Microsoft word - 154542.doc

Dr. Baughman: It's only gotten worse, since the book was published in '06. It just
continues to get worse, as more and more children, and more and more civilians, layman
throughout the nation and, in fact, the world, are being deceived and made to think that
they should be taking these things. It all comes about very simply, very basically, through
the disease lie.
David Cutler: Can you explain that a bit more? I know you go into quite a bit of detail
in your book. Just for listeners.
Dr. Baughman: Sure. This is so difficult for the non-physician to understand, because
here they are confronted as a patient with their child, by a man in a white coat, be it a
psychiatrist, a neurologist or a pediatrician. That person tells them that these symptoms,
being inattentive, hyper-active and so on, constitute a disease, a brain disease. They
simply are not armed to critique that pronouncement. So they accept it. If you accept that
you've got disease X, Y or Z, you're primed to accept that a medical solution is required,
that just talk therapy alone does not make sense. What happened, what changed this?
Where did these diseases or invented diseases come from? 1950 or thereabouts, we had
the appearance of the anti-psychotic drug, chlorpromazine or thorazine, the first
anti-psychotic. Somewhere around that time, some time just after 1950 or through the
fifties, psychiatry and the pharmaceutical industry apparently got together and hatched a
market plan. They said, "We'll call Schizophrenia a disease."
Then soon after chlorpromazine, there came meprobamade or Equanil, which was a minor tranquilizer. And then Librium, the forerunner of Valium. And so on. They were synthesizing and bringing to market more psychoactive drugs. This led to their further commitment to call all of their emotional and behavioral diagnoses actual diseases, and to tell their patients and the public that these were diseases, more specifically, that they were chemical imbalances of the brain. That led to the first big step regarding ADHD, in 1970, when there was a most important Congressional hearing. At that hearing they referred to what we call ADHD today, they called Hyper Kinetic Disorder, HKD. They said that because HKD required a doctor to diagnose it, it was a disease. They had all quite a variety of psychoactive drugs available to treat it with, at the time. Including Ritalin, Amphetamine and Dexamphetamine. As you may be aware, the HKD became minimal brain damage, minimal brain dysfunction. Then, in 1980, it became Attention Deficit Disorder, ADD. Then in '87, ADHD and so on. It's a complete, total, 100 percent lie that these are diseases. These are physically normal children, physically normal adults. No psychiatric diagnosis, not even schizophrenia is an actual disease. It's that simple and that unimaginable. That not just psychiatry, but the entire medical profession could, so naturally, for the sake of profit, fall into lockstep and inflict this fraud upon the public. That's exactly what has happened and what is happening. David Cutler: The first thing I'm wondering is this. If it's not a disease, ADHD,
schizophrenia, AKD, whatever the case may be, I'm sure you've been asked this as well,
do you think it's important or relevant to treat symptoms? Regardless of whether or not
it's a disease.
Dr. Baughman: No, I don't think that. If there is no disease, which means a physical
abnormality. In medicine, in Diabetes, for example, we know the blood sugar is
measurably too high. We know the insulin levels needed to depress the blood sugar and
needed to force sugar into cells where it can be metabolized and utilized to create energy
sources. We know that if we give insulin or give an oral hypoglycemic agent, it's making
an abnormality more nearly normal. There is an actual, physical rationale for it. In cancer,
we give chemotherapeutic agents, which we know to attack the most rapidly growing
cells, the cancer cells. They have a lesser effect on normal, slower growing cells. So there
is a physical rationale for giving the chemotherapeutic agents. And likewise, in the
treatment of epilepsy, we know that putting the epileptic, the anti-convulsant drug on the
surface of a damaged neuron that is firing excessively - and we can measure these things
in a laboratory and model them.
We can also see the electroencephalogram in normal patient go from abnormal with seizure discharges to normal, under the influence of an effective anti-convulsant drug. In medicine, the rationale is that you identify and define a physical abnormality. Then you give an agent which you have proven has a beneficial effect on that physical abnormality, to make it normal or more nearly normal. We don't just treat symptoms anymore. Symptoms are entirely Dr. Baughmanive. "I feel lousy. I feel depressed." That was the nature of medicine, back in the 1800s, 1700s, it was all treatment of symptoms. Giving drugs to people with a variety of changeable symptoms really has no scientific rationale whatsoever. David Cutler: Sorry, please.
