Judith Reisman
v. Paul McHugh

[COMMENT: The following extraordinary exchange of letters took place between Judith Reisman and Paul McHugh.  McHugh was a part of the sexological establishment at Johns Hopkins University.  Reisman has a passion for honesty and righteousness in matters of sexuality -- traits not in evidence in most of American discussion on sexuality today.   She is coauthor with Edward Eichel of Kinsey, Sex, and Fraud, and the author of Kinsey: Crimes, & Consequences, an exposure of the systematic subversion of American law by Kinsey, et al, to promote their sexual agenda.  Both books document the criminal assault of Alfred Kinsey on persons of all ages, including infants, and on the America public.   Visit her website at drjudithreisman.org 

Below, she takes on the sexological establishment the way it ought to be done -- truth spoken gracefully. 

Most "conservatives are scared to death to go for the jugular vein of evil, for fear of being called nasty names.  Our enemy is not flesh and blood, it is not persons, but spiritual wickedness in high places, including deceit and manipulation used to cover up criminal sexual activity.  We must have mercy on repentant sinners, but no mercy on evil.  If someone clings to evil, he puts himself in the line of fire. 

Until Christian leadership learns to go for the kill, learns how to force clarity of truth in public discussion, we will continue to have our endless hand-wringing and "ain't it awful" discussions.   And the enemy will continue to lead us around by the nose.   That is treason on our part against the King of kings and Lord of lords.  

Reisman gives a good example of how it should be done.   When you are dealing with persons who are not interested in truth, you tighten the screws as much as you reasonably can -- so that the public can see who is and who is not avoiding the truth.  

NOTE:  Some of the text at the end goes off to the right of the screen.  Scroll to the right to see it.    E. Fox] 


Judith Reisman, Ph.D.
The Institute for Media Education

      P.O. Box 2816  Granite Bay, CA 95746

jareisman@surewest.net                                drjudithreisman.org

 Paul R. McHugh M.D.
University Distinguished Service Professor of Psychiatry
Johns Hopkins
Department Of Psychiatry And Behavioral Sciences
600 N Wolfe Street/Meyer 127
Baltimore, MD 21287-7127 

April 12, 2003 

Dear Dr. McHugh,   

In the absence of a reply to my February 12 or my March 20 letters to you, please find attached a copy of my one page review of Dr. Fred Berlin’s recidivism rates for child molesters in your sex offenders clinic at Johns Hopkins.   

The data (67% recidivism within the one year window, yielding a probability of roughly 348 more child abuse crimes per year) are taken from “Fred S. Berlin and Genevieve S. Coyle, “Sexual Deviation Syndromes,” The Johns Hopkins Medical Journal, Vol. 149, No. 3, September 1981, p. 119-125.  “Acknowledgments:" “Dr. Paul McHugh, Dr. John Money and Ms. Maggie Rider for their encouragement and kind assistance.” 

Please note that I have pledged to several interested parties full disclosure of our exchange in the public interest.  I am sure you agree that it is important to make such materials subject to the judgment of the larger society. 

Hence, kindly do supply me with your views regarding my March 20 letter (copy attached) within the next few weeks so that the public may make their judgments based on the merits of our differing arguments. 

Should I not receive a response from you by May 1 (3 months after my Feb 12 letter and six weeks after my March 20 letter), I will assume you intend no response and I shall proceed accordingly  

Judith Reisman, Ph.D.


 Paul R. McHugh M.D.
University Distinguished Service Professor of Psychiatry
Johns Hopkins
Department Of Psychiatry And Behavioral Sciences
600 N Wolfe Street/Meyer 127
Baltimore, MD 21287-7127  

March 20, 2003 

Dear Dr. McHugh,   

In the absence of a reply to my February 12 letter to you, I thought it best to address the concerns in your detailed January 13 correspondence.   

As you recall, I requested a copy of the formal medical statement you publicly released pertaining to Dr. Richard Berendzen, the case mentioned in the 1990 OpEd article (“Does Psychiatry Whitewash Sex Offenders?”) that you attached as “evidence” of your actions on sex criminals.  I have retrieved a copy of the Johns Hopkins medical report so you may at this point disregard my February request.  In the following letter I have limited myself to key errors in your January correspondence and your OpEd article, addressing these in the order in which you presented them.  Also on organization, please note a) the smattering of scanned documents are included to authenticate certain quotes and b) to clarify and to underscore the adjudicated illegality of the crimes discussed herein, I use the term “sex criminal” throughout in place of your preference for “sex offender.”


1.         The Baltimore Sun Op-Ed Article 

You claim in your letter that you are not and have never been “reluctant to see sex criminals receive public and prompt punishment.”  As “evidence” of your tough approach to sex criminals you attached your OpEd article on the Richard Berendzen case entitled “Does Psychiatry Whitewash Sex Offenders?”  

