Death From Ritalin
john
The Truth Behind ADHD
This story was published at http://www.RitalinDeath.com
Hello, my name is Lawrence Smith; I am here to let you know about the death
of our fourteen-Year-old Son Matthew. He died on March 21, 2000. The cause
was determined to be from the long- term (age 7-14) use of Methylphenidate
a medication commonly known as Ritalin.
The Certificate of Death under due to, (or because of) reads. Death caused
from Long Term Use of Methylphenidate, (Ritalin). According to Dr. Ljuba
Dragovic, The chief pathologist in Oakland County Michigan, upon autopsy,
Matthew's heart showed clear signs of small vessel damage, the type caused
by stimulant drugs like amphetamines.
The medical examiners told me that a full-grown man's heart weighs about
350 grams and that Matthew's heart weight was about 402 grams.
Matthew did not have a preexisting heart disease or defect that we knew of.
We, his parents never ignored his medical needs. The medical examiner said
this type of heart damage is not easy to detect with the standard test
necessary for prescription refills.
While visiting the doctor with the schools diagnosis and the recommendation
for Ritalin, he seemed very frustrated and asked us to let the school know,
I am not a pharmacy. This leads me to believe that we were not the first
parents sent to this doctor, with the schools diagnosis and recommendation
for Ritalin.
No one ever informed us of other crucial tests (echocardiogram) that we
could have had done that would have discovered the enlargement of the heart
muscle, caused from scare tissue which these types of drugs cause. The
standard test performed consists of blood work, listening to the heart,
questions about school behaviors, sleeping and eating habits.
It all started for Matthew in the first grade the school social worker in
Berkley, Michigan kept calling us in for meetings. One particular morning
before an IEP meeting, the school social worker Monica Fuchs and my wife
and I were waiting on the others to arrive.
Monica made us feel very threatened when she said that if we wouldn't
consider getting Matt on Ritalin for their diagnosis of Attention Deficit
Hyperactivity Disorder, that social services (child protective services)
could charge us for neglecting his educational and emotional needs. My wife
and I were scared of the possibility of losing our children, if we did not
comply.
I believe that some school employees like having children medicated
because, it makes frustrated students that are having a difficult time
learning and understanding, easier to manage, regardless of the physical
and psychological risks this practice poses to children.
Not all families can afford hundreds of dollars for a drug free, private
evaluation, so they will not be cornered into medicating their child.
I am hoping that Republicans and Democrats will work together and fight
this horrific war against the future of America, our children.
Medical diagnosis should remain outside the realm of education and stay
there. Pressure to seek specific medical treatment is not the job of the
school system.
We did not want Matthew on any medications, even though the school social
worker or the doctor never informed us about the dangers of Ritalin and
other stimulant medications used for ADD and ADHD. We just didn't feel good
about putting our son on drugs and we made it very clear to school
officials.
Informed Consent", which states in part A person's agreement to allow
something to happen (such as surgery) that is based on a full disclosure of
the facts needed to make the decision intelligently; i.e. knowledge of
risks involved, alternatives etc" and "the probable risks against the
probable benefits"
The violation of parent's rights is when they are not told of the
unscientific nature of so-called disorders such as ADHD or the risks of the
treatments involving (drugs) and they certainly are not told of
alternatives to their child's behavior such as undiagnosed allergies or
food sensitivities, which could manifest with the symptoms of what
psychiatry calls ADHD.
If we weren't pressure by the school system, Matt would still be alive
today. I cannot go back and change things for us at this point. However, I
hope to God my story and information will reach the hearts and minds, of
many families, so they can make an educated decision with more than a
little selective information, if any, paid for by psychology and drug
companies.
I have created this website in hopes that parents will learn the health
risks involved in using psychotropic medications on growing children. I hope
you will be spared all the suffering and heartbreak this whole ADHD
issue has caused our family and many others.
Please do not be intimidated by family, school staff, doctors, or anyone
into medicating your child for ADHD or ADD. These mental illnesses are
scientifically unfounded with no scientific validity what so ever. The
dopamine theory is nothing more than wishful thinking on the part of
psychiatry and the pharmaceutical industry.
I truly believe this must have been my son's purpose, to save the health
and lives of many others.
How old will people live after taking these types of drugs as a child?
Every time I hear about a child or young adult that has died from heart
failure, I always wonder if they were ever on a psychotropic medication
used for ADHD or depression.
If I would of known about all the children that have died from these
psychiatric medications, I would have never given Matt the first pill.
Did you know that children that are diagnosed as having ADHD or ADD and
take medication, the school labels them as learning disabled, and the
schools receives additional state and federal funding per-child,
per-semester.
I wonder if that is one of the reasons why school administrators are so
adamant about medication, and the other would be to control their behavior,
in their drug free school zone.
One of the hardest things for me to deal with is the fact that, Matthew
never wanted his medication.
How many more 11-year-old Stephanie Hall's and 14-year-old Matthew Smith's
will have to die before someone puts a stop to the biggest health care
fraud ever? How many times will school psychology and drug companies get
away with this?
In 1998 at the National Institutes of Health Consensus Conference on ADHD
The NIH issued the following statement regarding ADHD:
"We do not have an independent, valid test for ADHD, and there is no data
to indicate that ADHD is due to a brain malfunction"
Children, do not need to be made into little robots with medication. I feel
that good parenting, structure, diets, and teaching methods can make all
the difference in the world. Different children develop in different ways;
you cannot put children all into one box.
Did you know that the ADHD diagnosis checklist of behaviors is almost the
same as the list of behaviors for gifted children. www.nfgcc.org
Did you know that doctor's use to give amphetamines out for diet
medication? They stopped because of the dangerous and sometimes fatal heart
related side effects.
Now drug companies have a new market, with new names for the drugs and have
went from adult weight medication to children's ADHD.
The DEA has classified Ritalin as a schedule two drug, comparable to
Cocaine. Ritalin is also one of the top ten abused prescription drugs on
the streets today.
From the research that I have done on amphetamines, when they are used,
all the veins and arteries constrict and get very small which makes it hard
for the heart to pump blood throughout the body. The extra force it takes
to circulate blood causes damage to the heart.
There are many other drugs that are given to children for ADHD with
different names; Adderall, Concreta, Metadate, Ritalin, the list goes on
and on, most if not all are stimulant drugs with Amphetamine-Speed.
We are coming to a point in our history were children have been taking
these drugs for some time. Now the information is starting to come out.
This is a very sad why for us to find out the long-term side effects, by
using our children as guinea pigs.
Are you sick of the harassment and threats from school administrators to
have our children medicated with stimulant drugs for their evaluations of
ADHD? If so it's time we as parents pull together and put a stop to this
inhuman practice. School administrators need to stay out of our personal
business with their psychology and do the job we pay them to do!
If you are concerned about the following things taking place is our
schools? Handing out pro-drug information paid for by Psychology and the
Pharmaceutical industry, which is a violation of our informed consent,
profiling, labeling, coercion, manipulation, even the threat of educational
neglect by child protective services because parent's chooses not to
medicate their child with dangerous drugs?
Please feel free to post your story on the discussion board so state and
federal lawmakers can see first hand what is going on in our public and
privet schools.
If you are being harassed by school administrators to medicate your child?
for ADD or ADHD Tell Them Where To Go! http://www.RitalinDeath.com
Darwin
news:ao0l3v$ks3$1...@helle.btinternet.com...
> Death From Ritalin
> The Truth Behind ADHD
>
>
>
> Hello, my name is Lawrence Smith;
Nope, don't think you're right there, I think your name is "john".
When the name is similar to the posted name I'll consider if the rest of the
information you have to oiffer is valid.
OK?
Maybe you're ADHD and didn't realise posting the entire webpage here was a
tad bit boring?
Carol T
> Death From Ritalin
> The Truth Behind ADHD
Some of the listed side effects of the drug are fast heart beat, raised
blood pressure and chest pain, so I'm not surprised.
There are a number of sites on the Internet expressing concerns about the
effects of the drug on children's hearts.
It's called the 'pay off ', or the silent side effect of having drug
controlled children. The ' you want it, you got it syndrome'.
People wanted quiet kids, and you don't get them more quiet that when they
are in a coffin. Can't have it all ways.
Carol T
Mark Probert
"Carol T" <cteas...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:ao0nim$5lq$1...@venus.btinternet.com...
>
> "john" <jo...@nospam.com> wrote in message
> news:ao0l3v$ks3$1...@helle.btinternet.com...
>
> > Death From Ritalin
> > The Truth Behind ADHD
>
> Some of the listed side effects of the drug are fast heart beat, raised
> blood pressure and chest pain, so I'm not surprised.
>
> There are a number of sites on the Internet expressing concerns about the
> effects of the drug on children's hearts.
Usually sites run by the Krininal Kult of $cientology, or some seller of a
bogus 'cure' or one run by a clueless twit with an agenda.
> It's called the 'pay off ', or the silent side effect of having drug
> controlled children. The ' you want it, you got it syndrome'.
Hogwash.
> People wanted quiet kids, and you don't get them more quiet that when
they
> are in a coffin. Can't have it all ways.
Carol, you continually amaze me at the ever growing list of things that your
spew and spout about, and do not have the slightest clue.
There has been no substantiated documented death from using methylphenidate
as prescribed.
Richard Cavell
I agree that the diagnosis and treatment of ADHD is unsatisfactory. I also
agree with the principles of informed consent, though at the same time I
think there's a chasm between what doctors actually do tell their patients
and what their patients remember.
This bit, though, is absolute bullshit.
> of the unscientific nature of so-called disorders such as ADHD
> alternatives to their child's behavior such as undiagnosed allergies or
bogus address
>This bit, though, is absolute bullshit.
>
>> of the unscientific nature of so-called disorders such as ADHD
>
>> alternatives to their child's behavior such as undiagnosed allergies or
>> food sensitivities, which could manifest with the symptoms of what
>> psychiatry calls ADHD.
Food sensitivities are very often implicated in ADHD. My girlfriend
here treats kids that way all the time; combination of eliminating
trigger foods and adding a small amount of dietary supplements (zinc,
magnesium, chromium and vitamins A and C, typically).
HOWEVER, it is just about never the whole cause, there is no earthly
reason not use *both* dietary treatment and Ritalin at the same time,
and usually both at once isn't enough.
Some of what she ends up telling the parents is equally unwelcome
whether they're for or against chemical treatment. Like: *you're*
doing this to your kids by the home environment you've got them
living in - let them stay up till 3am watching TVs in their rooms or
playing computer games while fuelled on carbonated caffeine and you
expect them to slow down and concentrate to order? get real...
Usually ADHD is a multifactorial condition, with the behaviour ingrained
over years, and even if it did start by some biochemical abnormality
that either Ritalin or dietary management might fix, the lifestyle the
family has worked itself into will continue to reinforce the behaviour
even when the cause has been completely eliminated. A significant
number of parents *need* their kids to be hyperactive; usually this is
because of their own cultural background, but one particularly sick
reason that occurs in parts of Scotland is financial motivation. The
benefits granted to parents of ADHD kids can be so high compared with
the family's usual income that in many cases they'd be significantly
impoverished if the authorities decided the kid was cured.
Junk food usually goes along with a junk lifestyle. The number of
Playstation games lying around a house is going to correlate pretty
well with the number of empty McDonalds boxes in the bin. Combine a
physiological response to an allergen with a conditioning pattern
that rewards motor excitation and what do you expect to happen?
People who live in a home environment where nobody ever gets to sit
quiet and think don't often want to hear that the most effective thing
they could do for their kids is turn the video off, shut the fuck up,
leave them alone and read the paper.
========> Email to "jc" at this site; email to "bogus" will bounce. <========
Jack Campin: 11 Third Street, Newtongrange, Midlothian EH22 4PU; 0131 6604760
http://www.purr.demon.co.uk/purrhome.html food intolerance data and recipes,
freeware logic fonts for the Macintosh, and Scots traditional music resources
Darwin
news:xLVo9.25185$vg.6...@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
I have in my hot little hand all the information I need about
methylphenidate. I don't NEED to remember exactly everything written all I
need do is remember where I put the pamphlet. But I will get more pamphlets
in my next perscription for methylphenidate.
> I agree that the diagnosis and treatment of ADHD is unsatisfactory
What do you know that causes you to think this is unsatisfactory?
> This bit, though, is absolute bullshit.
>
> > of the unscientific nature of so-called disorders such as ADHD
>
> > alternatives to their child's behavior such as undiagnosed allergies or
> > food sensitivities, which could manifest with the symptoms of what
> > psychiatry calls ADHD.
Even if one can prove the above has an impact on 1 person that is not reason
enough to prove the same would affect all people with AD/HD It may be that
the people it works on never had AD/HD to begin with. And it may be utter
bullshit!
AD/HD doesn't just affect children and not all people "grow" out of it.
There are a great many LD's that have similar characteristics to AD/HD but
are not AD/HD yet the medication has a beneficial effect. I see no reason
to change a prescription just because a dx is wrong but the medication works
just fine. I do see a reason to change a medication when it doesn't work,
that is just logical.
sky-hi
<mark_probertT...@hotmail.com> wrote:
.......
>There has been no substantiated documented death from using methylphenidate
>as prescribed.
Am I missing something? The original post says:
"The Certificate of Death under due to, (or because of) reads. Death
caused from Long Term Use of Methylphenidate, (Ritalin). According to
Dr. Ljuba Dragovic, The chief pathologist in Oakland County Michigan,
upon autopsy, Matthew's heart showed clear signs of small vessel
damage, the type caused by stimulant drugs like amphetamines.
The medical examiners told me that a full-grown man's heart weighs
about 350 grams and that Matthew's heart weight was about 402 grams."
Is this not substantiated documentation?
sky-hi
post that I realized the whole thing might have originated from a
troll.
On Wed, 9 Oct 2002 20:22:06 -0700, "Darwin" <ed...@fine-line.com>
wrote:
Al Hephy
Darwin <ed...@fine-line.com> wrote in message news:ao22nu$eu$1...@lust.ihug.co.nz...
don't actually have!
And I think there's something basically wrong about sending a child
off to a 'drug free environment' after giving him a dose of mind-altering
substance.
In (better) by-gone days we had separate facilities for children with
serious behavioral problems. What happened?
Regards, Al
sky-hi
Gym Bob
"Al Hephy" <AHe...@freewweb.invalid> wrote in message
news:1034201028.861931@savina...
Steve Harris
>Even if one can prove the above has an impact on 1 person that is not
reason
>enough to prove the same would affect all people with AD/HD It may be that
>the people it works on never had AD/HD to begin with. And it may be utter
>bullshit!
>AD/HD doesn't just affect children and not all people "grow" out of it.
>There are a great many LD's that have similar characteristics to AD/HD but
>are not AD/HD yet the medication has a beneficial effect. I see no reason
>to change a prescription just because a dx is wrong but the medication
works
>just fine
The "medication" works just fine in almost everyone. That's why they call it
speed, don't you know. The Air Force has used amphetamines for years to
improve performance in combat pilots, and nobody thinks they all have adult
ADD. There are a number of studies to show that the effects of amphetamines
are much the same in "normal children" as they are in ADD children-- and in
most adults for that matter: they focus attention and allow greater
concentration. Golly. Same as adrenaline.
The supposed "reverse effect" of amphetamines on kids with ADD is one of the
great medical myths of modern times (even a few doctors believe it). But of
course if there was anything to the idea, the reaction to amphetamines could
be used as a powerful diagnostic tool, right? A great help in diagnosing a
disease which doesn't HAVE any good differentiating chemical tests. But
there's a very good reason why they don't do a formal amphetamine challenge
to see which kids have AD/HD-- it wouldn't work. So instead, the current fad
is to make the diagnosis, then treat with the drug. And behold, a miracle!
Johnny studies better on speed! We must have been right about his problem!
What wonderful diagnosticians we are.
Of course, as with alcohol or any drug, there are people who will ruin their
lives with amphetamines. None of which means anything with regard to the
people who are capable of using it as a tool, occasionally. But that's true
of all drugs, prescribed and not, legal and no, used to treat "disease" or
not. There are no bad drugs; just bad combinations of particular drugs and
particular people.
SBH
--
I welcome email from any being clever enough to fix my address. It's open
book. A prize to the first spambot that passes my Turing test.
Mark Probert
Nope. It is unsupported medical opinion of one doctor who ran out of
headlines when Jack the Dripper was convicted.
There is NO medical literature that supports his claim. If you
disagree, provide it.
Mark Probert
A kid died from an undiagnosed cardiac problem, which does happen at times,
and, the headline-deprived coroner needed something to keep himself in the
news, since his previous bogeyman, Jack-The-Dripper Kevorkian, had been
convicted.
I checked quite thoroughly in the medical literature, and spoke with several
assistant medical examiners (all board certified in forensic pathology) and
found that there is nothing in the medicalliterature that would substantiate
Dragovic's opinion.
If it goes to court, Dragovic will be roasted on cross exam.
"sky-hi" <sky...@sky-hi.com> wrote in message
news:un99quk2mvf6hcjst...@4ax.com...
Richard Steven Walz
No, that's a semantically illusory nonsense statement.
Do you class all "drugs" as drugs of abuse, as social problems? NO!
Asthma meds, insulin, etc, would be disparaged wrongly!
