Drugging Toddlers for Inattention, Impulsivity, and Hyperactivity

On May 16, the New York Times ran an article titled Thousands of Toddlers Are Medicated for A.D.H.D., Report Finds, Raising Worriesby Alan Schwarz.  Here is the opening sentence:

“More than 10,000 American toddlers 2 or 3 years old are being medicated for attention deficit hyperactivity disorder outside established pediatric guidelines, according to data presented on Friday by an official at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.”

The CDC official is Susanna Visser, MS, DrPh, Acting Associate Director of Science for the Division of Human Development and Disability, and she was speaking at the annual Rosalyn Carter Georgia Mental Health Forum.  I have not been able to find the text of Ms. Visser’s speech.  (It will probably be published later.)  Meanwhile, there is a good deal of information in Alan Schwarz’s article.  Here are some more quotes:

“The report, which found that toddlers covered by Medicaid are particularly prone to be put on medication such as Ritalin and Adderall, is among the first efforts to gauge the diagnosis of A.D.H.D. in children below age 4. Doctors at the Georgia Mental Health Forum at the Carter Center in Atlanta, where the data was presented, as well as several outside experts strongly criticized the use of medication in so many children that young.”

“The American Academy of Pediatrics standard practice guidelines for A.D.H.D. do not even address the diagnosis in children 3 and younger — let alone the use of such stimulant medications, because their safety and effectiveness have barely been explored in that age group. ‘It’s absolutely shocking, and it shouldn’t be happening,’ said Anita Zervigon-Hakes, a children’s mental health consultant to the Carter Center. ‘People are just feeling around in the dark. We obviously don’t have our act together for little children.'”

“Dr. Lawrence H. Diller, a behavioral pediatrician in Walnut Creek, Calif., said in a telephone interview: ‘People prescribing to 2-year-olds are just winging it. It is outside the standard of care, and they should be subject to malpractice if something goes wrong with a kid.'”

“Dr. Visser said that effective nonpharmacological treatments, such as teaching parents and day care workers to provide more structured environments for such children, were often ignored. ‘Families of toddlers with behavioral problems are coming to the doctor’s office for help, and the help they’re getting too often is a prescription for a Class II controlled substance, which has not been established as safe for that young of a child,’ Dr. Visser said. ‘It puts these children and their developing minds at risk, and their health is at risk.'”

But there was also some support for the practice, albeit cautiously worded:

“Keith Conners, a psychologist and professor emeritus at Duke University who since the 1960s has been one of A.D.H.D.’s most prominent figures, said that he had occasionally recommended it when nothing else would calm a toddler who was a harm to himself or others.”

“Dr. Doris Greenberg, a behavioral pediatrician in Savannah, Ga., who attended Dr. Visser’s presentation, said that methylphenidate can be a last resort for situations that have become so stressful that the family could be destroyed. She cautioned, however, that there should not be 10,000 such cases in the United States a year.”

The article finishes with quotes from Nancy Rappaport, MD:

“Dr. Nancy Rappaport, a child psychiatrist and director of school-based programs at Cambridge Health Alliance outside Boston who specializes in underprivileged youth, said that some home environments can lead to behavior often mistaken for A.D.H.D., particularly in the youngest children.”

“‘In acting out and being hard to control, they’re signaling the chaos in their environment,’ Dr. Rappaport said. ‘Of course only some homes are like this — but if you have a family with domestic violence, drug or alcohol abuse, or a parent neglecting a 2-year-old, the kid might look impulsive or aggressive. And the parent might just want a quick fix, and the easiest thing to do is medicate. It’s a travesty.'”


ADHD is listed in the DSM and is widely promoted by psychiatry as a brain illness which causes children and adults to be excessively inattentive, hyperactive, and/or impulsive.

DSM-III-R specified that the onset of this “illness” had to be prior to age seven, but set no lower age limit.  In fact, in this edition of the APA’s manual, the assignment of this “diagnosis” to preschool children is clearly endorsed.

