ADD Webpage - Feedback Requested
Andrew T. Austin.
I have added a webpage on ADD to my site http://www.23NLPeople.com and
would like to receive some feedback of views from people with
experience of ADD, both directly and indirectly.
The page is at: http://23nlpeople.com/RitalinNLP.htm
I would like to use some of the responses on a separate webpage, to
give NLP practitioners an idea of the beliefs and views regarding
ADD/ADHD from a non-medical/psychological viewpoint. Please state if
you would not like your post quoted (name, details etc are unnecessary
for the page and will be left out).
Any post using the word "scientologist" in any context will be
promptly ignored. Thanks.
Please can any replies be CC`d to my email address at
diggin...@hotmail.com thank you.
Kindest regards,
Andrew Austin.
Vashti
> Any post using the word "scientologist" in any context will be
> promptly ignored. Thanks.
Cool! Scientologist. There, I said it....
Anyway, Breggin isn't a reliable source for information. Why? DYOH.
Not everybody gets a diagnosis as a child. Not all ADD/ADHD-ers use
ritalin. Nice to see that you at least did some reading before
writing
flawed material...next goal is reading comprehension and maybe a less
biased view of what the conclusion *should* be would be "nice"
(as in "accurate").
Believe it or not, people with ADD can read too: funnily enough I
find I'm not dedicated enough to only believe the material that I'd
like to be true: I'd *prefer* a non-med miracle "cure" thank you very
much, there just doesn't appear to be one.
I didn't know what NLP stood for, now that I've seen your site I see
it stands for "Haven't a "Clue", you know you should really do
something about your spelling...!
Just for the record: by all means take the term scientology and use
it
for a comprehensive workout; it can't be easy to be so willfully
ignorant. Do you people pay you for that? Wow...!
"Ritalin addiction" Lol!
Vashti - oooh, I tried ritalin, and survived!
Joe Parsons
wrote:
>I have added a webpage on ADD to my site http://www.23NLPeople.com and
>would like to receive some feedback of views from people with
>experience of ADD, both directly and indirectly.
>
>The page is at: http://23nlpeople.com/RitalinNLP.htm
Mr. Austin:
I have just visited your page and read its contents.
There's no kind way to say this: apart from the glaring errors of spelling and
grammar, your text displays a profound lack of understanding about the condition
known as Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder, its treatment and diagnosis.
Furthermore, the heavy use of emotionally loaded rhetoric clearly telegraphs as
much the author's bias as it does his ignorance on the subject.
While you state explicitly that, along with Szasz and his acolyte, Peter
Breggin, you deny the existence of the disorder in the first place, you have
provided links to credible material that contradicts your assertion--Thom
Hartmann, for example, although an NLP practitioner, has written quite
extensively on the subject of ADHD.
One of the virtues of the Internet is that it can provide a forum for anyone to
espouse any and all views, no matter how ill-conceived. Fortunately, many
people have learned to read much of what they find on the 'net with a
considerable grain of salt.
That salt will, hopefully, be in ample supply for any of your readers who might
be searching for useful information about dealing with ADHD.
There is a bright side to this, I suppose: assuming that you are actually
interested in providing any sort of conduit to valid information about ADHD, you
now have an opportunity to demonstrate your own integrity, to embark upon your
own education on the subject, and to correct the misleading rhetoric on your web
page.
Please feel free to use my remarks on your site--but only in their entirety.
Joe Parsons
(posted and mailed)
>I would like to use some of the responses on a separate webpage, to
>give NLP practitioners an idea of the beliefs and views regarding
>ADD/ADHD from a non-medical/psychological viewpoint. Please state if
>you would not like your post quoted (name, details etc are unnecessary
>for the page and will be left out).
>
>Any post using the word "scientologist" in any context will be
>promptly ignored. Thanks.
>
>Please can any replies be CC`d to my email address at
>diggin...@hotmail.com thank you.
>
>Kindest regards,
>
>Andrew Austin.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Streaming Multimedia production and delivery--served with a SMILe
http://www.yankeemedia.net
Chris Leithiser
>
> Dear All,
>
> I have added a webpage on ADD to my site http://www.23NLPeople.com and
> would like to receive some feedback of views from people with
> experience of ADD, both directly and indirectly.
>
> The page is at: http://23nlpeople.com/RitalinNLP.htm
"Anyone who suggests that Ritalin is a replacement for decent parenting
is taking an exceptionally naive view of the whole phenomena." Your
first line.
I suggest that the only one who is asserting this, is _you_. Please
take Joe Parson's critique of your site to heart. You have a _lot_ to
learn about both Ritalin and ADHD.
Elizabeth
Your definition of ADD is wrong.
I am not a child, nor was I a child when I was diagnosed. This is
misinformation, something you seem to think your protecting people
against. I suggest you change the definition.
You also missed the male female relationships to ADD and ADHD. It's
*generally* the males that are hyperactive.
7th p
Food additives are *not* commonly believed to be the cause. The same
scientific studies that show that food additives aren't likely the cause
*do* show that ADD is a genetic neurological disorder. This is
hypocritical since you claim not to believe the second statement.
8th p
www.brainplace.com look at SPECT scans. The fact that you bring up
something that nobody else brings up without supporting anything shows a
flaw in you argument. I suggest you remove the last sentance.
10th p
what about the opposite behavior? I was a very "good and quiet child"
my mother is an alcoholic and my parents seperated when I was 12. This
doesn't quite jive with your theory or kaplans.
A possible symptom or co-morbid condition is alcoholism. If ADD is
genetic than one or both parents has it. Which increases the chance of
addictive behaviors.
My life fits my argument (and the general belief of people who've studied
ADD or studied the scientists studying ADD). It does not, however, in
any way shape or form fit yours. How do you explain that?
11th p
This paragraph only undermines Kaplan as an authority, because you tear
down an argument of his.
13th p
Inaccurate. Dexedrine is not speed, you're getting the names mixed up.
You missed Adderall which is also commonly used. Your also missing the
fact that other non-stimulant medications are used like Effexor,
Welbutrin, and others. These medications don't "calm down" ADD behavior.
They allow us to focus, which allows us to remember what we are doing
which allows us to stay on task. It stimulates the brain in the portion
that is underactive. It does not (like caffeine, and speed) stimulate
everything. Taken in larger doses it can, which is why it is carefully
prescribed after first diagnoses. It satisfies my need for a basic
understanding because in the 22 years of trying to focus, even after
getting an Associate of Applied Science in Computer Technology Degree,
the only thing that *has worked* is Adderall. THE ONLY THING!!!!
14th p
See above. Also, not all children sell their medication. Why? I've
been in a position to greatly need money, and a better position than
grade-school and middle-school children put together to sell it. I
didn't. Not because I was bothered by the legal or ethical situations it
might put me in, but because they were *mine* and they helped me. Now
I've taken drugs like pot, acid. I haven't done them in years.
Especially, not after starting my medication. I didn't need it. I'm
not addicted either. I've run out of my medication a couple of times.
No headaches. Nothing to indicate any physical need on my part.
And for G-d's sake, not all of us take Ritalin. There's probably only
one or two in here who's experienced abuse of their medication. There's
people in here who's children don't take those medications because they
don't suit.
If my therapist found that the medication I'm on didn't work, he'd take
me off.
Anyway, you should get more sources than this Kaplin guy, whoever he is.
You should try doing point counterpoint. You should quote more
*scientific studies* with actual citations.
All in all, I give this a C- for effort and an F+ for being able to
convince me.
You didn't try hard enough, which is why you got a C-.
You got an F+ because of your paragraph structure and your lack of a
thesis statement. You also didn't accuratly use citations, or a
bibliography.
Basically, you should rewrite the whole thing, maybe taking a college
level composition course along the way.
--
-----BEGIN PERL GEEK CODE BLOCK----- | email:
P+++>++++c-->*P6 >?R >++M+>++O++MA+E PU | elizabeth
BD++C++D++S++X WP MO PP | at
n+CO?PO-o+G+A-OLC+OLCC+OLJ+OLP--OLR--OL | psy
CO--OLS--OLL--OLA--Ee Ev-Eon+Eot!Eob | dox
Eoa!uL++>+++uB!uS!uH!uo!w---m!osA!osBE! | dot
------END PERL GEEK CODE BLOCK------ | com
Elizabeth
Emma Anne
> "Ritalin addiction" Lol!
>
>
> Vashti - oooh, I tried ritalin, and survived!
>
If I am addicted to my Ritalin, I want to know why it is so hard to
remember to take it. . .
Caitriona Mac Fhiodhbhuidhe
wrote:
>6th p
>Your definition of ADD is wrong.
>
>I am not a child, nor was I a child when I was diagnosed. This is
>misinformation, something you seem to think your protecting people
>against. I suggest you change the definition.
>You also missed the male female relationships to ADD and ADHD. It's
>*generally* the males that are hyperactive.
That are DIAGNOSED as hyperactive.
Kitten
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
You can always tell a Texan, but you can't tell him much. - Chris Wall
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Courage, Real courage, is no quick fix. It doesn't come in a bottle
or a pill, It comes from discipline. From taking everything life
hands you and being your best either because of it or in spite of it.
-- Ty Murray
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Elizabeth
> That are DIAGNOSED as hyperactive.
>
picky picky. ;-)
Julian9EHP
>On Tue, 02 Apr 2002 13:10:51 -0800, Elizabeth <eliz...@see.sig>
>wrote:
[ . . . ]
>>You also missed the male female relationships to ADD and ADHD. It's
>>*generally* the males that are hyperactive.
>That are DIAGNOSED as hyperactive.
I just saw "The Miracle of Morgan's Creek," and Trudy Kockerlocker . . . :-)
E. P.
Caitriona Mac Fhiodhbhuidhe
wrote:
>On Tue, 02 Apr 2002 14:13:29 -0800, Caitriona Mac Fhiodhbhuidhe wrote:
>
>
>> That are DIAGNOSED as hyperactive.
>>
>
>picky picky. ;-)
>
You wanna discuss it with Anne?
nknisley
"Andrew T. Austin." wrote:
>
> Dear All,
>
> I have added a webpage on ADD to my site http://www.23NLPeople.com and
> would like to receive some feedback of views from people with
> experience of ADD, both directly and indirectly.
>
> The page is at: http://23nlpeople.com/RitalinNLP.htm
>
> I would like to use some of the responses on a separate webpage, to
> give NLP practitioners an idea of the beliefs and views regarding
> ADD/ADHD from a non-medical/psychological viewpoint. Please state if
> you would not like your post quoted (name, details etc are unnecessary
> for the page and will be left out).
I will offer some comments on your ADHD web page, but I don't know if
they will give "NLP practitioners an idea of the beliefs and views
regarding ADD/ADHD from a non-medical/psychological viewpoint" as I
don't know what you mean by that.
Do you mean you want a layperson's viewpoint?
If that's so, here's my layperson's view: among the many things I
believe about ADHD, I believe that: the best evidence to date shows that
ADHD is real, has a biological cause, is genetically based, and that, at
the present, ADHD cannot be cured, only treated, and the only generally
safe and effective treatment for ADHD symptoms is with medication. [And,
yes, you can quote that.] Any of those opinions are subject to change if
I am presented with convincing evidence to the contrary.
WRT your site: I found both positives and negatives on your ADHD page,
but I don't understand its point, which would seem to be important, no?
You need to make the purpose(s) of your page clear.
Your exposition is confusing and poorly structured. It's a hodge-podge
of important and not-so-important information (and misinformation),
theory, opinion, and myth, that seems to be thrown together in no
special order, with no central theme, and AFAICS, reaching no ultimate
conclusion.
You say, "I support no notion that ADD or ADHD exists as anything other
than a sociological phenomena." So, therefore,…what? What is your answer
to the suffering and difficulties caused by what you claim is merely a
"sociological phenomena"? To change society? To change how people with
ADHD should look at the position in which society's placed them (and
then do what?) ? And what role does NLP play in any of this?
What is it that you recommend that the NLP practitioner do to help those
with ADHD? You say, "It is at this level that the therapist needs to
begin in order to unravel the binds that the child and family are caught
up in." Did I miss where you explained what those binds are and how the
therapist should unravel those? And, did I miss the citations to
evidence that NLP treatment of ADHD is effective?
You say, "What we don't see however is a single discussion of the
conditions and standards of our current education systems nor of the
role models provided by our media. Also missing from these texts is even
the smallest allusion to cybernetic processes within interpersonal
relationships." I didn't see you discuss those either.
OK, the positives:
You got a number of facts right, including:
Bad parenting doesn't cause ADHD.
Brain damage is not the cause of ADHD.
Food additives do not cause ADHD behaviors.
ADHD individuals who use stimulants do not experience a "paradoxical"
response that's different from the response of those without ADHD.
[And, although it's not on your ADHD page, I enjoyed reading, "What
People are Saying About Andrew T. Austin." You seem to have a healthy
(and humorous) self perspective. Hmmm. Are these comments going to end
up there?]
Unfortunately, more negatives (in no particular order):
At times, your language almost seems like a parody of bad writing: "the
sociological and cultural phenomena that surround the family nexus,"
"the manifestation of the ADD/ADHD symptomology," "the 'Kiddie Cocaine'
phenomena."
You seem to think ADHD is a diagnosis given only to children. OK, you're
in England, a country in which ADHD is a hardly an accepted diagnosis
for children, let alone adults. But, if you're going to write with some
kind of authority on ADHD and its treatment, you need to be better
informed, including on some basics like: DSM-IV does not contain a
diagnosis called "Attention Deficit Disorder."
You seem to think ADHD is a recent "phenomena." I suggest you do some
research on the history of what is now known as ADHD.
Your language and the cartoons you include on your site are
anti-Ritalin, although, once again, you don't clearly say so, or why.
You mention Ritalin addiction, yet don't make an effort to distinguish
between the possibility of addiction resulting from abuse of Ritalin
(such as Wurtzel's) and the therapeutic uses of Ritalin, taken as
prescribed. Can you cite any study showing that therapeutic dosages of
Ritalin are addictive?
You reject a neurochemical basis for ADHD, without explanation.
Additionally, you offer no explanation for how stimulants change the
behaviors of individuals who take them. Are you going to try to have it
both ways and claim neurochemicals don't cause behaviors (like those
associated with ADHD), but, altering those same neurochemicals, through
stimulant medication, can change behaviors?
You write about the "behavioral control" imposed by Ritalin on both
children with ADHD and "normals" who take it. LOL! Stimulants stimulate,
not tranquilize. If you are really wedded to the "behavioral control"
claim, you really should explain how stimulating individuals makes them
more controllable. I'd especially like to read your explanation of how
society has more control over a "normal" on stimulants than society has
when that same "normal" is not using stimulants.
Nancy
Unique, like everyone else
Ann
>On Tue, 02 Apr 2002 13:10:51 -0800, Elizabeth <eliz...@see.sig>
>wrote:
>
>>6th p
>>Your definition of ADD is wrong.
>>
>>I am not a child, nor was I a child when I was diagnosed. This is
>>misinformation, something you seem to think your protecting people
>>against. I suggest you change the definition.
>>You also missed the male female relationships to ADD and ADHD. It's
>>*generally* the males that are hyperactive.
>
>
>That are DIAGNOSED as hyperactive.
Correct, Kitten. My 'diagnosis' when I was little was that I was
bright and bored. Never a diagnosis of hyperactivity. Although I was
a poster child for ADHHHD. I wasn't diagnosed until I was 38, and
recognized the symptoms in my newly diagnosed 9 year old.
--
Ann
ann...@thecia.net
Elizabeth
> On Tue, 02 Apr 2002 15:47:33 -0800, Elizabeth <eliz...@see.sig> wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 02 Apr 2002 14:13:29 -0800, Caitriona Mac Fhiodhbhuidhe wrote:
>>
>>
>>> That are DIAGNOSED as hyperactive.
>>>
>>>
>>picky picky. ;-)
>>
>>
>>
> You wanna discuss it with Anne?
<whoosh> The sound of what you said going right over my head.
Help?
Elizabeth
> Please can any replies be CC`d to my email address at
> diggin...@hotmail.com thank you.
I tried and for some reason the thing was returned undeliverable.
do you have another email address?
Mark D. Morin
>
> [Posted and mailed]
>
> "Andrew T. Austin." wrote:
> >
> > Dear All,
> >
> > I have added a webpage on ADD to my site http://www.23NLPeople.com and
> > would like to receive some feedback of views from people with
> > experience of ADD, both directly and indirectly.
> >
> > The page is at: http://23nlpeople.com/RitalinNLP.htm
I haven't made it to the ADHD page yet. I'm on the neurology page,
specificly the color word page. This effect is known as the Stroop
effect and it has nothing to do with the left-right dichotomy. In order
to speak the color, one has to inhibit an overlearned response (reading
the word). The best evidence is that this is a bifrontal task with no
particular left-right division.
in terms of the lateralization of language, you've got the 95-75% right.
What is wrong is that we don't necessarily know where language is
localized in the other 5-25%. sometimes it's in another place in the
left hemisphere, sometimes it's totaly in the right and sometimes it's
mixed.
just out of curiosity, as a nlp practitioner and a registered nurse,
what exactly is your background in neurosurgury and clinical neurology?
After all, you wouldn't have had to do too many intra carotid sodium
amytal tests before you knew that what you said about the lateralization
of language was not quite correct.
All and all not that bad of a site. I'd say more information than
misinformation but I didn't look at the ADHD site--other folks have
commented sufficiently on that.
mark morin psy.d.
clinical neuropsychologist
--
====================================================
No medicine is more valuable, none more efficacious,
none better suited to the cure of all our temporal
ills than a friend to whom we may turn for consolation
in time of trouble, and with whom we may share our
happiness in time of joy.
Saint Ailred of Rivaulx (1109 - 1166)
Historian and abbot
http://home.gwi.net/~mdmpsyd/index.htm
remove peterhood69 for mail
Elizabeth
> On Tue, 02 Apr 2002 18:01:53 -0800, Caitriona Mac Fhiodhbhuidhe wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 02 Apr 2002 15:47:33 -0800, Elizabeth <eliz...@see.sig>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>On Tue, 02 Apr 2002 14:13:29 -0800, Caitriona Mac Fhiodhbhuidhe wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> That are DIAGNOSED as hyperactive.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>picky picky. ;-)
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> You wanna discuss it with Anne?
>
> <whoosh> The sound of what you said going right over my head. Help?
>
Oh I get it. Well, that's why I emphasized generally. Meaing most or
statistically whatever. Sorry, think I'm getting a little resentful for
being "corrected". You know the guilt thing.
Caitriona Mac Fhiodhbhuidhe
wrote:
>On Tue, 02 Apr 2002 18:01:53 -0800, Caitriona Mac Fhiodhbhuidhe wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 02 Apr 2002 15:47:33 -0800, Elizabeth <eliz...@see.sig> wrote:
>>
>>>On Tue, 02 Apr 2002 14:13:29 -0800, Caitriona Mac Fhiodhbhuidhe wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> That are DIAGNOSED as hyperactive.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>picky picky. ;-)
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> You wanna discuss it with Anne?
>
><whoosh> The sound of what you said going right over my head.
>Help?
>
Read Ann's response to me. I erroneously added an "e" to her name.
Kitten
Down in Texas, we know wrong from right
Work out all day and party all night
We say "Yes sir" and "Thank you ma'am"
If you don't like that we don't give a damn
We do things the way we think we should
'Cause we live down in Texas where life is good.
- - Jerry Jeff Walker
Emma Anne
> On Tue, 02 Apr 2002 19:05:36 -0800, Elizabeth wrote:
>
> > On Tue, 02 Apr 2002 18:01:53 -0800, Caitriona Mac Fhiodhbhuidhe wrote:
> >
> >> On Tue, 02 Apr 2002 15:47:33 -0800, Elizabeth <eliz...@see.sig>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>>On Tue, 02 Apr 2002 14:13:29 -0800, Caitriona Mac Fhiodhbhuidhe wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> That are DIAGNOSED as hyperactive.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>picky picky. ;-)
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >> You wanna discuss it with Anne?
> >
> > <whoosh> The sound of what you said going right over my head. Help?
> >
>
> Oh I get it. Well, that's why I emphasized generally. Meaing most or
> statistically whatever. Sorry, think I'm getting a little resentful for
> being "corrected". You know the guilt thing.
But I think you are correct that more boys than girls are hyperactive.
David Gould
> I have added a webpage on ADD to my site http://www.23NLPeople.com and
> would like to receive some feedback of views from people with
> experience of ADD, both directly and indirectly.
Hello Andy,
The problem with such threads as this is that the only people who are
motivated enough to respond are those with a chip on their shoulder,
think they know better and have nothing better to do.
Anyway, I thought I'd point out that talking in terms of whether ADHD
is real or exists is much the same as asking whether love is real or
exists.
For example, for some people, love is a spiritual place outside the
boundaries of our universe. And for others, it is just a feeling.
Is love real? The question itself implies that our subjective
realities must be the same.
Which of course they are not.
Now, had you been told that your problems were just in your head and
that you simply had to "snap out of it", you'd be looking for some
'real' basis to your problems as well. And, of course, the more real
you could make your problems, the more stuck you would be. And that's
before you started taking medication.
I remember an article on ADHD on the BBC's flagship science program,
Tomorrow's World. Some doctor had found a way to measure DAT and
hence dopamine levels and thereby prove scientifically who had ADHD
and who didn't.
Just as I was feeling concerned for those who were going to have their
explanation taken away from them, they switched to a story of a boy
who said "If I stop taking the Ritalin, I get really agitated".
Well, there's two ways to interpret that one. Tomorrow's World chose
only one and no surprises for guessing which.
Anyway, having removed my chip, finding out I know nothing and
noticing I have better things to do, I wish you all the best.
Joe Parsons
>diggin...@hotmail.com (Andrew T. Austin.) wrote in message news:<98186efb.02040...@posting.google.com>...
>
>> I have added a webpage on ADD to my site http://www.23NLPeople.com and
>> would like to receive some feedback of views from people with
>> experience of ADD, both directly and indirectly.
>
>Hello Andy,
>
>The problem with such threads as this is that the only people who are
>motivated enough to respond are those with a chip on their shoulder,
>think they know better and have nothing better to do.