IF treatment with drugs works, then we don't NEED such facilities.
The only LEGITIMATE question is WHETHER the behavioral features
constitute a true disorder, and if so, then whether those drugs work.
Steve
Mark Probert
"Mark Probert" <mark_p...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:308657.021010...@posting.google.com...
I'll give you some help....
http://www.detnews.com/2000/health/0004/18/a01-38833.htm
Note what the family attorney said.
Carol T
There is NO medical literature that supports his claim. If you
> disagree, provide it.
It's a controlled B drug because it's an 'amphetamine' There's loads of
information about the side effects of amphetamines !
"Amphetamines can produce severe systemic effects, including cardiac
irregularities " http://www.infoplease.com/ce6/sci/A0856602.html
" Long Term Use:
Heavy users also risk damaging blood vessels or heart failure, especially
among people with existing high blood pressure, heart trouble or amongst
people who take strenuous exercise whilst using the drug."
http://www.termisoc.org/~harl/amphets.html
Under Ritalin side effects this site http://www.medsafe.govt.nz/search.htm
warns people to see their doctor for a multitude of things if they
experience them as side effects, including the following:
pain or tightness in the chest
fast or irregular heart beat, changes in blood pressure
severe or persistent headache.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
So, how many children would even know to mention these side effects to their
parents?
Carol T
Wyle E. Coyote, M.D.
>
> "Mark Probert" <mark_p...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:308657.021010...@posting.google.com...
>
>
> There is NO medical literature that supports his claim. If you
> > disagree, provide it.
>
> It's a controlled B drug because it's an 'amphetamine' There's loads of
> information about the side effects of amphetamines !
>
It is not an amphetamine. It;s action is related to the action of
amphetamine, but it is a different chemical.
Like amphetamine, it is a stimulant, however.
> "Amphetamines can produce severe systemic effects, including cardiac
> irregularities " http://www.infoplease.com/ce6/sci/A0856602.html
>
> " Long Term Use:
> Heavy users also risk damaging blood vessels or heart failure, especially
> among people with existing high blood pressure, heart trouble or amongst
> people who take strenuous exercise whilst using the drug."
> http://www.termisoc.org/~harl/amphets.html
>
Heavy users. The doses of Ritalin do not count as heavy use of amphetmine
(or any use for that matter -- they are different drugs).
> Under Ritalin side effects this site http://www.medsafe.govt.nz/search.htm
> warns people to see their doctor for a multitude of things if they
> experience them as side effects, including the following:
>
> pain or tightness in the chest
>
> fast or irregular heart beat, changes in blood pressure
>
> severe or persistent headache.
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> So, how many children would even know to mention these side effects to
their
> parents?
>
That is why doctors ask about them at visits. And why parents watch their
kdis.
All the best.
Wyle
>
>
> Carol T
>
>
>
>
>
>
Wyle E. Coyote, M.D.
"Steve Harris" <sbha...@ix.RETICULATEDOBJECTcom.com> wrote in message
news:vp6p9.18794$OB5.1...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
Yeah, but people with ADHD have problems with focusing, hyperactiving and/or
attention that most people do not.
> The supposed "reverse effect" of amphetamines on kids with ADD is one of
the
> great medical myths of modern times (even a few doctors believe it).
Actually, more than a few doctors beleive it. Most do. Because of the
evidence that shows that it is real.
>But of
> course if there was anything to the idea, the reaction to amphetamines
could
> be used as a powerful diagnostic tool, right?
No, as you point out, amphetamines improve the concentration in most people.
Plus the placebo effect means that people who think they are going to have
improved attention will have improved attention.
> A great help in diagnosing a
> disease which doesn't HAVE any good differentiating chemical tests. But
> there's a very good reason why they don't do a formal amphetamine
challenge
> to see which kids have AD/HD-- it wouldn't work. So instead, the current
fad
> is to make the diagnosis, then treat with the drug. And behold, a miracle!
> Johnny studies better on speed! We must have been right about his problem!
> What wonderful diagnosticians we are.
>
Before you treat the patient and his/her family, you have to make the
diagnosis. This involves impairment in school and at home, reports from
teachers, often input from psychologists, as well as meeting formal criteria
and ruling out other problems, like depression.
> Of course, as with alcohol or any drug, there are people who will ruin
their
> lives with amphetamines. None of which means anything with regard to the
> people who are capable of using it as a tool, occasionally. But that's
true
> of all drugs, prescribed and not, legal and no, used to treat "disease" or
> not. There are no bad drugs; just bad combinations of particular drugs
and
> particular people.
>
I would disagree. THere are some drugs that are nearly always bad. Crack
cocaine is one. And there is evidence that people with ADHD who are treated
are less likely to use drugs recreationally than people with ADHD who are
not treated.
All the best,
Wyle
D. C. Sessions
> In (better) by-gone days we had separate facilities for children with
> serious behavioral problems. What happened?
Yup, and in those "better by-gone days" my 18yo sons would
be warehoused in schools for the mentally deficient or for
the delinquent, instead of being straight-A physics majors
at a highly-ranked university.
What was that about "better days?"
--
| In the course of every project there comes a time |
| when the best debugger is a can of gasoline. |
Mark Probert
>
> "Mark Probert" <mark_p...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:308657.021010...@posting.google.com...
>
>
> There is NO medical literature that supports his claim. If you
> > disagree, provide it.
>
> It's a controlled B drug because it's an 'amphetamine' There's loads of
> information about the side effects of amphetamines !
You are wrong, twice:
1. It is a controlled medication because of a possibility of abuse.
2. It is not an amphetamine.
> "Amphetamines can produce severe systemic effects, including cardiac
> irregularities " http://www.infoplease.com/ce6/sci/A0856602.html
>
> " Long Term Use:
> Heavy users also risk damaging blood vessels or heart failure, especially
> among people with existing high blood pressure, heart trouble or amongst
> people who take strenuous exercise whilst using the drug."
> http://www.termisoc.org/~harl/amphets.html
As you can read (I doubt it) "heavy users" are the ones who have a problem,
not those who are using it a prescribed.
> Under Ritalin side effects this site http://www.medsafe.govt.nz/search.htm
> warns people to see their doctor for a multitude of things if they
> experience them as side effects, including the following:
>
> pain or tightness in the chest
>
> fast or irregular heart beat, changes in blood pressure
A list of *possible* side effects is just that *possible* not proven to be
caused by the medication.
> severe or persistent headache.
Mark Probert
severe fall immediately preceding his medical difficulties has been totally
ignored by the Anti-Med Liars.
"Wyle E. Coyote, M.D." <kidsd...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:6FAE85BCC0CFA85D.B3555F55...@lp.airnews.net...
Mark Probert
"Al Hephy" <AHe...@freewweb.invalid> wrote in message
news:1034201028.861931@savina...
> In (better) by-gone days we had separate facilities for children with
> serious behavioral problems.
We put them out to a w3asted life. Now, my son, who is 19, attends one of
the best art & design schools, on a full scholarship, and works in the
industry for a major publisher and earns >$30.00 per hour as an assistant
project manager.
> What happened?
We eveloved in our thinking to a higher form of dealing with problems. This
does not apply, however, to Darwin.
Mark Probert
"Steve Harris" <sbha...@ix.RETICULATEDOBJECTcom.com> wrote in message
news:vp6p9.18794$OB5.1...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
>
> >Even if one can prove the above has an impact on 1 person that is not
> reason
> >enough to prove the same would affect all people with AD/HD It may be
that
> >the people it works on never had AD/HD to begin with. And it may be
utter
> >bullshit!
> >AD/HD doesn't just affect children and not all people "grow" out of it.
> >There are a great many LD's that have similar characteristics to AD/HD
but
> >are not AD/HD yet the medication has a beneficial effect. I see no
reason
> >to change a prescription just because a dx is wrong but the medication
> works
> >just fine
The magnitude of the response to this type of medication is far different
when a person has ADHD than when they do not.
Hillbilly Sass
"Mark Probert" <mark_probertT...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:ao4a32$iuesr$1...@ID-78438.news.dfncis.de...
Consider that 80 per cent of the drug industry's 16 billion advertising
budget is devoted to wooing MD's to support such things as the wholesale
drugging of children as young as 6 yo with compounds that were unknown to us
only decades ago. Scrambling to make lame excuses when things go wrong I am
reminded of Dire Straits
Bangin' on the bongoes like a chimpanzee
That ain't workin' that's the way you do it
[Drugging children who wiggle cause it's good for me]
Any parent considering Ritalin for their child[ren] would be well advised to
do their own homework. Ritalin is IMO, a powerful, dangerous, mind altering
drug. The fact that it has raised so much fuss - that it has gained so much
attention. In the name of Ritalin, schools have threatened to expel children
who won't take ritalin. The government CPS takes parents to court and takes
their children because they don't agree Ritalin is safe. What is it with
this Ritalin - why it's almost a political party.
We dote endlessly on our nations children. One whack or three - this book or
that - is a dirty face neglect - does Mother Toogood hurt children. Is
Twinky Winky gay. Experts abound. CNN Larry King, Fox, Good Morning America.
OMG the kids need protection. OMG. - "Excuse me, but we have a million kids
who won't sit still." Drug em ! Now what were we talking about ? Oh yeah,
OMG the children are in peril.
Billy
Mark Probert
"Hillbilly Sass" <moy...@swampnet.com> wrote in message
news:AyCp9.685$46.487@fe01...
Sure...sure...sure...the eeeevilll drug companies.....
> Bangin' on the bongoes like a chimpanzee
> That ain't workin' that's the way you do it
> [Drugging children who wiggle cause it's good for me]
You really do not have a clue as to what you are yakkiing about, don'tcha?
Do you have the slightest clue as to the diagnostic criteria and protocol,
and the treatment protocol for ADHD? If not, just ask, and I wil point you
at them.
> Any parent considering Ritalin for their child[ren] would be well advised
to
> do their own homework. Ritalin is IMO, a powerful, dangerous, mind
altering
> drug.
Opinions are like anuses. Everyone has one. Your opinion and anus are full
of the same thing, and i do not mean facts.
> The fact that it has raised so much fuss - that it has gained so much
> attention.
Do you know what a false controversy is?
> In the name of Ritalin, schools have threatened to expel children
> who won't take ritalin. The government CPS takes parents to court and
takes
> their children because they don't agree Ritalin is safe. What is it with
> this Ritalin - why it's almost a political party.
There is nothing inherently wrong with the treatment, just with the extreme
reactions that human beings have. It is, after all, the most studied
medication in the pharmacopeia.
> We dote endlessly on our nations children. One whack or three - this book
or
> that - is a dirty face neglect - does Mother Toogood hurt children. Is
> Twinky Winky gay. Experts abound. CNN Larry King, Fox, Good Morning
America.
> OMG the kids need protection. OMG. - "Excuse me, but we have a million
kids
> who won't sit still." Drug em ! Now what were we talking about ? Oh yeah,
> OMG the children are in peril.
Raving...
>
Mark Probert
decide
> for themselves about the evil part. I'm sure there are many who find
> drugging the kiddies into submission works just fine.
Thank you for admitting that you were embellishing your claims. Some
synonyms for embellish are exaggerate, fudge, magnify, overcharge, overdraw,
overpaint, overstate, pad.
> > > Bangin' on the bongoes like a chimpanzee
> > > That ain't workin' that's the way you do it
> > > [Drugging children who wiggle cause it's good for me]
> >
> > You really do not have a clue as to what you are yakkiing about,
don'tcha?
> > Do you have the slightest clue as to the diagnostic criteria and
protocol,
> > and the treatment protocol for ADHD? If not, just ask, and I wil point
you
> > at them.
>
> No. I don't know about such things.
That was quite clear from your post.
> That's your cup of tea.
I prefer Lady Earl Grey.
However, my tea preferences aside, your resistance to understanding that
medicating a child is not a simple thing, speaks volumes about your
openmindedness, or lack thereof.
But I know a
> little,
That, too, was obvious.
> and I doubt whether the information at the end of your pointer will
> convince me that Ritalin is safe. It's Dr. gobbligook.
The synonym is 'facts.'
> Something tells me
> that people who would feed me goobligook to justify the wholesale drugging
> of children are not the brightest stars in the sky..
It is far from wholesale medicating of children, and, those who choose to do
so, have the child's best interests in their hearts.
> > > Any parent considering Ritalin for their child[ren] would be well
> advised
> > to
> > > do their own homework. Ritalin is IMO, a powerful, dangerous, mind
> > altering
> > > drug.
> >
> > Opinions are like anuses. Everyone has one. Your opinion and anus are
full
> > of the same thing, and i do not mean facts.
>
> But is Ritilin powerful?
It is classified as a *mild* CNS stimulant.
> Is Ritalin dangerous?
When taken as prescribed, there is no indication that it poses any serious
danger. Not medicating, when warranted, is far more dangerous.
> Does it alter the minds of
> those who consume it?
What do you consider 'mind altering?' It allows a person to focus their
attention and accomplish tasks. If you think that is a bad thing, then,
there is no point discussing this with you.
We all know about the anus thing and what comes out,
> etc., etc.
>
> >
> > > The fact that it has raised so much fuss - that it has gained so much
> > > attention.
> >
> > Do you know what a false controversy is?
>
> You mean like people raising a fuss, when in all reality they don't have
the
> good sense God gave a chicken ? I think I get your drift.
>
> They're not dyin', drug 'em, it's just a false controversy don't cha know.
'They' are NOT dieing.
> > > In the name of Ritalin, schools have threatened to expel children
> > > who won't take ritalin. The government CPS takes parents to court and
> > takes
> > > their children because they don't agree Ritalin is safe. What is it
with
> > > this Ritalin - why it's almost a political party.
> >
> > There is nothing inherently wrong with the treatment, just with the
> extreme
> > reactions that human beings have. It is, after all, the most studied
> > medication in the pharmacopeia.
>
> Yes, when they stand to make a billion from a dangerous drug, it seems the
> studies go on and on.
It has been available as a generic for decades. The 'money' is all out of
it.
> Every time someone drops dead, it requires a new study
> to 'prove' Ritalin is safe.
Of course, since you choose not to even attempt to understand the use of
this medication, your statement is totally without merit. Go to medline and
type in 'methylphenidate' and read up.
> >
> > > We dote endlessly on our nations children. One whack or three - this
> book
> > or
> > > that - is a dirty face neglect - does Mother Toogood hurt children. Is
> > > Twinky Winky gay. Experts abound. CNN Larry King, Fox, Good Morning
> > America.
> > > OMG the kids need protection. OMG. - "Excuse me, but we have a million
> > kids
> > > who won't sit still." Drug em ! Now what were we talking about ? Oh
> yeah,
> > > OMG the children are in peril.
> >
> > Raving...
>
> Absolutely. And we drug millions of our country's most vulnerable children
> based on just such 'raving'. Kinda makes a thinking man wonder.
I wonder why people such as yourself make up your 'minds' without facts.
Steve Harris
Mark Probert wrote in message ...
>> > >There has been no substantiated documented death from using
>methylphenidate
>> > >as prescribed.
Well, the problem is what counts as a "document" for you. A lot of people
(160 reports) have died while taking Ritalin between 1990 and 1997, and had
their doctors suspicious enough of the role of the drug to file an adverse
reaction report with the FDA. That's a voluntary thing-- I myself in many
years of clinical practice have filed only a couple of them. Most drug
reactions, even those the doctor is reasonably sure of, go UN reported.
Here's what the opposition says, and I've no reason to think they're making
up the numbers.
"Of 2,993 adverse reaction (AR) reports concerning "Ritalin" or
"methylphenidate" listed by the FDA’s Division of Pharmacovigilance and
Epidemiology (DPE), from 1990 to 1997, there were 160 deaths and 569
hospitalizations--36 of them life-threatening. One hundred twenty-six (126)
were cardiovascular occurrences, and 949 central or peripheral nervous
system occurrences. There were 6 cases of "cardiomyopathy," 12 of
"arrhythmia," 7 of "bradycardia," (slow pulse), 5 of "bundle branch block,"
(impairment of conduction apparatus of the heart), 4 of "EKG abnormality," 5
"extrasystole," (heart rhythm abnormalities), 3 "heart arrest," 2 heart
failure, right," 10 "hypotension," (low BP), 1 "myocardial infarction," 15
"tachycardia" (rapid pulse)."
It's pretty much what I'd expect of an amphetamine-like chemical.
Mark Probert
I would be curious to know if the medication was being used as prescribed,
or not.
However, even assuming that it was, that is a very small number of reports,
considering ther time and frequency of use.
Steve Harris
>The magnitude of the response to this type of medication is far different
>when a person has ADHD than when they do not.
COMMENT:
I'm sorry, but I'd like to see your evidence for that. I've been able to
find very few studies in which normal children were used as controls in
Ritalin performance tests, and in those that exist, it improves the normals
similarly to the kids with the attention problems. I defy you to find me ANY
well demonstrated and repeatable finding of a differential effect of this
drug on test performance of normal kids vs the hyperactive.
Now, it may be true that Ritalin moves the kids with attention problems into
the "normal" range, while moving the kids with no attention problems into
the hypervigilant range. We all squirm when we've sat in a test or studied
long enough, and many of us would then do better with a pill. But so what?
