Brain Chemistry Problems Archives

"The invention of disease" -

[ Brain Chemistry Problems Archive ]
[ Main Archives Page ] [ Glossary/Index ]
[ FAQ ] [ Recommended Books ] [ Bulletin Board ]
   Search this site!

"The invention of disease" -

Posted by ~CT on February 07, 2003 at 22:31:27:

Great article on the diagnosis of ADHD:

Wednesday, January 08, 2003


JANUARY 8. Some years ago, a friend’s daughter was suffering from night sweats, poor memory, “hyperactive” distracted behavior, and was doing badly in school. She was running all over the house. She was eating too much, and then eating too little.

In class, she couldn’t sit still. She spoke out of turn. She sometimes argued with her teachers.

She would start her feet tapping on the floor, and her teacher had to tell her over and over to stop it.

She would sometimes stare out the window in school and forget what was being discussed.

In case, you haven’t noticed, I’ve just named several so-called symptoms of ADHD.

The thing was, her mother was a teacher of philosophy at a local college. Her mother was one smart and tough cookie. So when the school counselor told her her daughter had ADHD, she said, “Are you a medical doctor?”

And believe me, she asked that question in such a way that the counselor felt a little fire of fear start in his belly. He said, “No, I’m not.”

And the mother asked, “Do you know that practicing medicine without a license is a crime?”

The counselor said, “Well, I wasn’t really making a diagnosis.”

“No? What were you doing?”

“I was making a suggestion.”

“Then how about I obtain a medical opinion?”

The counselor agreed this might be a good idea.

So the mother said---and the mother was intentionally getting herself into just the venue she wanted to be in---“What psychiatrist would you recommend I take my daughter to see? Does your school have one they often consult?”

Knowing that the school did.

The counselor gave a name, eagerly, and the mother made an appointment for her 12-year-old daughter.

At the appointment, the psychiatrist (a licensed medical doctor with a further specialty in psychiatry) asked the girl about ten or fifteen questions and the mother about the same number of questions---all about the girl’s behavior. Then he said, “Your daughter has ADHD, and she needs treatment.”

The mother nodded and said, “Suppose we hold off on discussing the treatment for a minute. I’m interested in the fact that you haven’t run any tests on my daughter. To make the diagnosis of ADHD.”

The psychiatrist said, “There aren’t any definitive diagnoses. This is a behavioral disorder, so we judge from the child’s behavior.”

The mother said, “You mean, there are no definitive biological markers or brain-chemical markers for ADHD.”

The psychiatrist hemmed and hawed and then said yes, that was true.

The mother then smiled sweetly and said, “Then how can you say this is ADHD?”

The psychiatrist said, “Because your daughter has many of the symptoms.”

The mother replied, “But you can’t say that any particular biological or chemical causes are creating these symptoms.”

The psychiatrist offered, “If over a million children display the same range of symptoms, we infer there is a common biological or brain-chemical cause. We just haven’t found it yet.”

The mother said, “It is my understanding that, in order to claim you have found a disease or disorder, you must have a common biological cause in all cases.”

The psychiatrist said, “We are not dealing with a perfect world here.”

The mother said, “But suppose that in my daughter’s case, we found some cause, and we removed that cause. Would her symptoms go away?”

“Theoretically, yes.”

“Then why don’t you look for a cause?”

“I wouldn’t know where to start. And we have a drug, Ritalin, that reduces the symptoms.”

The mother nodded. “Let me ask you this. If, theoretically, I found a cause and I removed it, and my daughter’s symptoms went away without a drug, would you be willing to admit that we had been successful?”

Again the psychiatrist said, “Theoretically.”

“But not actually.”

The psychiatrist said nothing.

After the appointment, the mother went back to the school counselor and said, “I wasn’t satisfied with the psychiatrist’s recommendation or his diagnosis. So, for the moment, I’m not going to put my daughter on Ritalin.”

The counselor said, “You could be asking for trouble here. We can take certain measures.”

