a

> propaganda campaign, so intense and persistent that

> the public would soon believe in nothing but

> pills--'chemical balancers' for 'chemical

> imbalances' [4].

>

> Just as the National Institute of Mental Health

> (NIMH) is the primary author of the psychiatric

> condition/disorder-as-a-disease, deception,

> attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) is

> their prototypical, most-successful-by-far, invented

> disease. They regularly revise it's diagnostic

> criteria, not for any scientific purpose, but to

> cast a wider marketplace ‘net.’ In collusion with

> Ciba-Geigy (now Novartis), Children and Adults with

> Attention Deficit Disorders (CHADD), and the US

> Department of Education they proclaim ADHD a

> ‘disease’ so real and terrible that the parent who

> dares not believe in it, or allow it's treatment, is

> likely to be deemed negligent, and no longer

> deserving of custody of their child. This is

> happening in family courts across the country by the

> hundreds of thousands.

>

> Every patient’s right of informed consent requires a

> complete, honest portrayal both of the condition to

> be treated (including it’s prognosis or course,

> untreated) and of the treatment(s) proposed (and how

> it/they will alter the course of the condition).

> Lacking either, the informed consent would be

> incomplete--invalid. Few, if any, questions about

> ADHD can be answered without an honest answer to the

> question: " Is ADHD a disease with a confirmatory

> physical (including chemical) abnormality, or isn’t

> it? (asking this question of any physician or

> researcher, ask for reference to the specific

> article in the scientific literature, that documents

> the confirmatory physical (including chemical)

> abnormality proving it is a disease.)

>

> IS IT A DISEASE OR ISN’T IT?

>

> All physicians—psychiatrists included, complete a

> course of study of disease—pathology. They know,

> full-well, that it is the physician’s first duty,

> patient-by-patient, to determine whether the patient

> has an actual disease or does not—the " disease " / " no

> disease " determination. We learn that substantial

> numbers of patients seek help from their physicians

> for what are " emotional, " " psychological, " or

> " psychiatric " symptoms, due to the stresses of

> everyday life. Such patients have no disease per se

> (ruled out by finding no abnormalities— no

> pathology, nothing objective, on physical

> examination, laboratory testing, x-ray, scanning,

> etc.).

>

> There were few claims by psychiatry in the sixties

> and seventies, of a biologic basis of psychiatric

> disorders, i.e., that they were " diseases. " Such

> claims, without scientific evidence, began, in

> earnest, in the eighties and nineties, with the

> American Psychiatric Association’s Diagnostic and

> Statistical Manual-III-R (DSM-III-R) [5] and DSM-IV

> [6]. ADHD has become psychiatry’s number one,

> " biologically-based " " disease. "

>

> PSYCHOPHARMACOLOGY: INVENTED DISEASES, BIG BUSINESS

>

> The American Psychiatric Association’s Diagnostic

> and Statistical Manual has grown from 112 mental

> disorders in its initial, 1952 edition [7], to 163

> in the 1968, DSM-II [8], to 224 in the 1980, DSM-III

> [9]; 253 in the 1987, DSM-III-R [5], and, 374 in the

> 1994, DSM-IV [6]. That there is more to the

> explosion of psychiatric " diseases " than scientific

> naiveté is obvious. To the extent that such research

> and its dissemination abrogates informed consent and

> becomes standard practice, is it not fraud? That it

> is a joint, psychiatric-pharmaceutical industry

> strategy is obvious.

>

> ONE PHYSICIAN’S QUEST FOR AN ANSWER

>

> Diseases are natural occurrences in the plant and

> animal world. Scientific physicians, veterinarians,

> botanists, and others observe, describe, and

> validate the pathology (abnormality), making them

> diseases. Diseases are not conceptualized in

> committee or decided upon by consensus, as

> biological psychiatry would have it.

>

> In 35 years as a private practice, adult/child

> neurologist, making " disease " / " no disease "

> determinations daily, I have discovered and

> described real diseases but have found myself unable

> to validate ADHD, by whatever name, as an actual

> disease.

>

> In 1971, Baughman [10] discovered the curly

> hair-anklyoblepharon (fused eyelids)-nail dysplasia

> syndrome (CHANDS). Its description was published in

> the Birth Defects: Original Article Series. In 1979,

> Toriello, et. al. [11] (myself included) established

> its autosomal recessive mode of transmission and

> published our findings in the Journal of Medical

> Genetics . In 1959, Turcot, et al [12], suggested

> that the combination of polyposis of the colon with

> gliomas of the brain was an autosomal recessive

> trait. In 1969, Baughman, et al, [13] described the

> second, " confirmatory " example of the

> glioma-polyposis syndrome—Turcot’s syndrome. Anyone

> asking whether or not CHANDS exists, whether or not

> it has been proven to be " genetic " or, whether or

> not Turcot’s syndrome exists, can look up the

> references and access the proofs. Such is the way of

> medical science—with the notable exception of

> biological psychiatry.

>

> On September 23, 1993, I [14] testified in hearings

> on the National Institutes of Health (NIH) Research

> on Antisocial, Aggressive, and Violence-Related

> Behaviors and their Consequences:

>

> " If, as I am convinced, these entities are not

> diseases, it would be unethical to initiate research

> to evaluate biological interventions—unethical and

> fatally flawed scientifically. That such unethical,

> unscientific research has, and is, going on, should

> be the focus of investigations. "

>

> My testimony, and with it, all consideration of the

> fundamental " disease " / " no disease " issue, was

> effectively expunged from their 1994, final report.

> Moreover, they have refused to share with me

> informed consent documents used in such research

> which would have had to state how they characterize

> ADHD, CD and ODD to parents of children who are

> research subjects.

>

> AND ALL THE OTHER BIOPSYCHIATRIC DISEASES, TOO?

