Ritalin class action suit
John
The law firm of Waters & Kraus takes this opportunity to announce the filing
in Texas of a class action lawsuit entitled Hernandez, Plaintiff,
Individually and on Behalf of all Others Similarly Situated v. Ciba Geigy
Corporation, U.S.A., Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation, Children and
Adults With Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (CHADD), and the
American Psychiatric Association. Dr. Peter Breggin is serving as a medical
consultant in the case.
While this filing is a departure from Waters & Kraus' continuing practice of
toxic exposure and cancer cases, the pattern and practice of improper
conduct on the part of the defendants in this case rivals that of the
asbestos corporate defendants and tobacco companies in other cases.
The suit states allegations based on fraud and conspiracy. From
approximately 1955 through 1995, the exclusive or primary manufacturer and
supplier of Ritalin in this country was defendant Ciba-Geigy Corp., U.S.A.
("Ciba"). In 1996 Ciba merged with Sandoz Pharmaceuticals Corp. to become
defendant Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corp. ("Novartis"). Ciba/Novartis has
manufactured, marketed and sold Ritalin since approximately 1955.
Ciba/Novartis planned, conspired, and colluded to create, develop and
promote the diagnosis of Attention Deficit Disorder (ADD) and Attention
Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) in a highly successful effort to
increase the market for its product Ritalin. In addition to its actions and
involvement with the creation of the ADD and ADHD diagnosis, Ciba/Novartis
took steps to promote and dramatically increase the sales of Ritalin by way
of the following:
Actively promoting and supporting the concept that a significant percentage
of children suffer from a "disease" which required narcotic
treatment/therapy;
Actively promoting Ritalin as the "drug of choice" to treat children
diagnosed with ADD and ADHD:
Actively supporting groups such as Defendant CHADD, both financially and
with other means, so that such organizations would promote and support (as a
supposed neutral party) the ever-increasing implementation of ADD/ADHD
diagnoses as well as directly increasing Ritalin sales;
Distributing misleading sales and promotional literature to parents, schools
and other interested persons in a successful effort to further increase the
number of diagnoses and the number of persons prescribed Ritalin.
Defendant CHADD (Children and Adults with Attention Deficit/Hyperactivity
Disorder) has been a recipient of financial donations and contributions from
Defendants Ciba/Novartis for many years. CHADD received $748,000 from
Ciba/Novartis in the period 1991 to 1994 alone. During the periods when
CHADD received funding from Ciba/Novartis, CHADD deliberately made efforts
to increase the sales of Ritalin, and to increase the supply of
methylphenidate (the generic name for Ritalin) available in the United
States, and to reduce or eliminate laws and restrictions concerning the use
of Ritalin and methylphenidate in the United States, all to the financial
benefit of Ciba/Novartis. Ciba/Novartis made such financial contributions
with the purpose of advertising and promoting sales of Ritalin - an
internationally controlled substance. Ciba/Novartis has thus repeatedly
violated Article 10 of the United Nations Convention on Psychotropic
Substances, 1019 U.N.T.S. 175 (1971).
CHADD's activities nationwide have led to significant increase in the amount
of Ritalin taken by school children and have directly resulted in enormous
profits to Ciba/Novartis.
Parents, the school districts and other interested parties are generally
unaware that use of Ritalin can cause a significant number of health
problems and risks, including but not limited to the following:
Cardiovascular
Rapid heart beat (palpitations, tachycardia)
High blood pressure (hypertension)
Unusual heart rhythm (arrythmia)
Heart attack (cardiac arrest)
Central Nervous System
Altered mental status (psychosis)
Hallucinations
Depression or excitement
Convulsions / seizures (excessive brain stimulation)
Drowsiness or "dopey" feeling
Confusion
Lack of sleep (insomnia)
Agitation, irritation, anxiety, nervousness
Hostility
Unhappiness (Dysphoria)
Impaired mental abilities (cognitive impairment on tests)
Jerky movements (Dyskinesias, tics, Tourette's syndrome)
Nervous habits (such as picking at skin or pulling hair)
Compulsive behavior
Depression/over-sensitivity
Decreased social interest
Zombie-like behavior
Gastrointestinal
Eating disorders (anorexia)
Nausea
Vomiting
Stomach ache / cramps
Dry mouth
Constipation
Abnormal liver function tests
Endocrine/Metabolic
Growth problems (pituitary dysfunction)
Weight loss
Other
Blurred vision
Headache
Dizziness
Rash/conjunctivitis/hives
Hair loss
Inflammation of the skin (dermatitis)
Blood disorders (anorexia, leukoplacia)
Involuntary discharge of urine (enuresis)
Fever
Joint pain
Unusual sweating
Withdrawal and Rebound
Sleep problems (insomnia)
Evening crash
Depression
Over-activity and irritability
Worsening of ADHD-like symptoms
In addition, it is not generally known or understood by the public that use
of Ritalin will preclude a child from ever joining the United States
military because Ritalin is classified as a Class II controlled substance,
along with morphine and other amphetamines.
Chris Leithiser
>
> Ritalin Fraud http://www.ritalinfraud.com/
They got the name right, at least. If Breggin is involved, fraud can't
be far behind.
G03090103
And we all know he's full of sh*t, 'cause his wife was a (as Mark Probert would
write) $cientologi$t, right? What a perfect example of an ad hominem attack.
JG
Chris Leithiser
Why, yes, a perfect example of your using ad-hominem against Mark! :)
Actually, both he and his wife, Ginger (who escaped from the cult) both
have nasty things to say about it. Publicly. They're still very much
in bed with people who think they're spiritually descended from seafood,
because the money's good.
Chris Leithiser
>
> >Why, yes, a perfect example of your using ad-hominem against Mark! :)
> >
> anyone else who might be remotely interested) to the Nizkor Project,
> http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies .
No problem, I'm familiar with _both_ forms of the Ad Hom fallacy. Hence
the Smiley at the end of my little joke.
> I've not attacked Mark; he has, on numerous occasions, written "Scientologist"
> with dollar signs in place of the esses.
I do that too. That's in honor of their highest "dynamic," the Buck.
> >Actually, both he and his wife, Ginger (who escaped from the cult) both
> >have nasty things to say about it. Publicly. They're still very much
> >in bed with people who think they're spiritually descended from seafood,
> >because the money's good.
>
> And this invalidates Breggin's views because???
It doesn't invalidate Breggin's views. He does that himself, by citing
old information which has been superceded by more recent research, for
example. The fact that he parrots much of the same misinformation that
the cult does, makes his public distancing from the lying cult of
$cientology just a wee bit hard to believe.
That he's a hired gun for such things as the Ritalin lawsuit makes me
suspicious of his views; that they contradict both my own experience and
scientific research makes me doubt them still more. That he persists,
when corrected, makes him a liar.
But I guess I'm not supposed to call a liar a liar anymore...
G03090103
>G03090103 wrote:
>> Chris Leithiser clei...@bc.cc.ca.us wrote:
>> And we all know he's full of sh*t, 'cause his wife was a (as Mark Probert
>would
>> write) $cientologi$t, right? What a perfect example of an ad hominem
>attack.
>> JG
>Why, yes, a perfect example of your using ad-hominem against Mark! :)
>
No, Chris, it isn't. Rather than debate fallacies, I'll just refer you (and
anyone else who might be remotely interested) to the Nizkor Project,
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies .
I've not attacked Mark; he has, on numerous occasions, written "Scientologist"
with dollar signs in place of the esses. What you choose to infer is up to
you; I was simply pointing out (to anyone who might not be familiar with his
modus operandi) that Mr. Probert's reasoning is faulty; one's religious
affiliation alone doesn't automatically invalidate his/her assertions. Here,
from the site mentioned above, is a definition of (circumstantial) ad hominem:
1. Person A [e.g., Peter Breggin] makes claim X.
2. Person B [e.g., Mark Probert, et al.] makes an attack on A's circumstances.
3. Therefore X is false.
A Circumstantial ad Hominem is a fallacy because a person's interests and
circumstances have no bearing on the truth or falsity of the claim being made.
While a person's interests will provide them with motives to support certain
claims, the claims stand or fall on their own. It is also the case that a
person's circumstances (religion, political affiliation, etc.) do not affect
the truth or falsity of the claim. This is made quite clear by the following
example: "Bill claims that 1+1=2. But he is a Republican, so his claim is
false."
>Actually, both he and his wife, Ginger (who escaped from the cult) both
>have nasty things to say about it. Publicly. They're still very much
>in bed with people who think they're spiritually descended from seafood,
>because the money's good.
And this invalidates Breggin's views because???
JG
John
Chris Leithiser <clei...@bc.cc.ca.us> wrote in
>
> But I guess I'm not supposed to call a liar a liar anymore...
It tends to get my suspicions when people use that word-----basically they
tend to use the word for anyone who disagrees with their opinions. No
evidence is ever provided that the said person has actually lied.
>That he persists,
>when corrected, makes him a liar.
No doubt you can provide evidence for this.
John
Mark Probert
<wh...@whaleto.freeserve.co.uk> writes:
None that you would accept. They contain facts.
Mark Probert
A vote for Pat Buchanan is a vote for America's First Fuhrer!
Mark Probert
<clei...@bc.cc.ca.us> writes:
Much snippage...
>That he's a hired gun for such things as the Ritalin lawsuit makes me
>suspicious of his views; that they contradict both my own experience and
>scientific research makes me doubt them still more. That he persists,
>when corrected, makes him a liar.
I have my personal doubts about the hired gun theory. I have a suspicion that
he is a prime mover. The suit is just too-Breggin.
>But I guess I'm not supposed to call a liar a liar anymore...
Of course not. That is the exclusive technique of G4444444 and the rest of
them.