§        Your OpEd article asserts that you believe in “public and prompt punishment” as well as serious “fines, jail sentences, deprivation of privileges,” and “public reprobation.” However, you did not call for such treatment of Berendzen in the article, or anywhere else.  I sought out a stipulation from you that there be reparations to his victim(s) in the form of published apologies, and especially financial remuneration, to compensate for the traumatic experiences and crippling losses borne by his victims, or that such obscene phone calls be reclassified as felonies instead of misdemeanors.  I found no such call from you or anyone at Johns Hopkins.  In fact, the victim’s efforts to obtain financial redress were cynically rebuffed by Berendzen’s legal strategy.  Frankly, Berendzen emerges from your OpEd essay more as a victim than a victimizer. 

§        In case my search inadvertently overlooked any statement of yours that would substantiate your claim that you are not and have never been reluctant to see sex criminals receive public and prompt punishment in the Berendzen case, I’d be most grateful if you would forward such public expositions to me so that I can update my records.  In the absence of such evidence, I am forced to conclude that your actions do not match your words.  

Both of us are quite familiar with the details of the Berendzen case, you as the criminal’s hired psychiatrist of a prestigious university and I as a pro-bono advisor to the victim.  As this level of detailed knowledge cannot necessarily be assumed by other parties to whom the content of this letter may be made available, let me add a few more observations on your role in the Berendzen case. 

§        First, in your Sun Op Ed essay you protected this despicable sex criminal by empathetically omitting all information about the pedophile nature of his phone calls.  Indeed, the words “pedophile,” “child molester” and “child pornography” appear nowhere in your article about Berendzen’s pedophile based sex crimes.  Yet in your original medical statement from Johns Hopkins you acknowledge the graphically perverse sex acts that Berendzen sought, he said, to carry out between himself, his wife and daughter and the victim, her husband and children. 

§        Second, despite your full knowledge of the vicious nature of his calls, you chose to ignore Berendzen’s claim that he kept a 4-year-old sex slave chained in his basement for sexual, scatological and physical abuse, a prototypical storyline among pedophiles that is commonly inspired by child pornography.  Instead of revealing Berendzen’s pedophile-related crimes in your OpEd article you left the impression that the calls were of an adult-to adult nature. And, I will give credit where credit is due: You were very successful in this role.  Until today, very few people know the pedophile thrust of Berendzen’s obscene phone calls.   

§        Third, you do not mention the trauma and brutality Berendzen inflicted on the mother he victimized.  Nowhere do you praise Mrs. Allen--a home-schooling mother and herself a victim of brutal childhood sexual abuse--for her courage in maintaining phone contact with Berendzen for weeks before the police located the site of her phone terrorist at The American University Presidential office.  

§        Fourth, you could have mentioned that the victim suffered a heart attack after the first call, necessitating a hospital visit in an ambulance as Judy Mann reported in her article “Calls Called ‘Life Altering’” (The Washington Post, May 4, 1990).  In yet another commentary, “A growing trade in victimhood,” Wesley Pruden observed, as did others, that you, Dr. McHugh, portrayed Berendzen as the victim on “Nightline.”  Pruden wrote:  

The woman he tormented, as the professor’s psychiatrist [Paul McHugh] explained to Ted Koppel, could have hung up the telephone when he called (Washington Times, June 15, 1990, A4).  

§        Fifth, in Koppel’s 30-minute Nightline lineup Susan Allen spoke roughly 32 lines with the remaining 210 lines given mainly to you and Berendzen.  At a ratio of 1:7 during this significant television time, you and Berendzen dwelt extensively on his painful suffering, reiterating his drive, brilliance and as in your OpEd piece, the “strengths of his character” (claims which in my opinion are quite debatable, but should be ignored for now).  Such a bias toward an influential, paying patient versus his weaker victim additionally suggests a “conflict of interest.”  

§        Sixth, you report in your article, “sex is not a completely voluntary activity” which we “struggle to control.”  Why then did you not report that Mrs. Allen feared Berendzen was threatening her with harm in his last phone call?  Judy Mann writes, 

Allen is aggrieved about how this…was handled…she says she got a phone call on Saturday, April 7 from the caller who said she had “destroyed his life. I said, no, you did…He said I hope you have a happy life and I wish you a lot of luck because you are going to need it.” (Washington Post, May 4, 1990, C3). 