The mother said, “Yes, I’ve heard about that.” She produced a business card from her purse and handed it to the counselor. She said, “This is the name of a lawyer. I suggest you check him out. He’s well known, nationally. I’m prepared to retain him in a lawsuit against you personally and against your school and the district. My lawyer assures me that he will take every legal means to bury you. Do you understand? If you say my daughter cannot continue to attend this school unless she goes on Ritalin, my lawyer will file a suit. He will use a PR agency to get articles in the press. We’ll make a cause out of this.”

The counselor said, “Are you threatening me?”

The mother smiled. “Yes I am. I’m threatening you with every legal tool I can use to make my point clear. Every single legal tool.”

Flash forward several months. While her daughter continued to attend the school, the mother found an alternative doctor, a good one. This doctor discovered that the daughter had a severe food sensitivity to wheat and dairy products, and she was also not getting enough essential fatty acids in her diet. With some difficulty, the doctor convinced the girl to try a wheat-free, dairy-free diet, and to eat certain foods high in essential fatty acids.

Within two weeks, all the girl’s “ADHD symptoms” disappeared.

She was no longer “hyperactive.” She was no longer jittery and distracted and bored and inattentive.

Her grades rose.

She began to enjoy school.

She no longer ran all over the house.

The school counselor was pleased because he thought the girl had been put on Ritalin, and when the mother told him that was not the case, he was morbidly silent, as if the success was no success at all.

The mother took her daughter back to the psychiatrist, who questioned the girl again. He was shocked. All her symptoms were gone. She was different child. He, too, was sour. He suggested that the girl was, in fact, on an ADHD drug. The mother said, “Are you calling me a liar?”



The mother then said, “I did find the cause of my daughter’s problems, and I removed it.”

“What was this ‘cause?’” the doctor asked.

The mother said, “None of your business.”

The mother wrote me a long letter. I quote it in part:

“It is clear to me that ADHD is an invented disorder, a menu of behaviors and nothing more. WHAT CURED MY DAUGHTER MIGHT HAVE NO EFFECT ON ANOTHER CHILD WITH SIMILAR PROBLEMS. That other child might be suffering from vaccine damage, or from chemicals and dyes in her food, or from some medical drug, or from a reaction to a pesticide or a household chemical or mold in the walls of the house. Who knows? But one thing I’m sure of. Each case has to be examined by a competent person and analyzed on its own terms. I found a good doctor who did just that. I have spoken with a number of parents who “cured their children’s ADHD” in just this way. In one case, it was lead poisoning, and the lead was removed with chelation therapy. The promise that ADHD will one day be shown to have a common biological or brain-chemical root cause in all cases is an empty fantasy. I know that because I am finding more and more children whose supposed ADHD has resolved completely after finding and removing the particular cause in their particular cases.”

This mother is a tiger. She also wrote me, “There is a very big hurdle that many parents face. They think that because their children are having severe problems, it must be the result of a disease that has a specific cause IN ALL CASES and a specific treatment. This is not only flawed logic, it is a form of mind control. They are trapped. They can’t see the bigger picture. They think that if they deny the existence of ADHD, they are denying that their children have any problems. What a crazy world we live in. PEOPLE CAN HAVE TERRIBLE PROBLEMS THAT ARE NOT THE RESULT OF SOME LABELED DISEASE. In my daughter’s case, she was suffering from food sensitivities and a nutritional deficiency. My daughter and I joke about this. We call it FSND. Food Sensitivity/Nutritional Deficiency. She tells all her friends: ‘I had FSND but I cured it.’”

I have spent 15 years studying the invention of diseases. I have seen people ride their particular horses into the medical arena with their particular explanations:

“Oh, it’s all vaccine damage.”

“Oh, it’s all parasites.”

“Oh, it’s all HIV.”

“Oh, it’s all medical-drug damage.”

“Oh, it’s all malnutrition and junk food.”

“Oh, it’s all heavy metal poisoning.”

“Oh, it’s all germs.”

“Oh, it’s all mycoplasmas.”