“In preschool children, the most prominent features are generally signs of gross motor overactivity, such as excessive running or climbing.  The child is often described as being on the go and ‘always having his motor running.’  Inattention and impulsiveness are likely to be shown by frequent shifting from one activity to another.” [Emphasis added] (p 50)


“In approximately half of the cases, onset of the disorder is before age four.” [Emphases added] (p 51)

DSM-IV-TR states:

“It is difficult to establish this diagnosis in children younger than age 4 or 5 years, because their characteristic behavior is much more variable than that of older children and may include features that are similar to symptoms of Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder.  Furthermore, symptoms of inattention in toddlers or preschool children are often not readily observed because young children typically experience few demands for sustained attention.  However, even the attention of toddlers can be held in a variety of situations (e.g., the average 2- or 3-year-old child can typically sit with an adult looking through picture books).  Young children with Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder move excessively and typically are difficult to contain.  Inquiring about a wide variety of behaviors in a young child may be helpful in ensuring that a full clinical picture has been obtained.  Substantial impairment has been demonstrated in preschool-age children with Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder.” (p 89)

DSM-5 is briefer but just as clear:

“In preschool, the main manifestation is hyperactivity.” (p 62)

So, as far as the APA is concerned, children of preschool age can, and do, “get” ADHD.

But what is ADHD?  Here again, the APA’s position, in their fact sheet titled “ADHD,” (2014) is  brief and clear:

“Attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) is one of the most common mental disorders affecting children. ADHD is a brain condition that is often first identified in school-aged children when it causes disruption in the classroom or problems with schoolwork.” [Emphasis added]

Note, incidentally, the assertion of causality.  ADHD is a brain condition that causes classroom disruption and problems with school work.  In reality, the causal connection is spurious, and is just one more example of psychiatric “logic.”  To illustrate this, imagine a conversation between a parent and a psychiatrist:

Parent:  Why is my child so disruptive in class?  Why won’t he concentrate on his schoolwork?
Psychiatrist:  Because he has ADHD.  ADHD causes these problems.
Parent:  But how do you know he has ADHD?
Psychiatrist:  Because he is so disruptive in class and doesn’t concentrate on his school work.

Psychiatry defines ADHD by the presence of an assortment of vaguely-defined behaviors and then adduces this construct as the cause of these behaviors.  In other words, a child has ADHD because he is disruptive; and he is disruptive because he has ADHD!  This particular piece of psychiatric sophistry has been identified and highlighted, at one time or another, by virtually everyone on this side of the “mental illness” debate.  But I have never seen an attempt at rebuttal from any proponent of psychiatric orthodoxy.

But back to the question: what is ADHD?  There is a document titled ADHD: Parents Medication Guide published jointly by the APA and the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry in July 2013.  Here’s a quote:

“Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) is a neurodevelopmental disorder characterized by difficulty paying attention, excessive activity, and impulsivity (acting before you think). ADHD is usually identified when children are in grade school but can be diagnosed at any time from preschool to adulthood.” [Emphases added]

This document also stresses that:

“Early identification of ADHD is advisable…”

and lists the dire consequences if “ADHD is left untreated”:

  • “Increased risk for school failure and dropout in both high school and college
  • Behavior and discipline problems
  • Social difficulties and family strife
  • Accidental injury
  • Alcohol and drug abuse
  • Depression, anxiety and other mental health disorders
  • Employment problems
  • Driving accidents
  • Unplanned pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases
  • Delinquency, criminality, and arrest”

The NIMH document Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (2012) states:

“Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) is one of the most common childhood brain disorders and can continue through adolescence and adulthood.” [Emphasis added]

So it’s pretty clear that organized psychiatry, as represented by the APA, AACAP, and NIMH, endorses the notion that preschool children can “get” ADHD, and that ADHD is a brain illness.  It is also widely promoted that ADHD should not be left “untreated.”


In 2006, Greenhill L. et al. published Efficacy and safety of immediate-release methylphenidate treatment for preschoolers with ADHD, in the Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry.  Here’s their conclusion:

“MPH-IR [methylphenidate-instant release], delivered in 2.5-, 5-, and 7.5-mg doses t.i.d., produced significant reductions on ADHD symptom scales in preschoolers compared to placebo, although effect sizes (0.4-0.8) were smaller than those cited for school-age children on the same medication.”