§        Seventh, there is no indication that you tried to assist Mrs. Allen and her family through this terrible trial.  Nor that Johns Hopkins offered free medical and therapeutic aid for Mrs. Allen and her children after this trauma.  Richard Vatz and Lee Weinberg address some of these issues in their commentary, “Not a ‘victim’ to his victim”:  

What a pile of drivel. Here is a man who has been caught and who now is grasping at medical straws which psychiatrists are all too eager to deliver. And Dr. McHugh, chair of Psychiatry and behavioral science at Johns Hopkins Medical School did deliver.  He stated flatly, “Dr. Berendzen did not place the calls for prurient interests.”  Moreover, Dr. McHugh stated, “[Berendzen] was seeking answers to unresolved issues related to his own abuse…

Still, Dr. McHugh said after the weeks of treatment that Mr. Berendzen will “never indulge in that behavior again.”  How did Dr. McHugh know?  “He’s chastened, hurt, remorseful – and adamant that he will never do that again.”

“Chastened, hurt, remorseful?”  Mr. Berendzen…referred to himself as a “victim,” in such a way as to fuzz over whether he was referring to his sexual abuse or the fact that he had an “illness” … [and] repeatedly referred to his behavior as a health problem (emphasis added) (The Washington Times, September 19, 1993, B4).

If the Berendzen case proves anything it is that you showed great concern for your influential patient and none for his victim; that you and, it seems, John Hopkins University, were nothing but hired guns, whitewashing a sex criminal and belittling the criminal’s victim.  This can be readily accepted from a defense attorney whose job is to get the criminal off the hook but not from someone who claims he is not and never has been “reluctant to see sex offenders receive public and prompt punishment” (emphasis not in original).  Moreover, the view of pedophiles as victims appears to be gaining popularity among those leading the intellectual and moral reasoning of your “healing” profession.  

In 1994, with little or no public outcry, the American Psychiatric Association revised its Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM) so that neither pedophilia nor child molestation would, in itself, necessarily, be indicative of psychological disorder. To qualify as disordered, molesters must feel "anxious" about the acts or be "impaired" in their work or social relationships. With little media reporting, and even less critical response from the psychological or psychiatric community, the American Psychiatric Association thus took the first step in changing perceptions of what have traditionally been regarded as among the most serious offenses in our society (Anne Hendershott, The Politics of Deviance, 2002, p. 91).  

Incidentally, I am surprised, Dr. McHugh, by your claim that Berendzen recalled his alleged incestuous abuse by way of retrieving his “repressed memories” (Washington Post Magazine, Sept. 23, 1990, p. 15).  As a member of the False Memory Syndrome Foundation Board, you are aware that the FMSF was created to refute the idea that an associated event can trigger repressed memories of early child sexual trauma.  Yet your official report on Berendzen’s obscene, pedophile-based phone calls you said reflected, 

…post traumatic distress disorder occurring in relationship to trauma experienced during childhood…re-experience[ing] trauma long after it has occurred.  An event associated with the original trauma may trigger the disorder. 

Your official declaration that Berendzen was not a pedophile is even more curious since you say you retrieved his sex abuse memories via the use of “Amytal Nitrate” (the alleged “truth serum”).  Yet your claim for Berendzen’s recalling “the original trauma” of child sex abuse contradicts both your prior FMSF statements as well as an analysis of amytal nitrate studies conducted by three members of your FMSF board who found the “truth serum” ineffectual (see “Amytal Interviews and "Recovered Memories" of Sexual Abuse,” The Institute for Psychological Therapies (Volume 6, 1994).  Like John Money, your board members--Ms. Wakefield and Dr. Underwager--also appeared, lionized, in Paidika: The Journal of Paedophilia, (Winter 1993, Volume 3, No. 1, pp. 2-12).  

Additionally, your OpEd article comparison of sex criminals with those who drink and drive is fundamentally flawed:  

§        First you say just as your treatment of alcoholism deters drunk driving, your treatment of sex criminals similarly deters further sexual crimes.  These claims do not hold up to scrutiny. 

2.         You Are A “Fierce Critic of Kinsey’s Work” 

The second point I will address in your letter is your claim that you are “a fierce critic of Kinsey's work.” You should know that Kinsey’s pro-pedophile sexuality model underpins the sex education, as well as therapy and treatment practiced at the Money-Berlin sex clinic.  For example, its founder, John Money told The Journal of Paedophilia that he wanted to end the “age of consent” and that he created the clinic to give “leeway to judges” in order to keep child molesters out of jail (Spring, 1991, pp. 13, 12). 


As a “fierce” Kinsey opponent myself, I am anxious to read any journal or press articles in which you repudiate the fraudulent research techniques of “the father of the sexual revolution.”  Instead, in your influential 1983 book published by Johns Hopkins, The Perspectives of Psychiatry, you cite “Kinsey and his associates” as authorities on sexual normality (p. 109).  Yet I am unaware of any public apology for such Kinsey support.  

§        On a side note: Your claim that NIH’s inability to distribute funds for a major sex survey in 1980 was due to “Senator Jesse Helms believing an accurate sex survey would sustain Kinsey's conclusions and magnify damage to public morals,” is an inaccurate description of Senator Helms’ concerns. 