Dr. Baughman: It invariably causes harm. Every exogenous chemical you put in your
body is a poison which in time is going to cause manifest damage. It's just, when you
have the Dr. Baughmanive symptoms that psychiatry today calls mental illness, and you
have a normal brain, which all patients with only a mental illness have a normal brain.
That means they are maximally adaptable, that they can learn, that they can educate
themselves. That they can bring their normal brain to bear to overcome their emotional
and behavioral problems.
If they are helped by reason to do that, that's their best chance at becoming an effective, functional individual. David Cutler: If you were to, let's say, do an MRI of someone that has a 'normal brain'
with no psychiatric disorders, however defined, versus someone who is diagnosed,
whether or not you agree with the diagnosis, ADHD or any other type of psychiatric
disorder. You can't tell that based solely on an MRI? That means there are no differences
between.
Dr. Baughman: No, no, absolutely not. The psychiatry is using scans in a lot of ways.
They are using mainly functional imaging to show that here's a child who's hyperactive,
and if you use various kinds of functional scans, functional EEGs, functional PET scans,
functional SPPEC scans, single photon positron emission scans. There are lots of scans
that are applied, and the pictures that they give are then said to be diagnostic of a disease,
but they aren't. They are just correlates, they correlate in the instance of a child who, at
the moment, is feeling anxious let's say.
You end up with a correlation, but you never define a disease. A disease is defined by some clear physical abnormality on an examination. Something like the paralysis of the right arm and leg in a person who's had a stroke, or a right [indecipherable 13:48] visual field defect. Those things, those are gross physical abnormalities. That says there is disease. If you don't have those things, then you do a biopsy from a skin lesion, a skin abnormality, or a biopsy from a tumor that you've opened the individual and you see the tumor, which is the gross abnormality. You biopsy it, you get a microscopic diagnosis. Or you get a chemical abnormality, as in diabetes or physical or phenolketonuria or galctosemia. There are well over 100 real, genetically caused so-called inborn errors of metabolism. These are real, and there are whole books written about the inborn errors of metabolism. Not a single one of psychiatry's diseases or so-called chemical imbalances has ever been proven to be an actual disease. David Cutler: By actual science?
Dr. Baughman: By actual science, or by demonstrable on physical exam, or by
microscopy or by chemical test. None. It's really a willful, ongoing fraud, and they know
it.
David Cutler: Do you think that psychiatry is malicious, they're purposefully engaging?
Dr. Baughman: Oh yes, yes, no question. The amounts of money that flow from the
pharmaceutical industry to psychiatry are massive billions over the years.
David Cutler: Is there any instance in which you might say that, whether it be anything
from Zoloft to Prozac to an anti-psychotic, might be useful or might be helpful? Or in all
instances?
Dr. Baughman: None of them. While Zoloft and Prozac and Paxil are called
anti-depressants, that's like saying they're anti-convulsants. The difference being that
convulsions are real and visible and can be objectively confirmed. There's a rationale for
giving such a drug in patients with epilepsy and convulsions. In depression, depression is
a normal state of being. Everyone, not a soul is born and dies without having been
depressed, more or less, for great numbers of aggregate days of their life.
Then you give an anti-depressant, and that very term suggests that that chemical you're giving is specific for a disease called depression, when all it is is an exogenous chemical being put into the body of a normal person. The only physical factor seen, there is no physical abnormality to begin with, but the moment the ingestion starts, or the moment that drug circulates through the body and brain, it is causing malfunction, it is causing damage. The higher the dose, the longer the dosing, the more actual, physical signs that are going to appear. Not just symptoms but signs. Every drug is actually a poison, every drug is an exogenous chemical. It's not anything the body itself produces. In time, every chemical is going to cause damage. In the case of insulin, we are using it in a rational way, because we can monitor insulin and sugar levels as we give the dose. But nonetheless, insulin given to you or I, who don't have diabetes, presumably. David Cutler: Yeah, I don't.
Dr. Baughman: .can depress our blood sugar, cause coma and cause death.
Anti-mytotic or anti-cancer agents are very definitely potent poisons. They have to be
used very cautiously, with a great background of knowledge, based on a confirmed
diagnosis of a cancer somewhere.
David Cutler: I wanted to ask you, in school you talk about a lot of the times when
children are diagnosed, or in the process of being diagnosed. It derives from
schoolteachers saying that kids can't sit still or they can't pay attention. Or they're
misbehaving in whatever way kids might misbehave. They go through it and get Ritalin
or some kind of drug. Instead of doing that, instead of getting a drug to make the kid
more docile, which in the long run, as you've shown in your book, can actually be
harmful, or is harmful, what are other ways in which parents can deal with this? Or how
can schools deal with this, without resorting to drugs?