Mark Probert
(G03090103) writes:
>
>Chris Leithiser clei...@bc.cc.ca.us wrote:
>
>
>
>>John wrote:
>>>
>>> Ritalin Fraud http://www.ritalinfraud.com/
>
>>They got the name right, at least. If Breggin is involved, fraud can't
>>be far behind.
>
>And we all know he's full of sh*t, 'cause his wife was a (as Mark Probert
>would
>write) $cientologi$t, right? What a perfect example of an ad hominem attack.
One should know where someone is coming from. Wheni read Breggin for the first
time, I asked myself just how someone with his education could be so
intellectually dishonest. When I found that his wife was a former (can you ever
be "former", without joining Lisa McPherson?) member of the Kriminal Kult of
$cientilogy, it made sense.
In a perverse sort of way.
Dr. S.
psych lingo) the possible side effect of Ritalin-induced cancer, which
has been so thoroughly demonstrated in mice that a couple of years ago,
the US government sponsored a mailing warning of this to over 100,000
US pediatricians. No such mailing was made to patients' families.
"When I can't stops me fiddlin' I just takes me Ritalin; I'm poppin'
and sailin', man!" (Bart Simpson)
More information at http://doctoryourself.com/adhd.html
http://doctoryourself.com/hoffer_psychosis.html
http://doctoryourself.com/hoffer_paradigm.html
--
Over 120 articles (indexed by topic, or keyword with an on-site
search engine) plus hundreds of scientific references on nutritional
therapeutics are posted at http://doctoryourself.com Links to other
clinical nutrition and alternative medicine sites are provided.
In article <8gd8ah$tkr$1...@newsg3.svr.pol.co.uk>,
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Joe Parsons
>Whew! Thank you for the post. One may add (or is that "adhd," in child
>psych lingo) the possible side effect of Ritalin-induced cancer, which
>has been so thoroughly demonstrated in mice that a couple of years ago,
Oh, you mean the 1995 NIH study?
It's at http://ntp-server.niehs.nih.gov/htdocs/LT-studies/tr439.html.
The FDA letter you refer to is at
Http://www.fda.gov//bbs/topics/ANSWERS/ANS00705.html.
>the US government sponsored a mailing warning of this to over 100,000
>US pediatricians. No such mailing was made to patients' families.
Do you suppose the fact that the causative link is so tenuous might have
something to do with it? Or the fact that the rare, non-fatal liver tumors have
occurred *only* in lab rodents that develop tumors readily? Or perhaps that
there have been no cancers in humans related to the use of methylphenidate?
Joe Parsons
==========================================================
Frequently Asked Questions for alt.support.attn-deficit
and other resources for dealing with attention deficit
disorder are at http://www.cyber-mall.com/asad/
Chris Leithiser
>
> Whew! Thank you for the post. One may add (or is that "adhd," in child
> psych lingo) the possible side effect of Ritalin-induced cancer, which
> has been so thoroughly demonstrated in mice that a couple of years ago,
> the US government sponsored a mailing warning of this to over 100,000
> US pediatricians. No such mailing was made to patients' families.
>
The FDA also noted that the kind of liver tumor found in mice is
extremely rare in people, and its occurrence in recent years has not
increased despite an increase in the use of Ritalin.
They called the research results a "weak signal." By contrast,
secondhand smoke is a "strong signal" indicator as a cause of
cancer...and the government didn't send a warning to parents either.
Chris Leithiser
>
> >That he persists,
> >when corrected, makes him a liar.
>
> No doubt you can provide evidence for this.
>
> John
Mark has been too modest. I cannot improve on this classic:
http://x69.deja.com/[ST_rn=ps]/getdoc.xp?AN=611512829&CONTEXT=959188096.832176159&hitnum=18
Kurt Ullman
<clei...@bc.cc.ca.us> wrote:
>They called the research results a "weak signal." By contrast,
>secondhand smoke is a "strong signal" indicator as a cause of
>cancer...and the government didn't send a warning to parents either.
Yeah, but second hand smoke did not become a strong signal before the feds
cooked the books. They were caught after their big pronouncement a few years
ago of changing the confidence interval to 90%. It wasn't significant at 95%
(which is the CI used by almost all of the studies that the prnouncement was
based on.)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
"People everywhere confuse what they read in the newspapers with news."
-A.J. Liebling
CBI
--
CBI, M.D.
Please note: It is impossible to accurately diagnose medical problems
without seeing the patient and reviewing the entire history. These posts are
intended to be helpful and informative. Always check with your doctor before
following any advice given.
Medicine Tools
CBI <c_ish...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:8ghm3a$iik$1...@slb7.atl.mindspring.net...
Joe Parsons
>That's why I never, ever, give Ritalin to rodents. Just to be safe.
You are truly a compassionate person.
Chris Leithiser
>
> That's why I never, ever, give Ritalin to rodents. Just to be safe.
>
their tails with a carving knife?
Steven Fochi
more info.
It's not a nice one and one i wouldn't give to my child, especially if the
child is young as they don't know how it affects a young child yet.
Love and Light
Steven
=====================================
RITALIN
(Novartis)
Composition:
Methylphenidate hydrochloride (alpha-Phenyl-2-piperidineacetic acid methyl
ester hydrochloride).
Excipients: lactose, calcium phosphate, gelatin, magnesium stearate,
talc-purified, starch-wheat.
Pharmacology:
Ritalin is a central nervous stimulant. Its mode of action in man is not
completely understood, but Ritalin presumably exerts its
stimulant effect by activating the brainstem arousal system and cortex.
There is neither specific evidence which clearly establishes the mechanism
whereby Ritalin produces its mental and behavioural
effects in children, nor conclusive evidence as to how these effects relate
to the condition of the central nervous system.
Pharmacokinetics:
Following oral administration of Ritalin, the active substance,
methylphenidate hydrochloride, is rapidly and almost completely
absorbed from the tablets. Owing to extensive first-pass metabolism, its
systemic availability amounts to only 30% (11-51%) of the
dose. Ingestion together with food accelerates its absorption, but has no
influence on the amount absorbed. Peak plasma
concentrations of approx. 40 nmol/litre (11 ng/mL) are attained, on the
average, 2 hours after administration of 0.30 mg/kg. The
peak plasma concentrations, however, vary markedly from one person to
another. The area under the plasma concentration curve
(AUC), as well as the peak plasma concentration, are proportional to the
size of the dose administered.
In the blood, methylphenidate and its metabolites become distributed in the
plasma (57%) and the erythrocytes (43%).
Methylphenidate and its metabolites have low plasma protein-binding
(approximately 15%). The apparent volume of distribution has
been calculated at 13.1 litres/kg.
Methylphenidate is eliminated from the plasma with a mean half-life of 2 to
3 hours, and the calculated mean systemic clearance
is 4 to 10 litres/h/kg. Within 48 to 96 hours 78 to 97% of the dose
administered is excreted in the urine and 1 to 3% in the faeces
in the form of metabolites. Unchanged methylphenidate appears in the urine
only in small quantities (< 1%). The bulk of the dose
is excreted in the urine as 2-phenyl-2-piperidyl acetic acid (PPAA, 60-86%).
Peak plasma concentrations of PPAA are attained
about 2 hours after administration of methylphenidate and are 30 to 50 times
higher than those of the unchanged substance. The
half-life of PPAA is roughly twice as long as that of methylphenidate.
There are no apparent differences in the pharmacokinetic behaviour of
methylphenidate in hyperactive children and normal adults.
Indications:
Attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD): ADHD was previously known
as attention-deficit disorder. Other terms being used
to describe this behavioural syndrome include: minimal brain dysfunction in
children, hyperkinetic child syndrome, minimal brain
damage, minimal cerebral dysfunction, minor cerebral dysfunction, and
psycho-organic syndrome of children.
Ritalin is indicated as part of a comprehensive treatment programme which
typically includes other remedial measures
(psychological, educational, social) for achieving a beneficial effect in
children with a behavioural syndrome characterised by the
following group of developmentally inappropriate symptoms: moderate to
severe distractibility, short attention span, hyperactivity
(not always present) and impulsivity. The diagnosis of this syndrome should
not be made when these symptoms are only of recent
origin. Non-localising (soft) neurological signs, emotional lability,
learning disability, and an abnormal EEG may or may not be
present, and a diagnosis of central nervous system dysfunction may or may
not be warranted.
Special diagnostic considerations for ADHD: The aetiology of this syndrome
is unknown, and there is no single diagnostic test.
Adequate diagnosis requires the use, not only of medical but also of
psychological, educational, and social resources.
Characteristics commonly reported include: chronic history of short
attention span, distractibility, emotional lability, impulsivity,
moderate to severe hyperactivity, minor neurological signs and an abnormal
EEG. Learning may or may not be impaired. The
diagnosis must be based upon a complete history and evaluation of the child
and not solely on the presence of one or more of
these characteristics.
Drug treatment is not indicated for all children with this syndrome.
Stimulants are not intended for use in children who exhibit
symptoms secondary to environmental factors (e.g. child abuse in particular)
or primary psychiatric disorders. Appropriate
educational placement is essential and psychosocial intervention is
generally necessary. When remedial measures alone are
insufficient, the decision to prescribe stimulant medication will depend
upon the physician's assessment of the chronicity and
severity of the child's symptoms.
Narcolepsy: The symptoms include daytime sleepiness, inappropriate sleep
episodes, and rapidly occurring loss of voluntary
muscle tone. Effective for symptoms of sleepiness but not for loss of
voluntary muscle tone.
