Holland Court Rules ADHD not a Disease
Holland Advertisement Code Commission: ADHD not a Disease
The simple elegance of the decision of the Advertisement Code Commission
(Holland) in the case: Nederlands Comite voor de Rechten van de Mens (CCHR) vs.
the Brain Foundation Netherlands, defendant, is not to be missed. It appears to
me that this is the first such determination by a national government concerning
the fraudulent representation of a psychiatric diagnosis as a physical/medical
disease within normal children and adults. It is a model by which past and
future victims of biological psychiatry in all countries can, and must, rise up,
challenge and destroy the fraud of "biological" psychiatry--that which would
drug us all, by government order if that's what it takes.
The plaintiffs deserve our congratulations---Fred A. Baughman Jr., MD, September
6, 2002 .
[What follows is the English translation with my comments
[within]].
Dossier 02.0249
Decision of the Advertisement Code Commission (Chamber II)
In the case: Nederland Comite voor de Rechten van de Mens (CCHR), domiciled in
Amsterdam, plaintiff.: The Brain Foundation Netherlands, domiciled in the Hague,
defendant.
1. Procedure
Plaintiff filed a complaint against an advertisement of the defendant, on the
24th of April, 2002. Defendant did respond to the complaint in the letter of the
21st of May, 2002.
Plaintiff filed her reply on the 19th of June 2002. The defendant did the same
on the 1st of July 2002.
The Advertisement Code Commission (after this the Commission) held a hearing
about the complaint on the 4th of July 2002.
For the plaintiff appeared Mrs. H. Teunisse-Bruinsma and Mr. E. van Ede.
For the defendant appeared Mr. A. Ederveen and his wife and Mrs. Ir.H.A.M. van
Nies.
2. The text under discussion
The defendant stated in the attached advertisement, among other, that ADHD
(attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder, is an "inborn (genetic/inherited)
brain dysfunction."
3. The complaint
Defendant states that ADHD is an inborn brain dysfunction though the cause of
ADHD is not scientifically proven yet. The defendant gives a wrong and
misleading representation of the facts, this is in conflict with articles 5,7,
and 15 of the Dutch Advertisement Code (NRC).
[Baughman: In fact ADHD has never been shown to be other than
normal, if troublesome, behaviors in normal children/persons. No physical
abnormality or dysfunction has been discovered and reported in the
medical/scientific literature. Speaking of it cause/etiology being yet unknown
is a common semantic strategy within "biological" psychiatry, meant to distract
from the fact that no abnormality = disease is known to exist. Nor has any
wholly psychiatric diagnosis/entity been validated as an organic disease or
dysfunction, the reason being, that all are arbitrarily grouped behaviors
decided upon in committee at the American Psychiatric Association. The history
within the medical/scientific literature of any real medical disease begins with
the discovery and description of the objective organic/physical abnormality that
is, itself, the disease]
4. The defense
First the defendant states that this text is not an advertisement as meant in
the Dutch Advertisement Code. Defendant is a charitable organization which
stimulates scientific research and gives information, it has no commercial
activities, the people who support the Brain Foundation get nothing in return.
[Baughman: Just a CHADD, NAMI and every existing psychiatric
"disease" foundation in existence in the US today.]
In respected international and national medical professional literature the view
of the cause of ADHD of the scientific world is discussed. Defendant present
five articles. She states that there is no conflict with the Dutch Advertisement
Code.
[Baughman: It is likely the those representing the defendant are
themselves deceived as to the true, fraudulent nature of ADHD. I would be happy
to review the 5 articles submitted as proof. Nowhere in the medical/scientific
literature of the world is there proof that a single psychiatric "disease," ADHD
included, is an actual organic/physical abnormality = disease. With no existing
abnormality/disease, there can, of course be no cause/etiology or place/reason
for conjecture about cause/etiology. And yet, throughout both the research and
practice of psychiatry and medicine, all psychiatric diagnoses/conditions are
represented in just this way--as if they were brain
dysfunctions/disorders/diseases/abnormalities. This means that throughout
psychiatric/mental health research and practice, this--the "disease" lie is
pivotal, abrogating the right to informed consent--universally. This is what
they do to make "patients" and "research subjects" of normals]
5. The hearing
Both parties kept to their statements and explained them further.