David, there were 18 responses to the original inquiry. Although there were the
usual digressions in the thread, there were several lengthy, specific responses
to the author's page. Of those, at least three came from knowledgeable people
who have published in the field.
Is there even the slightest possibility that you could address statements made
by people in the thread, rather than mindlessly insulting everyone who has
responded?
>Anyway, I thought I'd point out that talking in terms of whether ADHD
>is real or exists is much the same as asking whether love is real or
>exists.
Given the rather large volume of long-term, credible research on the subject of
ADHD, I'd suggest that your analogy is far wide of the mark.
Joe Parsons
Vashti
>>Anyway, I thought I'd point out that talking in terms of whether
>>ADHD is real or exists is much the same as asking whether love is
>>real or exists.
>
> Given the rather large volume of long-term, credible research on
> the subject of ADHD, I'd suggest that your analogy is far wide of
> the mark.
Oh heck: I was half expecting you to reply to that with an argument
proving the existance of love, thereby validating the assumption that
ADHD is "real or exists"....
Bit disappointed now<g>
Vashti - imagining ADHD as an independant entity...!
David Gould
> Is there even the slightest possibility that you could address statements made
> by people in the thread, rather than mindlessly insulting everyone who has
> responded?
Address statements? What good would that do?
Give you another opportunity for you to bully everyone into your way
of thinking?
See, I didn't mindlessly "insult" everyone who has responded
(including myself). I did what I did deliberately and hit you square
on the nose.
It takes a mountain of arrogance and/or ignorance to think that you
know what everyone else should be thinking.
Those who provided useful information know who they are and may well
agree with my "insults". Those who didn't, yet replied anyway, may
not agree with them. In other words I only insulted the ones I wanted
to insult.
For those who didn't reply, you have as much of a right to as anyone
else and I hope you won't let others speak for you in future.
> Given the rather large volume of long-term, credible research on the subject of
> ADHD, I'd suggest that your analogy is far wide of the mark.
Then I'd suggest that your understanding of what I wrote is far wide
of the mark. But then I did expect you to respond with a blanket
refusal to let anyone else express an opinion that threatened yours...
And to back that refusal with meaningless but important sounding
statements.
Goodbye for now,
Dave, http://www.deep-trance.com
J. Clarke
trance.com says...
And yet another loser joins the bozo bin.
Get help before you harm yourself or others.
--
--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
(used to be jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
Joe Parsons
>Joe Parsons <j...@yankeemedia.net> wrote in message news:<8t06buc9ek0h7jmmg...@4ax.com>...
>> Is there even the slightest possibility that you could address statements made
>> by people in the thread, rather than mindlessly insulting everyone who has
>> responded?
>
>Address statements? What good would that do?
It would do the same as any rational discussion: it would provide a way of
exploring issues, hopefully bringing insight to a complex set of issues.
>Give you another opportunity for you to bully everyone into your way
>of thinking?
Right; I should be ashamed of myself--bludgeoning people into submission with
those pesky fact-thingies.
>See, I didn't mindlessly "insult" everyone who has responded
>(including myself). I did what I did deliberately and hit you square
>on the nose.
Okay, so you didn't insult people mindlessly; you did it on purpose. Better?
>It takes a mountain of arrogance and/or ignorance to think that you
>know what everyone else should be thinking.
Please provide a quote from me showing that I profess to know what everyone else
"should be thinking."
>Those who provided useful information know who they are and may well
>agree with my "insults". Those who didn't, yet replied anyway, may
>not agree with them. In other words I only insulted the ones I wanted
>to insult.
And yet, strangely, your response had no reference whatsoever to any of the
responses themselves. And your response dismissed *all* posts to the thread:
On 9 Apr 2002 05:56:29 -0700, da...@deep-trance.com (David Gould) wrote:
>>The problem with such threads as this is that the only people who are
>>motivated enough to respond are those with a chip on their shoulder,
>>think they know better and have nothing better to do.
>For those who didn't reply, you have as much of a right to as anyone
>else and I hope you won't let others speak for you in future.
Can you wrap your mind around the notion that most people recognize your
response for what it is--the inane and irrelevant pontifications of a person who
doesn't know what he's talking about? And that none of what you wrote was even
worthy of a response?
>> Given the rather large volume of long-term, credible research on the subject of
>> ADHD, I'd suggest that your analogy is far wide of the mark.
>
>Then I'd suggest that your understanding of what I wrote is far wide
>of the mark. But then I did expect you to respond with a blanket
>refusal to let anyone else express an opinion that threatened yours...
It has taken me a *long* time to get to the position where I can prevent anyone
from posting to an unmoderated newsgroup like ASAD. I'll thank you to show the
proper deference, or else I'll bar you from posting, as well.
>And to back that refusal with meaningless but important sounding
>statements.
Interesting observation. Now it will be interesting to see if you have the
fortitude to enter into an actual discussion. (Hint: a "discussion" involves
addressing specific statements and ideas)
Joe Parsons
>Goodbye for now,
>Dave, http://www.deep-trance.com
----------------------------------------------------------------
nknisley
>
> diggin...@hotmail.com (Andrew T. Austin.) wrote in message news:<98186efb.02040...@posting.google.com>...
>
> > I have added a webpage on ADD to my site http://www.23NLPeople.com and
> > would like to receive some feedback of views from people with
> > experience of ADD, both directly and indirectly.
>
> Hello Andy,
>
> The problem with such threads as this is that the only people who are
> motivated enough to respond are those with a chip on their shoulder,
> think they know better and have nothing better to do.
Well, at least WRT your own post, you know that you have have a chip on
your shoulder, and are motivated to respond, and think you know better,
and have nothing better to do.
As for the others who responded to the original post to this thread,
unless we've told you what motivated our posts in this thread, or you
are a long-time lurker of ASAD and therefore know pretty well what
generally "motivates" the regular posters to post, or you can read
minds, you have no way of knowing if anyone who responded has "a chip on
their shoulder."
But, I will say that IIRC, those who responded to Andrew gave him good
information and, therefore, apparently do "know better."
Now, is there anything specific in the responses Andrew got from the
other participants in this thread that you feel is incorrect?
> Anyway, I thought I'd point out that talking in terms of whether ADHD
> is real or exists is much the same as asking whether love is real or
> exists.
> For example, for some people, love is a spiritual place outside the
> boundaries of our universe. And for others, it is just a feeling.
So, do you believe that ADHD is a "spiritual place outside the
boundaries of our universe" or just a subjective "feeling"?
And, on what do you base that opinion?
> Is love real? The question itself implies that our subjective
> realities must be the same.
> Which of course they are not.
>
> Now, had you been told that your problems were just in your head and
> that you simply had to "snap out of it", you'd be looking for some
> 'real' basis to your problems as well. And, of course, the more real
> you could make your problems, the more stuck you would be. And that's
> before you started taking medication.
>
> I remember an article on ADHD on the BBC's flagship science program,
> Tomorrow's World. Some doctor had found a way to measure DAT and
> hence dopamine levels and thereby prove scientifically who had ADHD
> and who didn't.
>
> Just as I was feeling concerned for those who were going to have their
> explanation taken away from them, they switched to a story of a boy
> who said "If I stop taking the Ritalin, I get really agitated".
>
> Well, there's two ways to interpret that one. Tomorrow's World chose
> only one and no surprises for guessing which.
>
> Anyway, having removed my chip, finding out I know nothing and
> noticing I have better things to do, I wish you all the best.
What is the cause of the chip on your shoulder, at least WRT ADHD?
And why is it that you think you "know better" than the other posters
who replied to Andrew? Where did your "knowledge" about ADHD come from?
Do you have ADHD? Does someone in your family or someone else close to
you have it? Do you have any expertise WRT ADHD?
nknisley
>
> Joe Parsons <j...@yankeemedia.net> wrote in message news:<8t06buc9ek0h7jmmg...@4ax.com>...
> > Is there even the slightest possibility that you could address statements made
> > by people in the thread, rather than mindlessly insulting everyone who has
> > responded?
>
> Address statements? What good would that do?
One reason would be so that readers of this thread can understand what
it is about the replies of other posters that you find objectionable.
Do you feel any of the other posters gave Andrew bad information? If so,
we need to know so that we can correct it--if an error was indeed made.
We wouldn't want Andrew to be given bad information about ADHD.
But, to correct possibly mistakes, we need to know what specific
statements were made by other posters you feel are in error--and how you
came to that conclusion.
> Give you another opportunity for you to bully everyone into your way
> of thinking?
> See, I didn't mindlessly "insult" everyone who has responded
> (including myself). I did what I did deliberately and hit you square
> on the nose.
>
> It takes a mountain of arrogance and/or ignorance to think that you
> know what everyone else should be thinking.
IMNSHO, it takes a mountain of arrogance and/or ignorance to think that
you know what everyone else *is* thinking, as you seem to do.
> Those who provided useful information know who they are and may well
> agree with my "insults".
Except for your post, I think all the others who responded to Andrew's
post provided useful information.
You insulted every poster who replied to Andrew (including yourself
which I find rather bemusing).
I don't see why any of us would agree with your insulting condemnation
of us all. The only poster to this thread who IMO deserves your insults
is yourself.
> Those who didn't, yet replied anyway, may
> not agree with them. In other words I only insulted the ones I wanted
> to insult.
>
> For those who didn't reply, you have as much of a right to as anyone
> else and I hope you won't let others speak for you in future.
>
> > Given the rather large volume of long-term, credible research on the subject of
> > ADHD, I'd suggest that your analogy is far wide of the mark.
>
> Then I'd suggest that your understanding of what I wrote is far wide
> of the mark.
May I suggest that any failure of "understanding" is the fault of the
writer of your comments (that's you), not the readers (that's the rest
of us).
I, for one, was baffled about what claims you were making WRT ADHD in
your post.
Want to try again? What is it that you were trying to say?
> But then I did expect you to respond with a blanket
> refusal to let anyone else express an opinion that threatened yours...
When did Joe refuse to let you post? And, how did he enforce that
refusal?
> And to back that refusal with meaningless but important sounding
> statements.
If anyone in this thread is guilty of posting "meaningless but important
sounding statements," IMO, it's you.
Elizabeth
> The problem with such threads as this is that the only people who are
> motivated enough to respond are those with a chip on their shoulder,
> think they know better and have nothing better to do.
Generally, when people do one thing, they've chosen to do that over
something else. You imply that this group is a lessor form of
entertainment and/or information. By what do you make this implication?
How do you know, that I'm not doing something else as well, like
compiling a program, downloading software, upgrading my server, reading
up on network security, chatting on an im (not to be confused with AOL's
instant messanger *shudder*), playing a game, composing articles,
writing a proposal, and posting to usenet. How do you know I'm not
doing all that all at the same time? You don't.
So, please, understand that as easily distractable as I am, I choose to
juggle several things all at once, so when I do distract myself, at
least I'm still doing something. Hm.
Oh yes, chip on their shoulder. I've never realy understood that
phrase. What the hell is a chip and why would it be on my shoulder?
Oooh. the sun is shining and it's sprinkling at the same time...I
wonder if there's a rainbow. d4mn, can't tell. where was I? Oh yes...
um...chip. Meaning, I feel like speaking my mind? Well, I feel like
speaking my mind a lot...get used to it, it comes with the territory.
Oooh...I have *got* to leave to door open, it smells so good outside.
----
-----BEGIN PERL GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
P+++>++++c-->*P6 >?R >++M+>++O++MA+E PU BD++C++D++S++X WP MO PP
n+CO?PO-o+G+A-OLC+OLCC+OLJ+OLP--OLR--OL CO--OLS--OLL--OLA--Ee
Ev-Eon+Eot!Eob Eoa!uL++>+++uB!uS!uH!uo!w---m!osA!osBE!
------END PERL GEEK CODE BLOCK------
elizabeth at psy dox dot com
David Gould
> Well, at least WRT your own post, you know that you have have a chip on
> your shoulder, and are motivated to respond, and think you know better,
> and have nothing better to do.
Indeed.
I'm replying to your message as it's the only one which didn't
demonstrate my point entirely.
> As for the others who responded to the original post to this thread,
> unless we've told you what motivated our posts in this thread, or you
> are a long-time lurker of ASAD and therefore know pretty well what
> generally "motivates" the regular posters to post, or you can read
> minds, you have no way of knowing if anyone who responded has "a chip on
> their shoulder."
Like I said, it seems to be common to all such threads in support
groups.
> But, I will say that IIRC, those who responded to Andrew gave him good
> information and, therefore, apparently do "know better."
Indeed and I'm glad you are capable of interpreting things in multiple
ways :)
> Now, is there anything specific in the responses Andrew got from the
> other participants in this thread that you feel is incorrect?
Incorrect? I don't think I need to go there...
No, was just wishing to creak a few more minds open.
> > Anyway, I thought I'd point out that talking in terms of whether ADHD
> > is real or exists is much the same as asking whether love is real or
> > exists.
>
> > For example, for some people, love is a spiritual place outside the
> > boundaries of our universe. And for others, it is just a feeling.
>
> So, do you believe that ADHD is a "spiritual place outside the
> boundaries of our universe" or just a subjective "feeling"?
I believe that ADHD is a category in DSM-IV that describes a set of
symptoms. It says very little about who the diagnosis is given to and
that arguing whether it's real or not seems to be a waste of time.
> And, on what do you base that opinion?
As for the first sentence, DSM-IV itself says as much.
As for what it means about a person who is given the diagnosis, well,
diagnosing is one of the few things where many people don't mind being
put in a box.
Seeing as I've treated lots of people with ADHD, and what worked for
each didn't/wouldn't work with any of the others, it seems that having
a name for your problems is unlikely to help you get better.
> What is the cause of the chip on your shoulder, at least WRT ADHD?
Misinformation by corporations that each sell $30bn worth of drugs
each year.
> And why is it that you think you "know better" than the other posters
> who replied to Andrew?
Now that's an interesting question ;)
> Where did your "knowledge" about ADHD come from?
6 years of clinical experience.
> Do you have ADHD? Does someone in your family or someone else close to
> you have it? Do you have any expertise WRT ADHD?
Whilst I have no need to be diagnosed, I can easily produce the
symptoms of ADHD in myself. In fact, I do it a lot when it's
advantageous - I'm just not stuck that way.
Now, you probably noticed more than any other respondent that in my
previous messages I said nothing about ADHD except that it is
illogical and self-defeating to talk about whether it objectively
exists. And that goes for all DSM-IV categories.
So to answer your other question, I "know better" not about everyone's
unique situation (how could I?), but I do know that the way we think
about our problems changes them. And if you make your problems real,
and believe they can only be treated in one or two ways (especially
ones that don't work for most people), you are severely limiting your
chances of getting better.
Vashti
> So to answer your other question, I "know better" not about
> everyone's unique situation (how could I?), but I do know that the
> way we think about our problems changes them. And if you make
> your problems real, and believe they can only be treated in one or
> two ways (especially ones that don't work for most people), you
> are severely limiting your chances of getting better.
Which is why many ADHDers, or their parents if a child is involved,
try to get as much information as they can about the symptoms and
their possible causes, and try many "alternative" methods to alleviate
these symptoms. After trials using dietary means, CBT and other
behavioural methods *including* anchoring, there remain a significant
amount of affected people who need more than that in order to be able
to funcion according to the standards of this society.
It is rather unpleasant when time and time again people like you assume
that these methods (and more) haven't been tried. The "reality" of ADHD
comes from the demands of society, not the relative experiences of
the symptoms. I would be quite happy being the way I am if I wasn't
confronted with society's expectations of me.
ADHD is that which *cannot* be turned and off at will, so I'm afraid
that those helped by *achoring* etc...were misdiagnosed: sadly this
does still occur.
Vashti
SumBuny
"David Gould" <da...@deep-trance.com> wrote in message
news:92ea100d.02041...@posting.google.com...
> > So, do you believe that ADHD is a "spiritual place outside the
> > boundaries of our universe" or just a subjective "feeling"?
>
> I believe that ADHD is a category in DSM-IV that describes a set of
> symptoms. It says very little about who the diagnosis is given to and
> that arguing whether it's real or not seems to be a waste of time.
The same could be said about many mental health diagnoses...including
developmental disabilities such as the various forms of autism...the DSM as
a whole is a listing of symptoms of various diagnoses, so ADHD is not alone
in this description.
Basically, what I get out of your statement is someone who is sitting on a
fence instead of answering the question...but that is my interpretation-YMMV
>
> > And, on what do you base that opinion?
>
> As for the first sentence, DSM-IV itself says as much.
> As for what it means about a person who is given the diagnosis, well,
> diagnosing is one of the few things where many people don't mind being
> put in a box.
> Seeing as I've treated lots of people with ADHD, and what worked for
> each didn't/wouldn't work with any of the others, it seems that having
> a name for your problems is unlikely to help you get better.
Again....the same could be said for the various types of autism....is that a
reason to not diagnose it? It has taken a few years to finally determine
the proper therapuetic combinations for my sone (12 ADHD/gifted/aspergers).
"Having a name for your problems is unlikely to help you get better"...what
is the purpose of this statement? To dissuade people from trying to
determine the cause/name of their problems? Being told one is diabetic will
not "help you get better" (cure it), but will give you a way to develop a
plan for dealing with it. Being told that you have progressing eye disease
might not help you get better, but can give you a chance to learn
adaptations before you need it (a member of my church is now learning
braille, and how to walk with a cane while she still has vision left).
Running away from your problems will not make them go away, but will make
the affects of them worse...
>
> > Do you have ADHD? Does someone in your family or someone else close to
> > you have it? Do you have any expertise WRT ADHD?
>
> Whilst I have no need to be diagnosed, I can easily produce the
> symptoms of ADHD in myself. In fact, I do it a lot when it's
> advantageous - I'm just not stuck that way.
Hmmm.....I am not diagnosed diabetic, but can easily produce the
symptoms...changing the way I eat temporarily (and timing it right with the
tests) can cause temporary blood sugar swings...
I am allergic, but can also produce the symptoms at will...
I am asthmatic, and cold temperatures will send me into a wheezing fit...I
know of others who can produce this symptom at will (actors are one
example). But while they can stop at the word, "Cut", I cannot...without an
inhaler.
My son is autistic, I am not...but I can "produce the symptoms" by mimicing
him...but when I am done, I can stop-he cannot.
I am ADHD, and can produce the symptoms-probably easier than you can. The
difference is, while you can "turn them off", I cannot-without medication.
You say, "I am not stuck that way"...of course not, because you are "faking"
what is real in others...just like the kid who "produces symptoms" of
illness to avoid school, but is not stuck that way and feels better as soon
as the bus passes him by...
>
> Now, you probably noticed more than any other respondent that in my
> previous messages I said nothing about ADHD except that it is
> illogical and self-defeating to talk about whether it objectively
> exists. And that goes for all DSM-IV categories.
At least you admit to that....
>
> So to answer your other question, I "know better" not about everyone's
> unique situation (how could I?), but I do know that the way we think
> about our problems changes them. And if you make your problems real,
> and believe they can only be treated in one or two ways (especially
> ones that don't work for most people), you are severely limiting your
> chances of getting better.
Do you believe that there is no such thing as mental illness? No such thing
as mental disability? If so, then what makes that organ immune to such
difference-every other organ in the body can be affected by illness or
disability...why not this one?
And what is the basis of you judgment on this?
Buny
David Gould
> ADHD is that which *cannot* be turned and off at will, so I'm afraid
> that those helped by *achoring* etc...were misdiagnosed: sadly this
> does still occur.
So, anyone who gets better didn't have real ADHD?
Watch out, I see Matthew Hopkins approaching...
Elizabeth
> As for the first sentence, DSM-IV itself says as much.
> As for what it means about a person who is given the diagnosis, well,
> diagnosing is one of the few things where many people don't mind being
> put in a box.
Right. What box is that?
> Seeing as I've treated lots of people with ADHD, and what worked for
> each didn't/wouldn't work with any of the others, it seems that having
> a name for your problems is unlikely to help you get better.
Hahaha! Oh, you weren't joking. hm... You say you *treat* people?
Then you say having a name for the problem doens't help. Well, that
seems a little hypocritical. It certainly has helped *me*. A lot!
> > What is the cause of the chip on your shoulder, at least WRT ADHD?
>
> Misinformation by corporations that each sell $30bn worth of drugs
> each year.
Oh man. How about this. The medication has helped me. Plain and
simple. I don't have any side-effects. I feel better. I don't care
what you read and who you talked to, medication has worked and does
work.
> > And why is it that you think you "know better" than the other
> > posters who replied to Andrew?
>
> Now that's an interesting question ;)
Oh gee. Your soooo mysterious. What are you saying your psychic?! Ha!
> > Where did your "knowledge" about ADHD come from?
>
> 6 years of clinical experience.
There's clinics and there's clinics. What *kind* of clinic?
> > Do you have ADHD? Does someone in your family or someone else close
> > to you have it? Do you have any expertise WRT ADHD?
>
> Whilst I have no need to be diagnosed, I can easily produce the
> symptoms of ADHD in myself. In fact, I do it a lot when it's
> advantageous - I'm just not stuck that way.
Oh, I'm beginning to understand you, quite well. You sound like a
scientologist or someone who believes in nature as the only way, but
still drives a gas powered car.
> So to answer your other question, I "know better" not about everyone's
> unique situation (how could I?), but I do know that the way we think
> about our problems changes them. And if you make your problems real,
> and believe they can only be treated in one or two ways (especially
> ones that don't work for most people), you are severely limiting your
> chances of getting better.
Oh Jesus Christ.
> Dave, http://www.deep-trance.com
Oh, that's right.
Here's my take on this whole hypnotist, herbological crap. It's crap.
I'm a scientist. I'm a *real* scientist. Which means, while I believe
anything is possible, to believe it to be real I must actually *see* it.
I believe that telepathy, esp, telekenisis, etc is possible. I believe
in (real) Oriental medicine, but I absolutely do *not* believe in
new-age psychic crap, why? because its crap. I've studied it, it's
crap. Of course, there's a grain of truth in it, unfortunately, which
makes it somewhat believable to the gullible. The grain of truth, to
sum it up, is mind over matter. To be a truly effective aid to people,
you cannot break down what they already believe.
So, you're a fraud, a phony, and a stupid head. Get out of hear with
that holier-than-thou attitude. It's irritating.