>

> Regarding their re-conceptualization of psychiatric

> " disorders " as " diseases, psychiatrist, Donald

> Goodwin, [15] acknowledged " a narrow definition of

> disease that requires the presence of a biological

> abnormality. "

>

> Kety and Matthysse [16] write: " … the recent

> literature does not provide the hoped-for

> clarification of the catecholamine hypotheses, nor

> does compelling evidence emerge for other biological

> differences that may characterize the brains of

> patients with mental disease. "

>

> The Congressional Office of Technology Assessment

> [17] concludes: " Mental disorders are classified on

> the basis of symptoms because there are as yet no

> biological markers or laboratory tests for them. "

>

> Arthur C. Clarke, scientific thinker, author of

> " 2001: A Space Odyssey " reminds us: " Science, unlike

> politics or diplomacy, does not depend on consensus

> or expediency—it progresses by open-minded probing,

> rigorous questioning, independent thought and, when

> the need arises, being bold enough to say that the

> emperor has no clothes. "

>

> Biological psychiatry has " no clothes! " ADHD has " no

> clothes! " There being no scientific explanations, we

> must look elsewhere for answers to the epidemic

> drugging of US schoolchildren in the name of ADHD

> and every other invented, fraudulent psychiatric

> ‘disease,’ those whose only intent is to make

> ‘patients’ of every mis-educated, mis-parented,

> troubled, pained, biologically normal, child.

>

> I TRY TO LEARN THE TRUTH ABOUT ADHD

>

> From 1993 to the present, I have written to leading

> agencies and researchers, asking to be referred to

> the one or few articles in the peer-reviewed,

> scientific, literature that constitute proof that

> ADHD a disease or syndrome (medical) with a

> confirmatory, physical abnormality?

>

> On December 24, 1994, Paul Leber, MD, of the FDA

> responded: " …as yet no distinctive pathophysiology

> for the disorder has been delineated. "

>

> On October 25, 1995, Gene R. Haislip of the DEA

> wrote: " We are also unaware that ADHD has been

> validated as a biologic/organic syndrome or

> disease. "

>

> On September 1l, 1996, as if unfamiliar with the

> concept of scientific proof, Joyce Moscaritola, MD,

> Medical Affairs Vice President, Ciba-Geigy (now

> Novartis) responded: " A comprehensive computer

> search of the literature yielded several articles

> which discuss the various hypotheses for the

> etiology (cause) of ADHD. "

>

> Turning to the top ADHD researchers in the country,

> those at the NIMH, I sent, by Fed-Ex, the following

> request, individually, to Doctors Peter S. Jensen,

> F. Xavier Castellanos, Alan J. Zametkin and Judith L

> Rapoport, all on the same day, November 3, 1995:

>

> " I would like you to direct me, specifically, to

> those reports in the literature which constitute

> proof that ADHD is a disease or a syndrome and thus

> organic/biologic. "

>

> The response came not from any one of the four to

> whom I had directed the question—all purveyors of

> the proposition that ADHD is a " disease " and that

> the children are abnormal, but from L. Eugene

> Arnold, M.Ed., MD, December 8, 1995, after

> consultation with the four. Not until the final

> paragraph of a two page letter, replete with 35

> references, having nothing to do with my question,

> did Arnold get to the question:

>

> However, I suspect you are more interested in

> evidence that ADHD is organic/biologic…The evidence

> here is more nascent, with exciting new reports at

> each professional meeting. It is very likely that

> multiple causes will be established.

>

> This, of course, was a non-answer.

>

> The 1995, Report of the International Narcotics

> Control Board [18] voiced concern regarding the

> diagnosis of ADD:

>

> The INCB requests the authorities of the United

> States to continue to carefully monitor future

> developments in the diagnosis of ADD in children…in

> order to ensure that these substances are prescribed

> in accordance with sound medical practice, as

> required under article 9 paragraph 2, of the 1971

> Convention.

>

> On June 7, 1996 I wrote to the INCB asking:

>

> With no confirmation that so-called

> attention-deficit disorder with or without

> hyperactivity (ADHD) is a disease, a " discrete

> diagnostic entity " or anything organic or biologic,

> how could it possibly be sound medical practice?

>

> Replying on July 3, 1996, INCB Secretary, Herbert

> Schaep, expressed satisfaction with the

> newly-launched Ciba-Geigy campaign to inform the

> community about the abuse potential of

> methylphenidate—Ritalin, but left the more

> fundamental question of the validity of a ADD/ADHD

> as a disease/medical syndrome un-addressed.

>

> Conner, he of the parent-teacher behavior scales,

> replied on September 15, 1998. He enclosed his

> April, 1997, article [19]: " Is ADHD a disease? " by

> way of response. Therein, he summarized:

>

> …we see that there is no agreement on a core

> psychological defect, anatomic locus, neurochemical

> or genetic basis, or neuropsychological pattern,

> that is characteristic of ADHD… What is wrong with

> our approach…that we should have so little success

> in identifying a specific marker for the ADHD

> disease, almost a century after George Still

> identified the disorder?

>

> On September 15, 1997, I wrote to Director of

> National Drug Control Policy, General (ret.) Barry

> R. McCaffrey and Secretary of the Department of

> Health and Human Services, Donna Shalala, charging:

>

> that ADHD—the fraudulent, never-validated,

> " disease " —was fabricated by experts at the National

> Institute of Mental Health (NIMH) " and that " On no

> less than four occasions (by registered mail as

> well) I have asked NIMH experts, Doctors Peter S.

> Jensen, F. Xavier Castellanos, Judith L. Rapoport

> and Alan J. Zametkin to refer me to those

> articles…that prove that ADHD is a " disease " (or a

> medical syndrome) with a confirmatory,

> characteristic abnormality (pathology).

>

> At long last, I elicited a reply to my question—or

> so I thought—from the one person, who, more than any

> other, speaks of and for ADHD and oversees ADHD

> research in the U.S.—Peter S. Jensen, MD, Chief,

> Developmental Psychopathology Research Branch, NIMH,

> NIH, Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS).

> Dr. Jensen urged that I:

>

> " note within the pages of the prestigious British

> journal Lancet an article will soon be forthcoming

> (James Swanson, et al. [20] ) that reviews all of

> the biologic evidence for the establishment of ADHD

> as a bona fide disorder… "

>

> What Dr. Jensen failed to state, once again, is

> whether or not the " soon…forthcoming " Lancet

> article, or any, anywhere in the peer-reviewed

> literature on ADHD, yet constitutes proof of an

> abnormality within the child—one that can be tested

> for and found patient-by-patient, one proving that

> we are not drugging millions of normal children.