6. The Judgment of the Commission
As the defendant tries to raise funds with this advertisement, there are favors
asked and thereby it is an advertisement as mentioned in Article 1 of the Dutch
Advertisement Code.
The Defendant states in her statement that ADHD is an inborn brain dysfunction
and can rely on the result of scientific research and scientific articles about
the cause of ADHD. The information that the defendant presented does not provide
sufficient grounds for the definite statement that ADHD is an inborn brain
dysfunction.
[Baughman: Either such has been proved and with such proof in
print within the medical/scientific literature of the world or it is, as yet,
not established that ADHD is (1) an "inborn brain dysfunction" or (2) a "brain
dysfunction" / disease / abnormality at all.].
"While searching for the cause of ADHD, the different research projects give
different possibilities."
[Baughman: The Commission does not make note of the fact, that
more fundamental than cause/etiology, ADHD is not an abnormality/disease, for
which a cause should, logically, be sought. They appear to recognize that
something essential is missing but not that the search for a cause/etiology,
under the circumstances, is wholly duplicitous, meant to keep us from asking the
"where is the abnormality/disease?" question and meant, at the same time to
generate a biological/medical research literature giving the appearance of
legitimacy when none of it--without a single proven biological/medical
abnormality/disease--is, in the least bit legitimate, i.e., other than
fraudulent. Surely throughout the lay press of Holland there will be other ads
about ADHD and the host of other psychiatric "diseases" to bring like complaints
about to the Commission, to be lauded for putting the interests of their people
first.]
"There is no unequivocal opinion on the cause of ADHD in the papers that the
defendant presented."
[Baughman: And, more importantly, as I have pointed out above, no
proof of an abnormality/disease; no proof that infants, children and adults thus
labeled are, in the least, diseased/abnormal.]
"Under these circumstances the defendant has not been careful enough and the
text in the advertisement is misleading."
7. The decision
"Grounded on the above, the Commission finds the advertisement in conflict with
Article 7 of the Dutch Advertisement Code and recommends the defendant stop
advertising in this way."
"Parties have, when they have been found wrong, the possibility to file an
appeal in this case with the College of Appeal."
Amsterdam, 6 August 2002.
From M.L Hanneke Teunisse of CCHR Holland, Amsterdam, 30-8-2002:
The Brain Foundation is a fund-raising foundation. They raise funds to invest
in brain research. They have top-psychiatrists as their advisors among them
Professor Buitelaar one of the child-psychiatrists who publishes the most about
ADHD. The Brain Foundation is founded by prof. J.M. van Ree, this is also the
promoter of free-heroin for addicted people projects in Holland. He is still a
member of the Board. In the year 2000 they received gifts from two major
pharmaceutical companies, Glaxo Welcome and Janssen Cilag (as they state in
their yearly report of 2000). Their list of advisors is includes psychiatrists,
people of industry (like AKZO, big chemical industry in Holland), people of the
media, former members of parliament and the first chamber, bankers, the chairman
of the biggest public Health Insurance company, and the president of the Health
Organization in Holland
From M.L Hanneke Teunisse
CCHR Holland, 8/30/02
Dear Dr. Baughman,
We won the case against the Brain Foundation in Holland for 100%!
The Advertisement Code Commission made their decision known on the 6th of
August. The Brain Foundation could not validate their statements with the papers
they gave to the Commission. We were able to discredit them all. The Commission
ruled that their statement was uncareful and misleading. They advised the Brain
Foundation not to print this again.
The Brain Foundation appealed this decision on the 19th of August but they could
not say on what ground until they had the opportunity to consult some experts.
Yesterday I received the message that the cancelled their appeal after they had
consulted two experts and a juridical advisor. So we won this case! CCHR-Int
already wrote a very nice press-release about it, you find this attached.
Thank you very much for your support and very clear data we have used to write
the plea for the hearing.