Elizabeth
No, d1psh17. What's she saying is that people with *real* ADD have an
extremely hard time, just sitting down and becoming better. For one,
it's difficult to pay attention to the people who're trying to help.
Two, it's difficult to remember what it is we're supposed to do to get
better. Three, we have a hard time at first of realy knowing *what*
exactly is wrong. Four, some people, just plain don't respond to
therapy. Like my brother. My dad's tried *everything* on that boy and
*nothing* works. *Nothing*. Except medication, to help him stay
focused. So, mr. smarty pants, what do you say he does, for my brother?
Caitriona Mac Fhiodhbhuidhe
wrote:
>Joe Parsons <j...@yankeemedia.net> wrote:
<snipped>
>
>> Given the rather large volume of long-term, credible research on the subject of
>> ADHD, I'd suggest that your analogy is far wide of the mark.
>
>Then I'd suggest that your understanding of what I wrote is far wide
>of the mark. But then I did expect you to respond with a blanket
>refusal to let anyone else express an opinion that threatened yours...
>And to back that refusal with meaningless but important sounding
>statements.
>
Full of yourself these days, aren't you.
Elizabeth
typed:
> Do you believe that there is no such thing as mental illness? No such
> thing as mental disability? If so, then what makes that organ immune
> to such difference-every other organ in the body can be affected by
> illness or disability...why not this one?
That is one of the best arguments I've heard, Buny. :-) Yey!
Caitriona Mac Fhiodhbhuidhe
wrote:
>On 10 Apr 2002 03:22:16 -0700, da...@deep-trance.com (David Gould) wrote:
>
>>Joe Parsons <j...@yankeemedia.net> wrote:
<snipped>
>>> Given the rather large volume of long-term, credible research on the subject of
>>> ADHD, I'd suggest that your analogy is far wide of the mark.
>>
>>Then I'd suggest that your understanding of what I wrote is far wide
>>of the mark. But then I did expect you to respond with a blanket
>>refusal to let anyone else express an opinion that threatened yours...
>
>It has taken me a *long* time to get to the position where I can prevent anyone
>from posting to an unmoderated newsgroup like ASAD. I'll thank you to show the
>proper deference, or else I'll bar you from posting, as well.
>
<sneaks out of Joe's Usenet prison>
<rushes up to Dave>
Oh, *thank you* for saving me from the eviiiiiiil Joe Parsons!
<hides before Joe realizes she slipped off with his best Scotch>
SumBuny
"Elizabeth" <eliz...@see.sig> wrote in message
news:20020411152603.7...@see.sig...
> On 11 Apr 2002 03:30:32 -0700, da...@deep-trance.com (David Gould) typed:
>
> > As for the first sentence, DSM-IV itself says as much.
> > As for what it means about a person who is given the diagnosis, well,
> > diagnosing is one of the few things where many people don't mind being
> > put in a box.
>
> Right. What box is that?
There are people who think inside the box
There are people who think outside the box
Then there are people who say, "Was there supposed to be a box???"
I am in that last one (as are my sons...) Who says there is supposed to be
a box? What are the dimensions of the box? What is the use of the box?
What is the color/make up of the box?
Why did no one inform us that there was supposed to be a box? Weren't
"they" supposed to...oh, look, a moth....
Buny
Joe Parsons
Fhiodhbhuidhe) wrote:
>On Wed, 10 Apr 2002 15:25:03 GMT, Joe Parsons <j...@yankeemedia.net>
>wrote:
>
>>On 10 Apr 2002 03:22:16 -0700, da...@deep-trance.com (David Gould) wrote:
>>
>>>Joe Parsons <j...@yankeemedia.net> wrote:
><snipped>
>>>> Given the rather large volume of long-term, credible research on the subject of
>>>> ADHD, I'd suggest that your analogy is far wide of the mark.
>>>
>>>Then I'd suggest that your understanding of what I wrote is far wide
>>>of the mark. But then I did expect you to respond with a blanket
>>>refusal to let anyone else express an opinion that threatened yours...
>>
>>It has taken me a *long* time to get to the position where I can prevent anyone
>>from posting to an unmoderated newsgroup like ASAD. I'll thank you to show the
>>proper deference, or else I'll bar you from posting, as well.
>>
>
>
><sneaks out of Joe's Usenet prison>
>
><rushes up to Dave>
>
>Oh, *thank you* for saving me from the eviiiiiiil Joe Parsons!
>
><hides before Joe realizes she slipped off with his best Scotch>
I have a feeling I can trust *you* with my single malt, Kitten. It's that
wookie you hang out with I'm worried about!
>
>
>Kitten
>=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
>You can always tell a Texan, but you can't tell him much. - Chris Wall
>=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
>
>Courage, Real courage, is no quick fix. It doesn't come in a bottle
>or a pill, It comes from discipline. From taking everything life
>hands you and being your best either because of it or in spite of it.
>-- Ty Murray
>=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
----------------------------------------------------------------
nknisley
>
> nknisley <nkni...@bcpl.net> wrote in message news:<3CB48FF3...@bcpl.net>...
> > Well, at least WRT your own post, you know that you have have a chip on
> > your shoulder, and are motivated to respond, and think you know better,
> > and have nothing better to do.
>
> Indeed.
>
> I'm replying to your message as it's the only one which didn't
> demonstrate my point entirely.
>
> > As for the others who responded to the original post to this thread,
> > unless we've told you what motivated our posts in this thread, or you
> > are a long-time lurker of ASAD and therefore know pretty well what
> > generally "motivates" the regular posters to post, or you can read
> > minds, you have no way of knowing if anyone who responded has "a chip on
> > their shoulder."
>
> Like I said, it seems to be common to all such threads in support
> groups.
I still believe that you have no way of knowing what actually motivates
any particular poster to post to such a thread.
> > But, I will say that IIRC, those who responded to Andrew gave him good
> > information and, therefore, apparently do "know better."
>
> Indeed and I'm glad you are capable of interpreting things in multiple
> ways :)
I am aware of that capability and its one I often find very, very
useful. :-)
> > Now, is there anything specific in the responses Andrew got from the
> > other participants in this thread that you feel is incorrect?
>
> Incorrect? I don't think I need to go there...
You only need to go there if you want to make your objections to the
posts to that thread clear.
Plus, it will help others here evaluate how much accurate information
you have about ADHD which is important, I would guess, to most of us
here.
> No, was just wishing to creak a few more minds open.
There are posters to ASAD who use alternative treatments for ADHD
symptoms or the symptoms of other disorders.
So, I think you will find open minds here, only not so open our brains
fall out.
Let me put it this way. I think many ASAD posters are open to new ideas
about treating ADHD but are smart enough to refuse to buy what every new
snake-oil salesman or new-age guru has to say.
For one thing, many have already tried many alternatives to conventional
medical treatment, and, after spending lots of money and wasting
precious time, they've found the only thing that works is medication.
We have had posters ask if anyone has had success in treating ADHD with
NLP. There has never been a "yes" reply. That tells me a great deal.
Believe me, if a treatment really works, we'd probably know about it.
Second, I think most of the regular posters to ASAD are pretty smart.
There's a healthy skepticism of information that doesn't fit into what
they already know to be true from their own experiences or knowledge.
If someone coming into ASAD wants to convince the participants that a
certain alternative treatment works, all they have to do is post
evidence to support the claim.
> > > Anyway, I thought I'd point out that talking in terms of whether ADHD
> > > is real or exists is much the same as asking whether love is real or
> > > exists.
> >
> > > For example, for some people, love is a spiritual place outside the
> > > boundaries of our universe. And for others, it is just a feeling.
> >
> > So, do you believe that ADHD is a "spiritual place outside the
> > boundaries of our universe" or just a subjective "feeling"?
>
> I believe that ADHD is a category in DSM-IV that describes a set of
> symptoms. It says very little about who the diagnosis is given to and
> that arguing whether it's real or not seems to be a waste of time.
I disagree. If you believe it is "not real" then you are denying the
biological and genetic basis for ADHD--and that denial has consequences.
> > And, on what do you base that opinion?
>
> As for the first sentence, DSM-IV itself says as much.
So, do you believe that ADHD only exists because the writers of the DSM
say it does, and without the DSM classification, no one would have ADHD?
> As for what it means about a person who is given the diagnosis, well,
> diagnosing is one of the few things where many people don't mind being
> put in a box.
Heh. Very few ADHDers I know like being "in the box."
> Seeing as I've treated lots of people with ADHD, and what worked for
> each didn't/wouldn't work with any of the others, it seems that having
> a name for your problems is unlikely to help you get better.
I strongly disagree.
Giving a name to a problem can help you find information about it, find
others who share the same problem for support, can help lead you in the
direction of finding ways to deal with your problem.
So many individuals with ADHD are given labels like "lazy, stupid,
unmotivated" and they try to find ways to make themselves less "lazy,
stupid, unmotivated." Nothing works, because they are not lazy, stupid
or unmotivated. They end up depressed, frustrated, confused.
Then they get the diagnosis, ADHD. They're *not* "lazy, stupid,
unmotivated!" Now they can try to find ways to deal with ADHD. And, they
may find some things that do work and they start to make progress.
> > What is the cause of the chip on your shoulder, at least WRT ADHD?
>
> Misinformation by corporations that each sell $30bn worth of drugs
> each year.
What misinformation is that?
> > And why is it that you think you "know better" than the other posters
> > who replied to Andrew?
>
> Now that's an interesting question ;)
Do you have an answer?
> > Where did your "knowledge" about ADHD come from?
>
> 6 years of clinical experience.
Doing clinical hypnosis? I guess that explains your take on ADHD a bit.
So how much do you know about the current state of scientific/medical
research WRT ADHD and its treatment?
> > Do you have ADHD? Does someone in your family or someone else close to
> > you have it? Do you have any expertise WRT ADHD?
>
> Whilst I have no need to be diagnosed, I can easily produce the
> symptoms of ADHD in myself.
And how do you do this? Keep in mind that the "symptoms" of ADHD needed
for a diagnosis must be maladaptive and impairing.
Why would you want to produce symptoms that are maladaptive and
impairing?
> In fact, I do it a lot when it's advantageous - I'm just not stuck that way.
If you can get "unstuck" you have not produced ADHD symptoms in
yourself, no matter how convinced you are that you have.
> Now, you probably noticed more than any other respondent that in my
> previous messages I said nothing about ADHD except that it is
> illogical and self-defeating to talk about whether it objectively
> exists. And that goes for all DSM-IV categories.
I find accepting the fact that ADHD--and other DSM-IV diagnoses
objectively exists to be entirely logical and quite purposeful.
> So to answer your other question, I "know better" not about everyone's
> unique situation (how could I?), but I do know that the way we think
> about our problems changes them. And if you make your problems real,
> and believe they can only be treated in one or two ways (especially
> ones that don't work for most people), you are severely limiting your
> chances of getting better.
I don't disagree. But, I think that the logical way to proceed in
treating any sort of problem is to try what you know proven to work for
others. You try to most likely solution first. If that doesn't work,
then you go on to less and less likely solutions.
To start with the least likely solution, and only use the most likely to
solve the problem solution as a "last resort" is totally illogical IMO.
> Dave, http://www.deep-trance.com
BTW, I haven't had time to explore your web site in full, but I found
what I believe to be at least one clear error in the pages I did read:
In your "Seratonin Section" you say: "Seratonin is a class of
neurotransmitters. That means they're only in your brain."
That's incorrect. Neurotransmitters are not found "only in your brain."
In fact, in Otto Loewi's experiment which discovered the existence of
neurotransmitters, he used two frog hearts--not frog brains.
I also question several other statements on that page like your
contention that MDMD is an SSRI. However, I don't have the facts at hand
to challenge you on them, and I do have better things to do than to do
research and post what I believe is the correct information.
Caitriona Mac Fhiodhbhuidhe
wrote:
>On Thu, 11 Apr 2002 22:18:33 GMT, kit...@whitepine.com (Caitriona Mac
>Fhiodhbhuidhe) wrote:
>
<snipped>
>><hides before Joe realizes she slipped off with his best Scotch>
>
>I have a feeling I can trust *you* with my single malt, Kitten. It's that
>wookie you hang out with I'm worried about!
>
I'll hide it behind the Sauza.
Caitriona Mac Fhiodhbhuidhe
wrote:
>On Thu, 11 Apr 2002 22:18:33 GMT, kit...@whitepine.com (Caitriona Mac
>Fhiodhbhuidhe) wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 10 Apr 2002 15:25:03 GMT, Joe Parsons <j...@yankeemedia.net>
>>wrote:
>>
<snipped>
>>
>><sneaks out of Joe's Usenet prison>
>>
>><rushes up to Dave>
>>
>>Oh, *thank you* for saving me from the eviiiiiiil Joe Parsons!
>>
>><hides before Joe realizes she slipped off with his best Scotch>
>
>I have a feeling I can trust *you* with my single malt, Kitten. It's that
>wookie you hang out with I'm worried about!
>
OOOOOOOOhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh, ya never know where I'm lurkin'
It's surprisin' where you can hide 6'2" & 230lbs of fur.
>>
>>Kitten
>>=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
>>You can always tell a Texan, but you can't tell him much. - Chris Wall
>>=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
>>
>>Courage, Real courage, is no quick fix. It doesn't come in a bottle
>>or a pill, It comes from discipline. From taking everything life
>>hands you and being your best either because of it or in spite of it.
>>-- Ty Murray
>>=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Chewy
You can only do so well,
With a ton or two of hell
Strapped between your knees.
Caitriona Mac Fhiodhbhuidhe
Fhiodhbhuidhe) wrote:
>On Thu, 11 Apr 2002 23:10:33 GMT, Joe Parsons <j...@yankeemedia.net>
>wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 11 Apr 2002 22:18:33 GMT, kit...@whitepine.com (Caitriona Mac
>>Fhiodhbhuidhe) wrote:
>>
><snipped>
>>><hides before Joe realizes she slipped off with his best Scotch>
>>
>>I have a feeling I can trust *you* with my single malt, Kitten. It's that
>>wookie you hang out with I'm worried about!
>>
>
>
>I'll hide it behind the Sauza.
Oh, ya like THAT will work.
>
>
>Kitten
>=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
>You can always tell a Texan, but you can't tell him much. - Chris Wall
>=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
>
>Courage, Real courage, is no quick fix. It doesn't come in a bottle
>or a pill, It comes from discipline. From taking everything life
>hands you and being your best either because of it or in spite of it.
>-- Ty Murray
>=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
You can only do so well,
Caitriona Mac Fhiodhbhuidhe
wrote:
>
>Anyway, having removed my chip, finding out I know nothing and
>noticing I have better things to do, I wish you all the best.
>
>Dave, http://www.deep-trance.com
And so why are yo still here ?
Since I'm in and out of the group as time permits, I am new to this
thread. Having read it from the bottom up, I really wonder how big
your chip is ? Or if it's not more along the scale of railroad ties ?
If you don't have a chip any more, and were truely honest about
yourself (both with others, and more importantly, with yourself) you
would have never responded to anything beyond the post that I am
responding to. But everyone on USENET can see where your statement
leads.
Chewy
Elizabeth
typed:
>
> "Elizabeth" <eliz...@see.sig> wrote in message
> > Right. What box is that?
>
>
> There are people who think inside the box
> There are people who think outside the box
> Then there are people who say, "Was there supposed to be a box???"
>
> I am in that last one (as are my sons...) Who says there is supposed
> to be a box? What are the dimensions of the box? What is the use of
> the box? What is the color/make up of the box?
>
> Why did no one inform us that there was supposed to be a box? Weren't
> "they" supposed to...oh, look, a moth....
LOL. This is perfect! This realy describes...oooooh...pret..ty.....
Micheal Mac Fhiodhbhuidhe
Box? Hell, looks like a basket.
Chewy
--
george_of_the_jungle
wrote:
>On 10 Apr 2002 03:22:16 -0700, da...@deep-trance.com (David Gould) wrote:
>
>>Joe Parsons <j...@yankeemedia.net> wrote in message news:<8t06buc9ek0h7jmmg...@4ax.com>...
>>> Is there even the slightest possibility that you could address statements made
>>> by people in the thread, rather than mindlessly insulting everyone who has
>>> responded?
>>
>>Address statements? What good would that do?
>
>It would do the same as any rational discussion: it would provide a way of
>exploring issues, hopefully bringing insight to a complex set of issues.
He is not interested in a rational discussion. Given that, why bother
to respond to him?
-George
David Gould
> I still believe that you have no way of knowing what actually motivates
> any particular poster to post to such a thread.
You are right. They get to decide consciously (and also decide
subconsciously) whether it fits them or not.
> > > But, I will say that IIRC, those who responded to Andrew gave him good
> > > information and, therefore, apparently do "know better."
> >
> > Indeed and I'm glad you are capable of interpreting things in multiple
> > ways :)
>
> I am aware of that capability and its one I often find very, very
> useful. :-)
Me too :)
> > > Now, is there anything specific in the responses Andrew got from the
> > > other participants in this thread that you feel is incorrect?
> >
> > Incorrect? I don't think I need to go there...
>
> You only need to go there if you want to make your objections to the
> posts to that thread clear.
Do I want to make them clear? I have already achieved what I set out
to do. I am only responding because you keep posting back interesting
replies!
> > No, was just wishing to creak a few more minds open.
>
> There are posters to ASAD who use alternative treatments for ADHD
> symptoms or the symptoms of other disorders.
>
> So, I think you will find open minds here, only not so open our brains
> fall out.
It is a fine line. Or maybe a squiggle?
See you and I know that most alternative methods simply invoke the
placebo effect at best. So do medications to a large degree.
I often wonder why placebo rates of improvement are rarely publicised.
This page suggests that placebo works 50% of the time:
http://www.helpforadd.com/medmon.htm
Which would suggest that for all those reporting success with
medication, maybe 4 out of 5 could have been on placebos.
But what the hell are we measuring here? Breggin says that many
studies don't even have a placebo control group. None have tested
long term effects (amphetamines are still classed as Schedule II in
the US). What studies show whether the side effects (both long and
short term) of medications are worth the potential improvement over
placebo for _you_?
Most studies are done on boys. And who measures the results? Usually
their shrinks, teachers and parents, ie those who want to control
their behaviour...
But don't think about that until you've asked yourself:
"What do I know for sure that I need to change in order to be able to
live the life I want to?"
So, that might be learning to concentrate on dull things
(meditation/art is good) or feeling calmer or whatever. Then and only
then do I suggest you look at ways of doing achieving those things.
> For one thing, many have already tried many alternatives to conventional
> medical treatment, and, after spending lots of money and wasting
> precious time, they've found the only thing that works is medication.
Not well enough.
> We have had posters ask if anyone has had success in treating ADHD with
> NLP. There has never been a "yes" reply. That tells me a great deal.
> Believe me, if a treatment really works, we'd probably know about it.
NLP is not a treatment.
I have not talked about my expertise or the results I get because I'm
not trying to sell anything here and I know that most people respond
negatively to that sort of thing. Yet while I might get results with
people diagnosed with ADHD, that's no guarantee that anyone else will.
I think NLP is probably unique in that it advocates finding out how a
particular problem works for each person. In other words, we all have
unique problems which require unique solutions.
For example, my clients diagnosed with ADHD have ranged from the kid
who is merely bored and gets punished regardless of what he does, to
the 35 year old for whom being 'hyper' was preferable to all the other
emotions he could feel.
However, not many NLPers seem to have got the point. Seems to be
common human traits to want to find the magic bullet and accept
mediocre results...
I think Andy is trying to educate them as well as other professionals
in the area, but wants to get the best feedback on his communication
from those given the diagnosis.
> > I believe that ADHD is a category in DSM-IV that describes a set of
> > symptoms. It says very little about who the diagnosis is given to and
> > that arguing whether it's real or not seems to be a waste of time.
>
> I disagree. If you believe it is "not real" then you are denying the
> biological and genetic basis for ADHD--and that denial has consequences.
If you go along with current biological and genetic scientific belief
for some ADHD diagnoses, chances are you're also buying into those
limitations.
I don't state this as fact, I state it as a potential trap.
> > > And, on what do you base that opinion?
> >
> > As for the first sentence, DSM-IV itself says as much.
>
> So, do you believe that ADHD only exists because the writers of the DSM
> say it does, and without the DSM classification, no one would have ADHD?
Are you talking about ADHD as a label? Or ADHD as a group of people
who suffer similar symptoms (but not necessarily causes)?
Many of my clients were made worse by medication. All of them were
limited to some degree by their beliefs about what their diagnosis
meant to them.
There are at least two respondents in this thread who presupposed that
ADHD is a problem you'll have for the rest of your life. The ones who
made it round to finding me were those who refused to accept that
belief.
> > Seeing as I've treated lots of people with ADHD, and what worked for
> > each didn't/wouldn't work with any of the others, it seems that having
> > a name for your problems is unlikely to help you get better.
>
> I strongly disagree.
>
> Giving a name to a problem can help you find information about it, find
> others who share the same problem for support, can help lead you in the
> direction of finding ways to deal with your problem.
Information or misinformation. The problem is that people often
assume that ADHD (or BPD or whatever) has a common causal structure
that has to be treated the same way.
> So many individuals with ADHD are given labels like "lazy, stupid,
> unmotivated" and they try to find ways to make themselves less "lazy,
> stupid, unmotivated." Nothing works, because they are not lazy, stupid
> or unmotivated. They end up depressed, frustrated, confused.
Good point.
> Then they get the diagnosis, ADHD. They're *not* "lazy, stupid,
> unmotivated!"
Right, but instead they're convinced they'll have those problems for
the rest of their lives. Kids "grow out of" things all the time,
unless they're told they have an incurable disease of course.
> Now they can try to find ways to deal with ADHD. And, they
> may find some things that do work and they start to make progress.
Right, that can be helpful for some people. A massive limitation for
others.
> > > What is the cause of the chip on your shoulder, at least WRT ADHD?
> >
> > Misinformation by corporations that each sell $30bn worth of drugs
> > each year.
>
> What misinformation is that?
That drugs are the only way to get better. Same thing all successful
corporations do: "Our product is the best way for you to be who you
want to be".
> > > And why is it that you think you "know better" than the other posters
> > > who replied to Andrew?
> >
> > Now that's an interesting question ;)
>
> Do you have an answer?
I answered it later.