§        I had the privilege of working closely with members of Helms’ staff on this issue, so I understood his concern that the proposed sex survey would be as inaccurate as was Kinsey’s study.  Moreover, I think I can help further on this, because as I recall, Senator Helms worried that any sex survey, accurate or no, would work to further de-privatize the sexual act and inevitably encourage greater public and private sexual exploitation.  Sex crime data since 1980 in no way counter Senator Helms’ view about the harmful fallout from even well intentioned actions that would de-privatize sex. 

3.         Your Denunciation of Johns Hopkins’ Sex Guru, Dr. John Money  

§        Your third point relates to your alleged estrangement from John Money.  I am indeed grateful for any marginalization of Dr. Money, based on his pioneering role in transgender operations, seen in the BBC Internet site report below (March 15, 2003). 

Under the guidance of Dr Money and his team at Johns Hopkins University this baby boy [David Reimer] was surgically [castrated] changed into a girl … According to Dr Money's theory she would grow up believing herself to be female and would go on to live a normal happy life as a woman. It seemed the ultimate test that nurture could override nature. 

§        I note that you removed Money’s “controversial evening course in human sexology” in 1983. Precisely why you did so is unclear, based on your esteem for Money in your Perspectives of Psychiatry.  Your index reveals no interest or expertise in sex crimes—no cites to pedophilia, incest, or child sexual abuse. Your reference to “child molestation” is in approval of Freud’s “seduction theory” that blamed women for inventing their early incest due to their sexual desire for their fathers.  Moreover, you extol John Money three times for his “research” –which included the butchery of little baby, David Reimer!  (p. 115, f, 143). 

§        As far as I know, Johns Hopkins never initiated legal actions or any other formal sanctions against John Money following the March 19, 1980 BBC expose revealing Money’s frauds and failed sex experiments on David.  I will gladly include your corrective court records or statements in any future information on this issue.  As you know, Money’s fascistic sex experiments, which claimed one’s birth gender could be changed by genital surgery and sex hormones, was celebrated by respected psychiatrists and lauded in many professional journals.   

§        Tragically, like Kinsey, Money’s books are still sold and often believed. In fact, the “Society for the Scientific Study of Sexuality” now gives “The John Money Award” to “recognize scholars who have made significant contributions to our understanding of human sexuality” (April 24–27, 2003 SSSS conference brochure). 

§        Further, in 1980, three years before you published Perspectives, “the fundamental principles” of psychiatry, (text on the book jacket) John Money was publicly “lobbying against the ban on incest.”  Reports Time (left), 


“John Money of Johns Hopkins…says ‘“A childhood sexual experience, such as being the partner of a relative or of an older person, need not necessarily affect the child adversely…. One who commits incest is like “a religious deviant in a one-religion society.”  [Time adds], “neatly planting the notion that opposition to incest is quite like religious intolerance.” (April 14, 1980, p. 72) 

§        Your inconsistent psychiatric views leave me with many questions.  For example, when did all transgender operations cease?  Did the end of such intrusive operations include a cessation of hormone therapy and other transgender machinations by Money and his disciples?  As an aside:  As Fred Berlin was Money’s most famous student, to what extent was Berlin involved in transgender surgery and/or treatment or in the use of pornography to “help” patients, a standard protocol in John Money’s teaching?   

§        And how do you address your responsibility to report Money in lieu of the APA, “Principles of Medical Ethics” which charges physicians to “expose those physicians deficient in character or competence, or who engage in fraud or deception”?(2001 Edition)   

o       Until 1978, while you were head of the Department of Psychiatry, Money “treated” David (Brenda) Reimer and published his deceptive data claiming his protocol made an infant boy into a happy, well-adjusted girl.   

o       Money was known to be a fanatic pornography fan—seeking to make child pornography by his own admission, in at least one key professional report and forcing his young patients to incestuously “mount” one another for his camera for “therapeutic” reasons (roughly 1973 that we have on record).   


o       In 1984 Money provided fraudulent “data” claiming the harmlessness of pornography before the Committee on the Judiciary, US Senate, speaking as the founder of the “Special Clinic for the Treatment of Sex Offenders at the Johns Hopkins.”  He falsely testified before many such senate and congressional hearings and appeared as an expert witness in many courtroom cases. 

o       In 1985, correct me if I am wrong, but the Money-Berlin John Hopkins sex clinic was in your charge when Michael Peterson, Tom Doyle and Ray Mouton recommended John Money and Fred Berlin to the Catholic Bishops as the premier sex criminal therapists for pedopriests (see “The Problem of Sexual Molestation by Roman Catholic Clergy” left). 

o       It is sad commentary that Money (and thus Johns Hopkins) received “25 years of continuous funding” from the NIH and that Money received the American Psychological Association’s (APA) 1985 Distinguished Scientific Award for the Applications of Psychology” (Psychology Today, “Doctor of Sexology,” 5/88, p. 48).   

o       In 1987, Money “wrote an admiring foreword to…Boys and their Contacts with Men,” which claimed to “be verbatim testimonials of young boys about their happy sex lives with men.”  Three years later, in 1991, The Journal Of Paedophilia interviewed the APA’s “distinguished” scientist, “Professor Emeritus of Medical Psychology in the Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, and Professor of Pediatrics” at Johns Hopkins.  Here Money exalted “man-boy-love,” called pedophilia “erotic parental pair bonding” and said he would never report a pedophile.  The interviewer asked,  

“So, you would attack the whole basis from which age-of-consent laws are constructed, in other words.” 