>

> On December 5, 1997, I wrote and faxed James M.

> Swanson, Ph.D., Director, Child Development Center,

> Department of Pediatrics, University of California,

> Irvine, and author of the " soon…forthcoming " Lancet

> article asking that he:

>

> please send me a copy or reprint of the article

> referred to by Dr. Jensen in his letter to me of

> October 12, 1997 (enclosed). Can you cite final,

> confirmatory proof that ADHD is a disease/medical

> syndrome with a definite, discernible (patient by

> patient) physical or chemical abnormality/ marker?

>

> Getting no response from Swanson, I re-sent my

> original letter (that of December 5, 1997) on

> January 12, 1998, this time by registered mail. In

> so doing, I learned that the address I had been

> using was correct and that the registered letter had

> been received and signed for. But still, no response

> to my scientific, collegial inquiry.

>

> Next, Swanson appeared as a substitute speaker at a

> meeting I was attending in San Diego, that of the

> American Society for Adolescent Psychiatry, March

> 5-8, 1998. He spoke, among other things, of the MRI

> brain scan research of Castellanos, et al [21,22],

> and Filipek, et al [23], alleged to show brain

> atrophy in subjects with ADHD, but not in controls.

>

> I spoke from the audience, pointing out that 93% of

> the subjects in the Castellanos [21,22] studies had

> been on chronic stimulant therapy, and inquired as

> to the stimulant status of those in the Filipek [23]

> study. Swanson acknowledged that Filipek et al [23],

> also utilized ADHD subjects who had been on chronic

> stimulant therapy—an acknowledgment nowhere to be

> found in a review of this research either in the in

> the Lancet article [20] or in the more recent Report

> of the Council of Scientific Affairs of the American

> Medical Association [24].

>

> Here, we had strong, replicated evidence that

> chronic stimulant therapy (methylphenidate,

> amphetamine) causes brain atrophy, not confirmation

> of an ADHD phenotype at all, as we were led to

> believe.

>

> Next--much to my surprise--came the answer to the

> AD/HD " disease " / " no disease " question. Swanson

> (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. I do not think

> these drugs are dangerous or addictive when used

> this way. "

>

> " I think we will validate it, " he said. At long

> last—an open, honest, truly scientific appraisal

> from one within the ADHD industry!

>

> At last, I had my answer from Swanson, and from the

> greater ADHD industry. He thinks they will validate

> ADHD. What he neglected to say was how he describes

> ADHD, today, in obtaining informed consent from the

> parents of children he treats with stimulants and

> from those of children in their research studies

> using positron emission tomography (PET) scans,

> spinal taps and indwelling venous catheters, from

> which to draw blood drug levels. I have written him

> requesting copies. I am still waiting (7/19/00).

>

> On May 13, 1998, F. Xavier Castellanos or the NIMH

> wrote to me:

>

> " …I have noted your critiques of the diagnostic

> validity of ADHD. I agree that we have not yet met

> the burden of demonstrating the specific

> pathophysiology that we believe underlies this

> condition. However, my colleagues and I are

> certainly motivated by the belief that it will be

> possible in the near future to do so. "

>

> Swanson thinks " we will validate it! " Meanwhile,

> Castellanos and his colleagues are " … motivated by

> the belief that it will be possible in the near

> future to do so. "

>

> On August 5, 1998 William B. Carey, MD, of the

> Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, wrote to me:

>

> " There are no such articles (constituting proof that

> ADHD is a disease). There are many articles raising

> doubts but none that establish the proof you or I

> seek. "

>

> Barkley [25], implies that brain atrophy

> characterizes and validates ADHD as a disease. He

> cites MRI studies by Castellanos, et al. [21,22] the

> first of which showed that " Subjects with ADHD had a

> 4.7% smaller total cerebral volume, " while the

> second showed: " Vermal (cerebellar) volume was

> significantly less…with ADHD. " Not mentioned was the

> fact, acknowledged in the original report [21], that

> 93% of ADHD subjects had been on chronic stimulant

> therapy and, that the same, treated, cohort was used

> in the second study. No drug-naïve group (not on

> Ritalin, or other stimulants or psychiatric drugs)

> has been shown to have brain atrophy. It can only be

> concluded that their brain atrophy is a function of

> their chronic stimulant therapy—the only physical

> variable.

>

> What does this say about ADHD " science " and

> " scientists? " NIMH, NIH Publication No. 94-3572,

> states: " Brain scan images produced by positron

> emission tomography (PET) shows differences between

> an adult with Attention Deficit Hyperactivity and an

> adult free of the disease. " Nowhere in their

> peer-reviewed literature do we find disavowals of

> their claims of " disease. "

>

> In 1986, Ross [26], a psychiatrist, chided:

>

> …dealing with symptoms or syndromes as if they were

> specific disease reflects a trend in psychiatry to

> regard mental illnesses as biological entities…But

> in this surrealistic world of pseudo-entities, the

> psychiatrist abdicated reality to embrace biological

> reductionism.

>

> In 1990, Pam [27], a psychologist, supposing

> psychiatrists to be naïve, sought to impose

> scientific standards. He wrote:

>

> …any studies that do not meet standards for proper

> research procedures or interpretation of data must

> not be accepted for publication or, if already

> published must be discredited within the

> professional literature…the possibility that that

> emotional experience (love, hate, fear, grief) may

> be physiologically non-specific gets short shrift…If

> each emotion is not physiologically distinctive,

> there can be no biological marker for each type or

> subtype of emotional pathology, and thus most

> current research would be methodologically

> inappropriate…the preponderance of research

> contributed by biological psychiatry up to the

> present is questionable or even invalidated by the

> criticisms just made.

>

> With research and the peer-reviewed scientific

> literature substantially or wholly (as in the case

> of drug-related research) funded by industry—who

> speaks for science? To what extent are scientific

> findings muted? Perverted? Are diseases invented

> where they don’t exist? Treatments? Acknowledgments

> appearing on published articles regarding research

> funding and sponsorship are wholly inadequate.