> > > Where did your "knowledge" about ADHD come from?
> >
> > 6 years of clinical experience.
>
> Doing clinical hypnosis? I guess that explains your take on ADHD a bit.
So stick me in a box, why don't you? No, I don't just do clinical
hypnosis (which is just a parameter rather than a treatment), my
background is in NLP which says "do what works and look for what will
work better".
And since I get much better results than those with medical degrees
(not hard)...
But I don't even specialise in ADHD. There are certainly people who
get better results than I do: slightly higher success rates, probably
work much faster, probably better at turning limitations into
advantages etc.
> So how much do you know about the current state of scientific/medical
> research WRT ADHD and its treatment?
I try to keep up to date, but I find most of it irrelevant to actually
helping my clients. As for treatments, I tend to hear about what
hasn't worked from clients. So I am biased in that regard.
> > > Do you have ADHD? Does someone in your family or someone else close to
> > > you have it? Do you have any expertise WRT ADHD?
> >
> > Whilst I have no need to be diagnosed, I can easily produce the
> > symptoms of ADHD in myself.
>
> And how do you do this? Keep in mind that the "symptoms" of ADHD needed
> for a diagnosis must be maladaptive and impairing.
Right.
> Why would you want to produce symptoms that are maladaptive and
> impairing?
I do it when it's useful and something else when it's not.
> > In fact, I do it a lot when it's advantageous - I'm just not stuck that way.
>
> If you can get "unstuck" you have not produced ADHD symptoms in
> yourself, no matter how convinced you are that you have.
Do you really think you own the definition of what is and isn't a
symptom of ADHD?
> > Now, you probably noticed more than any other respondent that in my
> > previous messages I said nothing about ADHD except that it is
> > illogical and self-defeating to talk about whether it objectively
> > exists. And that goes for all DSM-IV categories.
>
> I find accepting the fact that ADHD--and other DSM-IV diagnoses
> objectively exists to be entirely logical and quite purposeful.
How can someone's beliefs objectively exist?
I already pointed out that Russ Barkley and others are already trying
to define ADHD as whether you pass this DAT test or not:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/tw/items/001018_adhdtest.shtml
Many if not most of you will fail this test. Does that mean you don't
have real ADHD? Does that mean you don't have real problems?
If this test ever becomes standard, a lot of you will probably lose
your insurance/benefits.
> > So to answer your other question, I "know better" not about everyone's
> > unique situation (how could I?), but I do know that the way we think
> > about our problems changes them. And if you make your problems real,
> > and believe they can only be treated in one or two ways (especially
> > ones that don't work for most people), you are severely limiting your
> > chances of getting better.
>
> I don't disagree. But, I think that the logical way to proceed in
> treating any sort of problem is to try what you know proven to work for
> others.
Try ECT then. Works 60% of the time.
> You try to most likely solution first. If that doesn't work,
> then you go on to less and less likely solutions.
Personally, I go for the least damaging, most enabling solutions.
> > Dave, http://www.deep-trance.com
>
> BTW, I haven't had time to explore your web site in full, but I found
> what I believe to be at least one clear error in the pages I did read:
>
> In your "Seratonin Section" you say: "Seratonin is a class of
> neurotransmitters. That means they're only in your brain."
>
> That's incorrect. Neurotransmitters are not found "only in your brain."
That's the usual definition. The same chemicals are usually found
throughout the body (evolution is efficient) but have radically
different effects depending on where the receptors are and which
neurons they fire.
You might find Candace Pert's book "Molecules of Emotion" interesting.
She discovered the first receptor (opiate) yet her research was
annexed by others who created the current 'chemical imbalance' theory
and her views have been largely ignored.
She calls them 'information chemicals'.
> I also question several other statements on that page like your
> contention that MDMD is an SSRI.
Of course, the drug companies don't promote this information but what
little research I could find stated that MDMA uses the exact same
mechanism (blocks the same serotonin molecules from being reabsorbed)
plus one other mechanism (which is far from understood) that releases
more serotonin from the synapse.
(they're called MDMA and serotonin BTW)
> However, I don't have the facts at hand
> to challenge you on them, and I do have better things to do than to do
> research and post what I believe is the correct information.
I thank you for both your feedback and taking the time to find out a
bit more than what I'm talking about.
> Unique, like everyone else
Absolutely!
David Gould
> Basically, what I get out of your statement is someone who is sitting on a
> fence instead of answering the question...but that is my interpretation-YMMV
The question: "So, do you believe that ADHD is a "spiritual place
outside the boundaries of our universe" or just a subjective
"feeling"?"
My answer is neither. As to whether ADHD exists or not, again my
answer is neither. That one's not a logical question.
> Again....the same could be said for the various types of autism....is that a
> reason to not diagnose it? It has taken a few years to finally determine
> the proper therapuetic combinations for my sone (12 ADHD/gifted/aspergers).
Proper in what way?
> "Having a name for your problems is unlikely to help you get better"...what
> is the purpose of this statement? To dissuade people from trying to
> determine the cause/name of their problems?
Knowing the name doesn't not determine the cause. There never is one
cause, there's usually hundreds. If you can find the most easily
changed causes of your problems that don't cause other ones, you're
almost there.
> Running away from your problems will not make them go away, but will make
> the affects of them worse...
Might do, as can focussing on them, or inferring further limitations
from them.
> My son is autistic, I am not...but I can "produce the symptoms" by mimicing
> him...but when I am done, I can stop-he cannot.
>
> I am ADHD, and can produce the symptoms-probably easier than you can.
What do you have to do to produce the symptoms, both with yours and
your sons?
>The difference is, while you can "turn them off", I cannot-without
medication.
> You say, "I am not stuck that way"...of course not, because you are "faking"
> what is real in others...just like the kid who "produces symptoms" of
> illness to avoid school, but is not stuck that way and feels better as soon
> as the bus passes him by...
I learnt to be flexible. But like I say, my problems were different
from yours and YMMV.
> > Now, you probably noticed more than any other respondent that in my
> > previous messages I said nothing about ADHD except that it is
> > illogical and self-defeating to talk about whether it objectively
> > exists. And that goes for all DSM-IV categories.
>
> At least you admit to that....
And how is that a bad thing? Are you accusing me of not admitting to
something else?
> > So to answer your other question, I "know better" not about everyone's
> > unique situation (how could I?), but I do know that the way we think
> > about our problems changes them. And if you make your problems real,
> > and believe they can only be treated in one or two ways (especially
> > ones that don't work for most people), you are severely limiting your
> > chances of getting better.
>
> Do you believe that there is no such thing as mental illness? No such thing
> as mental disability? If so, then what makes that organ immune to such
> difference-every other organ in the body can be affected by illness or
> disability...why not this one?
Define illness, disability and what constitutes a "thing" and I'll
answer your question. It's pointless to make logical arguments on
vague concepts.
I will say that the nervous system has many differences to other
organs in the body. It is at least a billion times more complex in
terms of it's ability to encode and process information. It's also
the one most easily affected by changing the way you think.
Even the placebo effect has produced a measurable change in the brain:
http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99991732
David Gould
> anything is possible, to believe it to be real I must actually *see* it.
I don't know where you got your training, but I just wanted to point
out that very few scientists agree with you.
Here's some things most scientists believe in but cannot be seen:
Electromagnetism
Gravity
Nuclear forces
Quantum tunnelling
Black holes
All my formal education was in science and my BSc in Computer Science
(Bristol University) covered the Philosophy of Science and Formal
Logic BTW.
Vashti
> So, anyone who gets better didn't have real ADHD?
>
Read the DSMIV criteria.
Vashti
David Gould
> No, d1psh17.
Seems you prefer insults as a way of communicating. I'd rather not it
that's OK by you.
> Four, some people, just plain don't respond to
> therapy. Like my brother. My dad's tried *everything* on that boy and
> *nothing* works. *Nothing*. Except medication, to help him stay
> focused. So, mr. smarty pants, what do you say he does, for my brother?
Let me get this straight...
You have a mental illness, your brother has a mental illness and your
dad has been trying but can help neither of you?
< shudder >
Just about every psychotherapy under the sun has a section on how your
parents helped you create most of your problems.
Dave, http://www.deep-trance.com
PS. I have no idea what will help your brother, I don't know anything
about him. Good luck!
David Gould
I'm all too familiar with it. It reads like my school report.
But doesn't explain why you haven't answered my question:
Was everyone who was given a diagnosis or ADHD and got better
misdiagnosed or not?
Vashti
> Was everyone who was given a diagnosis or ADHD and got better
> misdiagnosed or not?
>
You tell me.
We might as well talk about the same subject, eh?
So: at the moment you appear to be talking about an "envisioned" ADHD,
while no one else is. You also seem pretty negative about this picture
you have conjured up, do you want to talk about it?
When you imagine ADHD, you close yourself off. Why do you think that
happens? Could there be something about it that worries you?
Tell me what you're thinking.
Vashti
Elizabeth
> PS. I have no idea what will help your brother, I don't know anything
> about him. Good luck!
Then stop assuming you know about everyone else as well as you don't
know anything about them either.
Elizabeth
typed:
> But doesn't explain why you haven't answered my question:
> Was everyone who was given a diagnosis or ADHD and got better
> misdiagnosed or not?
I don't know as I haven't studied *every* *single* ADD case. I know *I*
haven't been mis-diagnosed.
Elizabeth
typed:
> Was everyone who was given a diagnosis or ADHD and got better
> misdiagnosed or not?
Define got better. There's many different versions of got better.
1) People who *think* they got better, but are simply in denial.
2) People who have found tricks and aids to make it *seem* as if they
don't have the symptoms, but given opportunity will rear their
head...where most ADDers strive. 3) People who are medicated and think
that that's all there is to it 4) People who were
misdiagnosed...generally something else will come up.
Elizabeth
Do you even know where the brain is? Okok...that's a little far, but
there is a science called neurology. It's very interesting, you should
study it some time. Have you gone to brainplace.com and taken a look at
the SPECT scans? What do you think of those?
Elizabeth
> Elizabeth <eliz...@see.sig> wrote in message
> news:<20020411152603.7...@see.sig>...> I'm a scientist.
> I'm a *real* scientist. Which means, while I believe> anything is
> possible, to believe it to be real I must actually *see* it.
>
> I don't know where you got your training, but I just wanted to point
> out that very few scientists agree with you.
You misinterprested what I ment by seen. See doesn't necessarily mean
see with the eyes. I rarely just see with my eyes.
> All my formal education was in science and my BSc in Computer Science
> (Bristol University) covered the Philosophy of Science and Formal
> Logic BTW.
Goody for you. BSc in CS in overrated.
SumBuny
"David Gould" <da...@deep-trance.com> wrote in message
news:92ea100d.02041...@posting.google.com...
> Let me get this straight...
>
> You have a mental illness, your brother has a mental illness and your
> dad has been trying but can help neither of you?
Do you even know what the difference is between illness, disability, and
disorder is????? She does not have a mental illness, but a disorder. Many
think it is purely semantics, but it is not...and since you claim to be
well-researched, I would have thought that you would have known such a basic
concept...
Buny
SumBuny
Define "got better".
Do you mean "got better after the right interventions where put in place"?
....then getting better after being diagnosed with nearsightedness after
using glasses means the diagnosis of nearsightedness was wrong?
Do you mean "got better after the right medications were administered"?
....then getting better after being diagnosed with strep throat and taking a
course of antibiotics means the diagnosis of strep was wrong?
Do you mean "got better after a multi-modal approach of interventions and
medicines were put into place"?
... then getting better (lessening of symptoms) after being diagnosed with
diabetes, and taking insulin as well as following the right diet/exercise
plan means the diagnosis of diabetes was wrong?
Do you mean "got better without any help"?
...then getting better after receiving a bruise (hematoma)...i.e., the
bruise heals up 'on its own', means that the diagnosis of bruise was wrong?
As you can see, diagnosis is not so clear-cut, is it? I agree that some who
are diagnosed as ADHD are misdiagnosed as such....BUT the opposite also is
true....many who are not diagnosed as ADHD *are*...again, a misdiagnosis...
Just because of misdiagnosis of something does not automatically mean that
*all* diagnosed with that are misdiagnosed---if so, can you name *one*
condition that has never been misdiagnosed???
Buny
Emma Anne
> Just about every psychotherapy under the sun has a section on how your
> parents helped you create most of your problems.
Of all the clueless things you have said so far, this is the
clueless-ist.
David Gould
wrote:
>> Just about every psychotherapy under the sun has a section on how your
>> parents helped you create most of your problems.
>
>Of all the clueless things you have said so far, this is the
>clueless-ist.
Because?
When you can justify your need to criticise, let me know.
David Gould
wrote:
>> You have a mental illness, your brother has a mental illness and your
>> dad has been trying but can help neither of you?
>
>Do you even know what the difference is between illness, disability, and
>disorder is?????
There are many differences. But I've yet to find a psychiatrist who
could adequately define any of them.
>She does not have a mental illness, but a disorder. Many
>think it is purely semantics, but it is not...and since you claim to be
>well-researched, I would have thought that you would have known such a basic
>concept...
Where did I claim to be well-researched?
These pathetic attacks are boring me. Which is a shame because a few of
you have a similar appetite for learning to me.
When you can actually come up with something interesting, or answer the
questions put to you, I'll respond again.
Emma Anne
> Why would you want to produce symptoms that are maladaptive and
> impairing?
Well, people get drunk on purpose . . .
Emma Anne
> Breggin says that many
> studies don't even have a placebo control group. None have tested
> long term effects (amphetamines are still classed as Schedule II in
> the US).
Ah. No wonder you are so misinformed. Breggin doesn't put much
emphasis on accuracy. Methylphenidate has been in use for decades - not
too many medicines have such long term usage to examine.
Emma Anne
> On Fri, 12 Apr 2002 13:26:08 -0600, mb...@earthlink.net (Emma Anne)
> wrote:
>
> >> Just about every psychotherapy under the sun has a section on how your
> >> parents helped you create most of your problems.
> >
> >Of all the clueless things you have said so far, this is the
> >clueless-ist.
>
> Because?
>
Because for most people, their parents didn't help them create most of
their problems. Certainly not ADD, which has no correlation to
parenting.
David Gould
>On 12 Apr 2002 06:01:50 -0700, da...@deep-trance.com (David Gould) typed:
Hmm, you forgot to quote anything from me.
>Do you even know where the brain is? Okok...that's a little far, but
>there is a science called neurology. It's very interesting, you should
>study it some time. Have you gone to brainplace.com and taken a look at
>the SPECT scans? What do you think of those?
That drugs change the blood flow in your brain?
Erm, even placebo can do that:
David Gould
wrote:
>Because for most people, their parents didn't help them create most of
>their problems. Certainly not ADD, which has no correlation to
>parenting.
And your evidence is?
SumBuny
> "SumBuny" <sum...@TAKETHISOUTcox.net> wrote in message
news:<EDmt8.24047$GG1.1...@news2.east.cox.net>...
> > Basically, what I get out of your statement is someone who is sitting on
a
> > fence instead of answering the question...but that is my
interpretation-YMMV
>
> The question: "So, do you believe that ADHD is a "spiritual place
> outside the boundaries of our universe" or just a subjective
> "feeling"?"
>
> My answer is neither. As to whether ADHD exists or not, again my
> answer is neither. That one's not a logical question.
The answer puts you squarely "on the fence"...tell me, do you do the same
for other things, such as pain? It is subjective. If you go to your doctor
for pain relief (pick you pain...migraine, sciatica, abdominal pain,
etc)...and he were to tell you that he didn't know if your pain existed or
not...you would probably be a tad upset with him, no?
Oh, and do you really need to know the cause of your headache to reach for
the aspirin? Per your comments below, that is..
>
> > Again....the same could be said for the various types of autism....is
that a
> > reason to not diagnose it? It has taken a few years to finally
determine
> > the proper therapuetic combinations for my sone (12
ADHD/gifted/aspergers).
>
> Proper in what way?
Multi-modal interventions including medication, speech therapy, occupational
therapy, 1:1 classroom assistance, and environmental- and
behavioral-modifications....his IEP runs about a dozen pages, to cover all
the specifics...
>
> > "Having a name for your problems is unlikely to help you get
better"...what
> > is the purpose of this statement? To dissuade people from trying to
> > determine the cause/name of their problems?
>
> Knowing the name doesn't not determine the cause. There never is one
> cause, there's usually hundreds. If you can find the most easily
> changed causes of your problems that don't cause other ones, you're
> almost there.
Do you need to know what "caused" cancer to determine its treatment? Do you
need to know what "caused" asthma to determine its treatment? Diabetes,
allergies (note, "cause" not trigger--these are two separate things), near-
and far-sightedness...well, you should get the concept by now..
But knowing the name is important to determining the treatment...
>
> > Running away from your problems will not make them go away, but will
make
> > the affects of them worse...
>
> Might do, as can focussing on them, or inferring further limitations
> from them.
You conveniently snipped the examples I gave...
...tell me, are you implying that a diabetic should not place limitations on
herself becuse of the diabetes? That she should not modify/limit her diet
(i.e., shouldn't focus on making sure she is eating properly, but just eat
what she wants, when she wants)? Should she not remain aware of what she
eats, what her exercise is, and what her blood sugar level is?
...are you saying that the person with high blood pressure should not be
aware of what he does that can make it worse? Should not put limits on his
salt intake (if doctor prescribed), should not put limits on caloric intake,
put limits on his sedentary lifestyle? I.e., should he not remain aware of
what he eats, and what he does?
There *are* some limitations, and the wise person admits when he has
them....I do not say that one should not go to the limits of one's
abilities, but one also has to be realistic...one cannot expect someone like
Steven Hawkings to get up, and walk...but I would hardly accuse him of
limiting his hoirizons because of his disabilities.
>
> > My son is autistic, I am not...but I can "produce the symptoms" by
mimicing
> > him...but when I am done, I can stop-he cannot.
> >
> > I am ADHD, and can produce the symptoms-probably easier than you can.
>
> What do you have to do to produce the symptoms, both with yours and
> your sons?
Simply go off meds (for those of us who are taking them), and have a day
with no routine at all...this will often produce the ADHD symptoms of
bouncing off the walls and of distractability in the ADHD. The autism,
requiring routine even more to cope with the inherent unpredictable
perception of their processing disability-i.e., they need a LOT of structure
to make sense of the world that they see as chaotic-failing to follow
routine, unannounced changes, and too much stimulation of his sensory
hypersensitivity will "do the trick". My husband says that any time I am in
a large, crowded place (a busy club would be one example), I "zone out"...my
tactile- and auditory-hypersensitivity is not as great as my son's, but
sensory overload does the same thing-causes either shut-down or melt-down...
Meds help, being aware of the situation helps (such as always making sure
that there is an "escape route" in the crowded place...when I get to "too
much input", I leave for a while-same with my son), structured environment,
"prepping" (making sure that he knows what is going to happen), and allowing
for sensory download...
Oh, yeah, one *is* usually kept very aware of comping mechanisms--and
medication is one very *samll* part...but why do so many people zero in on
it?
>
> >The difference is, while you can "turn them off", I cannot-without
> medication.
> > You say, "I am not stuck that way"...of course not, because you are
"faking"
> > what is real in others...just like the kid who "produces symptoms" of
> > illness to avoid school, but is not stuck that way and feels better as
soon
> > as the bus passes him by...
>
> I learnt to be flexible. But like I say, my problems were different
> from yours and YMMV.
I am glad you admit that...I have ADHD-you apparently do not (since you can
"turn it off")
> >
> > Do you believe that there is no such thing as mental illness? No such
thing
> > as mental disability? If so, then what makes that organ immune to such
> > difference-every other organ in the body can be affected by illness or
> > disability...why not this one?
>
> Define illness, disability and what constitutes a "thing" and I'll
> answer your question. It's pointless to make logical arguments on
> vague concepts.
Funny, because I asked you the same thing elsewhere in this thread-one
poster was talking about her ADHD, and you called it a mental illness...
Disability: inability to pursue an occupation because of physical or mental
impairment
....impair: to damage or make worse by or as if by diminishing in some
material respect <his health was impaired by overwork>
Illness: an unhealthy condition of body or mind
Disorder: to disturb the regular or normal functions of
... all definitions from http://www.m-w.com/ Miriam-Webster online
Oh...and from the same source:
Thing: 1 a : a matter of concern : a particular state of affairs
Using these definitions;
Do you believe that there is no such particular state of affairs such as an
unhealthy condition of the mind?
Do you believe that there is no such particular state of affairs such as an
inability to pursue an occupation [and I consider learning to be the primary
occupation of children] because of mental impairment?
Do you believe that there is no such particular state of affairs as a brain
that does not function the same way that the average person's does?
If you do not believe these, then what makes the brain immune to such
difference-every other organ in the boddy can be affected by being in poor
health, why not the brain?
>
> I will say that the nervous system has many differences to other
> organs in the body. It is at least a billion times more complex in
> terms of it's ability to encode and process information. It's also
> the one most easily affected by changing the way you think.
I do believe that on'e outlook can influence one's prognosis...but I do not
believe that one can think oneself well...tell me, if someone as brilliant
as Steven Hawkings is still in a wheelchair and uses a computer to
communicate-why didn't he think himself well?
Do you go to the doctor for *anything*? Why? Why not think yourself well?
Do you ever take aspirin for a headache? Or any kind of pain reliever?
Why? It is "all in your head"-think it away...
>
> Even the placebo effect has produced a measurable change in the brain:
> http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99991732
Ever take a placebo for extreme pain? Doesn't always work...
Buny
SumBuny
> placebo effect at best. So do medications to a large degree.
Medications produce a placebo effect, to a large degree...is that what I
read here?
Hmmm...then you would say that aspirin is not much more than convincing your
mind that you are not in pain?
....ever hear of prostaglandins?
.... http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary entry ""any of various oxygenated
unsaturated cyclic fatty acids of animals that perform a variety of
hormonelike actions (as in controlling blood pressure or smooth muscle
contraction) ""
Aspirin, and other non-steroidal anti-inflammatory medications, has the
effect of reducing the production of these fatty acids in the body. These
fatty acids are what the body uses to transmit pain, and less transmitters,
less pain...
I.e., aspirin is NOT "placebo", but actually causes a biochemical change in
the body-not only reducing the levels of prostaglandins in the system (which
can be measured), but reduces inflammation as well...