The paper lists 17 authors.  The lead author is Laurence Greenhill, MD.  Dr. Greenhill is a very eminent psychiatrist.  At present he is a professor of Psychiatry and Pediatric Psychopharmacology at Columbia University.  He is also Director of the Research Unit of Pediatric Psychopharmacology at the New York State Psychiatric Institute.  Dr. Greenhill has served as principal investigator on several NIMH studies, and on 14 pharma-funded studies.  He has also served as President of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry (2009-2011).

His 2008 conflict of interest statement which is on file with the AACAP, states that during the period when he was president-elect, he was spending 50% of his work time “…dedicated to the private practice treatment of toddlers, adolescents, and adults mostly with ADHD.” [Emphasis added]

Incidentally, according to the disclosure section at the end of the 2006 article, 11 of the 17 authors had ties to pharma.  (In addition, a twelfth author disclosed links in a 2009 paper that will be discussed below.)

This study was funded by the NIMH, and on October 16, 2006, NIMH issued a press release in which they described the study as:

“The first long-term, large-scale study designed to determine the safety and effectiveness of treating preschoolers who have attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) with methylphenidate (Ritalin) has found that overall, low doses of this medication are effective and safe.  However, the study found that children this age are more sensitive than older children to the medication’s side effects and therefore should be closely monitored.” [Emphasis added]

Thomas Insel, MD, Director of NIMH, provided a quote for the press release:

“‘The Preschool ADHD Treatment Study, or PATS, provides us with the best information to date about treating very young children diagnosed with ADHD,’ said NIMH Director Thomas R. Insel, MD. “‘The results show that preschoolers may benefit from low doses of medication when it is closely monitored, but the positive effects are less evident and side-effects are somewhat greater than previous reports in older children.'”

The press release concluded with a quote from Laurence Greenhill, MD, the lead author:

“‘The study shows that preschoolers with severe ADHD symptoms can benefit from the medication, but doctors should weigh that benefit against the potential for these very young children to be more sensitive than older children to the medication’s side effects, and monitor use closely,’ concluded Dr. Greenhill.”


There’s another piece of research by Abikoff, et al. published in the journal Advances in Preschool Psychopharmacology in 2009.  It’s titled Methylphenidate Effects on Functional Outcomes in the Preschoolers with Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder Treatment Study (PATS)  Here’s the conclusion:

“Preschoolers with ADHD treated with MPH [methylphenidate] for 4 weeks improve in some aspects of functioning.  Additional improvements might require longer treatment, higher doses, and/or intensive behavioral treatment in combination with medication.” 

This paper lists as authors most of those who are also shown in the Greenhill et al. study cited above.

So, according to the best psychiatric authorities, the condition known as ADHD

  • Is a brain illness;
  • Can and does occur in children of preschool age;
  • Causes severe problems if left untreated;
  • Can be safely and effectively treated with stimulant drugs (with the caveat that children of preschool age should be closely monitored for adverse effects).

Against this well-orchestrated and heavily promoted background, it is easy to see how the drug-prescribing is drifting into the lower age range.  In fact, if one buys the psychiatry line, wouldn’t it be tantamount to criminal to deprive these preschoolers of “treatment” for their “brain illness”?  Wouldn’t it be unconscionable to expose them to the risks outlined earlier?  Surely the risk of taking a few pills – that have been proven safe and effective anyway – is justified when weighed against the dangers of “untreated ADHD.”

Besides, in their booklet on Mental Health Medication (2008), the NIMH state unambiguously:  “Stimulant medications are safe when given under a doctor’s supervision.”  I kid you not.


The critical issue here is that the loose cluster of vaguely defined behaviors that psychiatry calls ADHD is not an illness.  Rather, it is, in the vast majority of cases, a reflection of inadequate discipline and training on the part of the parents.