We'd do better with cocaine, too, for a while. And with methamphetamine.
Suppose I found that injecting high school boys with testosterone moved the
wimpy kids into the normal strength range, while improving the kids with
normal strength into the athletic range, and turning the already athletic
kids into animals? I have no doubt that something like this would indeed
happen. Just about everybody would improve. But the fact that this is true
(some kids ARE out of the bell curve when it comes to athletic ability) does
not justify diagnosis of a "strength deficit disorder," to be treated
routinely with a performance-enhancing drug, so that kids who are wimps can
get a better grade in P.E.. That would simply lead to the nerd and special
olympics, on steroids. Which is very much like what we see now in school,
with 6 million kids diagnosed as having "AD/HD," and taking speed to study.
J Child Psychol Psychiatry 1996 Nov;37(8):971-87
Error patterns on the continuous performance test in non-medicated and
medicated samples of children with and without ADHD: a meta-analytic
review.
Losier BJ, McGrath PJ, Klein RM.
Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia.
We systematically reviewed the patterns of Continuous Performance Test (CPT)
errors of omission and commission exhibited by normal children and children
with Attention Deficit and Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) under no drug,
placebo and methylphenidate drug conditions. Findings from 26 studies were
submitted to a meta-analytic procedure. In contrast to the contradictory
findings of individual reports, our results revealed that children with ADHD
made significantly more errors of omission and commission than normal
children. As well, in children with ADHD and treated with methylphenidate,
statistically significant reductions in the rate of both error types were
noted. The effects of methylphenidate on the percentage of hits (i.e. 1 -
omissions) were greater in experiments using shorter stimulus duration,
smaller number of trials and higher probability of a target. Using Signal
Detection Theory (SDT) parameters, we found that children with ADHD were
less sensitive to the difference between targets and non-targets than their
normal counterparts, while showing a comparable response bias. Similarly,
the effects of methylphenidate were restricted to improving the sensitivity,
while not affecting response bias, in both normal children and
those with ADHD.
Publication Types:
Meta-Analysis
PMID: 9119944 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
Steve Harris
>
>"Steve Harris" <sbha...@ix.RETICULATEDOBJECTcom.com> wrote in message
>news:vp6p9.18794$OB5.1...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
>> The "medication" works just fine in almost everyone. That's why they call
>it
>> speed, don't you know. The Air Force has used amphetamines for years to
>> improve performance in combat pilots, and nobody thinks they all have
>adult
>> ADD. There are a number of studies to show that the effects of
>amphetamines
>> are much the same in "normal children" as they are in ADD children-- and
>in
>> most adults for that matter: they focus attention and allow greater
>> concentration. Golly. Same as adrenaline.
>>
>
>Yeah, but people with ADHD have problems with focusing, hyperactiving
and/or
>attention that most people do not.
Everybody does if you make them sit or study long enough. I'm sure YOU have,
and like me you're probably better at it than average. This is a bell curve.
But as I remarked to Mr. Probert, the fact that some kids can't do a chin-up
to save their lives, is not an excuse to give them anabolic steroids. Even
if it moves them into the normal strength range.
>> The supposed "reverse effect" of amphetamines on kids with ADD is one of
>the
>> great medical myths of modern times (even a few doctors believe it).
>
>Actually, more than a few doctors beleive it. Most do. Because of the
>evidence that shows that it is real.
I know of no such evidence, and I've been through the literature fairly
carefully. Of course, I can't say it doesn't exist. Here's your chance to
impress me by citing it.
>I would disagree. THere are some drugs that are nearly always bad. Crack
>cocaine is one.
Council objects that "crack cocaine" is as much a delivery method and method
of use, as a drug per se. Coca leaves when chewed are rather pleasant and
not too dangerous. On the other hand, if you free-base morphine or
methylphenidate and smoke them, you'll get quite a different effect than you
get when you use them in slower-release forms.
>And there is evidence that people with ADHD who are treated
>are less likely to use drugs recreationally than people with ADHD who are
>not treated.
Yes, if you use the word "recreational" as synonym for "unauthorized." But
if you merely observe that people medicated or drugged by doctors are less
likely to go out and try to medicate or drug themselves, so what? It's
probably true, but what of it? Again, no doubt it would be true for anabolic
steroids and athletics as well (that East German team only needed the team
physician, not a pusher), but you'd hardly dare use it as an argument.
Wyle E. Coyote, M.D.
Except when having a bowel movement, anus are usually empty. But, then, so
are his facts.
All the best,
Wyle
Wyle E. Coyote, M.D.
decide
> for themselves about the evil part. I'm sure there are many who find
> drugging the kiddies into submission works just fine.
>
You missed the boat here.
The drugs used to treat children with ADHD do NOT drug the kids into
submission. What they do do is allow the kids (and adults) with ADHD to stay
on task better and concentrate better. When they stay on task, they are able
to participate in family and school life without interupting or being as
hyperactive. So what the drugs actually do is enable the children and adults
with ADHD to do what they want to do without being as distracted.
> >
> > > Bangin' on the bongoes like a chimpanzee
> > > That ain't workin' that's the way you do it
> > > [Drugging children who wiggle cause it's good for me]
> >
> > You really do not have a clue as to what you are yakkiing about,
don'tcha?
> > Do you have the slightest clue as to the diagnostic criteria and
protocol,
> > and the treatment protocol for ADHD? If not, just ask, and I wil point
you
> > at them.
>
> No. I don't know about such things. That's your cup of tea. But I know a
> little, and I doubt whether the information at the end of your pointer
will
> convince me that Ritalin is safe. It's Dr. gobbligook. Something tells me
> that people who would feed me goobligook to justify the wholesale drugging
> of children are not the brightest stars in the sky..
>
So, are saying is that you don't know what you are talking about and you
don't want to try
> >
> > > Any parent considering Ritalin for their child[ren] would be well
> advised
> > to
> > > do their own homework. Ritalin is IMO, a powerful, dangerous, mind
> > altering
> > > drug.
> >
> > Opinions are like anuses. Everyone has one. Your opinion and anus are
full
> > of the same thing, and i do not mean facts.
>
> But is Ritilin powerful ? Is Ritalin dangerous ? Does it alter the minds
of
> those who consume it ? We all know about the anus thing and what comes
out,
> etc., etc.
>
Ritalin, like all drugs, has risks and benefits. IMHO, for selected kids,
the benefits are much greater than the risks. For kids without ADHD, the
risks clearly outweight the benefits.
Ritalin enables kids and adults to stay on task better, concentrate better
and behave better. It enables them to make their own choices. However, in no
way are kids drugged or unable to make their own decisions on therapeutic
doses of Ritalin.
> >
> > > The fact that it has raised so much fuss - that it has gained so much
> > > attention.
> >
> > Do you know what a false controversy is?
>
> You mean like people raising a fuss, when in all reality they don't have
the
> good sense God gave a chicken ? I think I get your drift.
>
> They're not dyin', drug 'em, it's just a false controversy don't cha know.
>
> >
> > > In the name of Ritalin, schools have threatened to expel children
> > > who won't take ritalin. The government CPS takes parents to court and
> > takes
> > > their children because they don't agree Ritalin is safe. What is it
with
> > > this Ritalin - why it's almost a political party.
> >
> > There is nothing inherently wrong with the treatment, just with the
> extreme
> > reactions that human beings have. It is, after all, the most studied
> > medication in the pharmacopeia.
>
> Yes, when they stand to make a billion from a dangerous drug, it seems the
> studies go on and on. Every time someone drops dead, it requires a new
study
> to 'prove' Ritalin is safe.
>
Kids die from all sorts of things, like heart disease. These sorts of events
are reported to FDA and the drug maker, under law, and are followed up. In
addition, there have been many studies of Ritalin and similar drugs, both by
the drug makers and by independent scientists. Can you point out the studies
that show that ritalin or similar drugs are dangerous when used as normally
prescribed to treat ADHD?
> >
> > > We dote endlessly on our nations children. One whack or three - this
> book
> > or
> > > that - is a dirty face neglect - does Mother Toogood hurt children. Is
> > > Twinky Winky gay. Experts abound. CNN Larry King, Fox, Good Morning
> > America.
> > > OMG the kids need protection. OMG. - "Excuse me, but we have a million
> > kids
> > > who won't sit still." Drug em ! Now what were we talking about ? Oh
> yeah,
> > > OMG the children are in peril.
> >
> > Raving...
>
> Absolutely. And we drug millions of our country's most vulnerable children
> based on just such 'raving'. Kinda makes a thinking man wonder.
>
Or we fail to enable millions of our countries most valuable assets, our
children, to learn as well as they could and have a better family life.
You choose.
All the best,
Wyle
>
> Billy
>
> >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
>
Wyle E. Coyote, M.D.
What is the rate of each of these adverse events? What is the rate of these
adverse events in the general population of people similar to those taking
ritalin? Is the rate higher, lower or the same as you would expect in the
general population?
How do you know that any of these events were caused by Ritalin? Could they
have been caused by drug abuse? Could the hypotension been casued by other
drugs the patients were taking (soem of the ADHD meds can cause low blood
pressure)?
You state that is what you would expect of an amphetamine-like chemical?
Well,what is the effects of Ritalin on blood vessels? Does it effect them
the same way amphetamines do? What are the similar rates for amphetamines?
Or are you just guessing what to expect?
All the best,
Wyle
Wyle E. Coyote, M.D.
> <stuff deleted>
> > > > Opinions are like anuses. Everyone has one. Your opinion and anus
are
> > full
> > > > of the same thing, and i do not mean facts.
> > >
> > > But is Ritilin powerful?
> >
> > It is classified as a *mild* CNS stimulant.
> >
> > > Is Ritalin dangerous?
> >
> > When taken as prescribed, there is no indication that it poses any
serious
> > danger.
>
> How about all the negative stuff out there about Ritalin. Isn't this an
> 'indication' ?. Hells bells man, if there are no 'indications', then why
all
> the fuss ?
>
The negative stuff, as you call it, are side effects. And reasons to make
sure that only kids with ADHD are prescribed the drugs. Every drug has side
effects. Distilled water can kill you. Penicillin cause kill from allergic
reactions. You have to weigh the benefits against the risks.
> >Not medicating, when warranted, is far more dangerous.
>
> Whew ! You're tellin' me. Just listen to yourself.
>
Nice personnal attack.
> >
> > > Does it alter the minds of
> > > those who consume it?
> >
> > What do you consider 'mind altering?' It allows a person to focus their
> > attention and accomplish tasks. If you think that is a bad thing, then,
> > there is no point discussing this with you.
>
> I don't think a substance that allows a person to focus is automatically
bad
> thing. I suffer from major depression. I often have difficulty 'focusing'
on
> the task at hand. Sometimes medication helps. I would probably have no
> objection to taking Ritilin if it would help me focus.
>
> The reason there is no point discussing this with me may be because my
good
> sense <g> tells me that Ritilin as it is being used today is not a good
> thing.
Good sense? Kids being disruptive and not able to learn in school? Kids
being more likely to abuse drugs? Kids not getting as much out of family
life and school as they otherwise would?
Are you suggestion these effects of NOT using medication and other
treatments for ADHD are good?
> My good sense <g> also tells me that some of the 'facts' about
> Ritilin have been bought and paid for, and that it would take me countless
> hours over many years to separate the wheat from the chaff. It's no point
> discussing it with me because I have no faith in your 'facts', and I
refuse
> to take the leap from skeptic to cheerleader.
>
Are you saying you do not know what you are talking about?
> >
> > We all know about the anus thing and what comes out,
> > > etc., etc.
> > >
> > > >
> > > > > The fact that it has raised so much fuss - that it has gained so
> much
> > > > > attention.
> > > >
> > > > Do you know what a false controversy is?
> > >
> > > You mean like people raising a fuss, when in all reality they don't
have
> > the
> > > good sense God gave a chicken ? I think I get your drift.
> > >
> > > They're not dyin', drug 'em, it's just a false controversy don't cha
> know.
> >
> > 'They' are NOT dieing.
>
> Argggh. I thought it was sarcasim but it was a bloody vison.
>
> >
> > > > > In the name of Ritalin, schools have threatened to expel children
> > > > > who won't take ritalin. The government CPS takes parents to court
> and
> > > > takes
> > > > > their children because they don't agree Ritalin is safe. What is
it
> > with
> > > > > this Ritalin - why it's almost a political party.
> > > >
> > > > There is nothing inherently wrong with the treatment, just with the
> > > extreme
> > > > reactions that human beings have. It is, after all, the most studied
> > > > medication in the pharmacopeia.
> > >
> > > Yes, when they stand to make a billion from a dangerous drug, it seems
> the
> > > studies go on and on.
> >
> > It has been available as a generic for decades. The 'money' is all out
of
> > it.
>
> Yes. Ritilin has probably passed its golden goose stage. But as I said, it
> has taken on a life of it's own. Seems every arm chair nanny from tuson to
> timbucktoo has a Ritilin story.
>
> >
> > > Every time someone drops dead, it requires a new study
> > > to 'prove' Ritalin is safe.
> >
> > Of course, since you choose not to even attempt to understand the use of
> > this medication, your statement is totally without merit. Go to medline
> and
> > type in 'methylphenidate' and read up.
>
> But I have made an honest attempt to understand the use of this medicine.
> Simply because I choose to march to a different drummer does not leave my
> argument without merit. I typed in 'methylphenidate' before I engaged you.
> For every good page, theres a bad page. Different strokes, different
> experiences, different studies.
>
Try looking at the pages for antidepressants. FOr every good one, there is a
bad. Or for antibiotics. Or any drug.
You have to learn to figure out which pages you can trust and which ones you
can't.
> > > >
> > > > > We dote endlessly on our nations children. One whack or three -
this
> > > book
> > > > or
> > > > > that - is a dirty face neglect - does Mother Toogood hurt
children.
> Is
> > > > > Twinky Winky gay. Experts abound. CNN Larry King, Fox, Good
Morning
> > > > America.
> > > > > OMG the kids need protection. OMG. - "Excuse me, but we have a
> million
> > > > kids
> > > > > who won't sit still." Drug em ! Now what were we talking about ?
Oh
> > > yeah,
> > > > > OMG the children are in peril.
> > > >
> > > > Raving...
> > >
> > > Absolutely. And we drug millions of our country's most vulnerable
> children
> > > based on just such 'raving'. Kinda makes a thinking man wonder.
> >
> > I wonder why people such as yourself make up your 'minds' without facts.
>
> My mind is not made up. I find the 'facts' suspect. I wonder why people
such
> as yourself make such a leap of faith as to dismiss a reported Ritilin
death
> because it dosen't jibe with your 'facts'. So there.
>
It is called medical school and understanding how the human body works,
including courses in pathology and pharmacology and statistics.
Carol T
>>>>>>>>> There is nothing inherently wrong with the treatment, just with
the extreme
> reactions that human beings have. It is, after all, the most studied
> medication in the pharmacopeia.<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
You are unbelievable. What will you be saying if all these children start
shaking with Parkinson like symptoms because of these brain altering drugs?
It's in their 'heads' perhaps?
Carol T
Wyle E. Coyote, M.D.
What if kids left untreated develop Parkinson's? Would you say it is all in
their heads?
How evidence that kids on Ritalin are more likely to develop Parkinson's? Or
is there evidence that kids properly treated with Ritalin develop shaing
problems?
All the best,
Wyle
>
> Carol T
>
>
Steve Harris
Wyle E. Coyote, M.D. wrote in message
>> "Of 2,993 adverse reaction (AR) reports concerning "Ritalin" or
>> "methylphenidate" listed by the FDA's Division of Pharmacovigilance and
>> Epidemiology (DPE), from 1990 to 1997, there were 160 deaths and 569
>> hospitalizations--36 of them life-threatening. One hundred twenty-six
>(126)
>> were cardiovascular occurrences, and 949 central or peripheral nervous
>> system occurrences. There were 6 cases of "cardiomyopathy," 12 of
>> "arrhythmia," 7 of "bradycardia," (slow pulse), 5 of "bundle branch
>block,"
>> (impairment of conduction apparatus of the heart), 4 of "EKG
abnormality,"
>5
>> "extrasystole," (heart rhythm abnormalities), 3 "heart arrest," 2 heart
>> failure, right," 10 "hypotension," (low BP), 1 "myocardial infarction,"
15
>> "tachycardia" (rapid pulse)."
>>
>> It's pretty much what I'd expect of an amphetamine-like chemical.
>>
>
>What is the rate of each of these adverse events? What is the rate of these
>adverse events in the general population of people similar to those taking
>ritalin? Is the rate higher, lower or the same as you would expect in the
>general population?
Ah, who knows? This is not a controlled study, it's a bunch of possible
drug reaction reports. Long term placebo-controlled studies of Ritalin which
pay careful attention to cardiovascular side effects don't exist, for some
strange reason. We just have all these reports and nobody following them up.
Of course we have no good controlled studies of the side effects of cocaine
use, either. Just a lot of case reports of people who came in full of
cocaine with bad things happening to them. IOW, very much the same kind of
data, except you believe the second, and not the first. Hmmmm.
>How do you know that any of these events were caused by Ritalin?
Why, I don't. How do you know any of the bad things you think are caused by
cocaine, are caused by cocaine? (If you quote me animal tox studies, I get
to do that with Ritalin too-- fair?)