> Readers have every right to detailed knowledge

> regarding research funding and the researchers, as

> well. Without such information, informed consent is

> not fully informed.

>

> In the Clinical Psychiatric News of December, 1994,

> Houston psychiatrist, Theodore Pearlman wrote:

>

> " I take issue with Dr. Harold Alan Pincus’ (of the

> Committee of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual

> of the American Psychiatric Association) assertion

> that elimination of the term " organic " in the DSM-IV

> has served a useful purpose for psychiatry…Far from

> being of value to psychiatry, the elimination of the

> term " organic " 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. "

>

> Baughman, wrote in the same issue of Clinical

> Psychiatric News (December, 1994):

>

> " The fact that DSM-IV eschews the distinction

> between organic disease and disorders …that are not

> organic, does not mean that treating physicians

> can…to contend that something is a disease when that

> has not been established is to fail to provide the

> patient with information sufficient to make an

> informed decision. "

>

> In a 1995 review of the neuro-imaging literature on

> ADHD, Ernst [28] commented:

>

> " The definition of ADHD has changed over time. This

> change has contributed to the selection of research

> samples with differing clinical characteristics,

> making comparisons among studies difficult…samples

> of children with ADHD who were diagnosed according

> to DSM-III-R (1987) criteria include children who do

> not meet DSM-III (1980) criteria. "

>

> What Ernst pointed out is that the ADD of DSM-III

> (1980), the ADHD of DSM-III-R (1987), and the ADHD

> of DSM-IV (1994) are 3 separate, incomparable

> entities. Moreover, the ADHD of DSM-IV has been

> divided (also by consensus-altered diagnostic

> criteria) into three sub-types: (a)

> hyperactive-impulsive, (b) inattentive, and (c )

> combined—none comparable to the other or, to the ADD

> of DSM-III (1980) or the ADHD of DSM-III-R (1987).

> If the neuro-imaging literature for each is separate

> and incomparable, then the same is true of the

> literature on biochemistry, genetics, epidemiology,

> co-morbidity, psychopharmacology, etc. None are

> comparable, one with the other. Is this science?

>

> In all of medicine, other than psychiatry, there is

> no inventing or conceptualizing of ‘diseases’

> in-committee. Rather, diseases are natural

> occurrences, recognized as

> abnormalities—diseases--by physicians who, in turn,

> find upon review of the literature, that they have

> not been previously described, who then describe

> them. Nor are diseases revised in committee, as is

> regularly done at the American Psychiatric

> Association for consecutive editions of the DSM.

> Rather, new features of established diseases are

> recognized by astute physicians who, in turn, learn

> that the feature is new, hitherto un-described, and

> describe it.

>

> Why do ADHD experts regularly extol the sheer volume

> and longevity of their research record, as if this

> alone, as opposed to particular proofs, were what

> mattered. For example, the Report of the Council on

> Scientific Affairs of the AMA [24] states: " ADHD is

> a childhood neuropsychiatric syndrome that has been

> studied thoroughly over the past 40 years. " ADHD, as

> such, did not appear until the publication of

> DSM-III-R in 1987. Nor have I mentioned it’s many

> pre-DSM-III, 1980, conceptualizations. Consider:

>

> The high frequency of " soft " neurologic findings led

> to designating the condition " minimal brain

> dysfunction " , with the expectation that a consistent

> neurologic lesion or set of lesions would eventually

> be found [29].

>

> Typical of biopsychiatry, " minimal brain

> dysfunction, " circa, 1960-1970, better known by it’s

> acronym, " MBD, " was, itself, re-conceptualized

> before " a consistent neurologic lesion or set of

> lesions " could be found. Nor was it the same or

> comparable, to any subsequent

> conceptualization—another chapter of the research

> record, down the drain.

>

> Writing in the Journal of the American Medical

> Association (JAMA), in 1995, biological psychiatry

> spokesmen, Marzuk and Barchas [30] stated:

>

> Perhaps the most significant conceptual shift (from

> DSM-III-R, 1987, to DSM-IV, 1994) was the

> elimination of the rubric organic mental disorders,

> which had suggested improperly that most psychiatric

> disorders…had no organic basis.

>

> Notice that these authors have assumed, but not

> proven, that " most psychiatric disorders " have an

> organic basis, making it improper for anyone to

> suggest otherwise. They would shift the burden of

> proof to those who doubt and question, hardly in

> keeping with science. What they and the American

> Psychiatric Association (APA), with it’s DSM-IV,

> have done, was to absolve psychiatry of every

> physician’s obligation to make a fundamental,

> patient-by-patient, " organic " / " not organic, "

> " disease " / " no disease " determination. They have

> absolved themselves, and, anyone wishing to join

> them in such diagnosing, of having to demonstrate an

> abnormality—pathology, by way of proving that

> psychiatric " disorders " / " diseases " are actual

> diseases.

>

> In fact, the essential first step in all diagnosis,

> even in the diagnosis of psychiatric disorders, is

> to make the fundamental " Is it a disease or isn’t

> it? " determination. This determination is usually

> made by physicians other than psychiatrists; usually

> by those referring patients to the psychiatrist (or

> psychologist, or other mental health professional).

> What psychiatrists do from that point on, is

> nothing, more or less, than, semantic

> classification, based upon subjective symptoms,

> alone, in patients already-proven to have no

> disease. The absence of organic disease, over time,

> stands as the strongest evidence that a patient’s

> symptoms are psychogenic.

>

> An ad placed by " America’s Pharmaceutical Research

> Companies " in Newsweek, October 7, 1996, read: " A

> chemical that triggers mental illness is now being

> used to stop it. " Here again, is the " big lie. "

> There is no mental illness with a proven chemical

> abnormality. In their scheme of things, however,

> scientific facts are less important, by far, than

> that the public at large become believers in the

> " chemical imbalance " —chemical " balancer " (pill) view

> of mental health. When and in which board-room did

> they meet to adopt their " disease " - " chemical

> imbalance " - " pill " model of all human emotional

> distress?

