HISTORY OF THE FRAUD OF BIOLOGICAL PSYCHIATRY
Part Two
By Fred A. Baughman Jr., MD © July 19, 2000
[continued from prior post]
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 over diagnosis or misdiagnosis of ADHD or of widespread over prescription 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 “…over diagnosis or misdiagnosis of ADHD or of widespread over prescription 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:
1. “The AMA encourages physicians to use standardized diagnostic criteria in making the diagnosis of ADHD, such as the American Psychiatric Association’s DSM-IV…”
2. “The AMA encourages the creation and dissemination of practice guidelines for ADHD by appropriate specialty societies and their use by practicing physicians…”
3. “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.”
4. “The AMA encourages the use of individualized therapeutic approaches for children diagnosed as having ADHD, which may include pharmacotherapy, psycho education (whatever that is), behavioral therapy, etc., etc.”
5. “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…”
6. “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 a 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 nor 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 reactions 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. There 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 portends 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 magneto encephalography 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
1. Baughman, F.A. To Many Doctors, to Little Control. San Diego Union-Tribune, May 29, 1996.
2. In Bed Together at the Market. Dumont, M.P. Am. J. Orthopsychiat, 60 (4), October 1990.
3. 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
4. The Deception of Biopsychiatry (unpublished), Baughman, F.A., October 3, 1996.
5. American Psychiatric Association. Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 3rd edition-revised (DSM-III-R). Washington, DC. 1987.
6. American Psychiatric Association. Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 4th edition. Washington, DC. 1994.
7. American Psychiatric Association. Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM). Washington, DC. 1952
8. American Psychiatric Association. Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 2nd edition (DSM-II). Washington, DC. 1968.
9. American Psychiatric Association. Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders, 3rd edition. Washington: American Psychiatric Association, 1980.
10. Baughman FA. CHANDS: the curly hair-ankyloblepharon-nail dysplasia syndrome. Birth Defects: Original Article Series. 1971;7:100-102.
11. Toriello HV, Lindstrom JA, Waterman, DF, Baughman FA. Re-evaluation of CHANDS. Journal of Medical Genetics. 1979;16:316-317.
12. Turcot J, Despres JP, St. Pierre F. Malignant tumors of central nervous system associated with familial polyposis of the colon: report of two cases. Dis Colon Rectum. 1959;2:465-468.
13. Baughman FA, List CF, Williams JR, Muldoon JP, Segarra JM, Volkel JS. The Glioma-Polyposis Syndrome. N Engl J Med. 1969;281:1345-1346.
14. Baughman FA. Testimony to the Panel on NIH Research on Antisocial, Aggressive, and Violence-Related Behaviors and their Consequences, September 23, 1993.
15. Donald W. Goodwin, MD. Is Alcoholism Hereditary? Ballantine Books, 1988.
16. Kety SS, Matthysse S. The New Harvard Guide to Psychiatry. Harvard University Press, p. 148, 1988.
17. Congress Office of Technology Assessment. The Biology of Mental Disorders, US Government Printing Office, 1992, pp13-14, 46-47.
18. Report of the International Narcotics Control Board, 1995, p.28.
19. Conners CK. Is ADHD a disease? Journal of Attention Disorders. 1997;2:3-17.
20. 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.
21. 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.
22. Castellanos FX, et al. Cerebellum in attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder. Neurology. 1998; 50:1087-1093.
23. 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.
24. Goldman LS, Genel M, Bezman RJ, Slanetz PJ, for the Council on Scientific Affairs, American Medical Association. JAMA. 1998; 279:1100-1107.
25. Barkley RA. Attention-Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder. Scientific American. September, 1998:66-71.
26. Ross, C. Biological Tests for Mental Illness—Their Use and Misuse. Biological Psychiatry, 1986, 21:431-435 (editorial).
27. Pam A. A critique of the scientific status of biological psychiatry. Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica. 1990;82 (Supplement 362):1-35.
28. Ernst M. Neuroimaging in Attention-Deficit /Hyperactivity Disorder (p. 95-117). In Nadeau, KG (ed), A Comprehensive Guide to Attention Deficit Disorder in Adults. Brunner and Mazel, Inc. New York. 1995.
29. Clements SD, Peters JE. Minimal brain dysfunction in the school-aged child: diagnosis and treatment. Arch Gen Psychiatry. 1962;6:185-190.
30. Marzuk PM, Barchas JD. Psychiatry. In Contempo,1995. JAMA. 1995; 273:1715-1716.
31. Mannheim K. Ideology and Utopia. N.Y.; Harvest, 1936 (originally published in German, 1929).
32. Council of Scientific Affairs of the American Medical Association. Dyslexia. JAMA. 1989;261:2235.
33. Baughman FA. Treatment of attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder. JAMA. 1993;269:2368 (letter).
34. Zametkin AJ. Attention-deficit disorder: born to be hyperactive? JAMA. 1995;273:1871-1874.
35. Afield WE. The Profits of Misery: How Inpatient Psychiatric Treatment Bilks the System and Betrays Our Trust. Hearing before the Select Committee on Children, Youth, and Families, House of Representatives, Washington, DC, April 28, 1992.
36. Zito J, et al. February 23, 2000, Journal of the American Medical Association.
37. Letter to Jerold F. Lucey, MD, Editor, PEDIATRICS, May 25, 2000, Re: Clinical Practice Guideline: Diagnosis and Evaluation of the Child with Attention-Deficit/Hyperactiviity Disorder. Committee on Quality Improvement, Subcommittee on Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder. PEDIATRICS. 2000;105:1158- |