Contra-indications:
Anxiety and tension states, agitation, tics, tics in siblings, a family
history or diagnosis of Tourette's syndrome, glaucoma,
hyperthyroidism, cardiac arrhythmia, severe angina pectoris, known
hypersensitivity to methylphenidate or to any component of
the formulation.
Precautions and Warnings:
Ritalin should not be used in children under 6 years of age, since safety
and efficacy in this age group have not been established.
Ritalin should not be used as treatment for severe depression of either
exogenous or endogenous origin. In psychotic patients,
administration of Ritalin may exacerbate symptoms of behavioural disturbance
and thought disorder. Ritalin should not be
employed for the prevention or treatment of normal fatigue states.
There is some clinical evidence that Ritalin may lower the convulsion
threshold in patients with a history of seizures, with prior
EEG abnormalities in the absence of seizures and rarely, in the absence of a
history of seizures and no prior EEG evidence of
seizures. Safe concomitant use of anticonvulsants and Ritalin has not been
established. In the presence of seizures, the drug
should be discontinued.
As with other stimulants, the possibility of habituation or abuse must be
considered, particularly in emotionally unstable patients
and those with a history of drug dependence or alcoholism, because such
patients may increase the dose on their own initiative.
Chronic abuse of Ritalin can lead to marked tolerance and psychic dependence
with varying degrees of abnormal behaviour. Frank
psychotic episodes may occur, especially in response to parenteral abuse.
Ritalin abuse or dependence does not appear to be a
problem in adolescents or adults who were treated with Ritalin for ADHD as
children.
Careful supervision is required during drug withdrawal, since depression as
well as the effects of chronic over-activity can be
unmasked. Long-term follow-up may be needed for some patients.
Treatment with Ritalin is not indicated in all cases of ADHD and should be
considered only in the light of the complete history and
evaluation of the child. The decision to prescribe Ritalin should depend on
the physician's assessment of the chronicity and
severity of the child's symptoms and their appropriateness to his or her
age. Prescription should not depend solely on the
presence of isolated behavioural characteristics. When the symptoms are
associated with acute stress reactions, treatment with
Ritalin is usually not indicated.
The retardation of growth referred to under Adverse Reactions below is
usually followed by catch-up growth when the medication
is discontinued. In order to minimise such complications, drug-free periods
over weekends, school holidays and long vacations are
advocated by some specialists.
Ritalin should be used cautiously in patients with hypertension. Blood
pressure should be monitored at appropriate intervals in all
patients taking Ritalin, especially in those with hypertension.
Data on safety and efficacy of long-term use of Ritalin are not complete.
Therefore, patients requiring long-term therapy should be
carefully monitored.
Periodic complete blood counts, differential, and platelet counts are
advisable during prolonged therapy.
Ritalin may affect the patient's reactions and adversely influence his or
her ability to drive and use machines.
Alcohol may exacerbate the CNS adverse reactions of psychoactive drugs,
including Ritalin. Therefore, it is advisable for patients
to abstain from alcohol during treatment.
Medicines should be kept out of the reach of children.
Use during Pregnancy and Lactation:
As a general rule no drugs should be taken during the first 3 months of
pregnancy, and the benefits and risks of taking drugs
should be carefully considered throughout the whole of the pregnancy.
There is no experience upon which to judge the safety of Ritalin in human
pregnancy, nor is there evidence from animal work that it
is free from either teratogenic potential or other adverse effects on the
embryo and/or foetus relevant to the safety assessment of
the product. Use of Ritalin should be avoided during pregnancy unless, in
the opinion of the physician, there is no safer alternative.
It is not known whether or not the active ingredient of Ritalin and/or its
metabolites pass into breast milk. For safety reasons
mothers taking Ritalin should refrain from breast-feeding their infants.
Adverse Reactions:
Central and peripheral nervous system: Nervousness, insomnia and anorexia
are the most common adverse reactions occurring at
the beginning of the treatment and are usually controlled by reducing the
dosage and omitting the drug in the afternoon or evening.
Headache, drowsiness, dizziness, depressed mood, irritability, dyskinesia,
difficulties in accommodation, and blurring of vision
may also occur. Isolated cases of hyperactivity, convulsions, muscle cramps,
cerebral arteritis and/or occlusion, choreo-athetoid
movements, tics, or exacerbation of pre-existing tics, and Tourette's
syndrome have been reported. Isolated cases of toxic
psychosis (some with visual and tactile hallucinations) have been reported,
which subsided when Ritalin was discontinued. Very
rare reports of poorly documented neuroleptic malignant syndrome have been
received.
Gastrointestinal tract: Abdominal pain, nausea, and vomiting may occur and
may be alleviated by concomitant food intake; dry
mouth; very rare reports of abnormal liver function, ranging from
transaminase elevation to hepatic coma.
Cardiovascular system: Tachycardia, palpitation, arrhythmia, changes in
blood pressure and heart rate (usually an increase),
angina pectoris.
Skin and/or hypersensitivity reactions: Rash, pruritus, urticaria, fever,
arthralgia, alopecia. Isolated cases of thrombocytopenic
purpura, of exfoliative dermatitis, and of erythema multiforme have been
reported.
Blood: Isolated cases of leucopenia, thrombocytopenia, and anaemia have been
reported.
Other adverse reactions: Moderate reduction in weight gain and minor
retardation of growth in stature may occur in children during
prolonged therapy.
Interactions:
Ritalin should be used cautiously with pressor agents and MAO inhibitors.
Human pharmacological studies have shown that Ritalin
may inhibit the metabolism of coumarin anticoagulants, anticonvulsants
(phenobarbitone, primidone, phenytoin), phenylbutazone,
and tricyclic antidepressants (imipramine, desipramine). Reduction in the
dosage of these drugs may be required when they are
given concomitantly with Ritalin.
In occasional circumstances where guanethidine and Ritalin are used
together, any antihypertensive effect of the former may be
attenuated.
Dosage and Administration:
Treatment should only be initiated by specialist physicians with experience
in the use of the drug.
The dosage must be adapted to individual case. The rate of absorption and,
therefore, onset of action is faster when the drug is
taken with food. Dosage should, therefore, be standardised in relation to
food to ensure consistency of effect.
Adults: Administer in divided doses 2 or 3 times daily. The average dose is
20 to 30 mg daily. Some patients may require 40 to 60
mg daily. In others, 10 to 15 mg daily will be adequate. Patients who are
unable to sleep if Ritalin is taken late in the day should
take the last dose before 6pm.
Dosing for each patient requires titration to control symptoms. Single doses
greater than 20 mg are associated with
sympathomimetic side-effects. Therefore, the average single dose should be
less than 20 mg. A maximum total dose of 60 mg/day
may be required.
Doses should be administered 1-2 hours before the maximum effect is
required.
Children (6 years and over): Treatment with Ritalin should be initiated in
small doses, with gradual weekly increments. Daily
dosage should not exceed 60 mg. Timing of the drug's administration should
be aimed at coinciding with periods of greatest
academic, behavioural, or social difficulties for the patient.
Start with 5 mg once or twice daily (e.g. at breakfast and at lunch) with
gradual increments of 5 or 10 mg weekly. The total daily
dosage should be administered in divided doses.
If improvement of symptoms is not observed after appropriate dosage
adjustment over a one-month period, the drug should be
discontinued.
In some children with ADHD, sleeplessness may occur as the effect of the
drug wears off. On rare occasions, an additional dose
at about 8.00 p.m. may help; a trial dose may help to clarify the issue in
an individual case, if the symptom warrants treatment.
Ritalin should be discontinued periodically (e.g. over weekends, school
holidays and long vacation) to assess the child's condition.
Improvement may be sustained when the drug is either temporarily or
permanently discontinued. Drug treatment should not and
need not, be indefinite and usually may be discontinued during or after
puberty.
Overdosage:
Signs and symptoms of acute overdosage, resulting principally from
overstimulation of the central nervous system and from
excessive sympathomimetic effects, may include the following:
vomiting, agitation, tremors, hyperreflexia, muscle twitching, convulsions
(may be followed by coma), euphoria, confusion,
hallucinations, delirium, sweating, flushing, headache, hyperpyrexia,
tachycardia, palpitation, cardiac arrhythmias, hypertension,
mydriasis, and dryness of mucous membranes.
Treatment consists of appropriate supportive measures. The patient must be
protected against self-injury and against external
stimuli that would aggravate overstimulation already present. If the signs
and symptoms are not too severe and the patient is
conscious, further absorption may be limited by administration of activated
charcoal. If gastric lavage is undertaken, and in cases
of marked agitation, intravenous doses of diazepam or haloperidol should be
given. Hypertension may be controlled by
alpha-adrenergic blocking agents or intravenous sodium nitroprusside.
Intensive care must be provided to maintain adequate circulation and
respiratory exchange; external cooling procedures may be
required for hyperpyrexia.
Efficacy of peritoneal dialysis or extracorporeal haemodialysis for
overdosage of Ritalin has not been established.
Pack:
Tablets 10 mg (white, scored, marked AB, CG on reverse): 100's
All States and A.C.T.-S.8
August 1998
rtl030898i
=======================================
RITALIN - CMI
(Novartis)
CONSUMER MEDICINE INFORMATION
What is in this leaflet
This leaflet answers some common questions about Ritalin.
It does not contain all the available information.
It does not take the place of talking to your doctor or pharmacist.
All medicines have risks and benefits. Your doctor has weighed the risks of
you or your child taking Ritalin against the benefits
they expect it will have.
If you have any concerns about taking this medicine, ask your doctor or
pharmacist.
Keep this leaflet with the medicine.
You may need to read it again.
What Ritalin is used for
Ritalin is used to treat a behavioural disorder called Attention Deficit
Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD), although not all people with
this disorder are hyperactive.