>

> Biopsychiatry’s researchers are aware that without

> proven diseases, syndromes (in a medical sense)

> genotypes or phenotypes, that the " disease " and

> " control " groups are both physically normal and,

> indistinguishable. They know from the outset that

> their research is destined to prove nothing and to

> remain forever theoretical. (this means that all of

> their biological research on entities known not to

> be biological, i.e., known to have an objective

> abnormality or physical marker, are doomed to prove

> nothing and are fraudulent).

>

> Pam [26] asks:

>

> …how can we account for the tendency to seriously

> compromise research and review standards within a

> medical discipline (all of psychiatry, its governing

> bodies and journals) known for its commitment to the

> scientific method?

>

> …and, ventures an answer:

>

> " The sociology of knowledge developed by Mannheim

> [31] postulates that all intellectual

> systems—science included—are influenced by special

> interest and social considerations; a body of

> information is never unrelated to a

> political-economic context… "

>

> 1998,THE AMA COUNCIL ON SCIENTIFIC AFFAIRS

>

> With no proof that ADHD is a disease with a

> confirmatory, physical abnormality, the ADHD

> " epidemic, " has grown from 150,000 in 1970, to five

> million in 1997; Ritalin production, in the US, rose

> 700%, between 1990 and 1997, and the AMA, Council on

> Scientific Affairs [24] has seen fit to conclude:

> " …there is little evidence of widespread

> overdiagnosis or misdiagnosis of ADHD or of

> widespread overprescription of methylphenidate. "

> Without a confirmatory physical or chemical

> abnormality to make of it a disease, with which to

> diagnose it, child-by-child, how could they possibly

> know whether or not there was " …overdiagnosis or

> misdiagnosis of ADHD or of widespread

> overprescription of methylphenidate " ?

>

> Ten years earlier, in 1989, the same AMA Council on

> Scientific Affairs [32], evaluated " dyslexia, "

> a.k.a. " specific reading disability, " and duly, and

> scientifically, concluded there was no satisfactory

> definition—that it was not a disease. Why, today, in

> 1998, does the Council fail to provide a forthright,

> scientific answer to the same question about ADHD?

> " Is it a disease with a confirmatory physical

> abnormality, or isn’t it? "

>

> What factors have changed which allowed the Council

> to speak forthrightly—scientifically--on the issue

> of " dyslexia " in 1989, but not on ADHD, in 1998

> [24]?

>

> Is industry (pharmaceutical) control of the practice

> of medicine more nearly complete today? How often

> are scientific conclusions, not friendly to the

> " bottom line " published? Quashed?

>

> The AMA and Goldman, et al, authors of the Council

> Report are, no doubt, aware of the influence their

> report will have on the ADHD field in these times of

> continued proselytizing and incredible growth of the

> ADHD/Ritalin/psychotropic drug epidemic and growing

> doubts as to the validity of it all. Is their

> mandate to represent science, or have they sided

> with industry to protect the ADHD " golden goose. " I

> am shocked at their avoidance of the main scientific

> question—the " disease " / " no disease " question.

>

> Armed only with the illusion of a disease, no proof

> that a disease (ADHD) exists, or that the children

> are other than normal, the RECOMMENDATIONS of the

> AMA [24] are:

>

> " The AMA encourages physicians to use standardized

> diagnostic criteria in making the diagnosis of ADHD,

> such as the American Psychiatric Association’s

> DSM-IV… "

> " The AMA encourages the creation and dissemination

> of practice guidelines for ADHD by appropriate

> specialty societies and their use by practicing

> physicians… "

> " The AMA encourages efforts by medical schools,

> residency programs, medical societies, and

> continuing medical education programs to increase

> physician knowledge about ADHD and its treatment. "

> " The AMA encourages the use of individualized

> therapeutic approaches for children diagnosed as

> having ADHD, which may include pharmacotherapy,

> psychoeducation (whatever that is), behavioral

> therapy, etc., etc. "

> " The AMA encourages physicians and medical groups to

> work with schools to improve teachers’ abilities to

> recognize (diagnose?) ADHD and appropriately

> recommend that parents seek medical evaluation… "

> " The AMA reaffirms Policy 100.975, to work with the

> FDA and the DEA to help ensure that appropriate

> amounts of methylphenindate and other Schedule II

> drugs are available for clinically warranted patient

> use. "

> RECOMMENDATIONS (5) and (6) are particularly

> reprehensible. The former (5), further encourages

> the teachers of the nation to make a diagnosis

> leading to the prescription of controlled

> substances—constituting, in my opinion, the practice

> of medicine without a license. The latter (6) pushes

> drugs of addiction, Schedule II drugs, upon a

> population free of any demonstrable physical

> abnormality.

>

> Nor are the editors of the Journal of the American

> Medical Association (JAMA) unaware of the

> fundamental problem concerning ADHD—the need—still,

> for a forthright answer to the " disease " / " no

> disease " question. In a 1993, letter to the editor

> of the JAMA [33], I wrote:

>

> Unlike definite syndromes, such as Klinefelter’s,

> Brown-Sequard, and Down’s, in which there is a

> constancy of symptoms and signs (objective), the

> Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental

> Disorders, Revised, Third Edition allows any

> combination of 8 of 14 behaviors for a diagnosis of

> attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder. Is this

> the validation of a syndrome, or does it redefine

> the term syndrome?…If attention-deficit

> hyperactivity disorder is not a proven syndrome, how

> can cause be inferred? How can therapies be

> evaluated?

>

> In 1995, an article by AJ Zametkin [34], entitled

> Attention-deficit Disorder: Born to Be Hyperactive

> was published in the JAMA. In an letter to the

> editor of JAMA that was rejected, I wrote:

>

> Without a statement that there has never been proof

> that ADHD is a syndrome, a disease, organic or

> biologic, the review by Zametkin is incomplete and

> misleading. Under the heading " Pathophysiology " –as

> if there were a " pathophysiology " —he writes only,

> " the cause of ADHD is unknown. " …The ADHD literature

> reveals that there was never syndrome validation to

> begin with. Is this not a fatal flaw?…Regarding

> ADHD, the " informed consent " should include the

> statement that ADHD has never been proven to be a

> syndrome/disease; biologic/organic.