“Oh, it’s all chemtrails.”

“Oh, it’s all pesticides.”

“Oh, it’s all fluorides and chlorine.”

“Oh, it’s all Satan.”

“Oh, it’s all the viruses from Pluto.”

“Oh, it’s all distorted neurotransmitter systems.”

“Oh, it’s all about lack of breastfeeding.”

“Oh, it’s all lack of standard conventional medical care.”

“Oh, it’s all emotional.”

“Oh, it’s all stress.”

“Oh, it’s all belief systems.”

“Oh, it’s all chemicals and dyes in food.”

And so on and so forth.

In case anyone is interested in the truth, it is all about WHAT THAT PARTICULAR PERSON IS SUFFERING FROM THAT CAN BE REMEDIED.




To deny this is to put a cruel burden on the person who is actually suffering. It is to put a cruel burden on that person in the service of advancing a favorite theory.

All of the things above do, in fact, cause health problems. But in A PARTICULAR CASE, one should be busy trying to find out what is hurting the person, what is the cause that can be removed.

To do less than that is cruel.

Once one has removed the cause, one may find another layer of cause under that one which can also be removed. And so on.

I have seen this work very well.

First, the person, say, has toxic heavy metals removed from his system. And he feels a great deal better. THEN, his diet is changed, so that he is not eating junk and crap and tons of sugar. He feels still better and much more stable. THEN a brilliant homeopath, for example, may find a way to undo some vaccine damage. And so forth and so on…

But at each step, rather than trying to impose some grand all-encompassing theory on the suffering person, the practitioner finds a real cause for suffering THAT CAN BE REMOVED.

I think what I’m saying here is clear. And I think that a bull-headed refusal to face up to the truth is a serious problem in our society. A problem that can be called the result of mind control, imposed from the outside or the inside. Or both.

Re: "The invention of disease" -

Posted by Carol B. on February 08, 2003 at 00:43:25:

In Reply to: "The invention of disease" - posted by ~CT on February 07, 2003 at 22:31:27:

Do you have an author for this, and the name of the publication?

Re: "The invention of disease" - (Archive in brain chemistry.

Posted by Walt Stoll on February 08, 2003 at 10:13:32:

In Reply to: "The invention of disease" - posted by ~CT on February 07, 2003 at 22:31:27:

Thanks, ~CT.

Even if this entire story has been made up, I can tell you that I have been that "alternate physician" so many times I have stopped counting. The KY medical licensing board even had a special investigatory session with their "expert", a physician that weighed 400# and smoked, testifying.

Of course that expert testified that I was a "certifiable quack" because I did not routinely put my ADHD patients on Ritalin. It made no difference that a number of my patients testified as to the cure of their child's condition by changes in diet, etc. The board's official decree was that I should be "censured" for my incompetency.

Only with a monopoly!



Follow Ups:

Re: "The invention of disease" -

Posted by
zarin on February 08, 2003 at 16:40:13:

In Reply to: "The invention of disease" - posted by ~CT on February 07, 2003 at 22:31:27:

Thank you for sharing that story. Disease is an invention to put us into comfortable slots and drug us. I am personally a clear example of how the medical community generalises. I was diagnosed with a genetic blood clotting disorder which apparently had no cure, only maintenence on drugs. I went from being a pill popping and syringe junkie to being totally drug free by using my brain rather than relying on the knowledge of the medical practicitioners.

Follow Ups:

Re: "The invention of disease" -

Posted by ~CT on February 10, 2003 at 15:52:02:

In Reply to: Re: "The invention of disease" - posted by Carol B. on February 08, 2003 at 00:43:25:

Carol~it came in an e-mail newsletter I get, or from the archives in same nwsletter. I don't recall the name of it, but will be happy to post it when I receive it again.

Great story isn't it?

Follow Ups:

[ Brain Chemistry Problems Archive ]
[ Main Archives Page ] [ Glossary/Index ]
[ FAQ ] [ Recommended Books ] [ Bulletin Board ]
   Search this site!