About 3% of children suffer from ADHD. It makes them unable to sit still or
concentrate on tasks for any length of time. They may
have trouble learning and doing school work. They frequently become
difficult to manage, both in school and at home.
Ritalin is a central nervous system stimulant. It is thought to work by
regulating specific chemicals in the brain which affect
behaviour. It helps to focus attention, shut out distraction and allows
impulsive people to think before they act. If successful, it will
enhance an inattentive person's natural ability.
Ritalin is part of a treatment program which usually includes psychological,
educational and social therapy.
Ritalin is also used to treat narcolepsy, a sleep-attack disorder.
People with narcolepsy have recurring attacks of irresistible day-time
sleepiness in spite of having enough sleep at night.
Narcolepsy can be diagnosed by a doctor by recording wake-sleep patterns.
Ask your doctor if you have any questions about why Ritalin has been
prescribed for you.
Your doctor may have prescribed it for another reason.
This medicine is only available with a doctor's prescription and your doctor
has special permission to prescribe it.
Before you take Ritalin
When you must not take it
- Do not take Ritalin if you have an allergy to:
methylphenidate (the active ingredient in Ritalin)
any of the other ingredients listed at the end of this leaflet
Some of the symptoms of an allergic reaction may include rash, itching or
hives on the skin; swelling of the face, lips, tongue or
other parts of the body; shortness of breath, wheezing or troubled
breathing.
- Do not take Ritalin if you have any of the following medical conditions:
periods of severe anxiety, tension or agitation
tics (muscle twitching which is usually in the face or shoulders) or if
your brothers or sisters have tics
Tourettes's syndrome or you have a family history of this disorder
glaucoma (increased pressure in the eye)
an overactive thyroid
an irregular heartbeat
severe angina (chest pain)
If you are not sure whether any of the above medical conditions apply to
you, check with your doctor.
- Do not take Ritalin after the expiry date printed on the pack.
If you take this medicine after the expiry date has passed, it may not work
as well as it should.
- Do not take Ritalin if the packaging is torn or shows signs of tampering.
In that case, return it to your pharmacist.
- Do not give this medicine to children under 6 years of age.
There is not enough information to recommend its use in children under 6
years old.
Before you start to take it
- Tell your doctor if you are allergic to any other medicines, foods, dyes
or preservatives.
Your doctor will want to know if you are prone to allergies.
- Tell your doctor if you have any of the following medical conditions:
severe depression or other mental illness
epilepsy (seizures or fits)
high blood pressure
alcoholism
drug dependence
Your doctor may want to take special precautions if you have any of these
conditions.
- Tell your doctor if you are pregnant or breast feeding. Ask your doctor
about the risks and benefits of taking Ritalin in this case.
Ritalin may affect your developing baby if you take it while you are
pregnant. It is not known if the active ingredient in Ritalin
passes into the breast milk. Breast feeding is not recommended.
If you have not told your doctor about any of these things, tell him/her
before you take Ritalin.
Taking other medicines
- Tell your doctor if you are taking any other medicines, including
medicines that you buy without a prescription from a pharmacy,
supermarket or health food shop.
Other medicines and Ritalin may interfere with each other. Some of these
medicines include:
medicines that increase blood pressure
warfarin, a medicine used to prevent blood clots
medicines for epilepsy (fits)
medicines for depression, such as tricyclic antidepressants and MAO
inhibitors
phenylbutazone
guanethidine
You may need to take different amounts of your medicines or you may need to
take different medicines.
Your doctor and pharmacist have more information on medicines to be careful
with or avoid while taking Ritalin.
How to take Ritalin
Follow the directions given to you by your doctor and pharmacist carefully.
These directions may differ from the information contained in this leaflet.
If you do not understand the instructions on the label, ask your doctor or
pharmacist for help.
How much to take
Children: the usual starting dose is 5 mg (half a tablet) once or twice each
day. If necessary, the dose can be increased by 5 or 10
mg each week up to a maximum of 60 mg (6 tablets) each day.
Adults: the usual dose is 20 to 30 mg (2-3 tablets) each day but some people
may need more or less than that. The maximum
dose is 60 mg (6 tablets) each day.
When to take it
Take the tablets in 2 or 3 doses over the day unless your doctor tells you
otherwise.
Each dose is usually taken 1 or 2 hours before the greatest effect is
needed. For example, a child may take a dose at 7.00 a.m.
so that improved behaviour begins when school starts. If the child tends to
misbehave during the lunchtime play period, the next
dose can be taken before the lunch break.
If you find that this medicine keeps you from sleeping, talk to your doctor
about the best time to take the last dose of the day.
How to take it
Take the tablets with a full glass of water or other liquid. If the tablets
upset your stomach, you can take them with food.
Always take the tablets in the same way (eg. always with food or always
without food).
That way the effect will always be the same.
If the dose is one-half tablet, there is a break-line on the tablet to help
you cut it. You can buy a tablet cutter from your pharmacist
to make sure the dose is accurate.
How long to take it
Continue taking Ritalin for as long as your doctor tells you to.
Ritalin helps to control your symptoms but it does not cure your condition.
Your doctor will check your progress to make sure the
medicine is working and will discuss with you how long your treatment should
continue. If you are unsure, talk to your doctor.
During treatment for ADHD, Ritalin is usually stopped every so often (eg.
over weekends, school holidays and long vacation) to see
whether it is still needed. Breaks from treatment also help to prevent a
slow-down in growth that sometimes happens when
children take Ritalin for a long time.
If you forget to take it
Take the dose as soon as you remember. Then make sure to wait the same
amount of time as usual before you take the next
dose.
For example, if there are usually 4 hours between doses, wait 4 hours before
taking the next dose and so on for the rest of that
day. On the next day go back to your usual times.
Do not take a double dose to make up for the one that you missed.
If you have trouble remembering when to take your medicine, ask your
pharmacist for some hints.
If you take too much (Overdose)
Immediately telephone your doctor or Poisons Information Centre (telephone
13 11 26) for advice, or go to accident and emergency
at your nearest hospital if you think that you or anyone else may have taken
too much Ritalin. Do this even if there are no signs of
discomfort or poisoning.
Keep the telephone numbers for these places handy.
Symptoms of an overdose may include vomiting, agitation, headache, tremors,
muscle twitching, irregular heart beat, flushing,
fever, sweating, dilated pupils, breathing problems, confusion and seizures.
While you are taking Ritalin
Things you must do
- Take Ritalin exactly as your doctor has prescribed.
Like all stimulants, Ritalin may become habit-forming and can be abused by
some people. If you take it correctly as instructed by
your doctor, abuse or dependence should not be a problem, either now or
later in life.
Be sure to keep all of your doctor's appointments so that your progress can
be checked.
Your doctor will want to check your blood pressure and do blood tests from
time to time to prevent unwanted side effects from
happening.
- If you become pregnant while taking Ritalin, tell your doctor.
Your doctor can discuss with you the risks and benefits of taking it while
you are pregnant.
- If you are about to be started on any new medicine, remind your doctor and
pharmacist that you are taking Ritalin.
- Tell any other doctor, dentist or pharmacist who treats you that you are
taking Ritalin.
Things you must not do
- Do not stop your treatment without first checking with your doctor.
If you suddenly stop taking this medicine, your condition may reappear or
you may get unwanted effects such as depression. To
prevent this, your doctor may want to gradually reduce the amount of
medicine you take each day before stopping it completely.
- Do not take Ritalin to treat any other complaints unless your doctor tells
you to.
- Do not give this medicine to anyone else, even if their symptoms seem to
be similar to yours.
Things to be careful of
- Be careful driving, operating machinery or doing jobs that require you to
be alert while you are taking Ritalin until you know how it
affects you.
This medicine may cause dizziness, drowsiness or blurred vision in some
people. If you have any of these symptoms, do not drive
or do anything else that could be dangerous.
- Be careful when drinking alcohol while you are taking Ritalin.
Drinking alcohol during treatment with Ritalin is not recommended because
alcohol can worsen some of the unwanted effects of
Ritalin such as dizziness and drowsiness.
Side effects
Tell your doctor or pharmacist as soon as possible if you do not feel well
while you are taking Ritalin.
All medicines can have side effects. Sometimes they are serious, most of the
time they are not. You may need medical treatment
if you get some of the side effects.
Do not be alarmed by this list of possible side effects. You may not
experience any of them.
Ask your doctor or pharmacist to answer any questions you may have.
Tell your doctor if you notice any of the following side effects and they
worry you:
nausea (feeling sick), vomiting or abdominal pain
loss of appetite, which can lead to loss of weight or slower growth in
children
feeling nervous or unable to sleep
dry mouth
headache
drowsiness
dizziness
mood changes such as depression or irritability
blurred vision or problems focussing your eyes
muscle cramps
hair loss
Stomach upset, loss of appetite and difficulty sleeping are common,
especially at the start of treatment. Your doctor can usually
help to reduce these symptoms by lowering the dose of Ritalin or changing
the times when the tablets are taken.
Tell your doctor immediately if you notice any of the following:
signs of allergy such as swelling of the face, lips or tongue; shortness of
breath, wheezing or troubled breathing
rash, itching, red blotches, blisters or pealing of the skin
sudden increase in body temperature, sweating, fast heart beat, muscle
stiffness and fluctuating blood pressure, which may
lead to coma
constant "flu-like" symptoms such as chills, fever, sore throat, swollen
glands, aching muscles or joints
unusual bleeding or bruising
unusual tiredness, shortness of breath when exercising, dizziness, pale
skin
uncontrollable twitching, jerking or writhing movements
seizures (fits)
pain or tightness in the chest
fast or irregular heart beat, changes in blood pressure
yellow colour to the skin or eyes, dark coloured urine or light coloured
bowel motions
confusion or hallucinations (seeing or feeling things that are not really
there)
severe or persistent headache
These side effects may be serious. You may need urgent medical attention.