>

> Upon rejection of my letter, I wrote to JAMA, Senior

> Editor, Margaret A. Winker, MD, September 21, 1995,

> stating:

>

> …I would be especially disappointed if it turns out

> that you do not plan to publish any correspondence

> asking for such clarification…JAMA would not wish to

> be seen as failing to disclose the status of what

> science there is regarding what is commonly referred

> to as ADHD.

>

> Although I was assured that my letter was passed on

> to Zametkin, I never received a reply from him.

> Would JAMA, the AMA, and the AMA Council on

> Scientific Affairs wish to be seen as failing to

> disclose the scientific status of ADHD?

>

> I have sought, unsuccessfully, for 17 years to get a

> straightforward " Yes! " or " No! " answer to the " Is

> ADHD an actual disease or not? " question, from the

> leaders of the ADHD research establishment,

> including, most prominently, Peter S. Jensen, MD, of

> the NIMH in Rockville, MD, and James M. Swanson,

> Ph.D., of the University of California, Irvine (both

> members of the Professional Advisory Board of

> Children and Adults with Attention Deficit

> Disorders-CHADD, as well).

>

> As unthinkable as it may seem, what we are dealing

> with here, is nothing, more or less, than a

> for-profit, invented " disease " and a for-profit

> invented " epidemic, " perhaps the most successful of

> all time, in monetary terms. At the same time it has

> been one of the most diabolical and inhuman, of all

> time, if not, the most diabolical and inhuman.

>

> Psychiatrist, Walter E. Afield,[35], said it best,

> and, most succinctly. He testified before the Select

> Committee on Children, Youth, and Families, House of

> Representative, April 28, 1992, on the psychiatric

> hospital fraud of the 1980’s, as follows:

>

> " …The DSM-III, we’re talking about everyone in this

> room will fit into two or three of the diagnoses…In

> DSM-II, homosexuality was a disease. In III, it’s

> not. In IV, there’ll be some new diseases. Every new

> disease that’s defined gets a new hospital program,

> new admissions, a new system and a way to bilk it,

> and this bilking continues…

>

> THE SEARCH FOR ADHD 1998 TO THE PRESENT?

>

> On April 15, 1998, I wrote to Attorney General Janet

> Reno charging:

>

> " the representation of ADHD as a disease, the

> children as abnormal, and the psychiatric drugging

> of the millions of schoolchildren said to have it,

> was the greatest health care fraud of the century. "

>

> In May 13, 1998, F. Xavier Castellanos of the NIMH

> wrote me:

>

> " I agree we have not yet met the burden of

> demonstrating the specific pathophysiology that we

> believe underlies this condition. " (haven’t found it

> yet)

>

> As the main invited speaker at the November 16-18,

> 1998, NIH, Consensus Conference on ADHD, on the

> subject: " Is ADHD a Valid Disorder? " Professor

> William B. Carey 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 in doubt... "

>

> With no proof with which to counter Carey's

> assertions, the final statement of Consensus

> Conference on ADHD (11/18/98) 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. "

>

> Richard Degrandpre, author of Ritalin Nation, and a

> participant in the Consensus Conference, took a

> stand for science, asserting:

>

> " … it appears that you define disease as a

> maladaptive cluster of characteristics…in the

> history of science and medicine, this would not be a

> valid definition of disease. "

>

> My own, invited, entirely public, Consensus

> Conference, testimony, 11/17/98 (un-rebutted), was:

>

> Without an iota of proof or credible science, the

> National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH) has

> proclaimed the behaviors of ADHD a " disease, " and

> the children " brain-diseased, " " abnormal. " CHADD

> (Children and Adults with Attention Deficit

> Disorders), 35,000-strong, funded by Ciba-Geigy,

> manufacturer of Ritalin, has spread the

> " neuro-biological " lie. The US Department of

> Education, absolving itself of controlling the

> children and rendering them literate, coerces the

> labeling and drugging…ADHD is a total, 100% fraud. "

>

> In the press conference that followed (11/18/98),

> National Public Radio correspondent, Joe Palca

> addressed the Panel:

>

> " What you're telling us is that ADHD is like the

> Supreme Court's definition of pornography, 'You know

> it when you see it.' "

>

> My response to the 1998, Report of the Council on

> Scientific Affairs of the AMA was published in the

> Journal of the American Medical Association, April

> 28, 1999:

>

> " Once children are labeled with ADHD, they are no

> longer treated as normal. Once methylphenidate

> hydrochloride or any psychotropic drug courses

> through their brain and body, they are, for the

> first time, physically, neurologically and

> biologically, abnormal. "

>

> In the January, 2000, Readers Digest, F.X.

> Castellanos summarized a quarter of a century of

> ‘biological’ research on ADHD:

>

> " Incontrovertible evidence is still lacking…In time

> I’m confident we’ll confirm the case for organic

> causes. "

>

> Here, Castellanos speaks of " organic causes " when

> they have yet to confirm ADHD as a disease, a

> syndrome, or anything at all, " organic. " Twenty-five

> years and 6-7 million patients after it’s

> ‘invention,’ and " incontrovertible evidence is still

> lacking! "

>

> More recently still, J.N. Giedd, writing in

> Attention, the magazine of CHADD [March/April, 2000,

> p. 19], confessed:

>

> " …clinical history remains the gold standard of

> AD/HD diagnosis. "

>

> This, of course, means that there are no objective

> abnormalities to be found. This does not deter CHADD

> President, Matthew Cohen, Esq., from continuing to

> insist to the public that ADHD is a ‘neurobiological

> disorder’ when it is neither neurological or

> biological; when children said to have it are

> normal.