Dr. Money replies: “I certainly think that’s where we have to begin.” (p. 13) 

I would deeply appreciate receiving your writings condemning Johns Hopkins’ pro-pedophile Professor Emeritus.  Of course, I emphatically agreed with the cessation of Money’s barbaric transsexual sex experiments, especially upon children.  But beyond your in-house rejection of Money’s transgender experiments and his debilitating, hotly contested and injurious pornographic “sexology” course, one would expect your expose of Money’s fraud and deception to be at least as publicly vociferous as your exposes of Bruno Bettleheim and Jack Kevorkian.  Because Money played such an important role sabotaging our sex laws, public denouncements by his Johns Hopkins superior would be most helpful to child protection advocates. 

4.         Linking Fred Berlin and His “Mentor” John Money 

Finally, although you obviously wish to disassociate John Money from his premiere apprentice, Fred Berlin, no objective evidence exists for any such distancing, especially since Berlin never repudiated his mentor. You say, although Berlin was Money’s student in the area of human sexuality, that “overlooks the powerful and independent investigator Dr. Berlin became…for which he is appropriately honored and consulted widely by many, including lately the Catholic Bishops.”  Indeed quite the contrary.   

§        Money’s influence on Berlin’s sex offense views may be seen in various treatment modalities.  Like Money, Berlin normalized homosexual conduct by his false claim that “There is no evidence whatsoever that [men] who are homosexual are any more a threat to boys than [men] who are heterosexual are a threat to girls.” (The Advocate, March 30, 2002).  Money’s pedagogy is visible in Berlin’s report that “Pedophilia…can be effectively controlled with appropriate psychiatric intervention” and thus pedophiles should be freed after “treatment” (cited elsewhere herein).  Money’s pedagogy is visible in Berlin’s attempt to protect sex criminals from the authorities despite their ongoing crimes.  These are all critical issues in priest sex therapy and punishment.   

As The Capital reported  (March 23, 1988):   

Dr. Berlin convinced legislators last year to exempt specialists who treat pedophiles [from the reporting law] as long as the criminal act occurred in the past. Now the doctor is pushing a bill that would exempt specialists from reporting pedophiles even when their crimes continue during treatment (emphasis added).   

§        Moreover, as noted in As Nature Made Him, a book you cite for authority, Berlin supported the sexual views of his “mentor,” even defending Money’s despotic and bullying abuse of patients and colleagues via sadistic, obscene speech.  Who is naïve enough to believe that the Money/Berlin clinic was sensitizing sex criminals to the harm they did to others when Money’s strategy—defended by Berlin--was to eliminate “prudery” by coarsening and “desensitizing” their patients and colleagues to sexual language, ideas and images?  As seen below, not only did Berlin justify Money’s violent verbal sex assaults—language hospitable to sex criminals—to my knowledge, Berlin also never condemned Money’s recommendations of pornography or pedophilia, including forcing pornography on children.   

Convinced that embargoes on certain words promoted prudery, Money inserted the words fuck, cock, and cunt into his regular conversation with colleagues and patients.  Dr Fred Berlin, a professor of psychiatry at the Johns Hopkins School of Medicine and a colleague who considers Money one of his most important mentors, defends Money’s penchant for sexual outspokenness.  “Because he thinks it’s important to desensitize people in discussing sexual issues,” Berlin says, “he will sometimes use four-letter words that others might find offensive.”  (John Colapinto, As Nature Made Him, Harper/Collins, 2000, p. 29, emphasis added).  

[A]t least eight men have been convicted of sexually abusing Maryland children while under treatment there.  That’s a threat to public safety that cannot be taken lightly (emphasis added).  

§        While the APA “ethics” state, “It would seem self evident that a psychiatrist who is a lawbreaker might be ethically unsuited to practice his/her profession,” you say in your January letter that it would have been best if “The American Catholic Bishops had followed this program back in the 1980s.”  As support for this fatuous notion, you cite “Dr. Berlin's published research on [their] recidivism rates.”  But Berlin’s “recidivism rates” are no more reliable than decades of Money’s “research” claims that he made a happy girl out of a genetic boy.  As you know, Money’s fraudulent “research” was widely accepted by professionals in the health field, triggering horrific mutations of thousands of children worldwide under psychiatric supervision, absent any replicable data to sustain Money’s —or their—success or failures.   