>Could they have been caused by drug abuse?
Why, yes. If the doctor hasn't written you a prescription, it's drug abuse,
right? Amazing how your body knows what's on a pill bottle label, and in
the druggist's records.
Could they all have been caused by overdose, is what I think you mean. Sure,
maybe. Same for cocaine, also. If cocaine users chewed the leaves instead
of smoking or snorting the stuff, I'm sure they'd have a much easier time
with the physical problems.
> Could the hypotension been casued by other
>drugs the patients were taking (soem of the ADHD meds can cause low blood
>pressure)?
Yep. Also cardiac dysrthymias can lower blood pressure. Also your pressure
can go down if you're used to sympathomimetics and you don't get any, as
with pheochromocytoma sufferers between bouts.
>You state that is what you would expect of an amphetamine-like chemical?
>Well,what is the effects of Ritalin on blood vessels? Does it effect them
>the same way amphetamines do? What are the similar rates for amphetamines?
>Or are you just guessing what to expect?
No, Ritalin is a Grade AAA sympathomimetic, and does everything
methamphetamine does. Really. Recommend you try some to get a gut feel for
just what this drug is.
But then I'm always recommending that doctors try their own drugs, at least
once. Damn, they'd all be a lot wiser if they did.
Gym Bob
because they have absolutely no control over them?
I have been there, had to use the ritalin (it didn't come easy I believe in
naturopathy big time) and my kid just finish computer science, honours math
at the most recognized univeristy programme in the world with top marks.
Oh yeah BTW...my wife and I went through years of therapy becaue we blamed
ourselves for not doing something right with this kid. The ritalin may have
saved his life and kept me out of prison. It was a temporary measure and we
found other ways to deal with it successfully (nutritionally) but it taught
us and him that there was another way to behave.
"Hillbilly Sass" <moy...@swampnet.com> wrote in message
news:DPHp9.799$46.626@fe01...
>
> "Mark Probert" <mark_probertT...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:ao7954$jj23d$1...@ID-78438.news.dfncis.de...
> But what about 80% of drug advertising devoted to 'informing' Drs. of the
> latest golden goose ? Did I 'overdraw' ? Should it be a lesser degree ?
>
> And, yes, I 'padded' my answer with the golden goose crack.
>
> >
> > > > > Bangin' on the bongoes like a chimpanzee
> > > > > That ain't workin' that's the way you do it
> > > > > [Drugging children who wiggle cause it's good for me]
> > > >
> > > > You really do not have a clue as to what you are yakkiing about,
> > don'tcha?
> > > > Do you have the slightest clue as to the diagnostic criteria and
> > protocol,
> > > > and the treatment protocol for ADHD? If not, just ask, and I wil
point
> > you
> > > > at them.
> > >
> > > No. I don't know about such things.
> >
> > That was quite clear from your post.
> >
> > > That's your cup of tea.
> >
> > I prefer Lady Earl Grey.
> >
> > However, my tea preferences aside, your resistance to understanding that
> > medicating a child is not a simple thing, speaks volumes about your
> > openmindedness, or lack thereof.
>
> Your strawman aside, I understand quite fine that 'medicating' anyone
safely
> and effectively is not a simple thing.
>
> >
> > But I know a
> > > little,
> >
> > That, too, was obvious.
> >
> > > and I doubt whether the information at the end of your pointer will
> > > convince me that Ritalin is safe. It's Dr. gobbligook.
> >
> > The synonym is 'facts.'
>
> Money is used to manufacture many things. Facts are just one. My good
sense
> <g> tells me that giving young children by the millions powerful,
dangerous
> drugs, for an 'ailment' that was 'discovered' by some 'experts' who just
so
> happened to have a pill to cure it, may not be a good thing. So these
> 'facts' smell about the same as when the cat drags a fish up under the
> porch.
>
> >
> > > Something tells me
> > > that people who would feed me goobligook to justify the wholesale
> drugging
> > > of children are not the brightest stars in the sky..
> >
> > It is far from wholesale medicating of children, and, those who choose
to
> do
> > so, have the child's best interests in their hearts.
>
> But your fuzzy buzz words clash with the reality of your post. You
summarily
> dismiss a reported Ritilin death as the ravings of a publicity crazed
> loonie. You rush to scream false alarm. Suddenly, instead of a learned
> professional in search of truth, you become a cheerleader for Ritilin as
if
> you knew everything about this chemical and it's effect on children there
is
> to know or be known.
>
> You've declared to the usenet world that Ritilin has never killed a child
> and therefore this Dr. has motives. Perhaps this case IS the first Ritilin
> death. Perhaps this drug ISN'T as safe as they claim. [stranger things
have
> happened] To rush in and declare this Dr. a publicity hound and Ritilin
> innocent without even letting the dust settle, is not what they call 'best
> interests' round here.
>
> >
> > > > > Any parent considering Ritalin for their child[ren] would be well
> > > advised
> > > > to
> > > > > do their own homework. Ritalin is IMO, a powerful, dangerous, mind
> > > > altering
> > > > > drug.
> > > >
> > > > Opinions are like anuses. Everyone has one. Your opinion and anus
are
> > full
> > > > of the same thing, and i do not mean facts.
> > >
> > > But is Ritilin powerful?
> >
> > It is classified as a *mild* CNS stimulant.
> >
> > > Is Ritalin dangerous?
> >
> > When taken as prescribed, there is no indication that it poses any
serious
> > danger.
>
> And this Drs. report. The death certificate. This is not an 'indication' ?
> How about all the negative stuff out there about Ritalin. Isn't this an
> 'indication' ?. Hells bells man, if there are no 'indications', then why
all
> the fuss ?
>
> >Not medicating, when warranted, is far more dangerous.
>
> Whew ! You're tellin' me. Just listen to yourself.
>
> >
> > > Does it alter the minds of
> > > those who consume it?
> >
> > What do you consider 'mind altering?' It allows a person to focus their
> > attention and accomplish tasks. If you think that is a bad thing, then,
> > there is no point discussing this with you.
>
> I don't think a substance that allows a person to focus is automatically
bad
> thing. I suffer from major depression. I often have difficulty 'focusing'
on
> the task at hand. Sometimes medication helps. I would probably have no
> objection to taking Ritilin if it would help me focus.
>
> The reason there is no point discussing this with me may be because my
good
> sense <g> tells me that Ritilin as it is being used today is not a good
> thing. My good sense <g> also tells me that some of the 'facts' about
> Ritilin have been bought and paid for, and that it would take me countless
> hours over many years to separate the wheat from the chaff. It's no point
> discussing it with me because I have no faith in your 'facts', and I
refuse
> to take the leap from skeptic to cheerleader.
>
> >
> > We all know about the anus thing and what comes out,
> > > etc., etc.
> > >
> > > >
> > > > > The fact that it has raised so much fuss - that it has gained so
> much
> > > > > attention.
> > > >
> > > > Do you know what a false controversy is?
> > >
> > > You mean like people raising a fuss, when in all reality they don't
have
> > the
> > > good sense God gave a chicken ? I think I get your drift.
> > >
> > > They're not dyin', drug 'em, it's just a false controversy don't cha
> know.
> >
> > 'They' are NOT dieing.
>
> Argggh. I thought it was sarcasim but it was a bloody vison.
>
> >
> > > > > In the name of Ritalin, schools have threatened to expel children
> > > > > who won't take ritalin. The government CPS takes parents to court
> and
> > > > takes
> > > > > their children because they don't agree Ritalin is safe. What is
it
> > with
> > > > > this Ritalin - why it's almost a political party.
> > > >
> > > > There is nothing inherently wrong with the treatment, just with the
> > > extreme
> > > > reactions that human beings have. It is, after all, the most studied
> > > > medication in the pharmacopeia.
> > >
> > > Yes, when they stand to make a billion from a dangerous drug, it seems
> the
> > > studies go on and on.
> >
> > It has been available as a generic for decades. The 'money' is all out
of
> > it.
>
> Yes. Ritilin has probably passed its golden goose stage. But as I said, it
> has taken on a life of it's own. Seems every arm chair nanny from tuson to
> timbucktoo has a Ritilin story.
>
> >
> > > Every time someone drops dead, it requires a new study
> > > to 'prove' Ritalin is safe.
> >
> > Of course, since you choose not to even attempt to understand the use of
> > this medication, your statement is totally without merit. Go to medline
> and
> > type in 'methylphenidate' and read up.
>
> But I have made an honest attempt to understand the use of this medicine.
> Simply because I choose to march to a different drummer does not leave my
> argument without merit. I typed in 'methylphenidate' before I engaged you.
> For every good page, theres a bad page. Different strokes, different
> experiences, different studies.
>
> > > >
> > > > > We dote endlessly on our nations children. One whack or three -
this
> > > book
> > > > or
> > > > > that - is a dirty face neglect - does Mother Toogood hurt
children.
> Is
> > > > > Twinky Winky gay. Experts abound. CNN Larry King, Fox, Good
Morning
> > > > America.
> > > > > OMG the kids need protection. OMG. - "Excuse me, but we have a
> million
> > > > kids
> > > > > who won't sit still." Drug em ! Now what were we talking about ?
Oh
> > > yeah,
> > > > > OMG the children are in peril.
> > > >
> > > > Raving...
> > >
> > > Absolutely. And we drug millions of our country's most vulnerable
> children
> > > based on just such 'raving'. Kinda makes a thinking man wonder.
> >
> > I wonder why people such as yourself make up your 'minds' without facts.
>
> My mind is not made up. I find the 'facts' suspect. I wonder why people
such
> as yourself make such a leap of faith as to dismiss a reported Ritilin
death
> because it dosen't jibe with your 'facts'. So there.
>
>
> Billy
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
Carol T
> A list of *possible* side effects is just that *possible* not proven to be
> caused by the medication.
"In contrast, methylphenidate induced "high", "anxiety" and changes in
diastolic blood pressure decreased rapidly despite long lasting binding of
the drug in brain."
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_ui
ds=8741951&dopt=Abstract
"Significant main effects were found for diastolic and systolic blood
pressure"
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_ui
ds=2715089&dopt=Abstract
"Previous observations have indicated lamellated ultrastructural lesions in
the myocardium of a patient treated with methylphenidate (Ritalin)
hydrochloride (MPH)."
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_ui
ds=8838158&dopt=Abstract
Why don't you admit it, it has an effect on the child's heart
Carol T
Carol T
> Good sense? Kids being disruptive and not able to learn in school? Kids
> being more likely to abuse drugs? Kids not getting as much out of family
> life and school as they otherwise would?
Ritalin should absolutely NOT be given to children with hyperthyroidism. So
how do you KNOW you have a child with ADHD as appose to hyperthyroidism?
Just thought I'd ask. Unless hyperthyroidism, or some other conditions, are
ruled out with blood tests or other investigations(doubtful in Britain
anyway) then Ritalin would probably become a death sentence or a living hell
for those who are undiagnosed.
Carol T
Gym Bob
here....put on your name sorting and read the insulting crap he posts here!
I have him killfiltered for the last few months. Do us a favour and don't
keep repeating his drivvel.
"Wyle E. Coyote, M.D." <kidsd...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:7AF32C13A5DD2762.238FCD25...@lp.airnews.net...
Wyle E. Coyote, M.D.
>
> "Wyle E. Coyote, M.D." <kidsd...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:5927C9B7E4E4A0BF.2F380FA9...@lp.airnews.net...
>
> > Good sense? Kids being disruptive and not able to learn in school? Kids
> > being more likely to abuse drugs? Kids not getting as much out of family
> > life and school as they otherwise would?
>
> Ritalin should absolutely NOT be given to children with hyperthyroidism.
So
> how do you KNOW you have a child with ADHD as appose to hyperthyroidism?
>
By getting appropriate reports from parents and teachers and doing the
appropriate blood work and taking a good history from the child and his
parents.
Gym Bob
He learned to play like a child with toys and actually focus for once in his
life and if you scolded him for doing something bad he didn't go and piss
all over the room to get even.
A couple of months totally off additives finally solved the hyperactivity
mostly. Ritalin was never required anymore.
"Luther L. Boggs" <luth...@beyondthesea.com> wrote in message
news:DOLp9.875$46.474@fe01...
>
> "Gym Bob" <no...@spammy.com> wrote in message
> news:n6Lp9.53$Lk7.11...@radon.golden.net...
>
> > Hey bottom poster...would you prefer people beat their kids half to
death
> > because they have absolutely no control over them?
>
> I don't think people should beat kids half to death. I only beat them when
> they're really bad. Usually I just shoot them in the ass with the pellet
> gun. Whoa, does that get their attention ! One time I missed and hit Jr in
> the nut sack and god you'd think I was makin him eat veggies or something.
> Boy, did he holler.
>
> >
> > I have been there, had to use the ritalin (it didn't come easy I believe
> in
> > naturopathy big time) and my kid just finish computer science, honours
> math
> > at the most recognized univeristy programme in the world with top marks.
>
> Guess beating him half to death knocked some sense into him. How were his
> grades before Ritalin ?
>
> >
> > Oh yeah BTW...my wife and I went through years of therapy becaue we
blamed
> > ourselves for not doing something right with this kid. The ritalin may
> have
> > saved his life and kept me out of prison.
>
> Wow. Glad you shared this. I showed up at the prison door when I was 15,
and
> believe you me, I had to do some quick thinking if I wanted to get married
> in white. But like I learned to say, 'it all works out in the end'.
>
> >It was a temporary measure and we
> > found other ways to deal with it successfully (nutritionally) but it
> taught
> > us and him that there was another way to behave.
>
> I'm glad it all worked out for you and your family.
>
>
> Luther Lee
>
>
>
Wyle E. Coyote, M.D.
Key word: "POSSIBLE"
> Long term placebo-controlled studies of Ritalin which
> pay careful attention to cardiovascular side effects don't exist, for some
> strange reason. We just have all these reports and nobody following them
up.
Actually, careful attention to possible cardiac changes (e.g., with EKG's)
is part of the followup on all patients on Ritalin.
> Of course we have no good controlled studies of the side effects of
cocaine
> use, either. Just a lot of case reports of people who came in full of
> cocaine with bad things happening to them. IOW, very much the same kind of
> data, except you believe the second, and not the first. Hmmmm.
>
What is the comparison between the first and second? And what did I say
makes you think I don't believe the first or believe the second?
>
> >How do you know that any of these events were caused by Ritalin?
>
> Why, I don't. How do you know any of the bad things you think are caused
by
> cocaine, are caused by cocaine? (If you quote me animal tox studies, I
get
> to do that with Ritalin too-- fair?)
>
OK, show us the animal tox studies. Real references please.
>
> >Could they have been caused by drug abuse?
>
> Why, yes. If the doctor hasn't written you a prescription, it's drug
abuse,
> right? Amazing how your body knows what's on a pill bottle label, and in
> the druggist's records.
People with ADHD are more likely to abuse drugs than people without ADHD.
And people being medicated with Ritalin or whatever are also able to abuse
cocaine, amphetamines, etc. Sorry I was no clear enough. I meant, drug abuse
that did not include Ritalin (whether or not the patient was taking it).
> Could they all have been caused by overdose, is what I think you mean.
Sure,
> maybe. Same for cocaine, also. If cocaine users chewed the leaves instead
> of smoking or snorting the stuff, I'm sure they'd have a much easier time
> with the physical problems.
>
And what evidence do you have that abuse of Ritalin can cause these?
>
> > Could the hypotension been casued by other
> >drugs the patients were taking (soem of the ADHD meds can cause low blood
> >pressure)?
>
> Yep. Also cardiac dysrthymias can lower blood pressure. Also your pressure
> can go down if you're used to sympathomimetics and you don't get any, as
> with pheochromocytoma sufferers between bouts.
>
True. However, has this been a demonstrated problem in people from taking
therapeutic doses of Ritalin or amphetamines for ADHD?
All the best,
Wyle
Anthony Cox
<cteas...@hotmail.com> writes
>
>Why don't you admit it, it has an effect on the child's heart
Carol,
Since you cast doubt on a lot of medicine, how do you decide which
medical literature to trust?
Since you find difficulties interpreting textbooks (for example, your
continued misunderstanding regarding neomycin in vaccines despite
numerous attempts to put it in context for you), then how can you decide
which medical literature to post to support your arguments?
Do you just ignore/rubbish any data that doesn't support your views and
only look for and post data that supports your views? Without critical
evaluation skills, and without having read the full paper, how can you
be sure that the research is even in support of your view?
--
Anthony Cox
Anthony Cox
<moy...@swampnet.com> writes
>But I don't feel qualified to make an intelligent determination
>about such esoteric things, so I must put my trust in someone who is
>qualified to intelligently weigh the benifit/risk of Ritalin. By far the
>most sensible arguments have come from those who warn of the dangers of
>Ritalin.
And you feel they are qualified to make an intelligent determination?
How do you decide who you should listen to?
--
Anthony Cox
Carol T
> By getting appropriate reports from parents and teachers and doing the
> appropriate blood work and taking a good history from the child and his
> parents.
As I said, not in Britain. Kind of disturbing really. I don't really believe
that the condition is ruled out in other countries either, even if you'd
like to think it is.
