THE EMPEROR HAS NO CLOTHES
No Disease, No Treatment, only Drugging, Poisoning
by Fred A. Baughman Jr., M.D.

12/31/00 

[The august, scientific journal/publication SCIENCE (CLINICAL TRIALS: "Planned Ritalin Trial for Tots Heads Into Uncharted Waters."  Science, November 17, 2000; 1280-1282, by Eliot Marshall) recently commented uponna research proposal authored by the National Institute of Mental Health to recruit and treat 3 - 6 year old children for ADHD.  What follows are some thoughts on this article and the underlying issues.]

The National Institute of Mental Health has begun funding clinical trials to determine "...whether a popular but controversial drug is safe
and effective for preschool children...".  The Preschool ADHD Treatment Study (PATS) would broadly enlist preschoolers to establish the best dose of Ritalin for children between 3 and 6 years of age.  Ritalin is one of the 10 most widely prescribed products used for children without FDA approval.

SCIENCE, like other peer-reviewed scientific and medical journals over the past 20 - 25 years, speaks of this research as 'controversial'. However, SCIENCE does not identify the primary source of controversy: that ADHD-invented in-committee at the American Psychiatric Association, has never been an actual disease.

In other words, the "disease" being treated is the equivalent of the Emperor's New Clothes.

However, the children's fable of the emperor and his imaginary newclothes, which exist only through fear of disagreeing with the majority opinion, is far more benign. The following points must be considered for an honest and thorough assessment of the real issues behind the PATS study:

· Invalid diagnostic criteria for ADHD:  Pediatrician William B. Carey (Philadelphia Children's Hospital) testified at the November 16-18, 1998, NIH, Consensus Conference: " What is now most often described as ADHD in the United States appears to be a set of normal behavioral variations [emphasis added]. This discrepancy leaves the validity of the construct in doubt." Dr. Carey's statement was not an expression simply of his own belief; it illustrates the fact that nowhere in the scientific literature of the world has there been proof of a confirmatory, characteristic, physical or chemical abnormality to validate ADHD as a disease.

· Informed consent vs. hidden long-term damage:  Young children clearly cannot give informed consent to be treated with any drug.  Consequently,
informed consent for the study will be sought from the parents. However, parents cannot give truly informed consent either, so long as they have been persuaded that ADHD is a disease caused by an abnormality within their child's brain, when in fact no objective abnormality can be identified. Nor can they give informed consent when they are not told of the 14 years of brain scanning research documenting  on-average 10% brain atrophy in ADHD subjects, virtually all of whom were taking Ritalin.  Such atrophy has not been found in children who have not taken Ritalin.

SCIENCE magazine legitimately questions whether "...psychoactive drugs might affect the development of visual processing, language, motor skills, and memory of young children."  Given the established speculative nature of ADHD diagnosis, what informed parent would expose their child's normal, vulnerable, developing brain to permanent drug damage?

· Dramatic escalation in child psychiatric drug prescriptions:  The Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) reported that the use
of psychoactive medicines by children ages 2 to 4 tripled from 1991 to 1995.  Ritalin is at the top of the list, according to insurance and Medicaid figures compiled by epidemiologist Julie Zito (University of Maryland, Baltimore).  SCIENCE states that as many as 150,000 to 200,000 US children in this age group may now be taking Ritalin.

One must be either very innocent or very gullible to ignore the potential motivations and conflicts of interest in opening a new patient market to a pharmaceutical product. Any thorough assessment of the burgeoning ADHD industry must include an exploration of the biases and funding of the involved spokesmen, researchers and authorities.

Virtually every US journal in psychiatry, neurology, pediatrics, general and family practice has referred to ADHD as a proven neurological/biological disease.  Some may assume that these references prove that ADHD is a disease, but these same journals omit mentioning the lack of any objective means of validating its diagnosis.  Creation of a disease by official agreement rather than scientific research and fact has brought about an apparent ADHD epidemic, fostering its escalating diagnosis and intimidating parents into accepting drug treatment for their children.

A disease does not exist simply because the someone says it does, no matter how many journal articles or prescriptions can be written as a result. This emperor has no clothes and it's time to expose the naked lies behind the false ADHD diagnosis and resulting drug abuse of our nation's children.

If ADHD is not a disease, children, said to have it-regardless of age--are normal.  If the children are normal, there is no such thing as legitimate, medical, treatment, there is only the drugging and poisoning, of normal children.  And this is illegitimate, illegal, and criminal.  We must keep our definitions straight.

The PATS study must not be allowed to go forward.  It is not legitimate, legal, medical treatment or research.  It is marketing deception in the name of research.  It is the victimization, by a branch of the US federal government-the National Institute of Mental Health--of normal, preschool, children--and it is criminal.