In former times, parents accepted, as an intrinsic part of their role, training their children: to sit still when required; to pay attention to authority figures; to be obedient; to complete chores; to stay focused when needed; to be quiet when needed; to wait his/her turn; not to interrupt when others were speaking; to respect other children’s property; etc…

But today, psychiatry tells us that children who have not acquired these habits are ill.  This is emphatically not something that psychiatry has discovered in the normal scientific manner.  Rather, it is something that psychiatry has decided.  Psychiatry has decided that all significant problems of thinking, feeling, and/or behaving are mental illnesses.  So, children who have not been trained in the skills listed above are ill – by definition.

And because they are “ill,” they must take “medicine.”

Despite the protestations and the expressions of outrage, the expansion of the ADHD “diagnosis,” and consequent drugging, into the preschool population is an inevitable consequence of psychiatry’s spurious medicalization of every conceivable human problem, and their eagerness to prescribe drugs to “treat” these problems.

Protesting that the drugs have not been approved for children under the age of four misses the point, for two reasons.  Firstly, because the approval process is intrinsically flawed, and secondly because drugs are not an appropriate response to these problems, for preschoolers or for older children.

Debates as to whether the preschoolers in question “really” have ADHD are meaningless.  ADHD is defined by the presence of certain vaguely-defined behaviors.  If a two-year-old is engaging in these behaviors, then he “has” ADHD.  This is the travesty that the APA has created.  There is no test or reality against which the child’s presentation can be compared to confirm or refute the “diagnosis.”  All that’s needed is the subjective opinion of a mental health professional that the child displays the misbehaviors in question to a degree that is “inconsistent with [his/her] developmental level and that negatively impacts on social and academic…activities.” (DSM-5, p 59).

And there is no lower age limit for this “diagnosis.”  Well, that’s not absolutely true.  The “symptoms” must have been present for at least six months, so I suppose 6 months is effectively the lower limit!  So the babies are still safe – at least until DSM 5.1!

Psychiatry’s primary agenda for the past fifty years has been the expansion of its “diagnostic” net, and the prescribing of more and more pills to more and more people.  Psychiatry promises joy, happiness, and a trouble-free life from a pill bottle, and tragically our society and our political leadership have bought it.  Today, no group is safe from psychiatry’s depredations.  Their net embraces people of all ages, all walks of life, and all circumstances.  There is truly no human problem that cannot be “diagnosed” as a “mental illness,” and for which psychiatry doesn’t have a pill.

Ten thousand American toddlers taking stimulants for ADHD is just business as usual.  By all means, let us speak out against this psychiatric assault on our toddlers, but let’s not lose sight of the greater tragedy – that this kind of approach has become the norm.  Feeding children psychoactive drugs as a substitute for instilling age-appropriate habits of discipline, self-control, and interpersonal respect is a tragedy beyond description.  If street-dealers were promoting their products to toddlers and their parents in this way, there would be outrage – and rightly so.  But psychiatrists, dressed in nice suits, and with their image polished by an international PR firm, are accepted.

As a society, as a culture, we have truly lost our way.

  • Francesca Allan

    Do these parents just believe whatever a doctor tells them? It’s astonishing that with all the information now so easily available, that so many fail to do their own research and develop a healthy sense of skepticism.

  • T.A. Anderson

    Hmmm. Interesting experiment they are doing. Shades of Tuskegee. What will be effect of amphetamine on early children brain development? There will be one. Any animal studies or anecdotal information on this?

  • Anonymous

    It’s helpful to pause and consider, two types of professionals.

    Take a pediatric oncologist, for example. This is a person who has studied a bona fide medical science, discovers cancer in the poor child’s body, and throws the best this objective science has, at saving the kid’s life. That’s worthy of respect, that’s a professional that can die when they are old, content they made a positive difference in the world.

    Contrast this with the messianic cult members of the pseudobiological pseudoscientific insult to western science known as psychiatry. Spending their days assaulting the growing, never-proven-diseased brains of little children because the “psychiatric bible” told them such and such “is” a “condition”. If kids weren’t being harmed, indoctrinated and poisoned, one could almost have sympathy for these fallen quacks, these gullible pseudomedical charlatans.