Carol T
Zeronic
>
> Forget it! You are wasting your time. This Harris jerk is only a troll
> here....put on your name sorting and read the insulting crap he posts here!
>
I find his posts quite interesting!
--
Best wishes,
Zeronic
zeronic AT uk2 DOT net
Wyle E. Coyote, M.D.
>
> <ditto>
>
> > > And this Drs. report. The death certificate. This is not an
'indication'
> ?
> > > How about all the negative stuff out there about Ritalin. Isn't this
an
> > > 'indication' ?. Hells bells man, if there are no 'indications', then
why
> > all
> > > the fuss ?
> > >
> >
make
> > sure that only kids with ADHD are prescribed the drugs. Every drug has
> side
> > effects. Distilled water can kill you. Penicillin cause kill from
allergic
> > reactions. You have to weigh the benefits against the risks.
>
determination
> about such esoteric things, so I must put my trust in someone who is
> qualified to intelligently weigh the benifit/risk of Ritalin. By far the
> most sensible arguments have come from those who warn of the dangers of
> would expose them to the benifits [and dangers] of Ritalin.
>
> Mr. Probert and you have not made convincing arguments for the wholesale
> drugging of fidgity kids. As of 1998, 10% of children aged 6 to 14 years
> were on Ritalin or stimulants. It's bad enough some kids must take it, but
> when we bark Ritalin every time a kid wiggles, it's downright dangerous.
>
No he hasn't. Neither have I.
I do not recall anyone suggesting that kids should be put on these everyt
time a kid wiggles. In fact, I (and I believe Mark) have argued that only
children who have been properly evaluated by trained professionals should be
put on these drugs. I add, only after the physician and parents and child
have weighed the risks and benefits, and only with appropriate followup.
This is not wholesale drugging of anyone. And, considering that the
medications do not control the children's behavior, this really is not
drugging the kids, but enabling the kids to control their own behavior.
Carol T
"Anthony Cox" <nos...@breithorn.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:Tj$Y$5C0Y+...@blacktriangle.org...
> In message <ao7vof$ke5$1...@venus.btinternet.com>, Carol T
> <cteas...@hotmail.com> writes
> >
> >Why don't you admit it, it has an effect on the child's heart
>
> Carol,
>
> Since you cast doubt on a lot of medicine, how do you decide which
> medical literature to trust?
This is what it's all about Anthony, the so called alternative medical
'quackery' you go on about pales into insignificant against pharmaceutical
stock market giants. This is the true face of medical care. The need for
huge profit dictates the whole arena of medicine and lack of cures. It
dictates how doctors treat their patients and will do in the future. There
is no room for the altruistic notions and honesty of the tiny minority to
shine through.
Last year, total sales for Celltech Medeva topped $421 million.
http://www.central-nervous-system.com/profiles/cns/cns0800.cp/celltech_medev
.htm
The U.K.-based Celltech expects sales for the drug, ADHD Metadate CD
Extended-Release Capsules, to exceed $250 million.
http://www.thestreet.com/markets/stockwatch/1349344.html
"Operating profit, excluding other income and goodwill charges, showed
strong growth to 10.1 million pounds (+36%)"
http://tools.thestreet.com/tsc/quotes.html?pg=qcn&guid={B04199DD-2019-47ED-9
6C4-1741DE0E822B}&symb=CLL&sid=166174&orig=1&timer=
Celltech Group Plc (NYSE: CLL) 9.97 +0.87 +9.56%
Data as of 12:00 AM ET 10/11/02
Why does the MCA back a market like this with just '6 weeks of vaccine' of
research. Unless people have a personal interest in the stock market, even
if through a third party, such poor safety measures in children's medicines
simply don't make sense.
Just out of interest, what do you recon the stock markets were doing the
week synthetic thyroxin was introduced without any research to back its
efficiency? I bet I know!
Carol T
Gym Bob
"Zeronic" <S...@sig.for.address> wrote in message
news:3DA80C90...@sig.for.address...
Wyle E. Coyote, M.D.
>
> "Anthony Cox" <nos...@breithorn.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:Tj$Y$5C0Y+...@blacktriangle.org...
> > In message <ao7vof$ke5$1...@venus.btinternet.com>, Carol T
> > <cteas...@hotmail.com> writes
> > >
> > >Why don't you admit it, it has an effect on the child's heart
> >
> > Carol,
> >
> > Since you cast doubt on a lot of medicine, how do you decide which
> > medical literature to trust?
>
> This is what it's all about Anthony, the so called alternative medical
> 'quackery' you go on about pales into insignificant against pharmaceutical
> stock market giants. This is the true face of medical care. The need for
Really? So alternative medicine people do not want to make money?
And if someone found a cure for say cancer, they wouldn't be able to sell it
for a fortune?
> It
> dictates how doctors treat their patients and will do in the future. There
> is no room for the altruistic notions and honesty of the tiny minority to
> shine through.
Actually, there is plenty of room. All one has to do is prove that the
alternative treatment works.
BTW, what is wrong with making a profit? Doctors, car salesmen, internet
companies, grocery stories, toilet paper makers, etc., are all trying ot
make a profit. What's wrong with trying to make a profit?
All the best,
Wyle
Gym Bob
"Hillbilly Sass" <moy...@swampnet.com> wrote in message
news:cWYp9.1045$46.295@fe01...
>
> "Anthony Cox" <nos...@breithorn.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:xDYQHsBq...@blacktriangle.org...
> Wow Tony. That's like asking 'what is truth'. It's like mystery of the
> universe stuff. How invigorating in the middle of this seemingly empty
> thread.
>
> But back to your great question....
>
> My method for deciding who I should listen to, is to identify those I
> shouldn't listen to, and then listen to all the rest. This is an ongoing
> process. As my understanding of the issue grows, so does my ability to
> identify those I shouldn't listen to.
>
> On usenet, this is a fairly simple task. I identify a thread that is
> addressing my area of interest. I identify and filter kooks, trolls, and
> idiots. Next, I read through the thread, identify and filter posters with
> wild ideas, or illogical arguments [zealots and blockheads]. Those that
> remain will probably teach me something. As time goes by, those with the
> most powerful arguments will become apparent, and that's how I decide who
I
> should listen to.
>
>
> Billy
>
> >
> > --
> > Anthony Cox
>
>
>
Anthony Cox
<cteas...@hotmail.com> writes
>This is what it's all about Anthony, the so called alternative medical
>'quackery' you go on about pales into insignificant against pharmaceutical
>stock market giants. This is the true face of medical care.
No, that is a highly biased and polarised view of the world Carol. Just
as you accuse some Doctors of having financial biases you have to accept
that you have a bias against anything done by business. Both are
equally able to skew a debate.
> The need for
>huge profit dictates the whole arena of medicine and lack of cures. It
>dictates how doctors treat their patients and will do in the future. There
>is no room for the altruistic notions and honesty of the tiny minority to
>shine through.
I have a certificate on my wall saying:
"I, __________________, am committed to practicing medicine in the best
interest of my patients and on the basis of the best available evidence,
rather than on the basis of advertising or promotion.
I therefore pledge to accept no money, gifts, or hospitality from the
pharmaceutical industry; to seek unbiased sources of information and not
rely on information disseminated by drug companies; and to avoid
conflicts of interest in my practice, teaching, and/or research."
https://ironclad.secure-orders.net/nofreelu/pledge.htm
This does not mean that I believe that everything the industry is evil,
but it does mean I am aware of the possible biases. Your hatred towards
anything from business is just the opposite extreme of doctors accepting
golfing trips from drug companies. Both serve people badly.
--
Anthony Cox
Steve Harris
>Actually, careful attention to possible cardiac changes (e.g., with EKG's)
>is part of the followup on all patients on Ritalin.
That is complete nonsense, describing neither recommendations nor the
average actual clinical practice. You either make this stuff up as you go
along, describing things as you wish they were, or else you're posting from
the Wyle E. Coyote alternate 'toon universe. You know, the one where
physics is different, and you don't actually fall until you look down and
notice that you're supported on nothing but air?
Well, right now, in case you hadn't noticed, you're supported on nothing but
air, Wylie. Don't look down.
Journalist
"Wyle E. Coyote, M.D." <kidsd...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<C8CCE242B4B67B18.AB0B01A8...@lp.airnews.net>...
Carol T
> In message <ao97h6$ou5$1...@knossos.btinternet.com>, Carol T
> No, that is a highly biased and polarised view of the world Carol.
I may think that you have a polarised view Anthony. After all, the industry
puts the bread on your table in a round about way and provides far more
cloud cover than I have.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Doctors of having financial biases you have to accept
> that you have a bias against anything done by business. Both are
> equally able to skew a debate.<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
I don't have a problem with people running a business. I have a problem with
people denying the influences that stock markets, individual practices and
organisational behaviours have on businesses and the legislation surrounding
them.
> I have a certificate on my wall saying:
>
> "I, __________________, am committed to practicing medicine in the best
> interest of my patients and on the basis of the best available evidence,
> rather than on the basis of advertising or promotion.<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
As I said there's no room for the altruistic notions and honesty of the tiny
minority to shine through. Oaths are only as good as the individuals
conscience. When it came down to it, would you leave your type of work for
your conscience?
Do you truly believe that your colleagues would? No, they wouldn't, it's not
human nature to put a job on the line for principle. Hence, you can not
speak for the integrity of those who work around you, you can only 'hope'
that they have integrity to the standards you'd think you'd take yours.
Your principles are yet to be truly tested.
Carol T
Carol T
"Wyle E. Coyote, M.D." <kidsd...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:C8CCE242B4B67B18.AB0B01A8...@lp.airnews.net...
>
> Really? So alternative medicine people do not want to make money?
> And if someone found a cure for say cancer, they wouldn't be able to sell
it
> for a fortune?
Like the cure for ulcers do you mean? I don't think the alternative medicine
money machine wields the same kind of power, do you really? There's a little
difference in the influences around the stock markets and the individual
wage 'individual' alternative practitioners earn.
Pharmaceutical companies don't 'cure', unless they are put on the spot and
have no other road to go down, they develop _treatments_ or vaccines.
> BTW, what is wrong with making a profit? Doctors, car salesmen, internet
> companies, grocery stories, toilet paper makers, etc., are all trying ot
> make a profit. What's wrong with trying to make a profit?
There's absolutely nothing wrong in making a profit. There's a lot wrong in
not recognising the mechanisms that surround multinational profiteering and
how it has an effect on the routes medical professionals have to take.
Carol T
Richard Steven Walz
Carol T <cteas...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>"Wyle E. Coyote, M.D." <kidsd...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
>> companies, grocery stories, toilet paper makers, etc., are all trying ot
>> make a profit. What's wrong with trying to make a profit?
>
>There's absolutely nothing wrong in making a profit. There's a lot wrong in
>not recognising the mechanisms that surround multinational profiteering and
>how it has an effect on the routes medical professionals have to take.
>Carol T
WRONG! Westerners, especially Americans, are very fluffy-headed about
things economic, and they don't ever stop to realize what's really
happening anymore. There's nothing wrong with making money by working
for a living, but "profit" is something totally different altogether,
and capitalists would LIKE for you to tacitly imagine that these two
very different things are the same, so they can confuse you into not
ever opposing what THEY do!! In point of fact, profit is the money left
over in the hands of the controllers, the rich, when they have magically
paid off everyone else at an extraordinarily low non-living wage, and
it is this left over money, usually HUGE which they claim for their OWN
MERELY because they ALLEGE that "nobody else owns it (or something)"!!
This is what happens to any so-called "extra money" that is left over
from rip-off prices that THEY SET, even though anyone can tell you that
prices SHOULD be set by BOTH sides of an arrangement. In the case of the
rich and profit this is obviously NOT what is happening! Instead of BOTH
sides getting to set prices and wages, so that people are paid fairly,
what happens is that wealth uses its leverage to claim money that they
never worked for, that is actually a share of OUR labor that the rich
themselves never LABOR like WE do to compensate US for! In other words
this is NOT a situation of two people exchanging their labor equally,
this is a situation of cheating, of seeing JUST HOW MUCH you can cheat
someone else out of by concealing whether there is ACTUALLY a shortage of
something that MIGHT, in OTHER circumstances, in some way, JUSTIFY it
being assessed as requiring a high cost of labor to make! The rich use
their wealth to conceal the actual price or availability of things, and
the lack of popular control on prices and wages, and they do so simply
in order to STEAL!! That is HOW they become wealthy, when NO HONEST
wage can EVER result in wealth from honest work! If you saved every dime
you ever made after food and rent and nornal real expenses, could you ever
become rich? Count it up, it won't happen without cheating and profit that
you didn't earn! And that's STEALING.
No one should get another to serve him merely because he can fool them
out of it. It's not fair, it's not just, and THAT makes it THEFT, STEALING!
And making someone else work for you without being paid for it is slavery,
and that's WHY theft is illegal, because that kind of inequity amounts
to a form of enslavement!! Profit Capitalism is merely disguised slavery,
feudal serfdom, as it always was. The only freedom, democracy, and justice
occurs in communism, where ONLY work is rewarded, NOT cheating, NOT
manipulating and stealing from those who work. And don't ever let a
capitalist fool you into thinking communism was tried and failed. It was
NEVER tried, and it NEVER failed. In every society they claim was
"communist" there was a rich ruling class that stole everything and
enslaved the workers, and that is NOT communism BY DEFINITION! Any
university political science major can tell you that! And only business
majors will try to hem and hawe and lie about that! And why? Because THEY
want to be RICH so YOU have to work and NOT THEM! We need to organize
everyone and end this as soon as possible! We simply need more than half
the people to realize that they will NEVER be rich, CAN never be rich, and
that they have been DUPED!
Steve
Carol T
"Journalist" <bonnier...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:c5a575d4.02101...@posting.google.com...
> Does anyone know of any medical journals that have been following this?
Thanks.
Following what? The opposing points of view about the effects of
multinational practices on the individual child's health or the general
opposing debates of the Internet, of which we have many?
The result of the former is that 1.6 million cases of attention deficit
hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) have been diagnosed in American elementary
school children. That's 7% of children 6-11 in America ( BMJ 2002;324:1296
( 1 June ) News roundup)
1.6 million children in America taking a drug that's not had any long term
research in a 'few' people first.
The question is, do _you_ think that enough research is done into children's
medicines before a drug company has over 1.6 million of them swallowing the
stuff?
We _all_ have a right to discuss the issues, these medicines find their way
into our loos and into the water system eventually! Nothing happens to
children without it having a direct effect on society somewhere down the
line.
Carol T
Steve Harris
>
>"Wyle E. Coyote, M.D." <kidsd...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:C8CCE242B4B67B18.AB0B01A8...@lp.airnews.net...
>
>
>>
>> Really? So alternative medicine people do not want to make money?
>> And if someone found a cure for say cancer, they wouldn't be able to sell
>it
>> for a fortune?
>
>Like the cure for ulcers do you mean?
COMMENT:
It would have been more profitable if the cure for ulcers didn't turn out to
be common already available (and generally generic) antibiotics. Still,
this doesn't bode too well for your argument. A cheap cure for ulcers should
never had made it to the market at all, given what people were (and are)
paying for chronic antacid therapy. But it did. Five years after being
reported for the first time by Marshall in Australia, it was already
accepted and standard medical practice. Just time enough for the studies to
be run, checked, reported, and so on. Not a hint of hold up anywhere.
>I don't think the alternative medicine
>money machine wields the same kind of power, do you really? There's a
little
>difference in the influences around the stock markets and the individual
>wage 'individual' alternative practitioners earn.
As there is in standard medicine, too, in case you hadn't noticed. Those
skyscrapers in the middle of the downtown of your nearest big city aren't
owned by medical doctors, ya know. They are owned by banks, insurance
companies, and various large businesses. By and large, hospitals aren't
owned by doctors, either. And doctors by and large don't own the HMOs, if
the truth were known.
It takes a decade or more of education after high school to learn medicine,
and another decade after that to get a decent amount of experience at it.
That's 20 years in which your high school classmates are learning to be
businessmen, accountants, stockbrokers, and lawyers. And when it comes down
to the game of scissors/paper/rock, the knowledge of how to figure out blood
gas results or figure an antibiotic dose, gets beat every time by knowledge
of how to use the courts, do tax end-runs, get venture capital, run a large
business or political campaign. So if you're looking for people to blame in
how the medical system works, the doctors need to be toward the end of your
list. We work most for those OTHER guys; the laws have been re-written so
it's practically impossible to work for ourselves any more. We didn't make
or influence the laws-- that's the guys who own those skyscrapers, okay?
>Pharmaceutical companies don't 'cure', unless they are put on the spot and
>have no other road to go down, they develop _treatments_ or vaccines.
There's no money in vaccines. Hospitals would make a lot more money letting
kids go on ventilators for diphtheria or whooping cough. If the government
weren't subsidizing vaccine makers and passing laws to protect the few
manufacturers left, there wouldn't be any vaccine production left at all.
The public is that stupid, in this era of relatively few childhood disease
deaths.
As for pharmaceutical companies not "curing" things unless they are put on
the spot and forced to, that's a remarkably ignorant and paranoid thought.