>

> ENDLESS MARKET: NORMAL HUMANS--CRADLE TO GRAVE

>

> As if 8-10 million, K-12, on psychiatric drugs were

> not enough, Zito, et al [36] reported a two- to

> three-fold rise of psychiatric diagnosing and

> drugging of normal infants, toddlers and

> preschoolers between 1990 and 1995. We know these

> drugs are addictive, dangerous and even deadly. We

> know that Ritalin and all amphetamines, cause growth

> retardation, brain atrophy, seizures, psychosis,

> tics, and Tourette's syndrome. We know that Cylert,

> yet another stimulant, can kill the liver. We know

> that Canadian officials, but not those in the US,

> have banned it.

>

> RECENT DAMAGES FROM ADHD DRUGS—HEART & BRAIN

>

> I have been consulted in 3 cases in which there

> appear to have been cardiac deaths due to

> Ritalin/amphetamine treatment for ADHD. Stephanie

> Hall, 11, of Canton, Ohio, died in her sleep the day

> she started an increased dose of Ritalin. In March

> 21, 2000, Matthew Smith, 14, of Clawson, Michigan,

> fell from his skateboard, moaned, turned blue and

> died. His myocardium (heart muscle) was diffusely

> scarred, it’s coronary arteries, diffusely narrowed.

> Ritalin was, indisputably, the cause of death. Randy

> Steele, 9, of Bexar, County, Texas, became

> unresponsive and pulseless while being restrained in

> a psychiatric facility. His heart was found to be

> ‘enlarged.’ He had had ADHD and had been on

> Dexedrine; d-amphetamine. Of the 2,993 adverse

> reaction to Ritalin, reported to the FDA, from 1990

> to 1997, there were 160 deaths and 569

> hospitalizations. 126 of these adverse reactions

> were 'cardiovascular.'

>

> Further, the brain damaging potential of Ritalin and

> other of the psychostimulants (most of them

> amphetamines, has become increasingly clear. And

> with this new clarity, a particularly heinous crime

> on the part of ADHD researchers has become clearly

> apparent—the close-held news that these drugs cause

> brain atrophy, that is brain shrinkage. Over the

> past 15 years, psychiatric researchers have

> maintained that the brains of children with ADHD, as

> seen on brain scans, were, on average, 10% smaller

> than those of normal controls. What they have

> withheld from the public as well as their readership

> and professionals that attend their professional

> meetings, is that virtually all of the ADHD subjects

> in these many studies over the past 15 years, had

> been on long-term stimulant treatment and that this

> treatment was the only physical difference between

> the ADHD subjects and the normal controls and the

> only plausible cause of the brain atrophy. Swanson

> failed to acknowledge this role of the drugs in his

> March 6, 1998, address to the American Society of

> Adolescent Psychiatry and Swanson, again, speaking

> for Swanson and Castellanos, failed again to present

> these facts in his address to the ADHD Consensus

> Conference, November 17, 1998. It was left to me to

> ask him about the role of drugs from a microphone in

> the audience. He then confessed there were no brain

> scan studies on record other than those using ADHD

> subjects on drugs.

>

> Sensitive now to being held accountable for what

> they say and write on the issue, Castellanos (NIMH)

> was quoted in the January, 2000 Reader’s Digests as

> saying some critics claim that such brain

> differences in ADHD children might actually be

> caused by Ritalin. To address this, Castellanos has

> now embarked on another study, imaging the brains of

> ADHD youngsters who have not been treated with

> drugs. With 15 years of brain scanning research

> suggesting that the drugs used in millions of

> children are shrinking their brains, and they have

> just, now, decided to look at the brain scans of a

> cohort of children with ADHD before starting the

> drugs.

>

> A study, which will be highlighted at the Society

> for Neuroscience annual meeting in Miami, Florida

> from October 23-28,Yale University researchers have

> found that brief, low-dose, amphetamine use in

> primates caused possibly permanent cognitive

> impairment. Researcher Stacy Castner concluded: " It

> may be the case that even a brief period of low-dose

> amphetamine abuse in early adolescence or early

> adulthood can produce profound cognitive deficits

> that may persist for a couple of years or more after

> amphetamine use has ended. " Yet, the researchers

> observe, Ritalin (generally identical to

> amphetamines) is being prescribed to millions of

> children--including toddlers--who have been loosely

> " diagnosed " with ADHD.

>

> Whether ‘loosely’ diagnosed or not, the bottom line

> is that ADHD simply does not exist—the children are

> normal! At least they were until the amphetamines

> were started.

>

> THE MARKETPLACE STRATEGY OF BIOLOGICAL PSYCHIATRY

>

> Present-day biological psychiatrists speak to one

> another, the public and to their patients as though

> all emotional and behavioral pains were

> diseases--chemical imbalances. This nomenclature

> serves no scientific or Hippocratic-healing purpose.

> It serves only to gain their acceptance of

> one-dimensional, drug treatment. It makes ‘patients’

> of normal persons and serves only the profit motive.

> In every single case, as well as in virtually all of

> their drug, electroshock, and psychosurgical

> research, they intentionally violate the informed

> consent rights of the patient. Quite simply, there

> is no disease on the risk side of the risk/benefit

> equation in psychiatry. Instead, there are normal,

> troubled, pained, educable, remediable, adaptable,

> human beings--human beings who, if treated

> appropriately, have the potential to improve, to

> prevail, and to lead happy, normal, productive

> lives.

>

> Until such time as the diagnosis of a disease has

> been objectively confirmed, a physician has no right

> to proceed with any treatment, which is, itself, a

> source of risk.

>

> I would not be justified in starting insulin for

> diabetes, based only on history, without

> confirmatory, elevated, blood sugar levels in hand.

> I would not be justified in surgically removing a

> breast based upon the naked eye appearance of a

> tumor, without microscopic confirmation of the

> presence of a cancer.

>

> Psychiatrists speak to their patients as though

> their emotional and behavioral problems were

> ‘diseases.’ They do so to gain patient acceptance of

> drug treatment, when this, and this alone, is in the

> best financial interest of both, psychiatrists, and

> their pharmaceutical industry partners.