    And yet we have the most powerful newspaper in the world mindlessly acting as stenographer to these false authorities. The New York Times says these kids are “medicated”. And by mindlessly parroting that word, they smuggle into the public consciousness, this hideously misguided notion that the drugging of a kid in the absence of any hard evidence of biological disease, constitutes something the least bit “medical”.

    And there exists departments of “Pediatric Psychopharmcology” wedged into the academy.

    When you grow up, you see Space Shuttles, and people getting better from cancer, you see computers, flying machines, supermarkets that stock 20,000 different foods, you think you live in a world that has certain stuff figured out. You think there’s “experts” who are doing all this impressive shit.

    And then you see the equivalent of a religious cult, wedged right into the center of society. You see the New York Times mindlessly without an a single second of skepticism repeat the notion that the drugging of these innocent kids constitutes the “medicating” of them. Then you see there’s a professor of “Pediatric Pharmacology”, and you just shake your head. How could the world go so wrong?

    Then you remember the entire nation of Germany was able to be brainwashed in recent history, with terrible results, and this shit starts to make sense. We humans, haven’t got it all together as much as we’d like to teach kids who are coming up, growing up, we like to wow these kids and send them to schools and inculcate in them the things humans “know”. One of those thing we think we “know”, is that unwanted thoughts, feelings and behaviors are “a brain condition”.

    It’s just very sad. Deeply sad. A hideously misguided cult, is woven into the fabric of society. Deep mainstreamed misguidedness didn’t end in 1945, although you may have been led to believe it had. You may have been led to believe you were living in some age of reason and science. You’re living in the age of giant government, peppered through with grant-seeking credentialed messianic cult members who are so arrogant and filled with hubris as to not even question for a second whether their entire model of these problems is totally wrong, and they are prepared to take millions of kids and adults down with them, in their hideously misguided striving to “treat” that which is not even a bona fide medical problem.

    The cancer that is psychiatry being allowed to grow so out of control, doesn’t speak well for the genuine branches of science, who consistently fail to admonish and smack down this hideous coat-tail clinger. I believe that is because of the physicalist reductionist mechanistic biological determinist theory of mind that so pervades the sciences, and the fact that psychiatry is not some “science” in isolation like physics is, psychiatry’s very useful to the state because it runs the machine where problem people can be labeled “ill” and disposed of. Thrown in the “loony bin”.

    There’s a belief in psychiatry, one of thousands of false beliefs in psychiatry, that people labeled “mentally ill” who then later don’t want to participate in society are “suffering negative symptoms”, more likely, after a few years being exposed to depraved, violent, gullible, terrifying cult members like the modern social workers, shrinks and associated goons are, people just get terrified of the rest of humanity, they have had such a high dose, such a high exposure, to one of the most misguided groups of people in all of society, the “mental health professionals”, that not leaving the apartments seems a better proposition.

    I say to these people, try and get some exposure to more regular people. Not everyone sees you the way psychiatry sees you. Yes, a lot of people believe psychiatry’s bullshit, but try not to let yourself be engulfed by the self esteem destroying dogma that you’re some kind of “walking broken brain”. Psychiatry has a lot to answer for. It’s truly one of the most destructive forces ever unleashed on the world. It’s just very, very, very sad that we are accursed to have been born on this planet during the age of his religion’s ascendancy. I sincerely hope future generations can at the very least, separate this hideous, dangerous pseudoscience, from state.

    I know it’s enough to lead you to despair to see this quackery for what it is, but there is a slight reason to be happy and thankful. You were a baby in a crib once, so were the misguided fools that grew up to become “mental health professionals”. Something fundamental in you, protected you from being so gullible as to flush your life down the toilet harming innocent people and kids, selling quackery to the masses, forcing quackery on strangers using violence, if you’re not a “mental health professional”, if you weren’t foolish enough to throw your one shot at this life by harming others for a living, that’s at least something to be happy about. Nothing can save them though, but their own denial. Their own hubris. Their own mindless arrogance as they stomp on everything that is human about the people they claim to be in the business of “helping’.