§        Also, as you know, absent hard proofs (i.e., precise treatment protocols and the names, addresses, dates, etc. of the criminals treated) there is no scientific validation of the alleged successful replication of the Money-Berlin sex “treatment” program, not by you nor by “many other students of sexual behavior and confirmed in peer-reviewed journals such as the New England Journal of Medicine.”  Kinsey is the prime example of hiding under the umbrella of “confidentiality” to violate all of the canons of scientific validity.  Indeed, it is presumptuous to suggest that the still unproven Money-Berlin sex “treatment” has, as you claim, “prevented much victimization of children and others,” when only the incarceration of sex criminals is proven to prevent any recidivism.  

Crime Web: K Sifuentes. (2001) reported that  “Stayner confronted Armstrong at gunpoint, forced her into the house where he bound and gagged her, and then forced her into his vehicle. They said he planned to rape and murder her,” but she fought him off.  Captured, he slit her throat…[She] was dead when she was beheaded.


[V]oyeurism, pedophilia, rapism and other paraphilias can be effectively controlled with appropriate psychiatric intervention. There is a necessary and close relationship between the medical establishment and the legal system to provide for resolution of this complex problem (emphasis added).



Like his guru, John Money, Berlin has clearly indicated that in his pantheon of “badness,” he does not consider rapists or rapist-mutilators to be sexual sadists unless they admit (or record under observed laboratory conditions) a sexual thrill thereby.  Along this, to my mind bogus line of therapy, in his training sessions for law enforcement and others (left) Berlin offers clergy, priests, teachers, mental health professionals and justice decision makers course work defining rape as an illness as “rapism,” another “paraphilia” effectively controlled with appropriate psychiatric intervention.”  Of course, I know of no objective, verifiable, scientific criteria for Berlin’s “expert” claims that rape is not an expression of “sadism” any more than the claim that “rapism” is just another mental “illness” that the Johns Hopkins sex clinic “effectively controlled.”  Below is a direct quote from Berlin’s training brochure for law enforcement, health professionals, academics, etc. 

5.         Maryland Reporting Laws  

 Dr. McHugh, although you charge that I misrepresented your attempt to ignore Maryland laws on reporting of sex criminals, all I have done is to cite your own quotes in the Baltimore press—several quotes appearing earlier in this letter.  Not only were you on record as Berlin’s superior in 1988 (and Money’s also?) when Berlin was reported as “pushing a bill that would exempt specialists from reporting pedophiles even when their crimes continue during treatment,” but in the March 4, 1990 article in The Sun, you repeated your agreement with the Money-Berlin long-standing refusal to report active sex criminals.  

§        The [Baltimore] Sun article, “Doctor Skirts Reporting Law On Sex Crimes: Attorney general challenges policy of Hopkins clinic,” quotes Dr. Berlin and you, represented as his “superiors” at Johns Hopkins.  I cite from the March 4, 1990 article as follows: 

For the last eight months, Dr. Fred S. Berlin, director of the Johns Hopkins Hospital’s sexual disorders clinic, has circumvented a state law requiring that incidents of child sexual abuse be reported…. On the day the [reporting law] went into effect, with the blessing of his superiors, Dr. Berlin issued a memorandum to patients and prospective patients warning them of the state’s new reporting requirement and suggesting a way around it… Dr. Berlin’s boss, Dr. Paul R. McHugh…said the hospital…did agree with [Berlin’s] interpretation of [the law]… “We did what we thought was appropriate” (emphasis added). 

 As I said, this response is limited to a few key statements of error in your letter and in the OpEd “evidence” you presented on the Berendzen case.  (I have not even touched on your refusal to ban cloning as a member of the President’s Bioethics Council on Human Cloning). However, Dr. McHugh, based on your letter I am more than willing to take your statement at face value that you have been misquoted in the press, that you and Johns Hopkins no longer guarantee sex criminals such dangerous liberties, and that you are meeting the reporting requirements imposed by Maryland law.

 Cordially yours,
             Judith A. Reisman, Ph.D.



Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences

600 N Wolfe Street/Meyer 127

Baltimore, MD 21287-7127

 Paul R. McHugh M.D.
University Distinguished Service Professor of Psychiatry

 January 13, 2003

 Dr. Judith Reisman
Institute for Media Education
P.O. Box 15284
Sacramento, CA 05851-0284

Dear Dr. Reisman,

 I have received a series of articles and published interviews of yours purporting to describe my professional opinions and practices concerning sexual disorders, their psychiatric treatment, and the referral of sex offenders to the criminal justice system. As I understand these presentations, you are claiming that in some way I am an advocate of the views of the late sexologist, Alfred Kinsey, and in my role as Director of the Department of Psychiatry at Johns Hopkins I have, because of Kinsey's influence, encouraged the enterprises of Dr. John Money, given uncritical support to Dr. Fred Berlin, and flouted the reporting laws of the State of Maryland. Since none of these claims is true, I thought I should write to you about my actions (with evidence) in order to give you a clear view of my attitudes and my work.