Dr. Baughman: What you've got to realize is that this did not always exist. I went to
PS20, in Flushing, Long Island, New York, when I was a kid. From fourth or fifth grade,
on through eighth grade. Then I went to public high school, Bayside High School. There
was no such diagnosis and there were no such kids. No one was pulled out of class and
sent and said, "You're being hyper-active and inattentive," and so on. We did not have a
core of teachers in that era that were medically indoctrinated. The entire population,
today, is medically indoctrinated. Not just teachers, but parents and so on. They have no
idea what normal child rearing is, because of this propaganda campaign that would create
diseases out of virtually everything. It's not that we didn't have problems. I myself was
probably what my parents would have called a handful.
But usually, the teachers dealt with discipline problems real time, in their class, on the spot. With the occasional problem wanting a report from the teacher to the principal and a slip that would go home from principal to parent. Nothing beyond that was required. This was before the days of school psychologists and school counselors, all of whom are diagnosis and psychiatric oriented. It just did not exist. It was subsequently created. David Cutler: Couldn't it also be though, that maybe some kids aren't meant to sit still
for prolonged periods?
Dr. Baughman: Oh yeah. I've heard tales about Catholic schools where nuns were
exceedingly harsh and intolerant of anything, any movement, any disorder whatsoever.
But in general, as I think back on the teachers I had in grade school, and I remember them
well and fondly, we were all taught how to read. There weren't the rates of kids coming
out of elementary school unable to read, having been confronted with the barrier of whole
language, whole word and so on. Teachers just used common sense. That was part of
being a good teacher. They controlled the rooms. They didn't expel. They didn't send kids
willy-nilly down the hall to the principal's office and so on. As I look back, I can
remember the one time that Mrs. O'Grady sent me to the principal, Mrs. Parker. A note
went home and Dad came in. That was the one and only time. The whole endeavor of
parenting has been turned on its ear by this psychiatric propaganda campaign to disease
everything, simply everything.
David Cutler: Obviously, your book is geared towards adults, teaches and so on. But if
you had to tell kids something, what would your message be to kids that are taking
drugs? If you could tell a kid about your book, would you? How would you tell your
message to a kid that's taking one of these?
Dr. Baughman: I'd tell him what I have been telling you. I had enumerable kids, in the
hundreds, in my practice over the years. I never drugged any of them. I always took a
firm stand with the parents. I'd say, "This that's going on in the schools is not real. It's not
true. I don't find anything whatsoever wrong with your child." I do this with the child
sitting in the room. I talk to the child, as well as to the parents. There were some, I assure
you, who rejected what I had to say. I would say, "Then you have to get another opinion.
You don't agree with my opinion, you'll have to get another opinion." But there is no
proof. I would do my level best, in the time that I had, to convince them that this was not
factual, that it was fraudulent. And never used other words.
David Cutler: You go as far as to say that it could be child abuse?
Dr. Baughman: Yes. I say and write that regularly. I was just asked to be an expert in a
case from Bakersfield, California. An eight year old Hispanic boy had been on Vyvanse,
which is a transdermal patch delivery system for an amphetamine. This child was on this
transdermal patch for a couple of weeks when his mother found him dead in their
bathroom. Dead. This is part of the bigger tragedy of the failure of the medical profession
in the United States.
David Cutler: It sounds like you're angry, though. In your book, your emotions are
searing. Through all the facts and data that you give, it seems that you're genuinely angry
about this trend. I imagine that it's only increased since then.
Dr. Baughman: I am angry about it. It's a deception and a betrayal. At the same time, it
is make-work. Here you're taking countless. There was a 2010 survey, done by folks at
Northwestern University, that put the number of kids diagnosed ADHD at 10.4 million.
There was a more recent, I think last year, estimate from the Centers for Disease Control,
that put it at 6.9 million, I think. The establishment is so embarrassed at the numbers that they wanted the CDC lower number of 6 point something million. But think of making patients, full time patients. They come in, they get a disease label, and then they need medication checks three times a year, something like that. Here, we in the States, are spending 100 percent more for our medical care than any other country. And people with real, actual illnesses are not able to access the system. These invented diseases, this make-work is pure deception and pure fraud. It is running the entire health care delivery system in the United States.

Source: http://www.spinedu.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/ADHD-Fraud.pdf