    We will continue to testify, peacefully protest, and publish resources that may assist others to extricate themselves from this modern day religion of fake doctoring.

  • Anonymous

    For a human brain to be handed over as a sacrifice to the pseudoscience of psychiatry, is considered by the cult members to be the highest honor, nothing in the world could be better for your “brain health” than to have your brain put in the hands of a violent human rights criminal that pumps toxic poisons into it for years against your will, if the cult leaders deem it “necessary”. If your brain turns to Swiss cheese after 20 years of this stuff, that’s the highest honor, you’re now a living, breathing work of art, lip smacking dyskinesia, early death, total chemical lobotomy, drooling, these are considered the vanguard of this amazing art movement . The psychiatric Picassos have graced you with their just like diabetes amazing skills. To be a notch in the belt of a brain rape thug, is a high honor. If several more miles were placed on the BMW when the shrink drove to court to ask the judge for an “Open Dialogue” with your bloodstream, then that is the highest of honors. If having your brain raped and your humanity decimated on the floor in solitary confinement at the mental “hospital” was able to pay for a few more college credits of a psychiatrist’s kid, then you’re starting to reach religious bliss. The luckiest people to come into contact with the psychiatry religion, are those who are the chosen ones who didn’t even have to ask, the ones who had it forced upon them, they must be truly holy according to the psychiatric bible. For they got forcibly converted to the religion, the religion must have seen some serious potential in these future adherents.

    The terrifying thing is, the media, government, industry, academia, have all bought into the psychiatric lie. Nobody can rescue these kids from this harm. Nobody can save you if you are targeted by psychiatry for forced “treatment” aka brain rape.

    We all all, as are our children and all the people we care about in this world, at risk of being assaulted, indoctrinated, bullied, tortured, drugged, even killed, by this profession of quacks.

    This is why we fight them.

  • T.A. Anderson

    There is some hope here. “Dr. Lawrence H. Diller, a behavioral pediatrician in Walnut Creek, Calif., said in a telephone interview: ‘People prescribing to 2-year-olds are just winging it. It is outside the standard of care, and they should be subject to malpractice if something goes wrong with a kid.’”
    I did not comment on this previously for fear of being mistaken for a vulture. Such an openly strong critical statement by one M.D., even when of another specialty, is rather unusual. I suspect that the psychiatrist will still band together and say this is not below the standard of care. But that will not win them immunity. In most states the standard of care for treatment will be the same regardless of the specialty, and the opinions of the pediatricians will be evidence of malpractice. I think favorable sentiment toward pediatricians and reason will weigh strongly in favor of this being malpractice.

  • Anonymous

    ” a behavioral pediatrician”

    Just listen to that job description. She may as well be a psychiatrist. Difference in name alone.

  • T.A. Anderson

    Yep. I was not aware until now that they are heavily into treating ADHD. Looks as if they are out to grab some market share for psychiatry in several areas.

    I didn’t have a chance to look at it yet but here is something on the effect on developing brain. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/07/070719114451.htm

  • The Right Hon. Cledwyn B’Stard

    What’s wrong with drugging toddlers? We should drug the bloody lot of them, in utero, preparatory to the consequences of their disgorgement and the anti-social din they make as toddlers, the little hooligans in embryo.

    Drug em all! We should mobilize the entire state apparatus of force and violence against these nano-lunatics! These toddlers are dangerous!

    Seriously though, who would’ve thought the nursery would become a recruiting ground for psychiatric slaves, experimental subjects, and propitiatory offerings? Not content with figuratively desecrating the ground the suicide is buried in with their inane theories; not content with retroactively slandering victims of witch-hunts; not content with the ongoing medicalized slaughter of the homeless, the wretched, the aged and the undesirable, they now assault children. What next?

  • Phil_Hickey


    It is astonishing. And what’s particularly astonishing is that people go to doctors for these kinds of problems at all. That’s the result of truly successful marketing by the pharma-psychiatry bloc.