The very nature of drugs is that they don't stay in the body long; you can't
design drugs to stay in the body permanently, because that's not the way
biology works. And when the drug goes, any effect it has, goes with it. That
means it's something of a miracle that there even ARE any drugs with
permanent curative effects, outside of antibiotics and the occasional
curative chemotherapy (both of which work by killing the last bad cells
before you stop them). Even when we discover the odd curative drug
(Accutane, for example) we still don't understand how it works (and by the
way, how does your theory explain the development and marketing of
Accutane?).
We do understand that lots (though not all) of chronic health problems are
due to people killing their tissues with poisons (ie smoking), by eating too
much and suffering the health changes caused by too much fat, or by simply
getting old and wearing out, But why would you expect that a few pills
could any of those things? If 50 lbs of fat is making your cholesterol,
blood sugar and blood pressure go up, how are you expecting a a few pills to
fix those things permanently, while the fat remains, and after the drug is
gone? And so far as aging or emphysema or loss of tissue from a heart attack
or stroke goes, expecting a pharmaceutical to fix any of this is about as
realistic as expecting an oil change to fix your blown rings, cracked engine
block, and bald tires. Sorry, but nature doesn't work that way. And it's not
a giant car company conspiracy ("multinational profiteering") that there's
no oil or gasoline additive that rejuvenates cars. (And by the way, consider
that its probably not a coincidence that Accutane cures a self-limited
disease of kids, not a chronic disease associated with aging or tissue
destruction).
Anybody suggesting there exists a multinational conspiracy to keep
rejuvenating motor oil off the market, is a moron; you don't even have to
know anything about cars to know how nutty the thought is. But similar
opinions when it comes to the human body and pharmaceutical companies, are
out here on the net all the time. In fact, here YOU are, suggesting very
much the same kind of thing.
Grow up.
Steve Harris
<3da8b5c4$0$79562$8ee...@newsreader.tycho.net>...
>This is what happens to any so-called "extra money" that is left over
>from rip-off prices that THEY SET, even though anyone can tell you that
>prices SHOULD be set by BOTH sides of an arrangement. In the case of the
It's not obvious.
Gym Bob
"Carol T" <cteas...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:aoaa30$mgf$2...@knossos.btinternet.com...
bogus address
> We _all_ have a right to discuss the issues, these medicines find
> their way into our loos and into the water system eventually!
You have deaminating enzymes for that. Amphetamine-related drugs
are metabolized into inactive ketones.
========> Email to "jc" at this site; email to "bogus" will bounce. <========
Jack Campin: 11 Third Street, Newtongrange, Midlothian EH22 4PU; 0131 6604760
http://www.purr.demon.co.uk/purrhome.html food intolerance data and recipes,
freeware logic fonts for the Macintosh, and Scots traditional music resources
Anthony Cox
<no...@spammy.com> writes
>His plaque on his wall admits a problem in the industry.
It does. Well spotted.
Go to http://www.nofreelunch.org
But it does *not* mean that there is a massive conspiracy between the
industry and government to push dangerous substances down people which
is what a lot of the rubbish posted here is about.
--
Anthony Cox
Wyle E. Coyote, M.D.
>
> "Wyle E. Coyote, M.D." <kidsd...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:C8CCE242B4B67B18.AB0B01A8...@lp.airnews.net...
>
>
> >
> > Really? So alternative medicine people do not want to make money?
> > And if someone found a cure for say cancer, they wouldn't be able to
sell
> it
> > for a fortune?
>
> Like the cure for ulcers do you mean? I don't think the alternative
medicine
> money machine wields the same kind of power, do you really? There's a
little
> difference in the influences around the stock markets and the individual
> wage 'individual' alternative practitioners earn.
Yeah. The stock market goes by what makes money. Things that don't work
don't make as much money.
> Pharmaceutical companies don't 'cure', unless they are put on the spot and
> have no other road to go down, they develop _treatments_ or vaccines.
Wrong. Antibiotics cure. And vaccines prevent disease. Both of these argue
against pharm companies wanting to drag out diseases to make money off of
people.
While thyroid hormone and insulin do not cure anything, they prevent harmful
affects of the diseases (hypothyroidism and diabetes). How do you suggest
that other treatments would do better?
And chemotherapy cures cancer. The cure rate for pedaitric cancers around
70-75% (up from near 0) and about 50% for adult cancers.
BTW, what conmed (conjecture-based medicine, aka, alternative medicine)
treatments have been shown to work better in published studies?
>
> > BTW, what is wrong with making a profit? Doctors, car salesmen, internet
> > companies, grocery stories, toilet paper makers, etc., are all trying ot
> > make a profit. What's wrong with trying to make a profit?
>
>
> There's absolutely nothing wrong in making a profit. There's a lot wrong
in
> not recognising the mechanisms that surround multinational profiteering
and
> how it has an effect on the routes medical professionals have to take.
>
Yet, you are unable to show other routes that have been proven to be better
than conventional medicine.
All the best,
Wyle
> Carol T
>
>
>
>
>
Wyle E. Coyote, M.D.
salute Dr. Cox for taking this stand.
However, becuase the way drugs are marketed is bad does not make the drugs
themselves bad.
Allt he best,
Wyle
"Gym Bob" <no...@spammy.com> wrote in message
news:xM5q9.2$vK6.7...@radon.golden.net...
Richard Steven Walz
Steve Harris <sbha...@ix.RETICULATEDOBJECTcom.com> wrote:
>Richard Steven Walz wrote in message
><3da8b5c4$0$79562$8ee...@newsreader.tycho.net>...
>>This is what happens to any so-called "extra money" that is left over
>>from rip-off prices that THEY SET, even though anyone can tell you that
>>prices SHOULD be set by BOTH sides of an arrangement. In the case of the
>>rich and profit this is obviously NOT what is happening.
>
>It's not obvious.
That would be because you're resisting the truth because of your
code-word brainwashing and your low IQ, or other ulterior motive
based on YOUR wealth!
Steve
Matti Narkia
<0296BFED2B445956.91B7D991...@lp.airnews.net> "Wyle E.
Coyote, M.D." <kidsd...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>"Carol T" <cteas...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:aoaa2f$mgf$1...@knossos.btinternet.com...
>>
>> Pharmaceutical companies don't 'cure', unless they are put on the spot and
>> have no other road to go down, they develop _treatments_ or vaccines.
>
>Wrong. Antibiotics cure. And vaccines prevent disease.
But it's good to remember that neither antibiotics nor vaccines were
invented by pharmaceutical companies. Come to think of, I cannot recall any
major medical breakthrough which had happened in a pharmaceutical company.
--
Matti Narkia
Carol T
"Steve Harris" <sbha...@ix.RETICULATEDOBJECTcom.com> wrote in message
news:kT3q9.27477$lV3.2...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
> Carol T wrote in message ...
> COMMENT:
>
> It would have been more profitable if the cure for ulcers didn't turn out
to
> be common already available (and generally generic) antibiotics.
Antibiotics are cheap because Governments evoked a clause in patenting laws
which allowed them to make them cheap 50 years ago. The antibiotic cure for
ulcers did not come about easily as you so obviously believe, even though
the ingredients were already there.
I will assume that you are being cynical if you already know that.
>>>>> As there is in standard medicine, too, in case you hadn't noticed.
Those
> skyscrapers in the middle of the downtown of your nearest big city aren't
> owned by medical doctors, ya know. ><<<<
Once again I will assume that you are being cynical as this was my very
point.
>>>>>>>>>>>>We work most for those OTHER guys; the laws have been re-written
so
> it's practically impossible to work for ourselves any more. <<<<<<<<<<<
But that's what the medical profession wants, to be dictated to by the work
of multinational companies and friends of those companies.
> >Pharmaceutical companies don't 'cure', unless they are put on the spot
and
> >have no other road to go down, they develop _treatments_ or vaccines.
>
> There's no money in vaccines.
Give over, as soon as a new vaccine is produced shares rocket all over the
worlds, millions are made. What's more the producers of the vaccines don't
work for free and getting contracts from government agencies is lucrative,
even more so if various vaccines can be lumped together in one.
>>>>> The public is that stupid, <<<<<<<<<<<
Umm, I think that statement speaks volumes of your opinion of the 'other'
side of life.
>>>>>>>>>> As for pharmaceutical companies not "curing" things unless they
are put on
> the spot and forced to, that's a remarkably ignorant and paranoid
thought.<<<<<<<<<
I think that you are being a little naive.
>>>>>>>>>>>>ven when we discover the odd curative drug
> (Accutane, for example) we still don't understand how it works (and by the
> way, how does your theory explain the development and marketing of
> Accutane?).<<<<<<<<<<<<<
Accutane is one of only 3 drugs that has ever required a Medguide.
http://www.accutane-suicide-help.com/
Just one deformed baby or suicide is not worth the existence of this drug,
especially for a self limiting condition.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>But why would you expect that a few pills
> could any of those things?<<<<<<<<<<<<<
Who said I do?? It's the pharmaceutical companies that 'look' for a disease
to 'treat' and vaccinate against.
>>>>>>>>>> Anybody suggesting there exists a multinational conspiracy to
keep
> rejuvenating motor oil off the market, is a moron; <<<<<<<<<<<<<
Yer right. The long lasting/everlasting light bulb was kept _off_ the
market for many decades, not by conspiracy, but by marketing determinates.
Carol T
Carol T
"Richard Steven Walz" <rst...@deeptht.armory.com> wrote in message
news:3da8b5c4$0$79562$8ee...@newsreader.tycho.net...
We need to organize
> everyone and end this as soon as possible! We simply need more than half
> the people to realize that they will NEVER be rich, CAN never be rich, and
> that they have been DUPED!
I'm rich, isn't wealth simply a perception?
What can a lottery winner do now if s/he were joining in this conversation?
Perhaps they'd be sitting on a chair looking at a computer screen and when
they go to bed and shut their eyes how much richer will they be than I am?
Being rich is a state of mind. In fact it's so much a state of mind that the
definition of poverty changes every year. Only absolute poverty remains
constant. A content individual does not think they have been robbed if they
have paid high price for the skill they need from an individual.
However, the actual process people pursue to become wealthier can cause
great harm when it involves large organisations simply because human beings
act with predictable behaviours.
I do agree that the wealthy hide the truer cost of being poorer through the
very process of dealing with money and controlling it.
Carol T
Wyle E. Coyote, M.D.
Really? That's new to me. I thought docs especially like to call the shots.
If they didn't, they would be nurses.
>
>
> > >Pharmaceutical companies don't 'cure', unless they are put on the spot
> and
> > >have no other road to go down, they develop _treatments_ or vaccines.
> >
> > There's no money in vaccines.
>
> Give over, as soon as a new vaccine is produced shares rocket all over the
> worlds, millions are made. What's more the producers of the vaccines don't
> work for free and getting contracts from government agencies is lucrative,
> even more so if various vaccines can be lumped together in one.
>
Right. But what's wrong with making money? BTW, I don't think the gov't
contracts are as lucerative as you think. Why did so many companies stop
making vaccines?
D. C. Sessions
Presumably you mean the *first* *ever* vaccine and the
*first* *ever* antibiotic, since there have been countless
instances since then of pharmaceutical companies developing
both.
Since the first vaccine predates the first pharmaceutical
corporation, it stands to reason that it wasn't developed
by one.
The first antibiotic, on the other hand, may well have been
discovered by someone working for a pharmaceutical company:
Sulfonamide was discovered in 1932 to be effective against
bacteria by Gerhard Domagk, working for Bayer. At about
the same time, May and Baker produced sulfadiazine (known
as "M and B.") Whether these were the first *discovered*
is unclear, since Fleming made his first observations on
penicillin in 1927 or 1928, but they certainly were ahead
in terms of clinical use.
Therefore, pretty much however you slice it, you're wrong
that "neither antibiotics nor vaccines were invented by
pharmaceutical companies."
--
| In the course of every project there comes a time |
| when the best debugger is a can of gasoline. |
Anthony Cox
<cteas...@hotmail.com> writes
>
>Being rich is a state of mind.
If only. ;-)
--
Anthony Cox
Eric Bohlman
> Accutane is one of only 3 drugs that has ever required a Medguide.
> http://www.accutane-suicide-help.com/
>
> Just one deformed baby or suicide is not worth the existence of this
> drug, especially for a self limiting condition.
Severe cystic acne isn't a self-limiting condition, and it can cause
permanent disfiguration.
Matti Narkia
<bqucoa...@news.lumbercartel.com> "D. C. Sessions"
<d...@lumbercartel.com> wrote:
>
>Since the first vaccine predates the first pharmaceutical
>corporation, it stands to reason that it wasn't developed
>by one.
>
>The first antibiotic, on the other hand, may well have been
>discovered by someone working for a pharmaceutical company:
>Sulfonamide was discovered in 1932 to be effective against
>bacteria by Gerhard Domagk, working for Bayer.
Incorrect. He worked for IG Farbenindustrie, see
Gerhard Domagk – Biography
http://www.nobel.se/medicine/laureates/1939/domagk-bio.html
and
IG Farbenindustrie AG
http://www.us-israel.org/jsource/Holocaust/farben.html
> At about
>the same time, May and Baker produced sulfadiazine (known
>as "M and B.") Whether these were the first *discovered*
>is unclear, since Fleming made his first observations on
>penicillin in 1927 or 1928, but they certainly were ahead
>in terms of clinical use.
>
I see nothing unclear in this. In my number system 1928 comes before 1932.
>Therefore, pretty much however you slice it, you're wrong
>that "neither antibiotics nor vaccines were invented by
>pharmaceutical companies."
Not so, see above.
--
Matti Narkia
Carol T
"Wyle E. Coyote, M.D." <kidsd...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:F4B05CFD5A4F3F51.EF51A5F3...@lp.airnews.net...
> Really? That's new to me. I thought docs especially like to call the
shots.
> If they didn't, they would be nurses.
>
You operate collectively, in fact you are even regulated collectively. You
couldn't work without control, which in itself isn't a bad idea if you had
more choice about it. Whether you like it or not you are controlled by the
marketing determinants of the drugs you prescribe. This aside it has nothing
to do with market forces influencing the route your work takes overall.
>>>>>>>> Right. But what's wrong with making money? BTW, I don't think the
gov't
> contracts are as lucerative as you think. Why did so many companies stop
> making vaccines?<<<<<<<<<<<
"Vaccine stockpiles should be increased, and more suppliers would lessen the
risk. But slim profit margins and worries about liability make companies
reluctant to jump into the vaccine market"
http://www.usnews.com/usnews/nycu/health/articles/020701/1vaccine.htm
Slim profits do not mean NO profits and worries about litigation says
everything that's needed to be said about the confidence in their own
research. They stop production because they can't keep up with it or they
have something else in the pipeline, that has nothing to do with profits
unless the government fund other companies to stockpile.
You may get situations like GlaxoSmithKline stopping the production of the
single rubella, but that's because interests would be in getting parents to
have multi vaccines. Multivaccines mean that they can sell singular vaccines
and promise governments low delivery costs. Manufactures know that they
can't sell future vaccine components to governments whilst governments feel
they have a threat over them to cover the cost of many single vaccines.
Hence it's in the government's and the pharmaceutical company's best
interest to stop production of singular vaccines.
Otherwise, the need to sell more products outweighs the need for child
safety and parental rights. It's about business management, that's all.
Carol T
Carol T
> In message <aocv9v$7f2$1...@venus.btinternet.com>, Carol T
> <cteas...@hotmail.com> writes
> >
> >Being rich is a state of mind.
>
> If only. ;-)
Of course it is. You can be one of the richest person on the face of the
earth but if that money hasn't bought a happy state of mind then it actually
has no value at all.
My grandparents were 2 of the richest people I knew simply because they had
faith, loved one another, their life and what they had so much. I never knew
them want anymore material wealth than they had.
Unless money can buy 'everything' then there is always something more
valuable a poorer person can possess of greatest value.
Carol T
Happy Dog
news:aocskg$3a0$1...@knossos.btinternet.com...
out
> to be common already available (and generally generic) antibiotics.
>
> Antibiotics are cheap because Governments evoked a clause in patenting
laws
> which allowed them to make them cheap 50 years ago.
Huh?
> The antibiotic cure for
> ulcers did not come about easily as you so obviously believe, even though
> the ingredients were already there.
Well, what's your version of the story? I don't know that it was
particularly easy. But it happened pretty quickly.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>We work most for those OTHER guys; the laws have been
re-written
> so it's practically impossible to work for ourselves any more. <<<<<<<<<<<
>
> But that's what the medical profession wants, to be dictated to by the
work
> of multinational companies and friends of those companies.
Why would they "want" this? What possible advantage is there? (Not that I
expect you to defend most of your claims.)
> > >Pharmaceutical companies don't 'cure', unless they are put on the spot
> > >have no other road to go down, they develop _treatments_ or vaccines.
> >
> > There's no money in vaccines.
>
> Give over, as soon as a new vaccine is produced shares rocket all over the
> worlds, millions are made.
Your evidence Carol? Compared to other types of drugs, vaccines aren't big
money makers.
> >>>>>>>>>> As for pharmaceutical companies not "curing" things unless they
> are put on the spot and forced to, that's a remarkably ignorant and
paranoid
> thought.<<<<<<<<<
>
> I think that you are being a little naive.
I think that, as usual, you can't provide any real evidence for your wild
claims when you're put on the spot.