Tell your doctor if you notice anything else that is making you feel unwell.
Other side effects not listed above may happen in some people.
After taking Ritalin
Storage
Keep your tablets in the original container until it is time to take them.
Store the tablets in a cool dry place.
Do not store Ritalin or any other medicine in the bathroom or near a sink.
Do not leave it in the car or on window sills.
Heat and dampness can destroy some medicines. Ritalin will keep well if it
is cool and dry.
Keep this medicine where children cannot reach it.
A locked cupboard at least one-and-a-half metres above the ground is a good
place to store medicines.
Disposal
If your doctor tells you to stop taking Ritalin or the tablets have passed
their expiry date, ask your pharmacist what to do with any
that are left over.
Product description
What it looks like
Ritalin 10 mg: round white tablet, marked CG on one side and AB with a
break-line on the other; packs of 100 tablets.
Ingredients
Ritalin tablets contain 10 mg of methylphenidate hydrochloride as the active
ingredient.
They also contain:
lactose
calcium phosphate
gelatin
magnesium stearate
talc-purified
starch-wheat
Australian Registration Number: Ritalin 10 mg tablet AUST R 11052
Sponsor
Ritalin is supplied in Australia by:
NOVARTIS Pharmaceuticals Australia Pty Limited
ACN 004 244 160
54 Waterloo Road
North Ryde NSW 2113
Telephone 1-800-671-203
This leaflet was prepared in August 1998
rtl088c.cur based on PI (rtl088i.cur)
"John" <wh...@whaleto.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:8gd8ah$tkr$1...@newsg3.svr.pol.co.uk...
Dr. S.
greatly increased caution with Ritalin: "FDA considers the results of
the studies a signal of a weak cancer-causing potential for this drug."
I sincerely appreciate your posting the links to both the Ritalin
toxicology study and the warning letter. Thank you.
My opinion on attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder is posted at
http://doctoryourself.com/adhd.html and
http://doctoryourself.com/nerves.html
The viewpoints of an M.D. with over 45 years experience as a
psychiatrist and researcher are posted at
http://doctoryourself.com/hoffer_paradigm.html
http://doctoryourself.com/hoffer_editorial.html
http://doctoryourself.com/hoffer_JOM.html
http://doctoryourself.com/hoffer_psychosis.html
Personal emails on this subject are welcome. I have no financial
connection to the supplement industry, incidently.
--
Over 120 articles (indexed by topic, or keyword with an on-site
search engine) plus hundreds of scientific references on nutritional
therapeutics are posted at http://doctoryourself.com Links to other
clinical nutrition and alternative medicine sites are provided.
In article <q72ois8tg1k0q5bsi...@4ax.com>,
j...@cyber-mall.com wrote:
> On Wed, 24 May 2000 12:52:46 GMT, Dr. S. <drs...@juno.com> wrote:
>
> >Whew! Thank you for the post. One may add (or is that "adhd," in
child
> >psych lingo) the possible side effect of Ritalin-induced cancer,
which
> >has been so thoroughly demonstrated in mice that a couple of years
ago,
>
> Oh, you mean the 1995 NIH study?
>
> It's at http://ntp-server.niehs.nih.gov/htdocs/LT-studies/tr439.html.
>
> The FDA letter you refer to is at
> Http://www.fda.gov//bbs/topics/ANSWERS/ANS00705.html.
>
> >the US government sponsored a mailing warning of this to over 100,000
> >US pediatricians. No such mailing was made to patients' families.
>
> Do you suppose the fact that the causative link is so tenuous might
have
> something to do with it? Or the fact that the rare, non-fatal liver
tumors have
> occurred *only* in lab rodents that develop tumors readily? Or
perhaps that
> there have been no cancers in humans related to the use of
methylphenidate?
>
> Joe Parsons
>
> ==========================================================
> Frequently Asked Questions for alt.support.attn-deficit
> and other resources for dealing with attention deficit
> disorder are at http://www.cyber-mall.com/asad/
>
--
Dr. S.
Perfesser is sitting at a diner counter and is told to eat his carrotts
because it's been shown that they prevent cancer in rats. His response
is, "Why would I want to prevent cancer in rats?"
All charm aside, I think the small but demonstrated carcingenic
potential of Ritalin deserves increased in caution, and more
consideration of safer alternatives.
My opinion on alternatives for attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder
The viewpoints of an M.D. with over 45 years experience as a
psychiatrist and researcher are posted at
http://doctoryourself.com/hoffer_paradigm.html
http://doctoryourself.com/hoffer_editorial.html
http://doctoryourself.com/hoffer_JOM.html
http://doctoryourself.com/hoffer_psychosis.html
Personal emails on this subject are welcome. I have no financial
connection to the supplement industry, incidently.
--
Over 120 articles (indexed by topic, or keyword with an on-site
search engine) plus hundreds of scientific references on nutritional
therapeutics are posted at http://doctoryourself.com Links to other
clinical nutrition and alternative medicine sites are provided.
In article <8ghm3a$iik$1...@slb7.atl.mindspring.net>,
"CBI" <c_ish...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> That's why I never, ever, give Ritalin to rodents. Just to be safe.
>
> --
> CBI, M.D.
>
> Please note: It is impossible to accurately diagnose medical problems
> without seeing the patient and reviewing the entire history. These
posts are
> intended to be helpful and informative. Always check with your doctor
before
> following any advice given.
>
Dr. S.
the dangers of second-hand smoke with those of first-hand Ritalin
consumption by 2 million children a day confirms, to me, that the
safety issue is a real one. The government of the people, for the
people should be woken up by the people.
Additional viewpoint posted at:
http://doctoryourself.com/hoffer_paradigm.html
http://doctoryourself.com/hoffer_editorial.html
http://doctoryourself.com/hoffer_JOM.html
http://doctoryourself.com/hoffer_psychosis.html
--
Over 120 articles (indexed by topic, or keyword with an on-site
search engine) plus hundreds of scientific references on nutritional
therapeutics are posted at http://doctoryourself.com Links to other
clinical nutrition and alternative medicine sites are provided.
In article <392C087C...@bc.cc.ca.us>,
Chris Leithiser <clei...@bc.cc.ca.us> wrote:
> "Dr. S." wrote:
> >
> > Whew! Thank you for the post. One may add (or is that "adhd," in
child
> > psych lingo) the possible side effect of Ritalin-induced cancer,
which
> > has been so thoroughly demonstrated in mice that a couple of years
ago,
> > the US government sponsored a mailing warning of this to over
100,000
> > US pediatricians. No such mailing was made to patients' families.
> >
>
> The FDA also noted that the kind of liver tumor found in mice is
> extremely rare in people, and its occurrence in recent years has not
> increased despite an increase in the use of Ritalin.
>
> They called the research results a "weak signal." By contrast,
> secondhand smoke is a "strong signal" indicator as a cause of
> cancer...and the government didn't send a warning to parents either.
>
Dr. S.
today.
However, I think that a reevaluation of the studies you mentioned was
done and achieved a higher confidence level. May I suggest a look at
or email to
http://www.smokefreeair.org or smok...@usa.net for confirmation
and additional information?
(Personal emails on this subject are welcome, especially if I do not
respond to postings promptly enough.)
--
Over 120 articles (indexed by topic, or keyword with an on-site
search engine) plus hundreds of scientific references on nutritional
therapeutics are posted at http://doctoryourself.com Links to other
clinical nutrition and alternative medicine sites are provided.
In article <NrYW4.32231$S31.6...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net>,
kurtu...@yahoo.com (Kurt Ullman) wrote:
> In article <392C087C...@bc.cc.ca.us>, Chris Leithiser
> <clei...@bc.cc.ca.us> wrote:
>
> >They called the research results a "weak signal." By contrast,
> >secondhand smoke is a "strong signal" indicator as a cause of
> >cancer...and the government didn't send a warning to parents either.
>
> Yeah, but second hand smoke did not become a strong signal before the
feds
> cooked the books. They were caught after their big pronouncement a
few years
> ago of changing the confidence interval to 90%. It wasn't significant
at 95%
> (which is the CI used by almost all of the studies that the
prnouncement was
> based on.)
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
-------
> "People everywhere confuse what they read in the newspapers
with news."
> -A.J. Liebling
>
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Dr. S.
read, the full text of Ritalin's contraindications and side effects?
My opinion on attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder is posted at
The viewpoints of an M.D. with over 45 years experience as a
psychiatrist and researcher are posted at
http://doctoryourself.com/hoffer_paradigm.html
http://doctoryourself.com/hoffer_editorial.html
http://doctoryourself.com/hoffer_JOM.html
http://doctoryourself.com/hoffer_psychosis.html
Personal emails on this subject are welcome. I have no financial
connection to the supplement industry, incidently.
--
Over 120 articles (indexed by topic, or keyword with an on-site
search engine) plus hundreds of scientific references on nutritional
therapeutics are posted at http://doctoryourself.com Links to other
clinical nutrition and alternative medicine sites are provided.
--
Over 120 articles (indexed by topic, or keyword with an on-site
search engine) plus hundreds of scientific references on nutritional
therapeutics are posted at http://doctoryourself.com Links to other
clinical nutrition and alternative medicine sites are provided.
In article <4A2X4.5674$DH3....@news1.eburwd1.vic.optushome.com.au>,
--
Over 120 articles (indexed by topic, or keyword with an on-site
search engine) plus hundreds of scientific references on nutritional
therapeutics are posted at http://doctoryourself.com Links to other
clinical nutrition and alternative medicine sites are provided.