  • Phil_Hickey


    “A hideously misguided cult is woven deeply into the fabric of society.” Yes – and very deeply woven!

  • Phil_Hickey


    I don’t know. But recently heard about people getting prescriptions of Xanax for their dogs!

  • Anonymous

    What next? Well we already know what psychiatry does when it is in the position to be given permission by a fascist dictator to do whatever they hell they want. They’ve shown us how far they will go.

  • The Right Hon. Cledwyn B’Stard

    What’s wriong with forced drugging a dog?

  • The Right Hon. Cledwyn B’Stard

    My guess is forced treatment of corpses (after all, it would be forced, you can’t get consent from a corpse). Then of course they could do pets. Pretty much anyone outside of the highest strata, where power is concentrated, is fair game. I reckon they’ve got aliens stored away somewhere in some secret government facility who are being administered neuroleptics forcibly and forced to participate in neuroimaging research.

  • The Right Hon. Cledwyn B’Stard

    I don’t really believe that about the aliens, by the way.

  • The Right Hon. Cledwyn B’Stard

    Seriously, the faith in doctors is something I will never understand. Our culture invests these people with a mystique that seems to preclude rational thought, bedazzled as people are by the trappings of doctorial authority. I just read on another site someone say that the distrust of doctors is “anti-intellectual”, or put another way, only dunces are suspicious of doctors! It’s horrible living in a world where stupidity is so sure of itself.

    No wonder people withdraw from society in a world where stupidity prevails, looking to preserve whatever sanity they have in limited supply through communion with nature or cloistering themselves within the walls of some abode, shielded against the assaults of the world’s stupidity and corruption, against that many-headed monster, the mob of unthinking, beer-guzzling, bear-baiting, uncultured brutes that are to be found in the greatest number in most places (and of course, in a more morally refined society, that would be the function of asylums, not to torture and to detain suffering humanity in an inversion and perversion of its true function, characteristic of psychiatry).

    Unsurprisingly, this (the “anti-intellectual” comment) was uttered by a person who likes to use the prestige of doctors as a stick to beat his opponents over the head with, you know the kind, “you can’t say that, you’re not a doctor! Where’s your qualifications?”, the kind of talk that postulates the infallibility of doctors specifically and experts more generally, and leaves any remotely wise person conversant with human history running for cover in fear of such redoubtable stupidity and historical shortsightedness (then again, this is less a matter of historical shortsightedness than it is a kind of generational ethnocentrism, although the two are not necessarily mutually incompatible, an idolatry of the here and now, a conviction that today’s doctors are the beneficiaries of a golden age in science and medical technology, with the frontiers of scientific knowledge extending to infinity as science reveals everything about everything! Or put another way, you can’t argue with doctorial opinion, because doctors don’t have opinions, they are mere apostles of science, sent forth to preach its gospel, so there!).

    To this picture of doctors as supremely rational, intelligent beings one only has to oppose the lurid tapestry of medical history. There is no folly so foolish that it won’t find acceptance amongst doctors.

    I’m not saying there aren’t good doctors out there, but the power has gone to their heads if they expect respect, trust, and submission as a natural right, which is common amongst occupants of socially prestigious positions, who detest nothing more, deep down, than those amongst us who refuse to prostrate ourselves before them, us inferior beings. We should bestow trust with caution; history shows just how easily and readily men abuse the trust reposed in them by others. It also prescribes scepticism regarding the claims of doctors and their avowed motives.

    The upshot of this culturally-imparted mystique is that the immense harm doctors do and the ways in which they misuse their authority remains free from general scrutiny.

    The doctors I know are so goddamned rude, they don’t even return courtesies! Is there anything more insufferably rude than a person who doesn’t say “goodbye” in requital of a “goodbye”? Yet every doctor I see, bar one, and I see loads, even my bloody melanoma specialist, doesn’t bloody say “goodbye” back! Could there be any greater evidence of how firmly and immovably lodged up their own backsides the heads of some (and I would say many, not some) of these people really are?

