In CHADD’s March/April Attention magazine, John C. Heavener, Jr., CEO voices the familiar lament: "we have been busy responding to the frequently occurring stories in the media that cast doubt on the validity of the disorder and/or the efficacy of popular treatment approaches (read ‘drugs’)." If CHADD would only refrain from referring to ADHD as a ‘neurobiologic disorder’ when it is neither neurological or biological—when, instead the children are normal--the controversy and the attacks on their credibility would end, but they do not stop making such claims. CHADD president, Matthew Cohen, an attorney, objected to testimony to the Colorado State Board of Education in which I pointed out that nowhere in the scientific literature does one find proof that ADHD (or ADD before it) is a disease, a medical syndrome or a phenotype having a confirmatory physical or chemical abnormality or marker. It is difficult, therefore, to know what science Mr. Heavener is referring to when he states: "Since it’s formation in 1987, CHADD has relied on science to carry it over the sometimes-rocky shoals of controversy.

Objecting to my testimony to the Colorado State Board of Education (10/6/99), that "ADHD is not a ‘neurobiologic disorder,’ that it is nothing ‘neurological’ or ‘biological,’" Mr. Cohen, (without benefit of science) claimed, in a letter to the Board (11/2/99), and again, in written testimony to the Arkansas State Legislature, May 3, 2000, that ADHD is a ‘neurobiological disorder." Mr. Cohen, president of CHADD, has a professional advisory board! Surely they know of CHADD’s regular representation of ADHD to the public as a ‘disease,’ something abnormal in the child, when it is not. And, surely those on CHADD’s professional advisory board are aware of the state of the science and of the lack of evidence that ADHD is other than normal behavior in normal children.

Consider the statement of William Carey, M.D. Addressing the November 16-18, 1998 National Institutes of Health, Consensus Conference on the subject Is ADHD a Valid Disorder? he concluded: "…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 (ADHD) in doubt…"

With no proof to counter Carey’s assertions, the final statement of Consensus Conference Panel read: "…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."

At the press conference that followed, National Public Radio correspondent, Joe Palca, summarized: "What you're telling us is that ADHD is like the Supreme Court's definition of pornography, 'You know it when you see it.'"

Speaking of ADHD as a biologic entity, or, more specifically, of it’s being genetic, F.X. Castellanos, MD, of the National Institute of Mental Health, states in the January, 2000, Readers Digest, "Incontrovertible evidence is still lacking!"

Russell Barkley, a psychologist [March/April Attention magazine], like Castellanos, a member of CHADD’s Professional Advisory Board, hastens to blame the Ritalin/amphetamine-induced, 8-15% brain atrophy, on ADHD itself, and to posit: "We had a hunch in the 70’s that AD/HD was in the brain, but we had never been able to pinpoint it before now. And they wonder at the controversy and the nay-sayers. Nowhere in this article does Barkley mention that virtually all of the ADHD subjects in line of research extending back over 14 years, were on chronic stimulant therapy and that this, not ADHD is the only plausible cause of the brain atrophy

What must truly be the ‘latest word’ on ADHD, also comes to use from the March/April Attention magazine in an article by Jay N. Giedd, also from the NIMH. On the cover of this issue is a whole page picture of a brain scan image and among the features the cover promises is "Using Brain Anatomy to Diagnose ADHD." Giedd also represents the brain atrophy seen in MRI scan studies as being due to ADHD, when in fact the only physical variable between the ADHD group and normal controls was the chronic stimulant treatment status of the ADHD group. The chronic stimulant therapy, not ADHD is the only plausible cause of the relative smallness (atrophy) in the "three major areas of brain differences in children with AD/HD." Giedd makes clear "It is important to note that these differences (between the study group of ADHD subjects and normal control individuals) are detected when looking at groups of children with and without ADHD….For a given individual…they are not specific enough to be used diagnostically."

Giedd concludes, "So as of the time of this writing, I feel that clinical history remains the gold standard of ADHD." And why does Giedd say this? He says this because their is no known, objective, confirmatory, physical or chemical abnormality in individuals said to have ADHD, that is, there is no way to confirm that they have a disease—any—or that they are other than normal. Stating that the "clinical history remains the gold standard of ADHD diagnosis," he is confessing that ADHD diagnosis is yet, entirely within the realm of the subjective. In medicine, generally, we reserve the designation "gold standard" for that objective abnormality which is characteristic and confirmatory of a disease. Giedd’s use of the term "gold standard" is distinctly misleading for the elemental reason that the clinical history is never the ‘gold standard’ of diagnosis of an actual disease or actual "biological entity" which Giedd (final paragraph) and CHADD--without benefit of scientific evidence--represent it to be, today, 20 years and 6 million patients after its invention.

They lament the naysayers, the bad press they have to endure, and the controversy. Their primary mission, assigned them by Ciba-Geigy, manufacturer of Ritalin, CHADD’s creator and paymaster, has been to represent to the teachers, parents and citizenry of the nation, that their normal, if mis-educated children, have a ‘brain disease,’ a ‘chemical imbalance of the brain,’ entirely for the purpose of having something for which to label and prescribe--for label and prescribe they do!

People of CHADD, and here I include the lustrous scientists from the NIMH and throughout academic psychiatry and psychology who sit on their professional advisory board: There is one way and one way only to be done with the controversy—stop saying and implying that ADHD is a disease, that the children are abnormal, and, stop orchestrating their massive drugging. Let the 6 million have a normal childhood. After all, they are normal children.