Migraines...caused by dialation of blood vessels in the brain, and possibly
misfiring neurons--no amount of convincing the brain it doesn't hurt is
going to change that-but proper medication can and does.
What would you do for a patient that had lower than normal levels of a
biochemical in his system-say, insulin? Would you give a placebo, or would
you give insulin to raise the levels to normal? If the biochemical were
potassium? If it were iron? If it were dopamine?
>
> I often wonder why placebo rates of improvement are rarely publicised.
> This page suggests that placebo works 50% of the time:
> http://www.helpforadd.com/medmon.htm
Remember to ask for a placebo only if you or your family is admitted to the
hospital for anything-accident, pnuemonia, heart attack, stroke...etc.
>
> But what the hell are we measuring here? Breggin says
Ahhhh...now we find out his sources....sounds like it is his only one...
Most of us here have researched from several-if not hundreds-of
sources/people over the years... "Breggin says" is in a definate *minority*
when it comes to ADHD research...one wonders why he and only a handful of
docs say one thing, when hundred others say something totally
different...And have been rather consistant over the decades.
>
> I have not talked about my expertise
....apparently....
> or the results I get because I'm
> not trying to sell anything here and I know that most people respond
> negatively to that sort of thing. Yet while I might get results with
> people diagnosed with ADHD, that's no guarantee that anyone else will.
But you are right, and most here are wrong?
>
> I think NLP is probably unique in that it advocates finding out how a
> particular problem works for each person. In other words, we all have
> unique problems which require unique solutions.
No argument here...so why degrade the choice of medication if that works for
the patient?
>
> > > I believe that ADHD is a category in DSM-IV that describes a set of
> > > symptoms. It says very little about who the diagnosis is given to and
> > > that arguing whether it's real or not seems to be a waste of time.
> >
> > I disagree. If you believe it is "not real" then you are denying the
> > biological and genetic basis for ADHD--and that denial has consequences.
>
> If you go along with current biological and genetic scientific belief
> for some ADHD diagnoses, chances are you're also buying into those
> limitations.
> I don't state this as fact, I state it as a potential trap.
If you go along with the current biological and genetic scientific belief
for some ....oh, let's say congenital blindness....chances are you're alos
buying into these limitations...so, using a parallel, are you implying one
can do away with physical limitations-that one born blind can see if he only
tries hard enough?
We have heard this one before...."If you only tried harder, you could
stop.....[insert ADHD trait here]"
> Are you talking about ADHD as a label? Or ADHD as a group of people
> who suffer similar symptoms (but not necessarily causes)?
>
> Many of my clients were made worse by medication. All of them were
> limited to some degree by their beliefs about what their diagnosis
> meant to them.
Most here who use medication see medication as a tool-like glasses- and
nothing more...
>
> There are at least two respondents in this thread who presupposed that
> ADHD is a problem you'll have for the rest of your life. The ones who
> made it round to finding me were those who refused to accept that
> belief.
ADHD can be a problem, if not treated properly...if your ADHD traits are not
allowing you to so what you want, it is a problem (if your job involves
sitting around quietly for hours, doing repetitious tasks, then your ADHD is
a problem). However, if you have a situation where ADHD traits are
advantageous ( a job that involves paying attention to a lot of different
things at once-multitaksing...lots of physical activity if hyper, etc), the
ADHD is not a "prblem".
Have you ever read Thom Hartmann's book on the subject-the Hunter/Farmer
Theory? _ADD: A Different Perspective_ ADHD is only a "problem" when those
with it have to conform to people without it....but in the right
environment, ADHDers excel, and nonADHDers fail. Unfortunately, most
environments are slanted towards those without ADHD...and Hartmann explains
why.
>
> Information or misinformation. The problem is that people often
> assume that ADHD (or BPD or whatever) has a common causal structure
> that has to be treated the same way.
Not the well-informed...but you are right-many who preach anti-meds seem to
think it can only be treated by meds alone-and that those who choose meds as
part of therpay are doing just that...
>
> > So many individuals with ADHD are given labels like "lazy, stupid,
> > unmotivated" and they try to find ways to make themselves less "lazy,
> > stupid, unmotivated." Nothing works, because they are not lazy, stupid
> > or unmotivated. They end up depressed, frustrated, confused.
>
> Good point.
>
> > Then they get the diagnosis, ADHD. They're *not* "lazy, stupid,
> > unmotivated!"
>
> Right, but instead they're convinced they'll have those problems for
> the rest of their lives. Kids "grow out of" things all the time,
> unless they're told they have an incurable disease of course.
And for those of us who were NOT diagnosed as kids, but as adults?
> > > Misinformation by corporations that each sell $30bn worth of drugs
> > > each year.
> >
> > What misinformation is that?
>
> That drugs are the only way to get better. Same thing all successful
> corporations do: "Our product is the best way for you to be who you
> want to be".
Most of us who choose medication are using it as a very small part of the
bigger picture...I only wish that meds alone would help-I wouldn't have to
spend so much energy keep so much structure in my (and my kids) life, and
keeping the sensory input at tolerable levels...
>
> > > > Where did your "knowledge" about ADHD come from?
> > >
> > > 6 years of clinical experience.
> >
> > Doing clinical hypnosis? I guess that explains your take on ADHD a bit.
>
> So stick me in a box, why don't you? No, I don't just do clinical
> hypnosis (which is just a parameter rather than a treatment), my
> background is in NLP which says "do what works and look for what will
> work better".
> And since I get much better results than those with medical degrees
> (not hard)...
And if environmental-/behavioral-modifications alone works, but combining
those with medication works better....why all the fuss about using
medication?
> > So how much do you know about the current state of scientific/medical
> > research WRT ADHD and its treatment?
>
> I try to keep up to date, but I find most of it irrelevant to actually
> helping my clients.
So you prefer to not try to keep improving on what you have, but remain
stuck in a box?
> > > In fact, I do it a lot when it's advantageous - I'm just not stuck
that way.
> >
> > If you can get "unstuck" you have not produced ADHD symptoms in
> > yourself, no matter how convinced you are that you have.
>
> Do you really think you own the definition of what is and isn't a
> symptom of ADHD?
Do you? Most here use the DSM...or the British equivalent (I, um forgot
it...)
>
> > > Now, you probably noticed more than any other respondent that in my
> > > previous messages I said nothing about ADHD except that it is
> > > illogical and self-defeating to talk about whether it objectively
> > > exists. And that goes for all DSM-IV categories.
> >
> > I find accepting the fact that ADHD--and other DSM-IV diagnoses
> > objectively exists to be entirely logical and quite purposeful.
>
> How can someone's beliefs objectively exist?
Good point....the only thing is observable behavior...tell me does your mind
exist? Or are you just a set of neurochemical impulses? Who/what *is* it
that makes "Dave" different from "Joe"? I.e., if this were true, then why
are identical twins different people? Shouldn't they think/behave/believe
exactly the same?
Oh, and if you *are* just a bunch of neurochemical impulses-what does it
mean when your brain does not produce normal amounts of a certain chemical
(like a diabetic pancreas produces insufficient insulin), such as dopamine?
Buny
Vashti
> That drugs change the blood flow in your brain?
>
> Erm, even placebo can do that:
>
Heck, you don't even need a placebo for that!
What *is* this box you're stuck in?
Vashti
Vashti
>> Right, but instead they're convinced they'll have those problems for
>> the rest of their lives. Kids "grow out of" things all the time,
>> unless they're told they have an incurable disease of course.
>
>
> And for those of us who were NOT diagnosed as kids, but as adults?
Or those who've believed that they would "grow out of" their forgetful,
scattered behaviour ever since childhood. Just have to practise and
try different organising techniques etc...yep!
I'll be fine, just need to grow up I suppose...
Vashti
Joe Parsons
[snip]
>Where did I claim to be well-researched?
How about here:
On 11 Apr 2002 03:30:32 -0700, in alt.support.attn-deficit you wrote:
>> Where did your "knowledge" about ADHD come from?
>
>6 years of clinical experience.
I'm reasonably sure (and please confirm, if you would) that what you mean by
"clinical experience" is either NLP or hypnosis. If it's the latter, and since
you're claiming expertise as a basis of your statement(s), then a question
regarding your credentials is in order.
What are your credentials in the realm of diagnosing and treating ADHD?
>These pathetic attacks are boring me. Which is a shame because a few of
>you have a similar appetite for learning to me.
And yet, strangely, we see so few responses from you that are other than
diversions or further insults.
Why is that?
Joe Parsons
>When you can actually come up with something interesting, or answer the
>questions put to you, I'll respond again.
>
>Dave, http://www.deep-trance.com
----------------------------------------------------------------
Streaming Multimedia production and delivery--served with a SMILe
http://www.yankeemedia.net
Vashti
> These pathetic attacks are boring me. Which is a shame because a
> few of you have a similar appetite for learning to me.
How can you expect to have a discussion when you keep insulting people?
How can you learn without being open?
> When you can actually come up with something interesting, or
> answer the questions put to you, I'll respond again.
Well, let's be fair, if you answer the questions put to you, *and*
come up with something interesting, you could respond again.
Ok?
Vashti
Elizabeth
> Just about every psychotherapy under the sun has a section on how your
> parents helped you create most of your problems.
and your evidence is?
Elizabeth
typed:
> On Fri, 12 Apr 2002 09:10:42 -0700, Elizabeth <eliz...@see.sig>
> wrote:
>
> >On 12 Apr 2002 06:01:50 -0700, da...@deep-trance.com (David Gould)
> >typed:
>
> Hmm, you forgot to quote anything from me.
Oh geeeee. How very forgetful that was. hm........
> >Do you even know where the brain is? Okok...that's a little far, but
> >there is a science called neurology. It's very interesting, you
> >should study it some time. Have you gone to brainplace.com and taken
> >a look at the SPECT scans? What do you think of those?
>
> That drugs change the blood flow in your brain?
Um...these SPECT scans are taken of "normal" people and people
neurological disorders *without* medication and with. You should've
read a little more into it before making this wrong conclusion
Caitriona Mac Fhiodhbhuidhe
wrote:
<snipped>
>The notion that the regulars in this newsgroup have closed minds is
>quite laughable. You're kind of in the position of the new and clueless
>second lieutenant who stands up in front of a company of infantrymen
>(that used to be a division) who have just survived the Battle of
>Gettysburg and starts telling them that everything they have learned
>about infantry combat is wrong. It is possible that you _may_ know
>something that we collectively do not, but if you're going to convince
>us you're going to show us.
>
I like that comparison.
Kitten
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
You can always tell a Texan, but you can't tell him much. - Chris Wall
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Courage, Real courage, is no quick fix. It doesn't come in a bottle
or a pill, It comes from discipline. From taking everything life
hands you and being your best either because of it or in spite of it.
-- Ty Murray
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
J. Clarke
trance.com says...
> nknisley <nkni...@bcpl.net> wrote in message news:<3CB48FF3...@bcpl.net>...
> > Well, at least WRT your own post, you know that you have have a chip on
> > your shoulder, and are motivated to respond, and think you know better,
> > and have nothing better to do.
>
> Indeed.
>
> I'm replying to your message as it's the only one which didn't
> demonstrate my point entirely.
>
> > As for the others who responded to the original post to this thread,
> > unless we've told you what motivated our posts in this thread, or you
> > are a long-time lurker of ASAD and therefore know pretty well what
> > generally "motivates" the regular posters to post, or you can read
> > minds, you have no way of knowing if anyone who responded has "a chip on
> > their shoulder."
>
> Like I said, it seems to be common to all such threads in support
> groups.
>
> > But, I will say that IIRC, those who responded to Andrew gave him good
> > information and, therefore, apparently do "know better."
>
> Indeed and I'm glad you are capable of interpreting things in multiple
> ways :)
>
> > Now, is there anything specific in the responses Andrew got from the
> > other participants in this thread that you feel is incorrect?
>
> Incorrect? I don't think I need to go there...
> No, was just wishing to creak a few more minds open.
Dude, you have no idea how much effort it to to "creak" _my_ mind open
far enough for me to grasp the concept that ADHD was more than just a
liberal fad used to excuse poor teaching and poor parenting. And you
have no idea how much _more_ effort it took to "creak" it to the extent
that I realized that perhaps I _had_ it.
The notion that the regulars in this newsgroup have closed minds is
quite laughable. You're kind of in the position of the new and clueless
second lieutenant who stands up in front of a company of infantrymen
(that used to be a division) who have just survived the Battle of
Gettysburg and starts telling them that everything they have learned
about infantry combat is wrong. It is possible that you _may_ know
something that we collectively do not, but if you're going to convince
us you're going to show us.
> > > Anyway, I thought I'd point out that talking in terms of whether ADHD
> > > is real or exists is much the same as asking whether love is real or
> > > exists.
> >
> > > For example, for some people, love is a spiritual place outside the
> > > boundaries of our universe. And for others, it is just a feeling.
> >
> > So, do you believe that ADHD is a "spiritual place outside the
> > boundaries of our universe" or just a subjective "feeling"?
>
> I believe that ADHD is a category in DSM-IV that describes a set of
> symptoms. It says very little about who the diagnosis is given to and
> that arguing whether it's real or not seems to be a waste of time.
>
> > And, on what do you base that opinion?
>
> As for the first sentence, DSM-IV itself says as much.
> As for what it means about a person who is given the diagnosis, well,
> diagnosing is one of the few things where many people don't mind being
> put in a box.
> Seeing as I've treated lots of people with ADHD, and what worked for
> each didn't/wouldn't work with any of the others, it seems that having
> a name for your problems is unlikely to help you get better.
What treatments did you use? And with what success?
> > What is the cause of the chip on your shoulder, at least WRT ADHD?
>
> Misinformation by corporations that each sell $30bn worth of drugs
> each year.
Would you care to state exactly what that "misinformation" might be, and
provide some evidence to demonstrate its inaccuracy? And would you also
provide us the information which leads you to believe that two or more
corporations _each_ sell $30bn worth of ADHD medications each year?
> > And why is it that you think you "know better" than the other posters
> > who replied to Andrew?
>
> Now that's an interesting question ;)
Yes, it is. An even more interesting question is "why is it that you
did not answer that question which you admit is interesting"?
> > Where did your "knowledge" about ADHD come from?
>
> 6 years of clinical experience.
>
> > Do you have ADHD? Does someone in your family or someone else close to
> > you have it? Do you have any expertise WRT ADHD?
>
> Whilst I have no need to be diagnosed, I can easily produce the
> symptoms of ADHD in myself. In fact, I do it a lot when it's
> advantageous - I'm just not stuck that way.
You do do you? And you make them persist for 6 or more months to a
degree that is maladaptive and inconsistent with developmental level?
And you find this "advantageous"? You also make "Some hyperactive,
impulsive, or inattentive symptoms that caused impairment were present
before age 7 years" happen at will? You have a time machine perhaps?
I won't bother to ask you about "There must be clear evidence of
clinically significant impairment in social, academic, or occupational
functioning" as your manner of interacting with this newsgroup clearly
demonstrates the presence of same--perhaps if you tried turning it off,
since you claim to have the ability to do so, people would treat you a
bit better.
> Now, you probably noticed more than any other respondent that in my
> previous messages I said nothing about ADHD except that it is
> illogical and self-defeating to talk about whether it objectively
> exists. And that goes for all DSM-IV categories.
So you admit it exists, you assert that it doesn't, or you don't make
any assertion at all. Which is it? If you're asserting that it exists,
why bother to make such an assertion, if you're asserting that it
doesn't exist then you're in the wrong newsgroup--there's one
specifically for that assertion, and if you're making no assertion at
all then why bring the matter up?
> So to answer your other question, I "know better" not about everyone's
> unique situation (how could I?), but I do know that the way we think
> about our problems changes them. And if you make your problems real,
"If you _make_ your problems real"? Why would anyone, especially
someone who is firmly convinced that ADHD is not a real disorder and the
medications are cruel abuse of children go to see a psychiatrist and
request diagnosis if that person had not first come to recognize that he
was experiencing _real_ problems?
> and believe they can only be treated in one or two ways (especially
> ones that don't work for most people),
So what ways do you know of that are more likely to work than the "one
or two ways" that are normally used to tread ADHD? Or are you
suggesting that one should not waste one's time on unproven snake oil
merely because one has been convinced by an unctuous salesman that is is
the One and Only Good, Right, and True Way to treat ADHD?
> you are severely limiting your
> chances of getting better.
Does the word "chronic" mean anything to you? While there might be some
way to "cure" ADHD, medical science has not yet discovered it, or if
they have they are not yet aware of it. If you believe you have such a
"cure" then do put it through clinical trials and market it. But first
ask yourself if people with ADHD _want_ to be _cured_. Many would
rather be able to turn it on and off at will than have it go away
permanently. Then tell us what the _side_ _effects_ and the
_consequences_ of your "cure" are.
And until you have done that, do not behave like the lowest of low-life
scum in the snake-oil pond and try to feed people false hope of a
"cure".
>
> Dave, http://www.deep-trance.com
>
--
--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
(used to be jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
Elizabeth
typed:
Yes....<hick>....I wonder why....<hick>....someone would....what was my
point....<hick>...oh yesh....being drunk *can* be fun....if you
....<hick>...know what you're doing. But eventually, one sobers
up.....er....<hick>....I'll stop while I'm ahead.----
David Gould
anything you can't find an answer to, feel free to let me know.
On Sat, 13 Apr 2002 03:03:56 -0400, J. Clarke <nos...@nospam.invalid>
wrote:
>What treatments did you use?
I treat each patient individually. I ignore what the diagnosis manual
says and find out what they need to change to live the way they want to.
I use NLP, hypnosis, acupressure, recommend diet changes etc.
>And with what success?
Like I'm going to answer that one...! Let me just say I know several
people who have a 80+% success rate.
>And would you also
>provide us the information which leads you to believe that two or more
>corporations _each_ sell $30bn worth of ADHD medications each year?
That's not what I wrote. I said medications, not ADHD medications.
>> Now, you probably noticed more than any other respondent that in my
>> previous messages I said nothing about ADHD except that it is
>> illogical and self-defeating to talk about whether it objectively
>> exists. And that goes for all DSM-IV categories.
>
>So you admit it exists, you assert that it doesn't, or you don't make
>any assertion at all. Which is it?
Is it that difficult to understand?
Like I said originally, does love exist? Depends on how you do it and
what your definition of what "exist" is.
Is it the same for everyone? No.
>> So to answer your other question, I "know better" not about everyone's
>> unique situation (how could I?), but I do know that the way we think
>> about our problems changes them. And if you make your problems real,
>
>"If you _make_ your problems real"? Why would anyone, especially
>someone who is firmly convinced that ADHD is not a real disorder and the
>medications are cruel abuse of children go to see a psychiatrist and
>request diagnosis if that person had not first come to recognize that he
>was experiencing _real_ problems?
The problem is in the definition of real. I am certain that all of you
subjectively experience major difficulties associated with ADHD/ADD.
That is not enough for most people. Some people need more proof than I
do.
So most of you have decided (with zero direct evidence for your personal
situation), that you have:
a) chemical imbalance - whatever that is supposed to be. Or
b) "ADHD" genes
Upon deciding this, you have severely limited any chances you had of
getting better.
>Or are you
>suggesting that one should not waste one's time on unproven snake oil
>merely because one has been convinced by an unctuous salesman that is is
>the One and Only Good, Right, and True Way to treat ADHD?
Certainly that. But also to understand a little more about your own
unique needs and to look for solutions on that basis.
>> you are severely limiting your
>> chances of getting better.
>
>Does the word "chronic" mean anything to you?
Yes, it means the diagnoser is either psychic or an arsehole.
>While there might be some
>way to "cure" ADHD, medical science has not yet discovered it, or if
>they have they are not yet aware of it.
Talking about curing ADHD is like talking about curing cancer. Many
cancers can be cured. Many cannot.
>If you believe you have such a
>"cure" then do put it through clinical trials and market it.
Not easy to market something which is a skillful process. Thom Hartmann
has done so though.
>But first
>ask yourself if people with ADHD _want_ to be _cured_. Many would
>rather be able to turn it on and off at will than have it go away
>permanently.
Sounds like a cure to me. But tell me, if you could turn it off, what
would you be doing instead?
>Then tell us what the _side_ _effects_ and the _consequences_ of your "cure" are.
Side effects: all the usual ones eg some people like having an excuse.
Not anyone here of course...
>And until you have done that, do not behave like the lowest of low-life
>scum in the snake-oil pond
I would ask what exactly did I do to make you think that. But obviously
you weren't really thinking.
>and try to feed people false hope of a "cure".
Oh jeez, did you even think about what you wrote? Was this whole post
an excuse to justify your anger?
Where would you be without hope? alt.support.depression?
David Gould
>On 12 Apr 2002 06:24:23 -0700, da...@deep-trance.com (David Gould) typed:
>
>> Just about every psychotherapy under the sun has a section on how your
>> parents helped you create most of your problems.
>
>and your evidence is?
You expect me to name and quote the recognised experts of the hundreds
of different psychotherapies?
Why don't you name just _five_ that don't?
I dare you.
David Gould
>> >Do you even know where the brain is? Okok...that's a little far, but
>> >there is a science called neurology. It's very interesting, you
>> >should study it some time. Have you gone to brainplace.com and taken
>> >a look at the SPECT scans? What do you think of those?
>>
>> That drugs change the blood flow in your brain?
>
>Um...these SPECT scans are taken of "normal" people and people
>neurological disorders *without* medication and with.
And?
>You should've read a little more into it before making this wrong conclusion
I think perhaps you shouldn't have be so gullible about something with
pretty pictures in it.
David Gould
wrote:
>> The question: "So, do you believe that ADHD is a "spiritual place
>> outside the boundaries of our universe" or just a subjective
>> "feeling"?"
>>
>> My answer is neither. As to whether ADHD exists or not, again my
>> answer is neither. That one's not a logical question.
>
>The answer puts you squarely "on the fence"...
According to you. I've even told you what's illogical about the
question.
>tell me, do you do the same
>for other things, such as pain? It is subjective. If you go to your doctor
>for pain relief (pick you pain...migraine, sciatica, abdominal pain,
>etc)...and he were to tell you that he didn't know if your pain existed or
>not...you would probably be a tad upset with him, no?