Chris Leithiser
>
> Here's some info on Ritalin from the drug companies for anyone who wants
> more info.
>
> It's not a nice one and one i wouldn't give to my child, especially if the
> child is young as they don't know how it affects a young child yet.
Very good. You can paste-and-copy out of the PDR. Can you _read_ the
PDR as well?
You might check out some of the known side-effects of, say, aspirin. Or
Tylenol.
I'm glad to know you wouldn't give Ritalin to your child. That's
something that should only be done under a doctor's prescription.
And by the way--it's safe and works very well in many cases of ADHD,
when administered under a doctor's prescription. Have a nice day.
Chris Leithiser
>
> Thank you. Any bets on how many parents have seen, let alone actually
> read, the full text of Ritalin's contraindications and side effects?
>
All have had the opportunity, since it's on the package insert available
at any pharmacy.
Actually read? Damned few, of course. Damned few read the warning
labels on the cough syrup they give, too. Or the Advil and Tylenol
bottles.
Good thing Ritalin's such a benign substance, then.
Medicine Tools
Chris Leithiser <clei...@bc.cc.ca.us> wrote in message
news:392D4C7A...@bc.cc.ca.us...
> "Dr. S." wrote:
> >
> > Thank you. Any bets on how many parents have seen, let alone actually
> > read, the full text of Ritalin's contraindications and side effects?
> >
>
Chris Leithiser
>
> To bad some folks are so uninformed . Chris???
You're so right. It is indeed bad that some folks are so
uninformed--more to the point, misinformed--about Ritalin and ADHD.
Much of the active misinformation comes straight from the cult of
$cientology, which believes a) that they are spiritually descended from
seafood, and b) that when they starved Lisa McPherson to death over 17
days at the Fort Harrison hotel in Clearwater, Florida, it was a
"protected religious practice."
They also believe that many of mankind's ills stem from an incident
75,000,000 years ago when Xenu the evil dictator nuked trillions of
souls on Earth's volcanoes, then tortured them by forcing the recaptured
souls to watch "Battlefield Earth*" again and again for three days until
they clumped together into "body thetans." These ghostly aliens must be
removed from your body, at a high cost per alien, before you can
exercise your godlike powers over Matter, Energy, Space, and Time.
Which is _another_ reason I don't trust them for pharmaceutical advice.
YMMV, right "Tools?"
*(OK, I was kidding about this part. BE hadn't even been filmed yet at
that time. Rest assured it will be one of the standard torture tools in
any _future_ galactic dictator's tool kit.)
Chris Leithiser
>
> SAFE?????????????
What, you thought he was out? Let's go to the videotape.
Yes, "safe." As in "millions of satisfied users, a track record of
decades, not a single reported case of addiction resulting from
medicinal use. "Safe" as in "recognized and controllable side-effects
much less than many other, commonly-prescribed medications.
To misquote Arthur Dent, "This is obviously some strange usage of the
word 'safe' that you weren't previously aware of?"
Medicine Tools
> Steven Fochi wrote:
> >
> > Here's some info on Ritalin from the drug companies for anyone who wants
> > more info.
> >
> > It's not a nice one and one i wouldn't give to my child, especially if
the
> > child is young as they don't know how it affects a young child yet.
>
>
David Wright
Steven Fochi <stevencf@NO_SPAMoptushome.com.au> wrote:
>more info.
>
>It's not a nice one and one i wouldn't give to my child, especially if the
>child is young as they don't know how it affects a young child yet.
They *tell* you not to give it to children under 6. As for the rest
of it, I didn't see anything in there that screams "this stuff is
really dangerous!" All PDR entries look nasty if you read them in
isolation. Read some others and you'll start to get a feel for the
usual tone. Remember, that list of side-effects is a "cover-your-ass"
kind of thing, including every single bad thing that happened to the
testees, whether or not it was related to the drug.
Actually, I liked the tone of the PDR listing, with multiple
references to a need for a good diagnosis, emphasizing that Ritalin
isn't for every ADHD patient, and that it needn't be taken for life.
Maybe they're just covering themselves, but it was a responsible piece
of prose.
-- David Wright :: wright at ibnets.com :: Not a Spokesman for Anyone
These are my opinions only, but they're almost always correct.
The Millennium actually begins on January 1, 2001
So Get Ready for a Second Round of Parties
Joe Parsons
>Thank you. Any bets on how many parents have seen, let alone actually
>read, the full text of Ritalin's contraindications and side effects?
Any bets on how many parents have read all the side effects and
contraindications for the medications frequently prescribed for other medical
conditions?
Any idea what the incidence of the less benign side effects actually is?
>My opinion on attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder is posted at
>http://doctoryourself.com/adhd.html and
>http://doctoryourself.com/nerves.html
You might want to update that a tad--much of the information there is over 10
years old and was debunked years ago. Growth suppression is one of them, and
the efficacy of the Feingold Diet.
Joe Parsons
>The viewpoints of an M.D. with over 45 years experience as a
==========================================================
David Wright
>I think the following statement by the FDA is sufficient to warrant
>greatly increased caution with Ritalin: "FDA considers the results of
>the studies a signal of a weak cancer-causing potential for this drug."
>
>I sincerely appreciate your posting the links to both the Ritalin
>toxicology study and the warning letter. Thank you.
Did you bother to read them? There were two studies, one on mice and
one on rats. The mice showed a slight tendency towards tumors. Some
of the rats actually showed a *decline* in certain types with
increasing dosage. How about them apples, eh?
Also, the dosages being given were very large, probably at least 20
times as much as would be given to a child, with the adults getting
comparatively even less.
>The viewpoints of an M.D. with over 45 years experience as a
>psychiatrist and researcher are posted at
>http://doctoryourself.com/hoffer_paradigm.html
>http://doctoryourself.com/hoffer_editorial.html
>http://doctoryourself.com/hoffer_JOM.html
>http://doctoryourself.com/hoffer_psychosis.html
None of them even mention ADHD, but there I go nitpicking again.
John
>
At least the rats are safe from you.
John
Steven Fochi
> Very good. You can paste-and-copy out of the PDR. Can you _read_ the
> PDR as well?
Yep, i sure can cut and paste from the EAPP Guide & CMI Suppliment, and yes
i can read it too, it was very nice of you to ask.
>
> You might check out some of the known side-effects of, say, aspirin. Or
> Tylenol.
Maybe, but the discussion was about Ritalin and i published some info on it,
if your interested i can publish more info on other drugs. The only catch is
that the drugs must be available in Australia as the guide is an Australian
one. We don't have all the drugs available in Australia as is in America, we
are much stricter here than in America and won't allow many drugs that are
allowed in America, or at least until more testing is done to assure the
safety of the general public.
>
> I'm glad to know you wouldn't give Ritalin to your child. That's
> something that should only be done under a doctor's prescription.
Of course, and is something thats only available if prescribed by a doctor,
but of course you knew that didn't you. Actually if my doctor wanted to
prescribe Ritalin to my child, i definately would not allow it.
>
> And by the way--it's safe and works very well in many cases of ADHD,
> when administered under a doctor's prescription. Have a nice day.
Of course it's safe for some, but many others will find that the side
effects will show their ugly heads. I have found in some cases prescriptions
are not safe under doctors supervision, for example, my mother was
prescribed antibiotics and cortisone at the same time by the same doctor, a
real big no no and one that nearly killed her.
It may work in some cases of ADHD but not all as the info says. The info
also says that they don't know what the effects are if given to a child
under 6, so until they know 100% for sure that a child under 6 will be ok to
take it, then in my opinion it should be avoided until an assurance can be
made. Another major cause for concern is the addictiveness of the drug, A
drug that is as addictive as Ritalin must be supervised, especially in
children.
Thankyou, I always try to have a nice day, and you have one too :-)
Love and Light
Steven
Mark Probert
<drs...@juno.com> wrote:
>Whew! Thank you for the post. One may add (or is that "adhd,"
in child
>psych lingo) the possible side effect of Ritalin-induced
cancer, which
>has been so thoroughly demonstrated in mice that a couple of
years ago,
>the US government sponsored a mailing warning of this to over
100,000
>US pediatricians. No such mailing was made to patients'
families.
>
poppin'
>and sailin', man!" (Bart Simpson)
Now, that is just what I call one heck of an authoritative
source. Higher than John uses, way below that of someone who
professes to be a doctor.
>In article <8gd8ah$tkr$1...@newsg3.svr.pol.co.uk>,
> "John" <wh...@whaleto.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>> Ritalin Fraud http://www.ritalinfraud.com/
Breggin drivel, repeated by the King of Drivel, deleted....
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
Mark Probert
Parsons <j...@cyber-mall.com> wrote:
>On Wed, 24 May 2000 12:52:46 GMT, Dr. S. <drs...@juno.com>
wrote:
>
>>Whew! Thank you for the post. One may add (or is that "adhd,"
in child
>>psych lingo) the possible side effect of Ritalin-induced
cancer, which
>>has been so thoroughly demonstrated in mice that a couple of
years ago,
>
>
>It's at http://ntp-server.niehs.nih.gov/htdocs/LT-
studies/tr439.html.
>
>The FDA letter you refer to is at
>Http://www.fda.gov//bbs/topics/ANSWERS/ANS00705.html.
>
100,000
>>US pediatricians. No such mailing was made to patients'
families.
>
might have
>something to do with it? Or the fact that the rare, non-fatal
liver tumors have
>occurred *only* in lab rodents that develop tumors readily? Or
perhaps that
>there have been no cancers in humans related to the use of
methylphenidate?
>
I wonder if these are the same rodents that developed tumors
twenty years ago that saccharin cuased? You know, the tumors
that do not occur in humans?