 First: I send you a copy of a Baltimore Sun op-ed article I wrote back in 1990, when the confusions about punishment and treatment of sex offenders was at its height. The interest of the public at the time was generated in part by some of the high-profile individuals being treated for sex offenses at Johns Hopkins, and in part by some of the new treatments being proposed by Dr. Berlin for sexual disorders. This article, I think, will disabuse you of any concerns you might have that I am (or ever have been) reluctant to see sex offenders receive public and prompt punishment. In fact, I have taught that legal punishment has much value, in both its deterrent and reprobative features, for any anti-social behavioral disorder such as drug addiction, alcoholism, and sexual paraphilias. This article makes these points clearly, I think, and you should know it.

 Second: If you had talked with any of my students and were aware of my work in psychiatric epidemiology, you would have learned that I have been a fierce critic of Kinsey's work, recognizing early that his conclusions were based upon "samples of convenience" and his claims, such as those about the prevalence of homosexuality and about the numbers of sexual partners most people have in a lifetime, were likely to be grossly exaggerated. None of us knew back in the 1980s that Kinsey was in fact a sexual incontinent and that many of his collaborators were sexually involved with him and his wife. My criticisms were based on his dubious research methods. I was one of the supporters of the proposal from the University of Chicago to do another survey of American sexual behavior in the 1990s that ultimately proved just how inaccurate the Kinsey figures were and just how misguided social policy would be if based upon them. You may remember that the investigators from Chicago had great difficulty in obtaining NIH funding because Senator Jesse Helms, believing an accurate sex survey would sustain Kinsey's conclusions and magnify damage to public morals, worked to obstruct the NIH support of this research program. I was one of the voices encouraging this research and now all who know this work and the results are greatly cheered. Amongst the findings are 1) faithful married couples have the greatest sexual happiness 2) the vast majority of Americans have a single sexual partner 3) Heterosexuality is much more the standard than Kinsey claimed. All this has been celebrated at Johns Hopkins under my direction of the Department of Psychiatry.

 Third: Certainly, if you have studied this history, you must be aware of the great tensions between Dr. John Money and me when I was his departmental director. He has made them clear in many of his books, usually claiming my opposition to his teachings and practices were driven by my religion rather than, as I have repeatedly stated, my psychiatric knowledge.

 Thus, early in my tenure at Johns Hopkins I removed Dr. Money from his role in teaching about sex to the medical students and ultimately moved his office from the main medical campus so as to reduce his influence on our department. I also argued against and ultimately withdrew the support of psychiatry at Hopkins for sex-change operations - a move that led to the cessation of this form of surgery at this institution. I then recruited and trained in psychiatry and child psychiatry a young pediatric urologist, William Reiner, so that a multi-faceted investigator could explore the whole arena of sex organ surgery and sexual orientation in those born with inter-sex abnormalities. I intended to challenge the Money assumption that the sex of rearing of these children will determine their sexual orientation in adulthood - an assumption supporting the universal practice of surgical construction of vaginas in all such children and their rearing as females. Reiner's work is now being published. It demonstrates the modest influence of rearing and the huge influence of genes and intrauterine endocrine exposure on sexual orientation - a direct refutation of Dr. Money's claim that psychosocial factors outweigh biological factors in forging one's sexual orientation. All of this and my role were described in the Colapinto book "As Nature Made Him." Surely knowledge of these matters should have led you to doubt I gave Dr. Money undue license or accepted his views on sexual matters.

 Fourth: You note that Dr. Fred Berlin was a student of Dr. Money. This statement overlooks the powerful and independent investigator Dr. Berlin became shortly after graduating from the Hopkins residency program in psychiatry. The great contribution Dr.

Berlin brought to the study of the sexually disordered, including sex criminals - and for which he is appropriately honored and consulted widely by many, including lately the Catholic Bishops - was the view that these individuals could not be "cured" of their behavior and certainly not by insight-oriented, Freudian-influenced talk therapy. They needed 1) to have their behavior directly attacked by anti-androgen (sex-drive lowering) medications and 2) then be closely and continually supervised - in collaboration with parole officers for criminals -in ways that would follow them and respond to any suggestion of an impending relapse. Would that the American Catholic Bishops had followed this program back in the 1980s.