Not any more but I've already said that this is a significant reason why
people try to make their problems more real.
>Oh, and do you really need to know the cause of your headache to reach for
>the aspirin? Per your comments below, that is..
I haven't taken any pain-killers for 5 years. I will go for novocaine
when I get some fillings done soon though...
If the cause of your headache was a brain tumour, you'd probably want to
do more than reach for aspirin.
Most of you have bigger problems than headaches, but I find they usually
have a positive function - might be diet, some kind of conflict etc.
Resolve the problem and the headaches go away forever.
>Multi-modal interventions including medication, speech therapy, occupational
>therapy, 1:1 classroom assistance, and environmental- and
>behavioral-modifications....his IEP runs about a dozen pages, to cover all
>the specifics...
What makes that proper?
>> > "Having a name for your problems is unlikely to help you get
>better"...what
>> > is the purpose of this statement? To dissuade people from trying to
>> > determine the cause/name of their problems?
>>
>> Knowing the name doesn't not determine the cause. There never is one
>> cause, there's usually hundreds. If you can find the most easily
>> changed causes of your problems that don't cause other ones, you're
>> almost there.
>
>Do you need to know what "caused" cancer to determine its treatment? Do you
>need to know what "caused" asthma to determine its treatment?
I'm not talking about "caused", I'm talking about ongoing causes that
you can change.
For example, most people aren't very good at relaxing. If you could
relax in any situation, would that help?
>Diabetes, allergies (note, "cause" not trigger--these are two separate things), near-
>and far-sightedness...well, you should get the concept by now..
I've cured a lot of allergies, had a diabetic client (significant
improvement but he ran out of money) but am still very short-sighted,
despite trying for 6+ years to improve that.
Your definition of "trigger" may well be similar to what I meant by
"cause".
>But knowing the name is important to determining the treatment...
Well, yes, if you have a broken leg, or a pulmonary aneurism. Minds are
much more complex and a simple name will never describe an individual
problem nor any possible solutions.
>You conveniently snipped the examples I gave...
My apologies, I do have a <snip> macro, I haven't written much on Usenet
in a while.
>...tell me, are you implying that a diabetic should not place limitations on
>herself becuse of the diabetes?
Temporary limitations of course.
>...are you saying that the person with high blood pressure should not be
>aware of what he does that can make it worse?
Nope.
>> What do you have to do to produce the symptoms, both with yours and
>> your sons?
>
>Simply go off meds (for those of us who are taking them), and have a day
>with no routine at all...this will often produce the ADHD symptoms of
>bouncing off the walls and of distractability in the ADHD. The autism,
>requiring routine even more to cope with the inherent unpredictable
>perception of their processing disability-i.e., they need a LOT of structure
>to make sense of the world that they see as chaotic-failing to follow
>routine, unannounced changes, and too much stimulation of his sensory
>hypersensitivity will "do the trick". My husband says that any time I am in
>a large, crowded place (a busy club would be one example), I "zone out"...my
>tactile- and auditory-hypersensitivity is not as great as my son's, but
>sensory overload does the same thing-causes either shut-down or melt-down...
Can you think of anything specific that you can do or think which might
cause some of the symptoms within a few minutes/hours even if you're on
meds?
>Meds help, being aware of the situation helps (such as always making sure
>that there is an "escape route" in the crowded place...when I get to "too
>much input", I leave for a while-same with my son), structured environment,
>"prepping" (making sure that he knows what is going to happen), and allowing
>for sensory download...
I've had a few clients talk about something similar to "sensory
download". How do you do that?
>Oh, yeah, one *is* usually kept very aware of comping mechanisms--and
>medication is one very *samll* part...but why do so many people zero in on
>it?
You mean apart from being indoctrinated into believing it's the only way
to get better?
>> > Do you believe that there is no such thing as mental illness? No such
>thing
>> > as mental disability? If so, then what makes that organ immune to such
>> > difference-every other organ in the body can be affected by illness or
>> > disability...why not this one?
>>
>> Define illness, disability and what constitutes a "thing" and I'll
>> answer your question. It's pointless to make logical arguments on
>> vague concepts.
>
>Funny, because I asked you the same thing elsewhere in this thread-one
>poster was talking about her ADHD, and you called it a mental illness...
>Disability: inability to pursue an occupation because of physical or mental
>impairment
does that include a temporary inability?
inability according to whom?
>....impair: to damage or make worse by or as if by diminishing in some
>material respect <his health was impaired by overwork>
You know you have brain damage if you have a neurological trauma (car
crash for example).
Worse/diminishing are subjective. Worse for what? Sometimes worse for
one thing means better for something else.
>Illness: an unhealthy condition of body or mind
Define unhealthy. I would say "body AND mind" - they seem to be
intimately linked. Some people even say "bodymind".
>Disorder: to disturb the regular or normal functions of
Regular/normal according to whom?
>Using these definitions;
>Do you believe that there is no such particular state of affairs such as an
>unhealthy condition of the mind?
Healthy for some things, unhealthy for others.
>Do you believe that there is no such particular state of affairs such as an
>inability to pursue an occupation [and I consider learning to be the primary
>occupation of children] because of mental impairment?
Well, you could be in a coma...
Some children don't learn well in their environments. Sometimes it's a
bad mismatch with the teaching style or classmates or something else.
Another example, I couldn't do most of the jobs that are around - I'd
find them too dull.
>Do you believe that there is no such particular state of affairs as a brain
>that does not function the same way that the average person's does?
No-one's brain functions the same way that the average person's does.
>If you do not believe these, then what makes the brain immune to such
>difference-every other organ in the boddy can be affected by being in poor
>health, why not the brain?
That's a slightly different question.
"Poor health" to me implies possible improvement (without drugs).
It is of course possible that you have brain damage. I don't for a
minute believe that more than 5% of people here have any kind of
permanent brain damage/disfunction.
But I bet more than that believe they have.
>> I will say that the nervous system has many differences to other
>> organs in the body. It is at least a billion times more complex in
>> terms of it's ability to encode and process information. It's also
>> the one most easily affected by changing the way you think.
>
>I do believe that on'e outlook can influence one's prognosis...but I do not
>believe that one can think oneself well...tell me, if someone as brilliant
>as Steven Hawkings is still in a wheelchair and uses a computer to
>communicate-why didn't he think himself well?
Not too familiar with motor neuron disease. I have treated MS.
To think yourself well, you have to know how, which is almost like
looking for a needle in a haystack.
>Do you go to the doctor for *anything*?
No. I do see an optician although I hope not to need to in future.
And I am going to see a dentist - not figured out how to regenerate
teeth easily.
>Why? Why not think yourself well?
I do.
>Do you ever take aspirin for a headache? Or any kind of pain reliever?
No.
>Why? It is "all in your head"-think it away...
I do.
>> Even the placebo effect has produced a measurable change in the brain:
>> http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99991732
>
>Ever take a placebo for extreme pain? Doesn't always work...
Works more often than you might imagine.
Caitriona Mac Fhiodhbhuidhe
wrote:
<snipped>
>On Sat, 13 Apr 2002 03:03:56 -0400, J. Clarke <nos...@nospam.invalid>
>wrote:
>
<snipped>
>
>>And with what success?
>
>Like I'm going to answer that one...! Let me just say I know several
>people who have a 80+% success rate.
>
Is there a reason you are reticent abt giving us a bit more
information WRT your success rate?
Joe Parsons
>I've answered most of your questions already elsewhere. If there's
>anything you can't find an answer to, feel free to let me know.
Why do you assume any of us ask you questions because we can't find an answer,
David? Do you think it's possible that we might want to learn the basis for
*your* assertions? Or that, based on statements you've made here, you might be
given more "rope," so to speak?
>On Sat, 13 Apr 2002 03:03:56 -0400, J. Clarke <nos...@nospam.invalid>
>wrote:
>
>>What treatments did you use?
>
>I treat each patient individually. I ignore what the diagnosis manual
>says and find out what they need to change to live the way they want to.
>I use NLP, hypnosis, acupressure, recommend diet changes etc.
Uh huh. Right.
>>And with what success?
>
>Like I'm going to answer that one...! Let me just say I know several
>people who have a 80+% success rate.
So, you're having no success at all, eh?
[snip]
>The problem is in the definition of real.
And thank you so much for dropping in on us today, Mr. Clinton...
>I am certain that all of you
>subjectively experience major difficulties associated with ADHD/ADD.
Upon what do you base this certainty?
>That is not enough for most people. Some people need more proof than I
>do.
>So most of you have decided (with zero direct evidence for your personal
>situation), that you have:
Interesting that you would make such an assertion about "evidence." Mind telling
me how many people "most of you" is? And how you arrived at that conclusion?
[snip]
>>Does the word "chronic" mean anything to you?
>
>Yes, it means the diagnoser is either psychic or an arsehole.
Funny. And here I've always thought it meant "of long duration, progress and
continuance." Silly me. I must be psychic or an arsehole. Please alert the
media.
[snip]
>>If you believe you have such a
>>"cure" then do put it through clinical trials and market it.
>Not easy to market something which is a skillful process. Thom Hartmann
>has done so though.
That comes as some surprise to those of us who know Thom personally. Gosh. I
certainly hope you're right--maybe *I'll* get to be the one who submits Thom's
name to the Nobel Prize Committee.
Joe Parsons
nknisley
That's called shifting the burden of proof, Dave.
You made the assertion that "every psychotherapy" would show how
Elizabeth's parents helped create most of her problems.
Now, you need to provide support for that assertion.
You can, perhaps, start out with a few current experts on ADHD.
Nancy
Unique, like everyone else
nknisley
>
> nknisley <nkni...@bcpl.net> wrote in message news:<3CB64B12...@bcpl.net>...
<snip>
> > > > Now, is there anything specific in the responses Andrew got from the
> > > > other participants in this thread that you feel is incorrect?
> > >
> > > Incorrect? I don't think I need to go there...
> >
> > You only need to go there if you want to make your objections to the
> > posts to that thread clear.
>
> Do I want to make them clear? I have already achieved what I set out
> to do. I am only responding because you keep posting back interesting
> replies!
> > > No, was just wishing to creak a few more minds open.
If that is what you really were intending to achieve with your original
post to this thread, IMNSHO, you chose an odd way to do so.
You began your post with a blanket insult of everyone who had replied to
Andrew's post, which, at least IMNSHO, is not a particularly good way to
open minds to anything you have to say.
You then continued with some rather incomprehensible philosophical
ramblings equating the "realness" of love with the "realness" of ADHD
and ended with some comments about a BBC Tomorrow's World program, the
meaning of which was not at all clear. Neither of those, IMO, were the
least bit helpful in opening any minds either.
<snip>
> I often wonder why placebo rates of improvement are rarely publicised.
> This page suggests that placebo works 50% of the time:
> http://www.helpforadd.com/medmon.htm
That page may "suggest" that to you, but not to me.
That page says: "Studies have found that when children with ADHD are
given only a placebo, their teacher reports significant improvement over
50% of the time. This may be because there is such a strong expectation
that medication will be helpful, that it is very hard for teachers to be
objective when they know a child has started on medication. Thus,
without carefully comparing a child's behavior and academic performance
during placebo and medication conditions, it can be difficult to be
certain that the medication is truly being helpful."
This quote means that teachers who know a child is taking a medication
may think they see improvement--even when there may not be any
improvement. It does not say that child's behaviors actually improved.
An example: before medication John got out of his seat and wandered
around the classroom at least once an hour. The teacher rated John as
"very often" having trouble staying seated in class. The teacher is then
told
that John is starting medication for ADHD. Even though John continues
leaving his seat and wandering about the classroom about once an hour,
the teacher actually thinks he's now wandering around less than he was
and now rates him as "often" having trouble staying seated.
Bottom line: There's been *no* improvement in behaviors, placebo-caused
or otherwise, despite the teacher's belief that there is,
The misperception of improvement sure doesn't equal actual improvement,
at least IMO.
BTW, one way to handle the problem is to not inform teachers when
children are taking a new medication or have had an change in their
medication, but still ask the teacher for "before" and "during" behavior
assessments.
<snip>
> But what the hell are we measuring here? Breggin says that many
> studies don't even have a placebo control group.
Breggin is not an expert on experimental design and his ignorance (or
dishonesty) shows when he criticizes studies. AFAIK, he has never done
any research, and from what I've read, he cannot even correctly
interpret study results.
I am not an expert on experimental design either, but I do know enough
to know that not all studies require a placebo controlled group, or even
any control group, to be valid (and, often, there are ethical reasons
for not using a control group). Whether a control group is needed or not
depends on the purpose of the study.
IIANM, "open label" studies are fairly common in medicine.
> None have tested long term effects (amphetamines are still classed as Schedule II in
> the US).
The fact that amphetamines are classified as Schedule II has nothing
whatsoever to do with lack of testing for "long term effects."
To be approved in the U.S. by the FDA (Food and Drug Administration) for
treatment of a medical condition, all medications have to proved both
safe and effective. The medications used to treat ADHD have passed those
tests.
It's the DEA (Drug Enforcement Agency), a law enforcement agency, not
the FDA, which decides what medications are put on the controlled
substances list. AFAIK, the DEA puts a medication on Schedule II if: the
medication has a legitimate medical use; it has a high potential for
abuse; and abuse can lead to physical or psychological dependence.
Seeing that methylphenidate has been used for the treatment of ADHD and
other medical conditions for over 50 years now, I think that any common,
serious side effects of its use would have appeared by now.
<snip>
> Most studies are done on boys.
You're not telling any of us anything new.
The fact that most ADHD studies have been done on boys isn't all that
surprising. Until the last decade or so, ADHD was believed to be
primarily a boy's disorder. Current studies show that girls probably
were previously overlooked because they tend towards the inattentive
type of ADHD. In our culture, a quiet, dreamy girl isn't going to get as
much notice as a "climbing up an 8 foot bookcase and jumping from the
top of it" type of girl is.
Now that the inattentive type of ADHD is finally receiving more
attention and being diagnosed more frequently, more girls should be
studied.
Similarly, adults were rarely included in ADHD studies until recently.
Why? Because "children outgrew ADHD at puberty." Now that the medical
community realizes that a large percentage of children with ADHD
continue to show ADHD symptoms into adulthood, ADHD adults will probably
be more widely studied too.
> And who measures the results? Usually
> their shrinks, teachers and parents, ie those who want to control
> their behaviour...
IMO, parents and teachers don't want to control the behaviors of their
children/students. They want children to have control over their own
behaviors.
Stimulants stimulate, not tranquilize. If I wanted to control someone's
behaviors, I don't think stimulating him would be the way I'd go about
it.
Medication puts a child, not parents and teachers, in control of his or
her own behaviors. Without medication, a child cannot control his
wandering mind. On medication, a child can decide where he wants his
mind to go.
Medication doesn't take away a child's free will. A medicated child who
still wants to wander around the
classroom, or talk out of turn, or look out the window and daydream is
still perfectly able to do that.
And, consider that ADHD is a not a childhood disorder. Most of the
posters to ASAD are adults with ADHD.
Think their parents and teachers are still making them take medication
in order to control their behaviors?
<snip>
> So, that might be learning to concentrate on dull things
> (meditation/art is good) or feeling calmer or whatever. Then and only
> then do I suggest you look at ways of doing achieving those things.
So, you are suggesting that a person with ADHD just needs to try a
little harder to concentrate? Riiiggghhhhttt.
The most basic problem with ADHD is that those with it have no control
over whether can concentrate on something or not. Many ADHDers have
trouble concentrating on activities that they don't find dull--like sex,
for instance.
Meditation is near impossible for many with ADHD, so that's not going to
work. (Meditation has been discussed in ASAD. Check the google archives
if you're interested.)
As far as art, I think art has its therapeutic uses, but it's not
necessarily going to effective in teacher someone with ADHD to focus.
While the ADHDer is doing artwork, his or her mind might be bouncing
around between dozens of different thoughts. Plus, a severely
hyperactive child will not to do "art" (or anything else) for more than
a short time, then he's bouncing off to do something else.
> > For one thing, many have already tried many alternatives to
conventional
> > medical treatment, and, after spending lots of money and wasting
> > precious time, they've found the only thing that works is medication.
>
> Not well enough.
What gives you enough knowledge about each individual's situation that
you are able to draw this conclusion for people you don't even know?!!!
> > We have had posters ask if anyone has had success in treating ADHD with
> > NLP. There has never been a "yes" reply. That tells me a great deal.
> > Believe me, if a treatment really works, we'd probably know about it.
>
> NLP is not a treatment.
Whatever it is, to my knowledge, not a single poster in the almost three
years I've been reading ASAD has ever reported any kind of benefit from
using NLP.
If ADHDers had success with NLP, believe me, I think we'd be hearing
about it. Same with hypnosis.
> I have not talked about my expertise or the results I get because I'm
> not trying to sell anything here and I know that most people respond
> negatively to that sort of thing. Yet while I might get results with
> people diagnosed with ADHD, that's no guarantee that anyone else will.
Unless you are prepared to show that someone, somewhere, has been able
to get consistently good results with people diagnosed with ADHD with
*anything*--a medication or an alternative treatment--you are not going
to go very far in convincing most people on this newsgroup that it's
safe and effective.
I think it's probably pretty safe to say that individuals who post to
this ng are unlike to disregard their doctors' advice, information from
ADHD experts, and their own experiences in order to try something that
someone claims "gets results" if the claim is unsupported.
Furthermore, I suspect that most of the readers of this ng are unlikely
to buy into the unsupported claims of someone who, quite frankly,
doesn't seem to know all that much about ADHD (that's you, BTW).
And, unless your "results" can be consistently replicated by others, it
seems to me that your claimed "results" are rather useless.
> I think NLP is probably unique in that it advocates finding out how a
> particular problem works for each person. In other words, we all have
> unique problems which require unique solutions.
>
> For example, my clients diagnosed with ADHD have ranged from the kid
> who is merely bored and gets punished regardless of what he does,
Any child whose problems disappear when his "boredom" is alleviated and
he is no longer punished doesn't meet the DSM criteria for ADHD.
> to the 35 year old for whom being 'hyper' was preferable to all the other
> emotions he could feel.
That's not ADHD under the DSM either.
<snip>
> Many of my clients were made worse by medication.
Which could have any number of causes. Wrong diagnosis. Wrong
medication. Wrong dosage.
That doesn't mean that medication is the wrong method for treating ADHD
for most people.
> All of them were limited to some degree by their beliefs about what their diagnosis
> meant to them.
> There are at least two respondents in this thread who presupposed that
> ADHD is a problem you'll have for the rest of your life.
I think that that's a pretty good supposition myself. Of course, some
people do manage to acquire coping skills which take them out of the
criteria needed for a DSM diagnosis. And others seem to go "into
remission, for yet unknown reasons.
We've had discussions here about whether someone who has been diagnosed
with ADHD who has developed coping skills, or moves into an environment
in which his present skill level is adequate so he is no longer
significantly impaired, is still ADHD or not.
I don't think we reached a consensus. :-)
An interesting question to think about though.
<snip>
> > Giving a name to a problem can help you find information about it, find
> > others who share the same problem for support, can help lead you in the
> > direction of finding ways to deal with your problem.
>
> Information or misinformation. The problem is that people often
> assume that ADHD (or BPD or whatever) has a common causal structure
> that has to be treated the same way.
Who are "most people"?
And do you have any proof that ADHD or BP doesn't have a common causal
structure?
AAMOF, there have been many discussions on this ng WRT whether the
symptoms now called "ADHD" in the DSM are likely to be describing one
disorder or several with some similar symptoms.
I don't think anyone with any real knowledge of ADHD is convinced at
this point that there's a single cause for "ADHD."
Just considering the fact that different medications work differently
for different people, the fact that some individuals are not helped by
medications at all, and the differences between those with the
hyperactive form and the inattentive form would tend to make one wonder
if "ADHD" does not have many causes.
Are you familiar with Dr. Daniel Amen's work? Amen currently thinks
there are 6 different categories of ADHD and each presents differently
in the brain.
> > So many individuals with ADHD are given labels like "lazy, stupid,
> > unmotivated" and they try to find ways to make themselves less "lazy,
> > stupid, unmotivated." Nothing works, because they are not lazy, stupid
> > or unmotivated. They end up depressed, frustrated, confused.
>
> Good point.
>
> > Then they get the diagnosis, ADHD. They're *not* "lazy, stupid,
> > unmotivated!"
>
> Right, but instead they're convinced they'll have those problems for
> the rest of their lives. Kids "grow out of" things all the time,
> unless they're told they have an incurable disease of course.
Nonsense! Children carry many medical problems into adulthood, even if
they're not told they have "an incurable disease," all the time.
Consider too: many ADHD adults were told just the opposite of what you
believe they were told. They were told, "you *will* outgrow ADHD around
puberty." Yet, they continue to have ADHD as adults, and presumably will
for the rest of their lives, unless a cure is found.
And consider: many individuals ADHD were diagnosed as adults, not as
children. Their lifelong problems with attention persisted into
adulthood even though they were never told they had ADHD.
> > Now they can try to find ways to deal with ADHD. And, they
> > may find some things that do work and they start to make progress.
>
> Right, that can be helpful for some people. A massive limitation for
> others.
Well, yes, just as I am limited to some degree by getting a "label" for
my cough.
If I don't ask the doctor for a "label," my options in treating my cough
do remain wide open. When I'll find a safe, effective treatment, if at
all, is pretty wide open too. And, until I do, I could be getting worse,
perhaps causing permanent damage to myself, and perhaps infecting
others.
However, if the doctor labels my cough "an allergy symptom" or "viral
pneumonia" or "TB," my label immediately narrows my options, at least if
I want to be logical about it. If I have TB, *I'm* hardly going to try
to
treat it with antihistimines--or with NLP or hypnosis.
IMO, having a label for my cough is a good thing. It's the same with
ADHD.
<snip>
>
> > > > Where did your "knowledge" about ADHD come from?
> > >
> > > 6 years of clinical experience.
> >
> > Doing clinical hypnosis? I guess that explains your take on ADHD a bit.
>
> So stick me in a box, why don't you?
Oh, dear, I've stuck you in the box of someone without any medical
expertise in the treatment of ADHD. How awful of me!
> No, I don't just do clinical
> hypnosis (which is just a parameter rather than a treatment), my
> background is in NLP which says "do what works and look for what will
> work better".