BTW, the study also showed that certain types of tumors had a
lower incident in the MPH treated rodents.
>==========================================================
>Frequently Asked Questions for alt.support.attn-deficit
>and other resources for dealing with attention deficit
>disorder are at http://www.cyber-mall.com/asad/
>
>
Mark Probert
<drs...@juno.com> wrote:
>I think the following statement by the FDA is sufficient to
warrant
>greatly increased caution with Ritalin: "FDA considers the
results of
>the studies a signal of a weak cancer-causing potential for
this drug."
However, the researchers who did the work, and studied the issue
said:
"Increased incidences of neoplasms (cancers) were not seen in
rats. However, there was a notable decrease in mammary gland
fibroadenomas in female rats and a marginal decrease in benign
pheochromocytomas in male rats.
Epidemiology studies of methylphenidate have found no evidence
of a carcinogenic effect in humans and like our findings in
rats, report a less than expected rate of cancers in patients
taking methylphenidate." (Toxicology 1995 Nov 30;103(2):77-84)
Thus, two types of tumors are significantly reduced (when
compared to the term 'weak signal') and, epidemiological studies
show that the weak signal produces nothing.
IOW, the evidence is clearly in favor of the conclusion that
there is no reason to believe that there is any hightened risk
for developing a tumor when taking MPH.
To say otherwise is to engage in pure scaremongering. Breggin
does it. I trust that is not your standard.
BTW, you really ought to update your web pages on the nutrition-
ADHD connection fantasy.
Mark Probert
<drs...@juno.com> wrote:
>There is an old *Shoe* cartoon where the overweight, cigar-
smoking
>Perfesser is sitting at a diner counter and is told to eat his
carrotts
>because it's been shown that they prevent cancer in rats. His
response
>is, "Why would I want to prevent cancer in rats?"
First Bart Simpson...now a Shoe cartoon...
Aside to John:
John, buddy, Dr. Saul's sources are more credible than yours.
Mark Probert
$oD....@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net>, "Medicine Tools"
<medt...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>SAFE?????????????
Safe and effective. No scientific study has said otherwise. Care
to find one that does?
Note, anecdotes, books, Breggin, CCHR, etc. do not constitute
scientific studies.
>Chris Leithiser <clei...@bc.cc.ca.us> wrote in message
>news:392D480E...@bc.cc.ca.us...
>> Steven Fochi wrote:
>> >
>> > Here's some info on Ritalin from the drug companies for
anyone who wants
>> > more info.
>> >
>> > It's not a nice one and one i wouldn't give to my child,
especially if
>the
>> > child is young as they don't know how it affects a young
child yet.
>>
>>
>> Very good. You can paste-and-copy out of the PDR. Can you
_read_ the
>> PDR as well?
>>
>> You might check out some of the known side-effects of, say,
aspirin. Or
>> Tylenol.
>>
>> I'm glad to know you wouldn't give Ritalin to your child.
That's
>> something that should only be done under a doctor's
prescription.
>>
>> And by the way--it's safe and works very well in many cases
of ADHD,
>> when administered under a doctor's prescription. Have a nice
day.
>>
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
Mark Probert
True. Studies show that if there were better information more
kids would receive adequate pharmacotherapy. However, the
proliferation of the lies and myths vis-a-vis MPH have prevented
this.
It is truly the most tragic aspect of ADHD that even today, MPH
and other meds are woefully underused.
>Chris Leithiser <clei...@bc.cc.ca.us> wrote in message
>news:392D4C7A...@bc.cc.ca.us...
>> "Dr. S." wrote:
>> >
>> > Thank you. Any bets on how many parents have seen, let
alone actually
>> > read, the full text of Ritalin's contraindications and side
effects?
>> >
>>
>> All have had the opportunity, since it's on the package
insert available
>> at any pharmacy.
>>
>> Actually read? Damned few, of course. Damned few read the
warning
>> labels on the cough syrup they give, too. Or the Advil and
Tylenol
>> bottles.
>>
>> Good thing Ritalin's such a benign substance, then.
>>
>
>
>
>
Mark Probert
Parsons <j...@cyber-mall.com> wrote:
>On Thu, 25 May 2000 14:41:22 GMT, Dr. S. <drs...@juno.com>
wrote:
>
>>Thank you. Any bets on how many parents have seen, let alone
actually
>>read, the full text of Ritalin's contraindications and side
effects?
>
>contraindications for the medications frequently prescribed for
other medical
>conditions?
>
>Any idea what the incidence of the less benign side effects
actually is?
>
posted at
>>http://doctoryourself.com/adhd.html and
>>http://doctoryourself.com/nerves.html
>
there is over 10
>years old and was debunked years ago. Growth suppression is
one of them, and
>the efficacy of the Feingold Diet.
>
>Joe Parsons
Feingold was debunked more than a decade ago. I doubt Dr. Saul
will change his stripes.
Chris Leithiser
>
>
> Of course it's safe for some, but many others will find that the side
> effects will show their ugly heads. I have found in some cases prescriptions
> are not safe under doctors supervision, for example, my mother was
> prescribed antibiotics and cortisone at the same time by the same doctor, a
> real big no no and one that nearly killed her.
As _you_ pointed out, the discussion was about Ritalin. Information
such as that in the PDR is specifically intended to help prevent
interactions such as the one you describe. Do you know that, when
coupled with certain antidepressants, pizza can be lethal?
> It may work in some cases of ADHD but not all as the info says. The info
> also says that they don't know what the effects are if given to a child
> under 6, so until they know 100% for sure that a child under 6 will be ok to
> take it, then in my opinion it should be avoided until an assurance can be
> made.
Perhaps they can add your opinion to the PDR. :) Actually, that
statement says that the effects on the under-6 crowd have not been
studied--for good reason, in my opinion. It does not say it isn't
_safe_ to give to kids under 6, though.
>Another major cause for concern is the addictiveness of the drug, A
> drug that is as addictive as Ritalin must be supervised, especially in
> children.
Ritalin is not, repeat _not_, addictive when given as prescribed. You
have to work _hard_ to get addicted to Ritalin, and once you do, you've
got worse problems than addiction--emphysema, for example, or possibly
hepatitis from dirty needles.
I would supervise children in taking any drug--it's easier to overdose
fatally on aspirin or Tylenol than Ritalin, for example.
But the fact that parents should supervise their childrens' medication
intake is no more a reason to restrict Ritalin use than it is to
restrict any _other_ medication.
Steve Dyer
Chris Leithiser <clei...@bc.cc.ca.us> quoted someone else:
>> I have found in some cases prescriptions
>> are not safe under doctors supervision, for example, my mother was
>> prescribed antibiotics and cortisone at the same time by the same doctor,
>> a real big no no and one that nearly killed her.
This so-called contraindication between "antibiotics and cortisone" (huh?)
doesn't make any sense. Sounds like 3rd hand information garbled and
repeated by a medically naive mother to an equally medically naive son
or daughter.
Chris Leithiser <clei...@bc.cc.ca.us> wrote:
>> a drug that is as addictive as Ritalin must be supervised, especially in
>> children.
>
>Ritalin is not, repeat _not_, addictive when given as prescribed.
The term "addictive" is practically useless in this context, since
it has about a dozen informal meanings, and isn't used in the scientific
literature when authors are trying to be rigorous. Sympathomimetic CNS
stimulants like Ritalin and even d-amphetamine/d-methamphetamine
aren't "addictive" when taken orally at recommended doses. People can stop
taking these drugs at any time without any physical withdrawal syndrome.
Retrospective studies of their chronic use in children with ADD haven't
revealed any propensity for them to be misused in that population.
>You have to work _hard_ to get addicted to Ritalin, and once you do, you've
>got worse problems than addiction--emphysema, for example, or possibly
>hepatitis from dirty needles.
Just to be clear, this is referring to dissolving and injecting the oral
tablets (that contain excipients such as talc that are dangerous when
injected.) The effects of a drug like Ritalin when administered IV
is much stronger than when taken orally.
However, even oral preparations can be abused by people who:
want to get high, and to do that, they:
take larger than recommended doses
steadily increase the dose when they experience
tolerance (i.e., when a dose that previously
got them high no longer does.)
(and this assumes these people have more-or-less
free access to the drug to be able to
take large doses chronically and regularly
increase these doses)
This is an entirely different population using much higher doses of
the drug for a very different purpose. Even a relatively mild
CNS stimulant like Ritalin can cause some of the more extreme
symptoms of amphetamine abuse if the subject has unlimited access
to the drug in an unsupervised setting and is intent on using it
as I describe above. Ritalin was popular in the 1960's for the
treatment of "mild depression" (a poorly-defined term that
isn't used much anymore). I don't know the details of how it
was sold in Sweden back them (perhaps w/o a Rx), but because it
was so freely available, there was a real social epidemic of
misuse, and that led to its being removed from the market in
that country by 1968 or 1969. (I don't know whether it's once
again sold in Sweden under more stringent WHO-inspired drug laws,
now that it's been somewhat rehabilitated.)
>But the fact that parents should supervise their childrens' medication
>intake is no more a reason to restrict Ritalin use than it is to
>restrict any _other_ medication.
Indeed.
--
Steve Dyer
dy...@ursa-major.spdcc.com
Xtina
Medicine Tools wrote:
>
> SAFE?????????????
> Chris Leithiser <clei...@bc.cc.ca.us> wrote in message
> news:392D480E...@bc.cc.ca.us...
> > Steven Fochi wrote:
> > >
> > > Here's some info on Ritalin from the drug companies for anyone who wants
> > > more info.
> > >
> > > It's not a nice one and one i wouldn't give to my child, especially if
> the
> > > child is young as they don't know how it affects a young child yet.