 Dr. Berlin's published research on the recidivism rates of people treated his way showed a huge improvement over the results of either talk therapy or imprisonment. His work has been replicated by many other students of sexual behavior and confirmed in peer-reviewed journals such as the New England Journal of Medicine. This work revolutionized the treatment standards not only in America but in the world, and brought successful control to many previously unmanageable sex offenders. His pioneering work has prevented much victimization of children and others. Dr. Berlin, if you should talk with him, would, I think, impress you with his concern for victims and his commitment to the best public policies. Certainly the designation of the treatment program he directs as a National Resource Site by the U.S. Department of Justice indicates that American law-enforcement agencies are more than satisfied with his practices and his attitudes towards victims.

 Finally: you accuse me of supporting unlawful practices to thwart the appropriate reporting of sexual criminals. In this also, you are mistaken. On the face of it, do you think I would be permitted by my superiors at Johns Hopkins to break any laws, or be sustained in the office of Psychiatrist-in-Chief of this great hospital for over 26 years, if I were actively thwarting the Maryland authorities in their responsibilities for protecting the public? You may have come to this false opinion by hearing of Dr. Berlin's concerns, before a new reporting law was passed in Maryland, that his capacities to find the truth from families in the course of building a treatment plan for them might be impossible if the doctor-patient privilege were revoked and the person brought by the family for help were promptly exposed. But immediately after Maryland's most recent mandatory reporting law was passed, he and I, along with the legal counsel for Johns Hopkins Hospital, asked the Attorney General of Maryland to visit with us, explain the law, and hear our concerns. Our responsibilities to the law for reporting offenders AND our responsibilities to inform the families of the problematic situation they faced if they consulted us were spelled out. From that day forward, and with my specific direction, these reporting requirements and explanatory responsibilities to patients and families have been met.

 I believe you have been misinformed about the Department of Psychiatry here at Hopkins and quite specifically misinformed about my views and the direction those views gave to the practices and research investigations here. I hope this letter clarifies matters and ends your misrepresentations of us.

 Yours sincerely,

 Paul R. McHugh M.D.

University Distinguished Service Professor of Psychiatry

 (scanned from the original letter)


Reports on Treatment of Pedophiles and Child Molesters (1981)

Dr. Fred Berlin

Department of Psychiatry & Behavior Sciences,

Johns Hopkins University

Below is the Berlin & Coyle report from the Johns Hopkins’ sex offender clinic on rates of recidivism on offenders treated at the JH clinic: 


·        Of 20 male sex criminals (“patients”) listed in the study 13 were child molesters. 

·        Of these 13, 4 were still “in treatment” leaving a test population of 9 child molesters. 

·        Of these 9, 3 or 33% were reported not “relapsing” to “deviant behavior” within 2 years (see data at right for these same 20 criminals). 


Using these criteria only 3 (33%) of the 9 released molesters did not ‘relapse” within a 2 year period—a 67% failure rate.  The % of those who relapsed after 2 years remains covered up.  It should be close to 100% recidivism or the researchers would have cited the success post year 2. 


·        Projecting offenses committed by those relapsing, (based on the same rate as admitted by the offender at the time of incarceration), the 9 “relapsed” child molesters would average 32 crimes monthly against children or 384 crimes against children a year; 768 in Berlin & Coyle’s 2 year window (some may have been multiple abuses of the same child). 


Convicted sex criminals are not required to inject chemical treatment such as Depro Provera after their release from their court ordered treatment or incarceration.  Thus, one cannot predict what percentage of “treated” molesters will increase their child abuse crimes upon release. 


All Berlin/McHugh John Hopkins therapies are based on a “1-year” follow-up to report re-offense. Relapse occurs “less than 1 year” after treatment or “more than 1 year after treatment.”  This strongly implies that a hidden post-one-year follow-up yielded roughly a 100% failure rate.  

Below is the time line in Berlin & Schaerf’s “Lab Assessment of the Paraphilias” that explicates the Hopkins report on the same child molester population seen at left.

67% “Relapsed” within only a

“1-year” follow-up for roughly 348 more child abuse crimes in the year studied

Citations:  Richard C. W. Hall, M.C. and Thomas P. Beresford, MD, Handbook of Psychiatric Diagnostic Procedures, Vol. II New York:  Spectrum Publications, 1985.  Chapter 14, “Laboratory Assessment of the Paraphilias and Their Treatment with Antiandrogenic Medication” by Fred S. Berlin and Frederick W. Schaerf.  Also, Fred S. Berlin and Genevieve S. Coyle, “Sexual Deviation Syndromes,” The Johns Hopkins Medical Journal, Vol. 149, No. 3, September 1981, p. 119-125.  “Acknowledgments:" “Dr. Paul McHugh, Dr. John Money and Ms. Maggie Rider for their encouragement and kind assistance.”




* * * * * *








* * * * * * * * * *

Go to:  => TOP Page; => Sexuality Libraries;  => ROAD MAP