>
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>ven when we discover the odd curative drug
> > (Accutane, for example) we still don't understand how it works (and by
the
> > way, how does your theory explain the development and marketing of
> > Accutane?).<<<<<<<<<<<<<
>
> Accutane is one of only 3 drugs that has ever required a Medguide.
> http://www.accutane-suicide-help.com/
>
> Just one deformed baby or suicide is not worth the existence of this drug,
> especially for a self limiting condition.
Which it often isn't. But you wouldn't know this. Anyway, is many missed
opportunities for proven cancer treatments worth the existance of
"alternative" cancer treatments?
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>But why would you expect that a few pills
> > could any of those things?<<<<<<<<<<<<<
>
> Who said I do?? It's the pharmaceutical companies that 'look' for a
disease
> to 'treat' and vaccinate against.
OK Carol, name a few diseases "invented" by pharmaceutical companies.
>
> >>>>>>>>>> Anybody suggesting there exists a multinational conspiracy to
> keep rejuvenating motor oil off the market, is a moron; <<<<<<<<<<<<<
>
> Yer right. The long lasting/everlasting light bulb was kept _off_ the
> market for many decades, not by conspiracy, but by marketing determinates.
The only "everlasting" light bulb is one that's never turned on. Where do
you get this silliness?
erf
Jimbo156
Please GET A LAWYER AND SUE THE PANTS OFF THE
DRUG MANUFACTURER!
"john" <jo...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:ao0l3v$ks3$1...@helle.btinternet.com...
> Death From Ritalin
> The Truth Behind ADHD
>
> This story was published at http://www.RitalinDeath.com
>
>
> Hello, my name is Lawrence Smith; I am here to let you know about the
death
> of our fourteen-Year-old Son Matthew. He died on March 21, 2000. The cause
> was determined to be from the long- term (age 7-14) use of Methylphenidate
> a medication commonly known as Ritalin.
>
> The Certificate of Death under due to, (or because of) reads. Death caused
> from Long Term Use of Methylphenidate, (Ritalin). According to Dr. Ljuba
> Dragovic, The chief pathologist in Oakland County Michigan, upon autopsy,
> Matthew's heart showed clear signs of small vessel damage, the type caused
> by stimulant drugs like amphetamines.
>
> The medical examiners told me that a full-grown man's heart weighs about
> 350 grams and that Matthew's heart weight was about 402 grams.
>
> Matthew did not have a preexisting heart disease or defect that we knew
of.
> We, his parents never ignored his medical needs. The medical examiner said
> this type of heart damage is not easy to detect with the standard test
> necessary for prescription refills.
>
>
> While visiting the doctor with the schools diagnosis and the
recommendation
> for Ritalin, he seemed very frustrated and asked us to let the school
know,
> I am not a pharmacy. This leads me to believe that we were not the first
> parents sent to this doctor, with the schools diagnosis and recommendation
> for Ritalin.
>
> No one ever informed us of other crucial tests (echocardiogram) that we
> could have had done that would have discovered the enlargement of the
heart
> muscle, caused from scare tissue which these types of drugs cause. The
> standard test performed consists of blood work, listening to the heart,
> questions about school behaviors, sleeping and eating habits.
>
> It all started for Matthew in the first grade the school social worker in
> Berkley, Michigan kept calling us in for meetings. One particular morning
> before an IEP meeting, the school social worker Monica Fuchs and my wife
> and I were waiting on the others to arrive.
>
> Monica made us feel very threatened when she said that if we wouldn't
> consider getting Matt on Ritalin for their diagnosis of Attention Deficit
> Hyperactivity Disorder, that social services (child protective services)
> could charge us for neglecting his educational and emotional needs. My
wife
> and I were scared of the possibility of losing our children, if we did not
> comply.
>
>
> I believe that some school employees like having children medicated
> because, it makes frustrated students that are having a difficult time
> learning and understanding, easier to manage, regardless of the physical
> and psychological risks this practice poses to children.
>
> Not all families can afford hundreds of dollars for a drug free, private
> evaluation, so they will not be cornered into medicating their child.
>
> I am hoping that Republicans and Democrats will work together and fight
> this horrific war against the future of America, our children.
>
> Medical diagnosis should remain outside the realm of education and stay
> there. Pressure to seek specific medical treatment is not the job of the
> school system.
>
> We did not want Matthew on any medications, even though the school social
> worker or the doctor never informed us about the dangers of Ritalin and
> other stimulant medications used for ADD and ADHD. We just didn't feel
good
> about putting our son on drugs and we made it very clear to school
> officials.
>
> Informed Consent", which states in part A person's agreement to allow
> something to happen (such as surgery) that is based on a full disclosure
of
> the facts needed to make the decision intelligently; i.e. knowledge of
> risks involved, alternatives etc" and "the probable risks against the
> probable benefits"
>
> The violation of parent's rights is when they are not told of the
> unscientific nature of so-called disorders such as ADHD or the risks of
the
> treatments involving (drugs) and they certainly are not told of
> alternatives to their child's behavior such as undiagnosed allergies or
> food sensitivities, which could manifest with the symptoms of what
> psychiatry calls ADHD.
>
> If we weren't pressure by the school system, Matt would still be alive
> today. I cannot go back and change things for us at this point. However, I
> hope to God my story and information will reach the hearts and minds, of
> many families, so they can make an educated decision with more than a
> little selective information, if any, paid for by psychology and drug
> companies.
>
> I have created this website in hopes that parents will learn the health
> risks involved in using psychotropic medications on growing children. I
hope
> you will be spared all the suffering and heartbreak this whole ADHD
> issue has caused our family and many others.
>
> Please do not be intimidated by family, school staff, doctors, or anyone
> into medicating your child for ADHD or ADD. These mental illnesses are
> scientifically unfounded with no scientific validity what so ever. The
> dopamine theory is nothing more than wishful thinking on the part of
> psychiatry and the pharmaceutical industry.
>
> I truly believe this must have been my son's purpose, to save the health
> and lives of many others.
>
> How old will people live after taking these types of drugs as a child?
> Every time I hear about a child or young adult that has died from heart
> failure, I always wonder if they were ever on a psychotropic medication
> used for ADHD or depression.
>
> If I would of known about all the children that have died from these
> psychiatric medications, I would have never given Matt the first pill.
>
> Did you know that children that are diagnosed as having ADHD or ADD and
> take medication, the school labels them as learning disabled, and the
> schools receives additional state and federal funding per-child,
> per-semester.
>
> I wonder if that is one of the reasons why school administrators are so
> adamant about medication, and the other would be to control their
behavior,
> in their drug free school zone.
>
> One of the hardest things for me to deal with is the fact that, Matthew
> never wanted his medication.
>
> How many more 11-year-old Stephanie Hall's and 14-year-old Matthew Smith's
> will have to die before someone puts a stop to the biggest health care
> fraud ever? How many times will school psychology and drug companies get
> away with this?
>
> In 1998 at the National Institutes of Health Consensus Conference on ADHD
> The NIH issued the following statement regarding ADHD:
>
> "We do not have an independent, valid test for ADHD, and there is no data
> to indicate that ADHD is due to a brain malfunction"
>
> Children, do not need to be made into little robots with medication. I
feel
> that good parenting, structure, diets, and teaching methods can make all
> the difference in the world. Different children develop in different ways;
> you cannot put children all into one box.
>
> Did you know that the ADHD diagnosis checklist of behaviors is almost the
> same as the list of behaviors for gifted children. www.nfgcc.org
>
> Did you know that doctor's use to give amphetamines out for diet
> medication? They stopped because of the dangerous and sometimes fatal
heart
> related side effects.
>
> Now drug companies have a new market, with new names for the drugs and
have
> went from adult weight medication to children's ADHD.
>
> The DEA has classified Ritalin as a schedule two drug, comparable to
> Cocaine. Ritalin is also one of the top ten abused prescription drugs on
> the streets today.
>
> From the research that I have done on amphetamines, when they are used,
> all the veins and arteries constrict and get very small which makes it
hard
> for the heart to pump blood throughout the body. The extra force it takes
> to circulate blood causes damage to the heart.
>
> There are many other drugs that are given to children for ADHD with
> different names; Adderall, Concreta, Metadate, Ritalin, the list goes on
> and on, most if not all are stimulant drugs with Amphetamine-Speed.
>
> We are coming to a point in our history were children have been taking
> these drugs for some time. Now the information is starting to come out.
> This is a very sad why for us to find out the long-term side effects, by
> using our children as guinea pigs.
>
> Are you sick of the harassment and threats from school administrators to
> have our children medicated with stimulant drugs for their evaluations of
> ADHD? If so it's time we as parents pull together and put a stop to this
> inhuman practice. School administrators need to stay out of our personal
> business with their psychology and do the job we pay them to do!
>
> If you are concerned about the following things taking place is our
> schools? Handing out pro-drug information paid for by Psychology and the
> Pharmaceutical industry, which is a violation of our informed consent,
> profiling, labeling, coercion, manipulation, even the threat of
educational
> neglect by child protective services because parent's chooses not to
> medicate their child with dangerous drugs?
>
> Please feel free to post your story on the discussion board so state and
> federal lawmakers can see first hand what is going on in our public and
> privet schools.
>
> If you are being harassed by school administrators to medicate your child?
> for ADD or ADHD Tell Them Where To Go! http://www.RitalinDeath.com
>
>
Steve Harris
Comment:
In 1932, Gerhard Domagk, working in the animal research institute (Igefa in
Elbersfeld) at I.G. Farben reported that prontosil (a textile dye
synthesized in 1908) was active against bacterial infections in mice. Domagk
got the Nobel prize, and deserved it. His check was paid for by a chemical
company doing bona-fide pharaceutical research, so it was certainly
pharmaceutical corporate research. It would be rather legalistic of you to
weasel out by claiming that IG Farben wasn't a pharmaceutical company. It
was a monster company into all kinds of things, like Dow and ADM today. Any
company that has a pharmaceutical development division counts as a
pharmaceutical company.
Matti, there's no point in "inventing" or discovering something that is so
difficult to make, that it isn't available to more than a couple of people.
Fleming may have reported in 1929, before 1932, that there was something
made by mold that killed bacteria in a petri dish, but the development of
penicillin into a product that was available to people who needed it, was
due to other people, and didn't come until much later. Fleming didn't even
discover that penicillin was a useful antibiotic in vivo-- that was Florey
and Chain in 1940 who first showed that penicillin killed bacteria in mice,
then people, following the example of Domagk. It took a huge amount of
commercial development to get penicillin into the market, during WW II.
A similar thing happened with insulin and commercial development. Three
Canadians discovered a stuff in pancreas that could lower the blood sugar in
dogs, but they never saved any lives with it. It was too impure and too hard
to make. Lives only started being saved when the Lilly Co. figured out how
to extract and market the pure stuff in bulk. Again you can't save lives
without this two-stop process, and it's not a medical breakthrough, until
you start to save a lot of lives. Till then, it's merely a scientific
breakthrough, of interest to gray old men reading journals in libraries, but
of no impact on the man in the street.
Steve Harris
>
>"Steve Harris" <sbha...@ix.RETICULATEDOBJECTcom.com> wrote in message
>news:kT3q9.27477$lV3.2...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
>> Carol T wrote in message ...
>
>> COMMENT:
>>
>> It would have been more profitable if the cure for ulcers didn't turn out
>to
>> be common already available (and generally generic) antibiotics.
>
>Antibiotics are cheap because Governments evoked a clause in patenting laws
>which allowed them to make them cheap 50 years ago.
No, the antibiotics to treat H. pylori are cheap because they are old ones,
whose patents have run out. There are antibiotics which are still on patent,
which are very expensive. We simply got lucky with H. pylori.
>The antibiotic cure for
>ulcers did not come about easily as you so obviously believe, even though
>the ingredients were already there.
>
>I will assume that you are being cynical if you already know that.
I will assume you are ignorant. Who the hell are you to tell me how fast and
easy it was? I was THERE. Marshall's first report came out in Australia in
1980. I heard nothing about it medical school, which I finished in 1983.
Testing to confirm Marshall was still going on. However by the end of my
residency in 1986, it was routine to treat patients with ulcers with
antibiotics. That's about as fast as you can ask for.
>But that's what the medical profession wants, to be dictated to by the work
>of multinational companies and friends of those companies.
Again, who the hell are you to tell me what the medical profession wants?
>Give over, as soon as a new vaccine is produced shares rocket all over the
>worlds, millions are made.
Example, please? How many new vaccines marketed in the last 10 years? Vs.
how many new drugs?
>Umm, I think that statement speaks volumes of your opinion of the 'other'
>side of life.
Look, half the public didn't even use seat belts until they were forced to
by law. We don't even have to talk about vaccines to illustrate my thesis.
>Accutane is one of only 3 drugs that has ever required a Medguide.
>http://www.accutane-suicide-help.com/
>
>Just one deformed baby or suicide is not worth the existence of this drug,
>especially for a self limiting condition.
Hey, one drowned kid is not worth the existance of swimming pools,
especially since they aren't used to treat diseases at all.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>But why would you expect that a few pills
>> could any of those things?<<<<<<<<<<<<<
>
>Who said I do??
You said you did. "Pharmaceutical companies don't 'cure', unless they are
put on the spot and
have no other road to go down, they develop _treatments_ or vaccines."
You're said pharmaceutical companys don't "cure" unless put on the spot and
have no other road to go down.
>>>>>>>>>>> Anybody suggesting there exists a multinational conspiracy to
>keep
>> rejuvenating motor oil off the market, is a moron; <<<<<<<<<<<<<
>
>Yer right. The long lasting/everlasting light bulb was kept _off_ the
>market for many decades, not by conspiracy, but by marketing determinates.
There is no everlasting lightbulb. If you've bought home fluorescents for
standard sockets for the last 10 years you know they generally did NOT last
long. They didn't start to sell until the early burnout problems were
solved, and that took years. It's not an easy problem. Where it is an easy
problem (with the larger fluorescent units which use the 4 foot bulbs) they
took over the market from incandescents decades ago. You can't have your
conspiracy both ways.
Carol T
"Happy Dog" <happydog@hello_kitty.sympatico.arf> wrote in message
news:t3uq9.861$Zv3.1...@news20.bellglobal.com...
> > Antibiotics are cheap because Governments evoked a clause in patenting
> laws
> > which allowed them to make them cheap 50 years ago.
>
> Huh?
Because the need for the antibiotic was so great at the time (war etc) the
British Government overruled the patents for it and handed the manufacture
of antibiotics over to companies that made them for pennies rather than
pounds.
This is still their privilege if such a drug were ever to come on to the
market again and they deem it to be in the best interests of the public.
> Well, what's your version of the story? I don't know that it was
> particularly easy. But it happened pretty quickly.
The man had to risk his life on national television to prove his treatment
worked.
"But Marshall took at least a decade longer than he expected to persuade
colleagues that ulcer patients with H pylori should be treated with
antibiotics." http://www.vianet.net.au/~bjmrshll/features2.html
> Why would they "want" this? What possible advantage is there? (Not that
I
> expect you to defend most of your claims.)<<<<<<<<<<<
If they didn't want it they would be protesting about the influence a drug
only direction is taking them, they would be encompassing alternative and
complimentary therapies, and be more active within communities and at the
routes of problems. I'm not saying that for some this isn't the case, but
they are in the minority.
>>>>> > Give over, as soon as a new vaccine is produced shares rocket all
over the
> > worlds, millions are made.
>
> Your evidence Carol? Compared to other types of drugs, vaccines aren't
big
> money makers.<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
Watch the stock markets and learn.
> Just one deformed baby or suicide is not worth the existence of this
drug,
> > especially for a self limiting condition.
>
> Which it often isn't. But you wouldn't know this.
Hey.... ONE, is ONE too many.
"Neither will I administer a poison to anyone when asked to do so, nor will
I suggest a course" Hippocrates was a little wiser than today's physicians
I think. Not happening often, is not good enough, not excusable,
unforgivable and a classic example of what I mean by influences from
outside. No 'free thinking healer' on the face of the earth should willing
give a poison _known_ to cause harm to a baby and do so in the name of
healing at the time of a person's life when they are most fertile.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Anyway, is many missed
> opportunities for proven cancer treatments worth the existence of
> "alternative" cancer treatments?<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
Cancer treatments of any kind are only likely to work in those who truly
believe in them. Only the surgeon's hand is blessed on behalf of the
patient.
>>>>>>>>>> OK Carol, name a few diseases "invented" by pharmaceutical
companies.<<<<<<<<<<
That's not what I said, I said that they look for diseases to treat or
vaccinate. Floppy willies, shyness, ADHD etc...
>>>>>>>>>> The only "everlasting" light bulb is one that's never turned on.
Where do
> you get this silliness?<<<<<<<<<<
Next time you change your bulb ask yourself why the filament broke in this
day and age.
Carol T
James Teo
<cteas...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Because the need for the antibiotic was so great at the time (war etc) the
>British Government overruled the patents for it and handed the manufacture
>of antibiotics over to companies that made them for pennies rather than
>pounds.
Carol Teasdale, that is one of the most warped versions of medical
history I've ever heard. There was no patent for penicillin in the UK.