Does that "looking at what works and what works better" include
medication? If not, haven't you just limited your client's options? You
may be stuck in a box yourself.
> And since I get much better results than those with medical degrees
> (not hard)...
And, I suppose that you can back up that "better results" claim with
unbiased observations (not parents', teachers' or your own observations
since your the ones who want to control the child's behaviors) and with
placebo controlled studies. Right?
<snip>
> > So how much do you know about the current state of scientific/medical
> > research WRT ADHD and its treatment?
> I try to keep up to date,
I think you're falling terribly behind, at least WRT to the most
credible information.
> but I find most of it irrelevant to actually helping my clients.
Thus limiting their options. My, my, is this a box?
> As for treatments, I tend to hear about what
> hasn't worked from clients. So I am biased in that regard.
Precisely.
> > > > Do you have ADHD? Does someone in your family or someone else close to
> > > > you have it? Do you have any expertise WRT ADHD?
> > >
> > > Whilst I have no need to be diagnosed, I can easily produce the
> > > symptoms of ADHD in myself.
> >
> > And how do you do this?
I'd still like to know how you "produce the symptoms of ADHD." And,
which symptoms you feel you can produce.
> Keep in mind that the "symptoms" of ADHD needed
> > for a diagnosis must be maladaptive and impairing.
>
> Right.
>
> > Why would you want to produce symptoms that are maladaptive and
> > impairing?
>
> I do it when it's useful and something else when it's not.
If you find a behavior useful, then it can't be maladaptive and
impairing now, can it?
> > > In fact, I do it a lot when it's advantageous - I'm just not stuck that way.
If you have not had your symptoms since before age 7 and for longer than
6 months, and you do not "often" exhibit them, you don't have the
symptoms of ADHD, no matter what you claim to be able to produce in
yourself.
Everyone, including neurotypicals, has what I call ADHD moments. Some
days a NT can be more "ADDish" than others. That doesn't mean that an NT
actually has "ADHD" during an ADHD moment or an ADDish day.
> > If you can get "unstuck" you have not produced ADHD symptoms in
> > yourself, no matter how convinced you are that you have.
>
> Do you really think you own the definition of what is and isn't a
> symptom of ADHD?
And, do you think that you can define ADHD any way you want and then
claim that you have had "successful results" with regard to ADHD
"parameters" or whatever?
Heh, if I could define ADHD any way I wanted, I'd probably get a good
result with my treatments too.
If you define ADHD differently than the definition commonly accepted by
those who have it or treat it, then your claims to have success in
helping those with "ADHD" are meaningless for most of us. Your treatment
for what you define as ADHD may be totally ineffective for treating ADHD
as we know and experience it.
<snip>
>
> I already pointed out that Russ Barkley and others are already trying
> to define ADHD as whether you pass this DAT test or not:
>
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/tw/items/001018_adhdtest.shtml
>
> Many if not most of you will fail this test.
And, you know this how?
> Does that mean you don't have real ADHD?
If "real ADHD" eventually is defined as that which meets the DAT test,
then yes, discounting false negatives, a person who failed the DAT test
would not have "ADHD."
They would have a problem that is "not ADHD." :-)
> Does that mean you don't have real problems?
Of course they would, which is why finding out what they have that is
"not ADHD" would be important.
Do you think research and the search for treatment would stop WRT those
who have problems which are "not real ADHD"? I don't.
It seems to me from your questions that you're the one who is hung up on
labels and boxes.
> If this test ever becomes standard, a lot of you will probably lose
> your insurance/benefits.
Are you trying to scare people away from objective testing of their
symptoms because they might lose their insurance benefits? Of course,
your scare tactics have absolutely nothing to do with the fact that a
test showing that ADHD is "real" would undermine what you've been
claiming about it, right?
I don't see why a test showing I don't have ADHD would end my insurance
coverage. I might not have ADHD under the DAT test, but I would continue
to have a "mental health problem." My insurance company will continue to
send me to doctors to find out what kind of "mental health problem" I do
have and to find a treatment for whatever I have that is "not ADHD."
And, I suppose, the next DSM will have a disorder to cover those with
significant ADHD-like impairments who don't have "real ADHD."
"Pseudo-ADHD," perhaps.:-)
IMO, having an objective test for ADHD would be absolutely wonderful!
First, it would shut up all those people who claim, "ADHD isn't real.
It's a fiction created by psychiatrists and the pharmaceutical industry.
There's no test for it, like 'real diseases' have."
Second, ADHD is currently both over and under diagnosed. An objective
test would help solve both problems. People would be able to seek the
correct treatment for ADHD or whatever they have that isn't "real-ADHD".
> > > So to answer your other question, I "know better" not about everyone's
> > > unique situation (how could I?), but I do know that the way we think
> > > about our problems changes them. And if you make your problems real,
> > > and believe they can only be treated in one or two ways (especially
> > > ones that don't work for most people), you are severely limiting your
> > > chances of getting better.
> >
> > I don't disagree. But, I think that the logical way to proceed in
> > treating any sort of problem is to try what you know proven to work for
> > others.
>
> Try ECT then. Works 60% of the time.
For treating ADHD?
> > You try to most likely solution first. If that doesn't work,
> > then you go on to less and less likely solutions.
>
> Personally, I go for the least damaging, most enabling solutions.
Well, I was giving you the short version on how I decide on a solution
to try to solve a problem.
With any medication, I evaluate: how necessary is this medication? Are
there other ways to treat it? Are those other ways both safe and
effective? How long will I have to wait until a chosen method starts
working? What are the most likely side effects of this medication? Are
likely is the risk of serious side effects? Then I weigh the answers to
those questions.
If the reason for the medication isn't urgent and the risk high, I don't
take the medication. The more serious the reason for taking the
medication, the more risk I'm prepared to take and the quicker results I
want.
IMO, if the "least damaging" solutions are also the "least likely to be
effective," unless the problem for which I'm seeking a solution is
pretty minor, I'm going to bypass those and go right to solutions
"likely to work."
How many years does one have to try "least damaging but
not-likely-to-be-effective solutions" before one decides to try
something that has a little more risk but is likely to help? One year,
two, three?
Someone could waste a lot of precious time and continue to be in
distress while they try dietary modifications, then a different diet,
then a third, then bio-feedback, then blue-green algae, then nutritional
supplements, then NLP, then hypnosis and on and on. Not to mention
spending lots of $$$$$.
If a child is involved, the child could be falling further behind in
academics and social skills while the great search for something "less
risky than medication" that actually worked continued.
Don't forget that ADHD involves real suffering and causes very real
problems. And, it can be life threatening.
Why delay treatment searching for the "least risky" solution, when
medications are generally both safe and effective?
> > BTW, I haven't had time to explore your web site in full, but I found
> > what I believe to be at least one clear error in the pages I did read:
> >
> > In your "Seratonin Section" you say: "Seratonin is a class of
> > neurotransmitters. That means they're only in your brain."
> >
> > That's incorrect. Neurotransmitters are not found "only in your brain."
>
> That's the usual definition.
What is? That's it's found only in the brain?
If that's what you're claiming to be the "usual" definition, I disagree
with you, as I've *never* seen neurotransmitter defined that way--except
by you. In fact, I knew your definition was incorrect precisely because
I have read the correct definition of "neurotransmitter."
BTW, I don't know about others, but I tend to question the accuracy of
information someone gives if he's sloppy about basics like definitions.
<same>
> > I also question several other statements on that page like your
> > contention that MDMD is an SSRI.
>
> Of course, the drug companies don't promote this information but what
> little research I could find stated that MDMA uses the exact same
> mechanism (blocks the same serotonin molecules from being reabsorbed)
> plus one other mechanism (which is far from understood) that releases
> more serotonin from the synapse.
MDMA is a combination of methamphetamine and a hallucinogen, usually
mescaline. I don't know about the chemistry or pharmacology of
mescaline, but methamphetamine sure isn't an SSRI.
Here's what the U.S. DEA says about MDMA:
"MDMA is 3,4 methylenedioxymethamphetamine, a ring substituted
derivative of phenethylamine, which is a close structural analog of
amphetamine, methamphetamine and 3,4 methylenedioxyethylamphetamine
(MDE: Eve). MDMA has both stimulant and hallucinogenic effects in
humans. MDMA has analgesic and central stimulating effects; it produces
hyperthermia, memory loss, cognitive impairment, and long-term
neurochemical and brain cell damage. Pharmacologically, MDMA is an
indirect monoaminergic agonist producing a heightened sense of
awareness. MDMA also induces a state characterized as "excessive
talking" (loquacity), which was once believed to be helpful in
psychotherapy."
I don't see anything about inhibition of serotonin.
http://www.usdoj.gov/dea/concern/mdma/mdma020700.htm
So where did you get your information that MDMA is an SSRI?
And, you might tell me where you got the information on your site that
"All psychiatric drugs are inhibitors or agonists." You're claiming
there are no psychotropic antagonists?
> (they're called MDMA and serotonin BTW)
Um, well, I haven't yet found an effective treatment for bad typing and
poor proofreading. :-)
David Gould
<a lot of waffle>
Sorry, even my attention couldn't be bothered to read to the end of
this.
Your inability to do anything but focus (how ironic?) on attacking
anything that threatens your belief is extremely apparent.
Needless to say, I won't bother to read your answer to this either.
Vashti
> Sorry, even my attention couldn't be bothered to read to the end of
> this.
>
> Your inability to do anything but focus (how ironic?) on attacking
> anything that threatens your belief is extremely apparent.
>
> Needless to say, I won't bother to read your answer to this either.
>
and a fol-de-rol to you too...
Vashti
David Gould
demonstrated a high capacity for rational thought but seem much more
interested in being right than discussing anything.
I hope that the rest of you take what you find useful and discard the
rest.
On Fri, 12 Apr 2002 21:22:03 GMT, "SumBuny" <sum...@TAKETHISOUTcox.net>
wrote:
>> See you and I know that most alternative methods simply invoke the
>> placebo effect at best. So do medications to a large degree.
>
>Medications produce a placebo effect, to a large degree...is that what I
>read here?
Of course they do.
>I.e., aspirin is NOT "placebo", but actually causes a biochemical change in
>the body-not only reducing the levels of prostaglandins in the system (which
>can be measured), but reduces inflammation as well...
Right, aspirin is a drug. To believe you are taking a powerful drug
produces a placebo effect whether you are taking an actual drug or not.
>Migraines...caused by dialation of blood vessels in the brain, and possibly
>misfiring neurons--no amount of convincing the brain it doesn't hurt is
>going to change that-but proper medication can and does.
As does placebo.
>What would you do for a patient that had lower than normal levels of a
>biochemical in his system-say, insulin? Would you give a placebo, or would
>you give insulin to raise the levels to normal?
I am not qualified to prescribe either. I just hypnotised my diabetic
client and simply asked him to drop his blood sugar levels - they
dropped by 2 points.
>If the biochemical were potassium? If it were iron? If it were dopamine?
It's not for me to prescribe medicines for other people. Some will
respond to placebo. That's been proven by every sizable placebo study
done.
>> I often wonder why placebo rates of improvement are rarely publicised.
>> This page suggests that placebo works 50% of the time:
>> http://www.helpforadd.com/medmon.htm
>
>Remember to ask for a placebo only if you or your family is admitted to the
>hospital for anything-accident, pnuemonia, heart attack, stroke...etc.
Why assume I am advocating placebo? I am merely comparing it to the
drugs.
>> But what the hell are we measuring here? Breggin says
>
>Ahhhh...now we find out his sources....sounds like it is his only one...
Who is we?
>Most of us here have researched from several-if not hundreds-of
>sources/people over the years... "Breggin says" is in a definate *minority*
>when it comes to ADHD research...one wonders why he and only a handful of
>docs say one thing, when hundred others say something totally
>different...And have been rather consistant over the decades.
One wonders why no-one can prove him wrong.
>> or the results I get because I'm
>> not trying to sell anything here and I know that most people respond
>> negatively to that sort of thing. Yet while I might get results with
>> people diagnosed with ADHD, that's no guarantee that anyone else will.
>
>But you are right, and most here are wrong?
If you say so ;)
>> I think NLP is probably unique in that it advocates finding out how a
>> particular problem works for each person. In other words, we all have
>> unique problems which require unique solutions.
>
>No argument here...so why degrade the choice of medication if that works for
>the patient?
Why indeed. Who's degrading?
>We have heard this one before...."If you only tried harder, you could
>stop.....[insert ADHD trait here]"
Of course you have. But I have never suggested that anyone here even
knows where to start. Maybe they do. Maybe they have.
>> Right, but instead they're convinced they'll have those problems for
>> the rest of their lives. Kids "grow out of" things all the time,
>> unless they're told they have an incurable disease of course.
>
>And for those of us who were NOT diagnosed as kids, but as adults?
Then I'm obviously not talking about you am I?!?
>And if environmental-/behavioral-modifications alone works, but combining
>those with medication works better....why all the fuss about using
>medication?
Why call it medication? Why not call it taking drugs?
Heck, do whatever you want, but at least make an informed choice about
it.
>> > So how much do you know about the current state of scientific/medical
>> > research WRT ADHD and its treatment?
>>
>> I try to keep up to date, but I find most of it irrelevant to actually
>> helping my clients.
>
>So you prefer to not try to keep improving on what you have, but remain
>stuck in a box?
I have limited time. I use it to learn what I think will be most
effective. And if most shrinks believe ADHD/ADD is incurable, it seems
my clients are doing rather better than theirs.
>> How can someone's beliefs objectively exist?
>
>Good point....the only thing is observable behavior...tell me does your mind
>exist?
Tell me where it starts and ends and I'll tell you whether it exists.
>Or are you just a set of neurochemical impulses?
Just? I am much more than that. And so are you.
>Who/what *is* it that makes "Dave" different from "Joe"?
We would be different in many ways. Depends what you're focussing on.
>I.e., if this were true, then why are identical twins different people?
>Shouldn't they think/behave/believe exactly the same?
Different learnings produce different nervous systems produce different
behaviour.
>Oh, and if you *are* just a bunch of neurochemical impulses-what does it
>mean when your brain does not produce normal amounts of a certain chemical
>(like a diabetic pancreas produces insufficient insulin), such as dopamine?
Does not produce when?
And since we still can't measure this, how can any of you know whether
your "dopamine levels" are deficient?
How do you know you can't produce more dopamine by simply changing the
way you think? Or by making love?
Maybe you need to produce less dopamine? How would you know?
What about all the drugs that "work" with people diagnosed with ADHD
that don't affect dopamine levels?
Vashti
> Right, aspirin is a drug. To believe you are taking a powerful
> drug produces a placebo effect whether you are taking an actual
> drug or not.
So you think I could stop taking my daily asperine after treatment
by you, without having blood clots forming in an unpleasant manner?
Hmmm, might be worth trying after my "watch a random film to decide
what treatment to try next" plan....I might just add it to the list
I had...somewhere.
Vashti
SumBuny
> On Fri, 12 Apr 2002 20:37:48 GMT, "SumBuny" <sum...@TAKETHISOUTcox.net>
> >for other things, such as pain? It is subjective. If you go to your
doctor
> >for pain relief (pick you pain...migraine, sciatica, abdominal pain,
> >etc)...and he were to tell you that he didn't know if your pain existed
or
> >not...you would probably be a tad upset with him, no?
>
> Not any more but I've already said that this is a significant reason why
> people try to make their problems more real.
Ah...so if one complains of the sensation of pain (or, for that matter, any
other sensory input from the tactile sense, cold, warmth, or pressure), it
is only "real" if the subject makes it so? Does this go for any other
sensation as well? Hearing, vision, taste, propriaception, equalibrium?
All of these are only "in the mind" of the beholder?
Then how do you explain interventions that do not physically involve the
brain, but block pain signals from the peripheral nervous system ("local
anesthesia", "spinal anesthesia")?
How do you explain that neurochemicals that transmit this information can be
increased to increase pain, or decreased to decrease pain? That a
measureable increase in these chemicals has been shown to exist when pain
occurs/increases, and that when the receptors for these are blocked, the
sensation of pain is reduced? This has nothing to do with the patients
thoughts, but *biology*
http://www.ninds.nih.gov/news_and_events/pressrelease_pain_peptides_032598.h
tm?type=archived
>
> >Oh, and do you really need to know the cause of your headache to reach
for
> >the aspirin? Per your comments below, that is..
>
> I haven't taken any pain-killers for 5 years. I will go for novocaine
> when I get some fillings done soon though...
Why??? All you have to do is convince yourself that there is no pain-per
your own comments about drugs influencing the brains processes...(FWIW, I
*have* heard of success in self-hypnosis in this way-but of course, since
you admitted to going for drugs because you know you will "make your
problems more real")
>
> If the cause of your headache was a brain tumour, you'd probably want to
> do more than reach for aspirin.
>
> Most of you have bigger problems than headaches, but I find they usually
> have a positive function - might be diet, some kind of conflict etc.
> Resolve the problem and the headaches go away forever.
I specifically mentioned migraines, which have been shown to be caused by
overdialation of the blood vessels, and in many cases, by misfiring brain
cells-but, since you say that the only reason why I am in pain is because I
"make my problems more real"...... nah, the *real* problem is resolved by
vasoconstrictors, and anti-inflammatories-"drugs" to you....
Should I ignore the way my brain is working, that sometimes the chemistry
needs to be altered (the vasoconstictors and anitinflammatories for the
migraines) because it is abnormal, and just live with days of pain that is
debilitating? Or should I accept that when it begins to interfere with my
life, that I need to take medication to put my brain's chemistry to "normal"
so I can function properly?
That is also what those on meds for ADHD are doing...
>
> >Multi-modal interventions including medication, speech therapy,
occupational
> >therapy, 1:1 classroom assistance, and environmental- and
> >behavioral-modifications....his IEP runs about a dozen pages, to cover
all
> >the specifics...
>
> What makes that proper?
What makes it "improper"....
We know that upon beginning his interventions, he has become very successful
in school...
> >>
> >> Knowing the name doesn't not determine the cause. There never is one
> >> cause, there's usually hundreds. If you can find the most easily
> >> changed causes of your problems that don't cause other ones, you're
> >> almost there.
> >
> >Do you need to know what "caused" cancer to determine its treatment? Do
you
> >need to know what "caused" asthma to determine its treatment?
>
> I'm not talking about "caused", I'm talking about ongoing causes that
> you can change.
Sounds like the very environmental-modification techniques used by many of
us here who also use medication...(see above listing of the same for my son,
which you questioned)
Not to mention that an "ongoing cause that can be changed" for ADHD is the
wrong levels of certain biochemicals (just as too littel insulin is an
ongoing cause of diabetes that can be changed)...which can be changed by the
appropriate medication...
Thank you for justifying the use of medication...
> For example, most people aren't very good at relaxing. If you could
> relax in any situation, would that help?
Most people are not very good at noticing the world in detail-if you could
do that in every situation, would that help? ADHDer's have this gift in
spades...ADHD doesn't mean one pays attention to nothing, but pays attention
to *everything*.
>
> >Diabetes, allergies (note, "cause" not trigger--these are two separate
things), near-
> >and far-sightedness...well, you should get the concept by now..
>
> I've cured a lot of allergies, had a diabetic client (significant
> improvement but he ran out of money) but am still very short-sighted,
> despite trying for 6+ years to improve that.
Wow, I am SO impressed! You have found the cure for allergies, diabetes,
and mental disorders...have you also found the cure for autism and other
developmental disabilities as well??? I am looking forward to seeing your
name in the headlines for being such a renowned healer--the Nobel Prize
cannot be far away...
<sarcasm>
Tell me how you have cured allergies, since my sons are allergic to
penicillin, and I am allergic to dust mites, cockroaches, and major changes
in air pressure (not fun during hurricane season on the Gulf coast)...and my
asthma has sent me to the ER numerous times...
>
> Your definition of "trigger" may well be similar to what I meant by
> "cause".
Nope..."cause" is the genetic blueprint that means that my hyperactive
immune system arbatrarily determined that some things are dangerous
invaders, and will overload the immune system to drive out an innocuous
stimulus. "Trigger" is the innoculous stimulus. In my case, it is dust
mite...if dust mites is a cause, then *everyone* would have the
problem...not just me.
Cause of asthma is the same-hyperactive sensitivity of the immune system and
my airways. "Trigger" for me is usually the heightened histime levels in
the blood stream caused by overproductive mast cells...or simply, cold air.
If cold air is the "cause" of asthma, tell me why I can be climbing the
bleachers to get a good seat for a football game in November and start
wheezing, but the football players running all over the field do not.
Perhaps you need to brush up on medical terminology.
>
> >But knowing the name is important to determining the treatment...
>
> Well, yes, if you have a broken leg, or a pulmonary aneurism. Minds are
> much more complex and a simple name will never describe an individual
> problem nor any possible solutions.
Not always...the above mentioned migraine has the exact same symptoms as a
brain aneurysm-I know, because I had an paternal aunt die of such a brain
aneurysm; migraines run on my mother's side of the family. Which is why the
first time I experienced the symptoms myself (aura, lightning stikes in
visual field, loss of peripheral vision-all resolved in about an hour, and
an hour after that the worst headache in what felt like my sinuses)-I went
to the ER-we didn't know at first *which* side of the family I was taking
after...many tests later, determined a migraine.
Yes, a "simple name" can describe this individual problem, and possible
solutions...
Yes, a "simple name" can describe *individual* problems and possible
solutions...some thought my younger son was defiant, lazy, immature,
selfish. Upon diagnosis of asperger's syndrome, academic giftedness, and
hyperactivity, (yes, all three), we now had possible solutions for
interventions-which have proven very successful for him.
>
> >You conveniently snipped the examples I gave...
>
> My apologies, I do have a <snip> macro, I haven't written much on Usenet
> in a while.
>
> >...tell me, are you implying that a diabetic should not place limitations
on
> >herself becuse of the diabetes?
>
> Temporary limitations of course.
Temporary until....when? death?
>
> >...are you saying that the person with high blood pressure should not be
> >aware of what he does that can make it worse?
>
> Nope.
Ah, so there *are* conditions that one should stay focused on his own
limitations, because to do otherwise would be hazardous to his
health-despite what your reply to me was below:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------
"David Gould" <da...@deep-trance.com> wrote in message
news:92ea100d.02041...@posting.google.com...