>

> A week ago I got a letter from Frank Heutehaus of

> Don Mills, Ontario, a father-of -divorce, whose son

> is on Ritalin. He enclosed the Toronto Sun article

> on the death of Matthew Smith and in his post-script

> added. " In regards to my case, I am entertaining the

> prospect of bringing criminal charges of assault and

> battery against some of the doctors who claimed my

> son had a disease that doesn't exist. "

>

> Such ‘biological’ psychiatrists, violate the

> informed consent rights of their every patient. This

> is medical malpractice. Their is no scientific,

> medical or moral justification for their

> pseudo-biological diagnosing or, for the drugging

> that invariably follows.

>

> On May, 25,2000, I [37 ] wrote to the JF Lucey,

> Editor of the journal Pediatrics, stating:

>

> (your) Clinical Practice Guideline 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, physical

> or chemical abnormality of the brain (or anywhere

> else in the body) has been found…With no evidence

> that ADHD is a disease, where has the notion come

> from that it is a disease? …It has become apparent

> that virtually all professionals who are part 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.

>

> We cannot but conclude that medicine, once a healing

> mission, is now an enterprise.

>

> BIOLOGICAL RESEARCH INTO THINGS NON-BIOLOGICAL

>

> A closing word about our own National Institute of

> Mental Health and their dedication to a program of

> biological research into things emotional and

> behavioral that are biologically indistinct. Ross

> [26] and Pam [27] put it most succinctly.

>

> Ross [26], a psychiatrist, chided:

>

> …dealing with symptoms or syndromes as if they were

> specific disease reflects a trend in psychiatry to

> regard mental illnesses as biological entities…But

> in this surrealistic world of pseudo-entities, the

> psychiatrist abdicated reality to embrace biological

> reductionism.

>

> Pursued as medical practice, is this not fraud?

>

> Pam [27] wrote:

>

> …any studies that do not meet standards for proper

> research procedures (doing biological studies on

> biologically indistinct entities) or interpretation

> of data must not be accepted for publication or, if

> already published must be discredited within the

> professional literature…the possibility that that

> emotional experience (love, hate, fear, grief) may

> be physiologically non-specific gets short shrift…If

> each emotion is not physiologically distinctive,

> there can be no biological marker for each type or

> subtype of emotional pathology, and thus most

> current research would be methodologically

> inappropriate…the preponderance of research

> contributed by biological psychiatry up to the

> present is questionable or even invalidated by the

> criticisms just made.

>

> Consider the recent mission statement of Stephen E.

> Hyman, Director of the NIMH, in relation to the

> above statements of Ross and Pam.

>

> In the December 22/29, 1999 Journal of the American

> Medical Association [JAMA. 1999;282:2290], we find

> the musings of heads of the constituent institutes

> of the National Institutes of Health, as to what the

> future protends for their disciplines.

>

> Targeting the year 2020, Steven E. Hyman, MD,

> Director of the NIMH states, remarkably enough:

>

> By 2020 it will be a truth, obvious to all, that

> mental illnesses are brain diseases that result from

> complex gene-environment interactions. We will be

> reaping the therapeutic benefits that accrue from

> the discovery of risk genes for autism,

> schizophrenia, manic depressive illness, and other

> serious mental disorders.

>

> We will also routinely analyze real-time movies of

> brain activity derived from functional magnetic

> resonance imaging, optical imaging, or their

> successor technologies, working together with

> magnetoencephalography or its successor technology.

> In these movies, we will see the activity of

> distributed neural circuits during diverse examples

> of normal cognition and emotion; we will see how

> things go wrong in mental illness; and we will see

> normalization with our improved treatments.

>

> Amazingly, not a single mental, emotional or

> behavioral disorder has been validated as a disease

> or a medical syndrome with a confirmatory physical

> or chemical abnormality or marker within the brain

> or body. Furthermore, Hyman knows this. And yet the

> NIMH and all in academic psychiatry and mental

> health regularly represent all of the " serious

> mental disorders " as though they were, and would

> have the public, the legislature, and the judiciary

> believe that they are.

>

> Further, with not a one psychiatric entity having a

> confirmatory physical abnormality or marker or any

> prospect that any technology will validate a one as

> a disease, Director Hyman pledges the application

> from decade to decade of every evolving technology

> to confirm his/biological psychiatry’s belief that

> " mental illnesses are brain diseases " . Observe his

> use of the term " normalization " establishing,

> etymologically at least, that those with mental

> illnesses are abnormal.

>

> Because psychiatric disorders are

> biologically/physically

> indistinct--biological/physical research, no matter

> how long or expensively pursued, or how

> sophisticated the technology applied, is doomed to

> prove nothing. I suspect that Dr. Hyman and all at

> the NIMH know this. Might it be pure fraud?. Might

> the only purpose of such research be to establish a

> ‘medical’/biological’ literature, and, illusions of

> biology, neurology and disease, where nonesuch

> exist. Without illusions of disease there would only

> be normal children, no patients.

>

> Why else would Pam [27]have written:

>

> If each emotion is not physiologically distinctive,

> there can be no biological marker for each type or

> subtype of emotional pathology, and thus most

> current research would be methodologically

> inappropriate…the preponderance of research

> contributed by biological psychiatry up to the

> present is questionable or even invalidated by the

> criticisms just made.

>

> One final point. Billions upon billions has been

> spent on NIH/NIMH sanctioned biological psychiatry

> research, funded not just with pharmaceutical

> industry millions but with the hard-earned tax

> dollars of US citizens. Is there any legitimacy to

> biological research in psychiatry or is it entirely

> fraudulent—a deception of the people funded with

> their very own tax.

>

> Bibliography—HISTORY OF THE FRAUD OF BIOLOGICAL

> PSYCHIATRY

>

> Baughman, F.A. To Many Doctors, to Little Control.

> San Diego Union-Tribune, May 29, 1996.

> In Bed Together at the Market. Dumont, M.P. Am. J.

> Orthopsychiat, 60 (4), October 1990.

> Federal Involvement in the Use of Behavior

> Modification Drugs on Grammar School Children of the

> Right to Privacy Inquiry—Hearing before the

> Subcommittee of the Committee on Government

> Operations, House of Representatives, 91st Congress,

> 2nd Session, September 29, 1970

> The Deception of Biopsychiatry (unpublished),

> Baughman, F.A., October 3, 1996.