Pfizer invented the deep-tank fermentation process in 1942 in the USA
which allowed them to produce penicillin rapidly. Pfizer agreed to
share the patent with 19 other companies although Pfizer ended up
supplying 50% of the drug during WW2 anyway. Any historian will tell
you that the reason that the patent was shared was not because of COST
but because of VOLUME. Pfizer could not even meet the demand
themselves.
>> Well, what's your version of the story? I don't know that it was
>> particularly easy. But it happened pretty quickly.
>
>The man had to risk his life on national television to prove his treatment
>worked.
>
>"But Marshall took at least a decade longer than he expected to persuade
>colleagues that ulcer patients with H pylori should be treated with
>antibiotics." http://www.vianet.net.au/~bjmrshll/features2.html
1981: Marshall linked H pylori to ulcers
1986: Antibiotics used to treat ulcers.
Doesn't sound like a decade to me.
>"Neither will I administer a poison to anyone when asked to do so, nor will
>I suggest a course" Hippocrates was a little wiser than today's physicians
>I think. Not happening often, is not good enough, not excusable,
>unforgivable and a classic example of what I mean by influences from
>outside. No 'free thinking healer' on the face of the earth should willing
>give a poison _known_ to cause harm to a baby and do so in the name of
>healing at the time of a person's life when they are most fertile.
Yeah, and he swore by the temple of Apollo, swore never to perform
surgery and never to impart his knowledge to those who do not swear as
well. It appears the layperson is still wedded to the idea of
Hippocrates' oath. His oath is outmoded.
Ever hear about thrombolytic therapy which saves thousands of lives
every year around the world? We give them to heart attack victims with
the full knowledge that for every so many patients we save with the
drug we will kill one. Same goes for warfarin. But we do it. Why?
Because the Hippocratic Oath belongs in the dustbins of history.
>Cancer treatments of any kind are only likely to work in those who truly
>believe in them. Only the surgeon's hand is blessed on behalf of the
>patient.
Alright, you go to your crystal-healer then.
>Next time you change your bulb ask yourself why the filament broke in this
>day and age.
Because the law of thermodynamics say so, that's why.
Happy Dog
> > laws which allowed them to make them cheap 50 years ago.
> >
> > Huh?
>
> Because the need for the antibiotic was so great at the time (war etc) the
> British Government overruled the patents for it and handed the manufacture
> of antibiotics over to companies that made them for pennies rather than
> pounds.
And that makes all antibiotics cheap now? Not.
> > Well, what's your version of the story? I don't know that it was
> > particularly easy. But it happened pretty quickly.
>
> The man had to risk his life on national television to prove his treatment
> worked.
He didn't prove anything with his stunt. Except that bacteria can cause
gastritis. You don't have a clue what you're talking about, do ouy?
>
> "But Marshall took at least a decade longer than he expected to persuade
> colleagues that ulcer patients with H pylori should be treated with
> antibiotics." http://www.vianet.net.au/~bjmrshll/features2.html
Yes, I've read this. What Marshall may have thought is irrelevant to your
point. The fact is that the the acceptance of his theory and the subsequent
common use of antibiotics to treat ulcers didn't even take a decade after he
announced it.
>
>
> > Why would they "want" this? What possible advantage is there? (Not
that
> I expect you to defend most of your claims.)<<<<<<<<<<<
>
> If they didn't want it they would be protesting about the influence a drug
> only direction is taking them, they would be encompassing alternative and
> complimentary therapies, and be more active within communities and at the
> routes of problems. I'm not saying that for some this isn't the case, but
> they are in the minority.
Says no-nothing you. You haven't answered my question and, instead, take
another cheap shot at the medical profession.
> > Your evidence Carol? Compared to other types of drugs, vaccines aren't
> big money makers.<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
>
> Watch the stock markets and learn.
I have. Let's compare, say, Viagra to ANY new vaccine. Want another?
>
> > Just one deformed baby or suicide is not worth the existence of this
> drug, especially for a self limiting condition.
> >
> > Which it often isn't. But you wouldn't know this.
>
> Hey.... ONE, is ONE too many.
So you would abandon ANY treatment that is potentially dangerous? Do you go
out of your house at all Carol? Or do you stay in bed so you don't hurt
yourself?
>
> "Neither will I administer a poison to anyone when asked to do so, nor
will
> I suggest a course" Hippocrates was a little wiser than today's
physicians
> I think.
Yeah. If you had a ruptured spleen, you'd be way ahead with him.
>Not happening often, is not good enough, not excusable,
> unforgivable and a classic example of what I mean by influences from
> outside. No 'free thinking healer' on the face of the earth should willing
> give a poison _known_ to cause harm to a baby and do so in the name of
> healing at the time of a person's life when they are most fertile.
There's no point in discussing ethics with you because you are unable to
comprehend the concept of risk versus reward.
> Cancer treatments of any kind are only likely to work in those who truly
> believe in them. Only the surgeon's hand is blessed on behalf of the
> patient.
Does this apply to cancers in small children? (Which have a high cure
rate.)
>
> >>>>>>>>>> OK Carol, name a few diseases "invented" by pharmaceutical
> companies.<<<<<<<<<<
>
> That's not what I said, I said that they look for diseases to treat or
> vaccinate. Floppy willies, shyness, ADHD etc...
The drug companies discovered those diseases?
> >>>>>>>>>> The only "everlasting" light bulb is one that's never turned
on.
> Where do you get this silliness?<<<<<<<<<<
>
> Next time you change your bulb ask yourself why the filament broke in this
> day and age.
I already know the answer to that. And you don't
arf
bogus address
>> "Neither will I administer a poison to anyone when asked to do so,
>> nor will I suggest a course" Hippocrates
> surgery and never to impart his knowledge to those who do not swear
> as well. It appears the layperson is still wedded to the idea of
> Hippocrates' oath. His oath is outmoded.
In fact Hippocrates would certainly have used medications capable
of causing death and for which an occasional OD was inevitable -
opium being one. What his ethic was intended to rule out was being
an intentional poisoning consultant to the ruling class, an ethic
that still says something about doctors who work in chemical warfare
establishments like Fort Detrick and Porton Down or those who assist
at American executions.
Carol T
"James Teo" <ja...@teoth.fsnet.co.uk> wrote in message
news:3dab62af...@news.btopenworld.com...
> On Mon, 14 Oct 2002 22:28:44 +0000 (UTC), "Carol T"
. There was no patent for penicillin in the UK.
> Pfizer invented the deep-tank fermentation process in 1942 in the USA
> which allowed them to produce penicillin rapidly.
DDSA marketed tetracycline. Pfizer, and others were licensed to sell it at
£90 for 1,000. By the 60's it's price fell to £60 per 1000, yet DDSA were
charging just £6 per 1000.
Enoch Powel was concerned about it and with the help of the House of Lords
the Ministry gave the contract direct to DDSA basing it's decision on the
Patent's Act (which incidentally is still enforceable to day)
It was simply a Minister using his right to evoke law that put an end to the
greed.
Costs were being kept artificially high for the stock holders. Without this
ruling antibiotics today would probably still be held artificially high. A
profitable product attracts investors.
> Doesn't sound like a decade to me.
The man had to risk his life on national television to prove his treatment
worked. It was an international awareness of the ability of products that
were all ready available that brought it into being, nothing else.
>>>>>>>>>>>>Why?
> Because the Hippocratic Oath belongs in the dustbins of history.<<<<<<<<<
NO CHILD should be brought into the world with deformities caused by the
hand of the medical profession. There's NO excuse you can give, no matter
what you say. Every single bit of life saving and good is undone by
introducing deformities to children through practicing in a manner _known_
to cause such harm.
>>>>>>>>>> Alright, you go to your crystal-healer then.<<<<<<<<<<<
Cancer treatment of any kind (alternative or otherwise) will only work if
the individual truly believes in them.
Carol T
Happy Dog
> Costs were being kept artificially high for the stock holders. Without
this
> ruling antibiotics today would probably still be held artificially high. A
> profitable product attracts investors.
New antibiotics are still very expensive. Got a clue how much money drug
companies are investing in developing new antibiotics to replace Vancomycin?
Of course you don't. When it's done, you'll state that they're being greedy
for charging a premium for it.
>
> > Doesn't sound like a decade to me.
>
> The man had to risk his life on national television to prove his treatment
> worked.
Bullshit Carol. You don't know what you're talking about.
> > Because the Hippocratic Oath belongs in the dustbins of
history.<<<<<<<<<
>
> NO CHILD should be brought into the world with deformities caused by the
> hand of the medical profession.
Think about this for a minute. Carol would rather have all babies delivered
at home by their families rather than suffer the tiny risk of a delivery
supervised by a medical professional because of the tiny risk that the
medical professsional might make an error. Lunacy.
> There's NO excuse you can give, no matter
> what you say. Every single bit of life saving and good is undone by
> introducing deformities to children through practicing in a manner _known_
> to cause such harm.
Hate to break it to you Carol, but many things that save lives risk other
lives. Children have been killed by fire trucks racing to an emergency.
Should they take the bus instead? Did you consider... Nevermind.
> Cancer treatment of any kind (alternative or otherwise) will only work if
> the individual truly believes in them.
On infants Carol? Do you ever think before saying stupid things like this?
arf
Steve Harris
>worked.
I had no idea that gastritis was life-threatening. The treatment was for
ulcers, and Marshall never got any, alas. The proof that the treatment
worked on ulcers was provided by the standard ordinary medical machine.
> It was an international awareness of the ability of products that
>were all ready available that brought it into being, nothing else.
Oh, nonsense. If the only treatment that worked had been some really
expensive antibiotic like imipenem, sold at high cost by one company, you'd
be here claiming that the only reason the medical profession so quickly
discovered and applied the cure, was due to the high pharmaceutical profits
the cure generated.
Your arguments are not only fact-free, they are fact-proof.
>Cancer treatment of any kind (alternative or otherwise) will only work if
>the individual truly believes in them.
But the trick is getting those lab mice to believe (the ones not injected
with saline placebo, I mean). Let me guess-- mouse shamans are hired?
Anthony Cox
<cteas...@hotmail.com> writes
>Cancer treatment of any kind (alternative or otherwise) will only work if
>the individual truly believes in them.
You mean like planes only stay in the sky because the passengers are
willing it to stay up.
rotflol.
Please buy some books Carol.
--
Anthony Cox
Wyle E. Coyote, M.D.
Complete list of medical treatments that do NOT cause harm:
<Begin list>
<End list>
Carol, everything we do has risk involved. Today, when I used the toilet, th
ere was risk involved. Lighten could have struct the building and
electrocuted me. Had I chosen to poop outside, I could have slipped on the
stairs going outside.
Similarly, every treatment of any type has risks. For example, you can get
hit by a car while walking into the doctor's office. Vaccine have the risk
of infection from bacteria on the skin. Giving someone an IV for several
dehydration runs the risk of infection. Giving someone water for that runs
the risk of giving someone contaminated water and killing him from that
contamination.
No matter what you do or choose not to do, there is risk. The best we can do
is look at all the risks and choose the ones that have the highest benefit
to risk ratio.
You may say I am offering excuses. I am not. I am offering reality.
>
> >>>>>>>>>> Alright, you go to your crystal-healer then.<<<<<<<<<<<
>
> Cancer treatment of any kind (alternative or otherwise) will only work if
> the individual truly believes in them.
>
BullShit. Little kids who are clueless about cancer treatment but have
cancer are cured. Likewise, beleiving in a cure does not make it work.
Please provide the data that show that I am wrong.
James Teo
<cteas...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> There was no patent for penicillin in the UK.
>> Pfizer invented the deep-tank fermentation process in 1942 in the USA
>> which allowed them to produce penicillin rapidly.
>
>DDSA marketed tetracycline. Pfizer, and others were licensed to sell it at
>£90 for 1,000. By the 60's it's price fell to £60 per 1000, yet DDSA were
>charging just £6 per 1000.
>
>Enoch Powel was concerned about it and with the help of the House of Lords
>the Ministry gave the contract direct to DDSA basing it's decision on the
>Patent's Act (which incidentally is still enforceable to day)
>
>It was simply a Minister using his right to evoke law that put an end to the
>greed.
>
>Costs were being kept artificially high for the stock holders. Without this
>ruling antibiotics today would probably still be held artificially high. A
>profitable product attracts investors.
So this events wasn't during the war as you initially claimed then?
And it was a contract rather than a patent then?
I don't know the full history of tetracyclines (and I have just come
back from a terrible 16hr on-call) so I won't comment on your account
of events yet, but rest assured I will check to see if you are
distorting the facts.
Beverly Erlebacher
bogus address <bo...@purr.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>> "Neither will I administer a poison to anyone when asked to do so,
>>> nor will I suggest a course" Hippocrates
>> Yeah, and he swore by the temple of Apollo, swore never to perform
>> surgery and never to impart his knowledge to those who do not swear
>> as well. It appears the layperson is still wedded to the idea of
>> Hippocrates' oath. His oath is outmoded.
>
>In fact Hippocrates would certainly have used medications capable
>of causing death and for which an occasional OD was inevitable -
>opium being one. What his ethic was intended to rule out was being
>an intentional poisoning consultant to the ruling class, an ethic
>that still says something about doctors who work in chemical warfare
>establishments like Fort Detrick and Porton Down or those who assist
>at American executions.
In the original Hippocratic Oath, the physician swears he will not
provide 'pessaries' i.e. birth control equipment, such as it was
known in those days, to women. So contraception is against the
Hippocratic Oath, too.
Carol T
> So this events wasn't during the war as you initially claimed then?
> And it was a contract rather than a patent then?
Pfizer held the patent through claiming that they were first to identify its
structure before the contracting for manufacture.
Carol T
Steve Harris
<2002Oct15....@jarvis.cs.toronto.edu>...
>In article <10...@purr.demon.co.uk>,
>>In fact Hippocrates would certainly have used medications capable
>>of causing death and for which an occasional OD was inevitable -
>>opium being one. What his ethic was intended to rule out was being
>>an intentional poisoning consultant to the ruling class, an ethic
>>that still says something about doctors who work in chemical warfare
>>establishments like Fort Detrick and Porton Down or those who assist
>>at American executions.
>
>In the original Hippocratic Oath, the physician swears he will not
>provide 'pessaries' i.e. birth control equipment, such as it was
>known in those days, to women. So contraception is against the
>Hippocratic Oath, too.
Also the doctor swears he will not cut for stone, so urologist MDs would be
stuck if they took it seriously. (These were the days when you left surgery
to your barber).
These days, doctors still refuse to participate in the mixing or
administration of lethal injection for legal execution. That went all the
way to the Surpreme Court, because the prison warden had to obtain
barbiturate, and no doctor would prescribe it. Therefore the prison was in
violation of DEA regs, if they intended to use the drug medicinally. I
believe the case was successfully argued when the State convinced Scalia and
Co that prison administration of poisons to a person does not constitute any
kind of medicinal use, and thus does not violate DEA laws requiring a
physician signature. All the same, I wonder under just what set of
circumstances this happens. The prison pharmacy doubtless obtains the
barbiturate under its own DEA number. Then the pharmacist has to release the
drug to somebody, for some DEA recognized use. If it's not for research or
medical or veterinary use, I think that there's a box on the form that is
missing somewhere.
MARK PROBERT
>
> > Good sense? Kids being disruptive and not able to learn in school? Kids
> > being more likely to abuse drugs? Kids not getting as much out of family
> > life and school as they otherwise would?
>
> Ritalin should absolutely NOT be given to children with hyperthyroidism.
Interesting. Having deat with methylphenidate related matters for over
fourteen years, this pontification of yours makes me wonder (since I never
heard it before). So, I check....
See: http://www.rxlist.com/cgi/generic/methphen.htm
It seems that your pontification is not supported by evidence.
Why is this not surprising? (<=== Rhetorical question, answer is obvious,
as your pontifications are never supported by evidence.
rest of Carol's blather deleted...
MARK PROBERT
>
> "Journalist" <bonnier...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:c5a575d4.02101...@posting.google.com...
>
>
> > Does anyone know of any medical journals that have been following this?
> Thanks.
>
> Following what? The opposing points of view about the effects of
> multinational practices on the individual child's health or the general
> opposing debates of the Internet, of which we have many?
>
> The result of the former is that 1.6 million cases of attention deficit
> hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) have been diagnosed in American elementary
> school children. That's 7% of children 6-11 in America ( BMJ 2002;324:1296
> ( 1 June ) News roundup)
>
> 1.6 million children in America taking a drug that's not had any long term
> research in a 'few' people first.
Why do you ASSume that just because they were diagnosed, they are prescribed
medications? Do you have any facts to support your claim?
> The question is, do _you_ think that enough research is done into
children's
> medicines before a drug company has over 1.6 million of them swallowing
the
> stuff?
Methylphenidate is the most studied medication in the Pharmacopeia.
> We _all_ have a right to discuss the issues, these medicines find their
way
> into our loos and into the water system eventually!
Stop drinking from the loo...
Nothing happens to
> children without it having a direct effect on society somewhere down the
> line.
Failing to treat a treatable condition does have its consequences.
Wyle E. Coyote, M.D.
And how did holding the patent benefit Pfizer? They made money off the
licenses? Good for them. Nothing wrong with that. Bill Gates makes a little
money off of some computer licenses his company holds. Big deal.