    “I don’t have to say goodbye to you, I am a doctor, and you’re just a patient. Be away with you, you vile peasant. A mounting body of evidence shows I am far superior to you.”

    Yet they can always rely on all the billions of people who love nothing more than to abase themselves in appeasement of their social superiors, the multitude of brown-nosers leaping to the defence of their beloved quacks, embodiments of the power and authority they worship, who always mean well, even when they do wrong, these avatars of compassion, although of course they rarely do wrong, these paragons of rational and logical thought (these people labour under the delusion that you learn how to think more rationally at medical school. Truth is, it is because medical school imparts no such skills that such people are so prone to irrational thought processes. A doctor is a specialist of the body; this does not imply that doctors are intellectuals, yet doctors are held up as perhaps constituting the intellectual aristocracy. Hardly surprising then that many of them are amongst the most conceited people to have ever sullied nature with their presence)

    When they are not sadistic, they are just plain rude; when they are not rude; they are just plain unctuous; when they are not unctuous, they are just plain incompetent; and every once in a while, you meet one who speaks to you without aristocratic hauteur, who doesn’t send you away with anti-sodding-biotics when you’ve blatantly got a malignant tumour growing out of your body, and even evidences humour and polite manners etc..

    Don’t get me started on junior doctors. I’ve never met one junior doctor who didn’t look like he’d just walked off the set of the Apprentice, which is one of the natural habitats of the narcissist and the careerist who in ascending the greasy pole will sacrfiice everything and everyone to his ambition, just so that when he gets to the top he can savour the sweet pleasure of looking down on those below him, lulling himself to sleep at night with the thought of how utterly superior he is. Nurse, the straitjacket!

    No sight sickens me more than to see these human peacocks strutting and poncing about a ward, making themselves feel important, lording it over invalids and the vulnerable, the despised and the helpless, puffing themselves up with the air they’ve stolen from the mouths of the fragile and the infirmed (as is common in hospitals and care facilities, nominal or not), speaking to you impersonally and without a trace of humanity in evidence, be they real medical personnel or agents of social control who like to parade themselves in borrowed plumage.

    The truth is, doctors, as a class of people, concede nothing to any other class when it comes down to dangerousness, arrogance and corruptibility.

    In my experience your average quack is emotionally cold and numbed to the suffering of the people he encounters, and the last person you want to see when you are at your lowest ebb is him, or any powerful person, but someone whose down in the dumps with you. When you’ve got cancer, you need to be around people in a similar position, not surrounded by junior doctors with no respect for human dignity, for example, as I’ve earned from bitter personal experience. The same applies to psychiatric patients. Their defenders often are found to say, “yeah but they are so overrun, they have so much work to do”. Put another way, there should be dispensation for doctors, release from the rules of polite society.

    My attitude is simple; a person who responds to a courtesy with silence when reciprocation is the only polite thing to do is, ipso facto, a rotten human being, and your workload is no defence.

  • Anonymous


    With this website, you can send me and email, right there from the website, by filling out a form. You will need your own email address.

    a reminder again my email address is anonymousvspsychiatry@yahoo.com

    With this you could send me a message that I will not be able to reply to, because this is a one way site, or you could provide me with the details of any other way to contact you. I would be willing to phone you.

  • T.A. Anderson

    Don’t ever quit fighting. The good that results from greater awareness sometimes takes decades before it manifests itself. Then one day you see it and you wonder “wow, was I somehow a part of that.”

  • Adam Martin

    Effective and safe. What a laugh. I got hooked on them again after shaking them for months. Chest pain, extreme agitation, paranoia, hallucinations, and complete abandonment of any semblance of hygiene. Doctors refused to believe that the state I was in was due to amphetamine use. Maybe methamphetamine, because that is a bad drug, but adderall is medicine. What a crock of shit. It is a terrible, terrible drug. Google what methamphetamine users say they feel like when they are high on meth. I experienced virtually no difference. Some of these doctors should actually sample what they feel is safe to prescribe to a toddler.

  • Phil_Hickey


    Thanks for coming in. The unshakable faith of psychiatrists in the efficacy and safety of their products is scary.