> "SumBuny" <sum...@TAKETHISOUTcox.net> wrote in message
news:<EDmt8.24047$GG1.1...@news2.east.cox.net>...
>
> > Running away from your problems will not make them go away, but will
make
> > the affects of them worse...
>
> Might do, as can focussing on them, or inferring further limitations
> from them.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------
>
> >> What do you have to do to produce the symptoms, both with yours and
> >> your sons?
> >
> >Simply go off meds (for those of us who are taking them), and have a day
> >with no routine at all...this will often produce the ADHD symptoms of
> >bouncing off the walls and of distractability in the ADHD. The autism,
> >requiring routine even more to cope with the inherent unpredictable
> >perception of their processing disability-i.e., they need a LOT of
structure
> >to make sense of the world that they see as chaotic-failing to follow
> >routine, unannounced changes, and too much stimulation of his sensory
> >hypersensitivity will "do the trick". My husband says that any time I am
in
> >a large, crowded place (a busy club would be one example), I "zone
out"...my
> >tactile- and auditory-hypersensitivity is not as great as my son's, but
> >sensory overload does the same thing-causes either shut-down or
melt-down...
>
> Can you think of anything specific that you can do or think which might
> cause some of the symptoms within a few minutes/hours even if you're on
> meds?
I can "act"...I know my own symptoms well enough to "fake it" for
others...but why?
>
> >Meds help, being aware of the situation helps (such as always making sure
> >that there is an "escape route" in the crowded place...when I get to "too
> >much input", I leave for a while-same with my son), structured
environment,
> >"prepping" (making sure that he knows what is going to happen), and
allowing
> >for sensory download...
>
> I've had a few clients talk about something similar to "sensory
> download". How do you do that?
Look into sensory integration, one site is
http://www.autism.org/si.html
yeah...we also do this *in addition* to meds...as you can see, medication is
a very small part of his therapy.
>
> >Oh, yeah, one *is* usually kept very aware of comping mechanisms--and
> >medication is one very *samll* part...but why do so many people zero in
on
> >it?
>
> You mean apart from being indoctrinated into believing it's the only way
> to get better?
Do you use no types of mnemonic aids? Never write notes, lists, write
appointments on calendars? Those are coping mechanisms for not have
eidectic memory-when you use thes, do you tell yourself it is because you
are a failure at remembering things, and will never get better?
Well, neither do we...and when you learn about sensory integration, you will
also see this.
Most of us do not see ourselves as "defective"-but see those of you who
cannot do what we do as such at times....it is just that we are forced to
ignore our gifts (plenty of energy, ability to multitask, ability to notice
*everything* at once, ability to think fast/on our feet, ability to jump
from concept to concept) in order that those without ADHD can keep up that
we have trouble.
Tell me, would you cure someone like Robin Williams of his gift of
improvisation on anything at anytime? That is one advantage of ADHD
(ability to jump from concept to concept, ability to think fast/on his
feet)? Do you think that he needs to be cured?
He has found the right "fit"-but I bet his school teachers we screaming that
this kid needed to be cured, because he could not conform to those who could
not keep up with him.
Tell me, who are the ones who are "deficit"?
>
> >> > Do you believe that there is no such thing as mental illness? No
such
> >thing
> >> > as mental disability? If so, then what makes that organ immune to
such
> >> > difference-every other organ in the body can be affected by illness
or
> >> > disability...why not this one?
> >>
> >> Define illness, disability and what constitutes a "thing" and I'll
> >> answer your question. It's pointless to make logical arguments on
> >> vague concepts.
> >
> >Funny, because I asked you the same thing elsewhere in this thread-one
> >poster was talking about her ADHD, and you called it a mental illness...
> >Disability: inability to pursue an occupation because of physical or
mental
> >impairment
>
> does that include a temporary inability?
> inability according to whom?
Hmmm... would you not define Steven Hawkings as being disabled?
>
> >....impair: to damage or make worse by or as if by diminishing in some
> >material respect <his health was impaired by overwork>
>
> You know you have brain damage if you have a neurological trauma (car
> crash for example).
> Worse/diminishing are subjective. Worse for what? Sometimes worse for
> one thing means better for something else.
...and one cannot be born with neurological abnormalities?
>
> >Illness: an unhealthy condition of body or mind
>
> Define unhealthy. I would say "body AND mind" - they seem to be
> intimately linked. Some people even say "bodymind".
Yet you seem to imply that only the body can be physically unhealthy
>
> >Disorder: to disturb the regular or normal functions of
>
> Regular/normal according to whom?
<g> Exactly....we ADHDers (and those with other exceptionalities) don
consider ourselves abnormal/irregular...*you* "average/normal" folk do-and
when you complain enough, we begin to believe it...see above example that
included Robin Williams
>
> >Using these definitions;
> >Do you believe that there is no such particular state of affairs such as
an
> >unhealthy condition of the mind?
>
> Healthy for some things, unhealthy for others.
Hmmmm...the person who has so many misfirings of the electrical system of
his brain that he is incapacitated for long periods each day by seizures is
"healthy for some"? The child who has sever mental handicap anc cannot feed
or dress himself even as an adult is "healthy for some"? The person who has
become comatose due to brain injury is "healthy for some"?
Fow *whom* is this considered "healthy??????
>
> >Do you believe that there is no such particular state of affairs such as
an
> >inability to pursue an occupation [and I consider learning to be the
primary
> >occupation of children] because of mental impairment?
>
> Well, you could be in a coma...
True...ever consider the mentally handicapped who cannot even go to the
bathroom? I have worked with these children in special ed
classrooms...Trainably Mentally Handicapped, Downs Syndrome (moderate to
profound), ODD, OCD...I have seen students like them become adults (my
organist at church has a mentally handicapped son that still lives at home
with her because he cannot function well enough to live on his own-he is in
his 30s, and she worries about what will happen to him after she is gone)
Oh, I fogot your above contention-this is "healthy for some"? Whom???
>
> Some children don't learn well in their environments. Sometimes it's a
> bad mismatch with the teaching style or classmates or something else.
BINGO!!!!! Yet we still force our square pegs into the round holes of
"normals"....either by beating them down, or "curing them"....
> >Do you believe that there is no such particular state of affairs as a
brain
> >that does not function the same way that the average person's does?
>
> No-one's brain functions the same way that the average person's does.
So, may I say that your brain is comparable to the one of my organist's son?
>
> >If you do not believe these, then what makes the brain immune to such
> >difference-every other organ in the boddy can be affected by being in
poor
> >health, why not the brain?
>
> That's a slightly different question.
Nope, same question.
>
> "Poor health" to me implies possible improvement (without drugs).
Ah...poor health because of cancer implies improvement without drugs? Why
are you so adamant in refusing drugs for others (yet jump right on them for
yourself-I remember the tooth fillings)
>
> It is of course possible that you have brain damage. I don't for a
> minute believe that more than 5% of people here have any kind of
> permanent brain damage/disfunction.
>
> But I bet more than that believe they have.
What is "dysfunction"? Not functioning within the norm? If so, then yes, I
*do* believe that may here do not function within the norm.
>
> >> I will say that the nervous system has many differences to other
> >> organs in the body. It is at least a billion times more complex in
> >> terms of it's ability to encode and process information. It's also
> >> the one most easily affected by changing the way you think.
> >
> >I do believe that on'e outlook can influence one's prognosis...but I do
not
> >believe that one can think oneself well...tell me, if someone as
brilliant
> >as Steven Hawkings is still in a wheelchair and uses a computer to
> >communicate-why didn't he think himself well?
>
> Not too familiar with motor neuron disease. I have treated MS.
Well, you claimed "It's [the nervous system]also the one most easily
affected by changing the way you think" Somehow, I would have thought that
if this were true, someone as brilliant as Hawkings would be running by
now...
Perhaps it is not true as you imply it-that we have not failed by relying on
the medical community for help.
>
> To think yourself well, you have to know how, which is almost like
> looking for a needle in a haystack.
>
> >Do you go to the doctor for *anything*?
>
> No. I do see an optician although I hope not to need to in future.
> And I am going to see a dentist - not figured out how to regenerate
> teeth easily.
Why go to these--if you think about it, you can change the way your brain
processes the sensory input from your eyes, no matter how bad the signal
gets...
Why go to the dentist? If you think about it, the pain from your teeth
won't exist..oh, I forgot, we don't know if pain exixts or not, and it
doesn't matter if it does, because it is up to the patient to live with it.
>
> >Why? Why not think yourself well?
>
> I do.
>
> >Do you ever take aspirin for a headache? Or any kind of pain reliever?
>
> No.
Then way say "I will go for novocaine when I get some fillings done soon
though..." rather hypocritical, don't ya think?
>
> >Why? It is "all in your head"-think it away...
>
> I do.
Then why wimp out and use novocaine? Because on some level, you know what I
have been saying is true.
>
> >> Even the placebo effect has produced a measurable change in the brain:
> >> http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99991732
> >
> >Ever take a placebo for extreme pain? Doesn't always work...
>
> Works more often than you might imagine.
Then refuse the novocaine...
Buny
Ann
>This is probably my last post here. Most of you who have responded have
>demonstrated a high capacity for rational thought but seem much more
>interested in being right than discussing anything.
Mr. Pot? I'd like to introduce Mr. Kettle. You are both black.
--
Ann
ann...@thecia.net
SumBuny
Many medications that have proven highly beneficial are on that list:
http://www.hoboes.com/pub/Prohibition/Crime%20and%20Punishment/Schedule%202%
20Drugs
Some from this site:
Codeine (tylenol # anyone?, prescription cough syrups, prescription
anti-diarrheals)
Levomethorphan, Levorphanol ( also used as above)
Phenobarbitol (anti-siezure)
Secobarbital (prescription sleep aid)
These are the ones I recognised from this list, since the generic names were
used....
Since "schedule 2" means "evil"....I guess if one has severe pain, sever
diarrhea (which is fatal very quickly), seizures, or severe insomnia, they
should just grin and bear it....
NOT
Buny
SumBuny
> David Gould wrote:
> >
> > nknisley <nkni...@bcpl.net> wrote in message
news:<3CB64B12...@bcpl.net>...
>
>
> You're not telling any of us anything new.
Aren't MOST medical studies done on males...not just this one? IIRC,
researchers are just now discovering that this habit of only researching on
males is proving dangerous to half of the earth's population-women.
"Most studies done on boys"...no kidding...most studies are done on boys and
men-or, hopefulyy, "were".
>
> The fact that most ADHD studies have been done on boys isn't all that
> surprising. Until the last decade or so, ADHD was believed to be
> primarily a boy's disorder. Current studies show that girls probably
> were previously overlooked because they tend towards the inattentive
> type of ADHD. In our culture, a quiet, dreamy girl isn't going to get as
> much notice as a "climbing up an 8 foot bookcase and jumping from the
> top of it" type of girl is.
And the hyperactive girl is the celebrated "tomboy"...
>
> And, unless your "results" can be consistently replicated by others, it
> seems to me that your claimed "results" are rather useless.
<g> what is the research term; "Principle of Falsafiability"?
> > So stick me in a box, why don't you?
>
> Oh, dear, I've stuck you in the box of someone without any medical
> expertise in the treatment of ADHD. How awful of me!
<handing Nancy the lid to said box--and hammer and nails>
>
> Everyone, including neurotypicals, has what I call ADHD moments. Some
> days a NT can be more "ADDish" than others. That doesn't mean that an NT
> actually has "ADHD" during an ADHD moment or an ADDish day.
Right now, with "spring fever" in the schools-our kids are 'normal" because
all the kids are bouncing off the walls and daydreaming. Problem is, they
stop in the fall-our kids (and we) can't.
> > Do you really think you own the definition of what is and isn't a
> > symptom of ADHD?
>
> And, do you think that you can define ADHD any way you want and then
> claim that you have had "successful results" with regard to ADHD
> "parameters" or whatever?
>
> Heh, if I could define ADHD any way I wanted, I'd probably get a good
> result with my treatments too.
<psst, Nancy> Why don't we define "Multi-tasking Deficit" as abnormal?
Y'know, the people who can't do all these things at once, who can't jump
from subject to subject, who can't pay attention to everything at the same
time? Then see what kind of "results" we can get with the regulars
here....(Hartmann devotes an entire chapter to this concept in _ADD:A
Different Perspective_)
</sarcasm>
> > I already pointed out that Russ Barkley and others are already trying
> > to define ADHD as whether you pass this DAT test or not:
> >
> > http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/tw/items/001018_adhdtest.shtml
> >
> > Many if not most of you will fail this test.
>
> And, you know this how?
...because he did?
<duck>
Buny
SumBuny
> On Sat, 13 Apr 2002 03:03:56 -0400, J. Clarke <nos...@nospam.invalid>
> wrote:
> >So you admit it exists, you assert that it doesn't, or you don't make
> >any assertion at all. Which is it?
>
> Is it that difficult to understand?
>
> Like I said originally, does love exist? Depends on how you do it and
> what your definition of what "exist" is.
"Depends on what the definition of 'is' is...."
...William J Clinton
Buny
Vashti
> Then refuse the novocaine...
It's not that hard to refuse either: I've only had novocaine
a few times, and not at all before the age of 25 or so.
The pain won't kill you...<g>
Vashti
SumBuny
> anything you can't find an answer to, feel free to let me know.
What is the average speed of a laden swallow?
Buny
SumBuny
> This is probably my last post here. Most of you who have responded have
> demonstrated a high capacity for rational thought but seem much more
> interested in being right than discussing anything.
Gee, I don't know whether to feel complimented or insulted...
>
> I hope that the rest of you take what you find useful and discard the
> rest.
We usually do-and much of what we have seen in this thread is probably going
into the recycle bin-it wasn't 'useful', but it was entertaining.
>
> On Fri, 12 Apr 2002 21:22:03 GMT, "SumBuny" <sum...@TAKETHISOUTcox.net>
> wrote:
>
> >> See you and I know that most alternative methods simply invoke the
> >> placebo effect at best. So do medications to a large degree.
> >
> >Medications produce a placebo effect, to a large degree...is that what I
> >read here?
>
> Of course they do.
>
> >I.e., aspirin is NOT "placebo", but actually causes a biochemical change
in
> >the body-not only reducing the levels of prostaglandins in the system
(which
> >can be measured), but reduces inflammation as well...
>
> Right, aspirin is a drug. To believe you are taking a powerful drug
> produces a placebo effect whether you are taking an actual drug or not.
>
> >Migraines...caused by dialation of blood vessels in the brain, and
possibly
> >misfiring neurons--no amount of convincing the brain it doesn't hurt is
> >going to change that-but proper medication can and does.
>
> As does placebo.
So, IYNSHO, a placebo has the effect of a vasoconstictor? Would you be
willing to risk someone's life on that? *I* am not...
>
> >What would you do for a patient that had lower than normal levels of a
> >biochemical in his system-say, insulin? Would you give a placebo, or
would
> >you give insulin to raise the levels to normal?
>
> I am not qualified to prescribe either.
Then why the insistance on using placebos if you are not qualified to use
them?
>I just hypnotised my diabetic
> client and simply asked him to drop his blood sugar levels - they
> dropped by 2 points.
Wow.... that must be a tremendous impact for a diabetic-big percentage
change when a diabetic is told to call the hospital when his blood sugar is
above **250** points... Gee, that must help a person with a blood sugar
level of 275....NOT!!!
Reduce it by 100 points, then you may be onto something....
That is like using hypnotic suggestion to get a hypertensive to lower his
blood pressure from 200/150 to 195/145..."I got him to drop his BP by 5
points, and he is not using medication!"...but even so, he is at just as
high risk for stroke...and the medication could have dropped it to 120/80 if
he had not been convinced his mind could do it alone...
Willing to risk your patients lives, are you....
>
> >If the biochemical were potassium? If it were iron? If it were
dopamine?
>
> It's not for me to prescribe medicines for other people. Some will
> respond to placebo. That's been proven by every sizable placebo study
> done.
Telling people not to take a certain medication amounts to prescribing as
well....
"Some" will respond....how many is "some"? What percentage of double-blind
studies have shown a significant amount responding to placebwo when compared
to the actual med in question...
"Some" is usually 2-5%... is that acceptable success rates for your clinic?
>
> >> I often wonder why placebo rates of improvement are rarely publicised.
> >> This page suggests that placebo works 50% of the time:
> >> http://www.helpforadd.com/medmon.htm
> >
> >Remember to ask for a placebo only if you or your family is admitted to
the
> >hospital for anything-accident, pnuemonia, heart attack, stroke...etc.
>
> Why assume I am advocating placebo? I am merely comparing it to the
> drugs.
Gee, just in this post alone, you have insisted on placebo use, what, 5
times so far?
>
> >> But what the hell are we measuring here? Breggin says
> >
> >Ahhhh...now we find out his sources....sounds like it is his only one...
>
> Who is we?
Those of us reading your entertaining posts...
>
> >Most of us here have researched from several-if not hundreds-of
> >sources/people over the years... "Breggin says" is in a definate
*minority*
> >when it comes to ADHD research...one wonders why he and only a handful of
> >docs say one thing, when hundred others say something totally
> >different...And have been rather consistant over the decades.
>
> One wonders why no-one can prove him wrong.
<snort> Let's see...one person in a hundred says that 2+2=5, and is hired
to reapeat that statement on his own reputation, and the other 99 have
published papers in peer-reviewed (you *do* know what that means, right)
journals explaining why 2+2=4....and you say, "One wonders why no one can
prove him wrong?"
As I said, you *are* entertaining at least...
>
> >> or the results I get because I'm
> >> not trying to sell anything here and I know that most people respond
> >> negatively to that sort of thing. Yet while I might get results with
> >> people diagnosed with ADHD, that's no guarantee that anyone else will.
> >
> >But you are right, and most here are wrong?
>
> If you say so ;)
See above...you are in the 2+2=5 camp....
>
> >> I think NLP is probably unique in that it advocates finding out how a
> >> particular problem works for each person. In other words, we all have
> >> unique problems which require unique solutions.
> >
> >No argument here...so why degrade the choice of medication if that works
for
> >the patient?
>
> Why indeed. Who's degrading?
Your repetition that placebos work just as well...
>
> >> Right, but instead they're convinced they'll have those problems for
> >> the rest of their lives. Kids "grow out of" things all the time,
> >> unless they're told they have an incurable disease of course.
> >
> >And for those of us who were NOT diagnosed as kids, but as adults?
>
> Then I'm obviously not talking about you am I?!?
You have been using these argumenta about ADHD-so you are talking about me,
and many of us ADDults here...how can we "grow out" of this if we didn't
even know we had it...according to your statement, we should have the
problems we do, because we were not told we should...yet we do.
>
> >And if environmental-/behavioral-modifications alone works, but combining
> >those with medication works better....why all the fuss about using
> >medication?
>
> Why call it medication? Why not call it taking drugs?
Why call it drugs, why not call is taking medication? Because you are well
aware of the inflammatory aspect of that word-otherwise, you would not
insist on using it...
>
> Heck, do whatever you want, but at least make an informed choice about
> it.
I have-having researched this for *years* before making my decisions...I
feel bad for your clients, though, because you deny them all the
information...per your own statement below...
> >> I try to keep up to date, but I find most of it irrelevant to actually
> >> helping my clients.
So you decide not to give your clients all the info, but just part of it...
>
> I have limited time. I use it to learn what I think will be most
> effective. And if most shrinks believe ADHD/ADD is incurable, it seems
> my clients are doing rather better than theirs.
*My* doctors have a practice of giving me all the current info-even when it
contradicts their own opinion...that is called *informed choice*...what you
are doing is called something else...
>
> >Oh, and if you *are* just a bunch of neurochemical impulses-what does it
> >mean when your brain does not produce normal amounts of a certain
chemical
> >(like a diabetic pancreas produces insufficient insulin), such as
dopamine?
>
> Does not produce when?
http://accessible.ninds.nih.gov/news_and_events/pressrelease_parkinsons_1206
90.htm?type=archived
"In healthy people and animals, dopamine regulates two major pathways
originating within the striatum, maintaining the delicate balance of brain
chemicals that allows normal, coordinated movements. In the current study,
scientists at the NINDS and the National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH)
examined how low dopamine levels in Parkinsonian rats alter the
striatopallidal and striatonigral neurons that comprise these two pathways.
The study, performed in the NIMH's Laboratory of Cell Biology, found that
dopamine depletion affected striatopallidal neurons by elevating levels of
certain dopamine receptors - known as D2 - and of a brain chemical called
enkephalin. Lack of dopamine also affected striatonigral neurons: they
showed lowered levels of D1 receptors and of two other brain chemicals,
substance P and dynorphin. "In other words," said NIMH investigator Charles
R. Gerfen, Ph.D., "the effect of lost dopamine on the D1 receptor is
completely opposite its effect on the D2 receptor."
By using medications that selectively stimulated D1 or D2 receptors, the
scientists were able to reverse some of these effects of dopamine depletion.
When the scientists treated Parkinsonian rats with a drug that stimulated
the D2 receptors (which inhibit enkephalin) the rodent's elevated levels of
enkephalin fell. Conversely, stimulating the D1 receptors (which have an
excitatory effect on the brain chemicals they influence) raised the animal's
levels of both substance P and dynorphin. "
Also, http://www.med.yale.edu/chldstdy/plomdevelop/genetics/01febgen.htm
"A central premise in the łcatecholamine hypothesis˛ of
attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) is that dopamine (DA)
dysfunction leads to clinical symptoms. The hypothesis arises, in part, from
the clinical efficacy of methylphenidate, as well as evidence from brain
imaging studies that suggest reduced activity in frontal-striatal regions."
>
> And since we still can't measure this, how can any of you know whether
> your "dopamine levels" are deficient?
Why do you say that we can't measure this? According to current studies,
such as the one above, we can..
>
> How do you know you can't produce more dopamine by simply changing the
> way you think? Or by making love?
Gee, why didn't Micheal J Fox think of that? Why not wave a magic wand
while you are at it ("If I think hard enough, it will work")
Hey, I just remembered where I heard of this one.
HAROLD HILL'S "THINK METHOD"....demonstrated by Robert Preston (1962),
developed by Meredith Wilson-I can provide the links if you are
interested...
Buny