> >
> >
> > Very good. You can paste-and-copy out of the PDR. Can you _read_ the
> > PDR as well?
> >
> > You might check out some of the known side-effects of, say, aspirin. Or
> > Tylenol.
Why?
Jeffrey Peter, M.D.
wrong. Only that a lawsuit has been filed. That is all.
Jeff
CBI
between antibiotics and steroids. In fact the two are quite commonly used
together, especially in asthmatics and people who have autoimmune diseases.
--
CBI, M.D.
Please note: It is impossible to accurately diagnose medical problems
without seeing the patient and reviewing the entire history. These posts are
intended to be helpful and informative. Always check with your doctor before
following any advice given.
"Steve Dyer" <dy...@spdcc.com> wrote in message
news:siAX4.29282$Ft1.1...@typhoon.ne.mediaone.net...
D. C. & M. V. Sessions
>
> I doubt if two wrongs will ever make a right. To even casually compare
> the dangers of second-hand smoke with those of first-hand Ritalin
> consumption by 2 million children a day confirms, to me, that the
> safety issue is a real one. The government of the people, for the
> people should be woken up by the people.
So if I casually compare drinking water with cigarette smoking,
you'll immediately give up drinking?
--
| Bogus as it might seem, people, this really is a deliverable |
| e-mail address. Of course, there isn't REALLY a lumber cartel. |
| There isn't really a tooth fairy, but whois toothfairy.com works. |
+----------- D. C. & M. V. Sessions <d...@lumbercartel.com> ----------+
AndyS
> Steven Fochi wrote:
> >
> >
> > Of course it's safe for some, but many others will find that the side
> > effects will show their ugly heads. I have found in some cases prescriptions
> > are not safe under doctors supervision, for example, my mother was
> > prescribed antibiotics and cortisone at the same time by the same doctor, a
> > real big no no and one that nearly killed her.
>
> As _you_ pointed out, the discussion was about Ritalin. Information
> such as that in the PDR is specifically intended to help prevent
> interactions such as the one you describe. Do you know that, when
> coupled with certain antidepressants, pizza can be lethal?
Hi! I am a bit new to all this Ritalin. I just like to know, why pizza can be
lethal if eaten with Ritalin??? My daughter loves pizza and my ex put her on
Ritalin, so I am a bit waried now.
Andy
D. C. & M. V. Sessions
Not Ritalin, "certain antidepressants." IIRC some antidepressants (including
St. John's Wort) are monoamine oxidase inhibitors. These have nasty
interactions with chemicals found in some meds and even some foods.
Ritalin (methylphenidate) is one of the safest drugs around. Extremely
wide therapeutic range, short serum half-life, relatively few and mild
side-effects (and those pretty rare.) The risks for acetaminophen (Tylenol)
are orders of magnitude worse.
Joe Parsons
>Chris Leithiser wrote:
>
>> Steven Fochi wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> > Of course it's safe for some, but many others will find that the side
>> > effects will show their ugly heads. I have found in some cases prescriptions
>> > are not safe under doctors supervision, for example, my mother was
>> > prescribed antibiotics and cortisone at the same time by the same doctor, a
>> > real big no no and one that nearly killed her.
>>
>> As _you_ pointed out, the discussion was about Ritalin. Information
>> such as that in the PDR is specifically intended to help prevent
>> interactions such as the one you describe. Do you know that, when
>> coupled with certain antidepressants, pizza can be lethal?
>
>Hi! I am a bit new to all this Ritalin. I just like to know, why pizza can be
>lethal if eaten with Ritalin??? My daughter loves pizza and my ex put her on
>Ritalin, so I am a bit waried now.
Ritalin isn't an antidepressant--it's a stimulant.
And no worries about eating pizza with it! The track record of safety for
Ritalin over 50 years is excellent.
Joe Parsons
>
>Andy
Connie
The acceptance of Ritalin as suitable for masses of children is horrific.
Disclaimer: Of course there may be a TINY percentage of people helped to focus, or
cope, with psychotropic drugs, and for whom this choice makes their lives bearable.
Some of these people also use Cocaine as their drug of choice. Legality in
dispensation is the only difference.
Our US educational system bores bright children beyond their endurance, requires
their sitting interminably, which is against the nature of children, and then we drug
them into stupors because they are "unruly?" #&^&*%. Unruly? Because they can't
sit quietly for hours and have their minds numbed w/ stupidity???? Children should
run, romp, explore, experiment hands on. Take the kids for a run - don't drug them
into catatonia.
Talk w/ representatives of the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department, or the U.S.
Army about their active dislike of Ritalin.
There are scads of highly effective alternative approaches to ADHD - diet,
supplements, biofeedback, etc. One might try these sites as starting places for
information about alternatives to drugs:
http://www.Feingold.org
http://www.alternate-health.com
http://www.HolisticMed.com/add/
http://www.hyperactivekids.com
Professional Resources for health issues.
Free advice on learning, behavior, emotions, nutrition and health.
Connie
Connie
canvass the thousands of parents whose children have benefitted from removing
various foods from their children's diets, a la Feingold? Too cumbersome? Of
course. One must pack everyone into that little science box for any suitable or
acceptable "truth" - most inconvenient for studiites.
It is also most fortunate for many children that many parents pursue
alternatives and ignore/reject all the little boxes the studiites wish to stuff
them into.
Have a nice day.
Connie
Mark Probert
<cgr...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>Button pushed. Rant warning.......
Ditto.......................
>The acceptance of Ritalin as suitable for masses of children is
horrific.
Nah. It isn't. It is a fantastic thing that so many kids whose
lives would be spent uselessly have a means to lead productive
lives.
>Disclaimer: Of course there may be a TINY percentage of people
helped to focus, or
>cope, with psychotropic drugs, and for whom this choice makes
their lives bearable.
MPH is not a psychotropic drug. You my want to call it that,
but, it is not. It is a mild CNS stimulant.
>Some of these people also use Cocaine as their drug of choice.
Legality in
>dispensation is the only difference.
Oh, no. You mean that people have been lying to use? MPH, when
used as prescribed, demonstrably has a physiciological reaction
different than that of cocaine. You mean that you did not know
that? Terrible.
>Our US educational system bores bright children beyond their
endurance, requires
>their sitting interminably, which is against the nature of
children, and then we drug
>them into stupors because they are "unruly?"
If a kid is merely unruly in school, then a diagnosis of ADHD is
not appropriate. Apparently, you are woefully unfamiliar with
the DSM and AAP guildelines on diagnostic methodology. Why not
get yourself some real knowledge?
#&^&*%. Unruly? Because they can't
>sit quietly for hours and have their minds numbed w/
stupidity???? Children should
>run, romp, explore, experiment hands on. Take the kids for a
run - don't drug them
>into catatonia.
Thank G-d that MPH does not do that.
>Talk w/ representatives of the Los Angeles County Sheriff's
Department, or the U.S.
>Army about their active dislike of Ritalin.
Sure. Why not post verifiable information to support that?
>There are scads of highly effective alternative approaches to
ADHD - diet,
ADHD is not caused by diet.
>supplements,
One of the supplement manufacturers just had to eat some all
natural crow and withdraw their specious claims that their
supplement did anything for ADHD.
>biofeedback,
Long term viability has not been demonstrated. I know, because I
asked the leading researcher/salesman if it had.
etc. One might try these sites as starting places for
>information about alternatives to drugs:
>
>http://www.Feingold.org
The Fool$gold organization/diet had been debunked by every
scientific study that has examined it.
>http://www.alternate-health.com
Alternative medicine is the politically correct term for
quackery. It is based on non-science, wishful thinking, reliance
on the placebo effect and charlatanism. It is not fact based
medicine.
>http://www.HolisticMed.com/add/
Ditto.
>http://www.hyperactivekids.com
>Professional Resources for health issues.
>Free advice on learning, behavior, emotions, nutrition and
health.
Yep. Play on the emotions.......
Mark Probert
So, you prefer fantasy based medicine to fact based medicine?
How weird.
Perhaps you should
>canvass the thousands of parents whose children have benefitted
from removing
>various foods from their children's diets, a la Feingold?
Nice anecdotes. Not provable. Did you know that the advertising
industry actively alters anecdotes to enhance the proof of the
points they make? If you want to believe in fantasies, do so.
Ther Fool$gold Diet has been shown numerous times to be useless
in treating ADHD. If the diet affects the behaviors, then, the
proper diagnosis is food allergy, not ADHD. Look up the DSM and
the AAP diagnostic protocol and see how ADHD is diagnosed.
>Too cumbersome?
Nope. Too useless.
Of
>course. One must pack everyone into that little science box
for any suitable or
>acceptable "truth" - most inconvenient for studiites.
Actually, the use of scientice is very inconvenient. You need to
spend time studying things, learning, applying laws, and, of
course, thinking about what your findings mean. Then, of couse,
you have to find a peer reviewed journal to examine your astudy
and find that it has scientific merit. IOW, it is not fantasy
based.
>It is also most fortunate for many children that many parents
pursue
>alternatives and ignore/reject all the little boxes the
studiites wish to stuff
>them into.
How sad that these parents are delaying effective treatment of
alife wasting condition. Their children are more likely to spend
years in drug rehab, possibly resort to crime, etc. What a shame
that you support that.
>Have a nice day.
Always do, when refuting the clueless.
Mark Probert
sha...@aol.com (SHAKYES) wrote:
> >It is truly the most tragic aspect of ADHD that even today, MPH
> >and other meds are woefully underused.
>
Absolutely not kidding. I constantly see parents who are ridden with
guilt for delaying effective pharmacotherapy. The ideas that MPH is
overprescribed and that ADHD is overdiagnosed are myths.
I agree that in some cases drugs are very helpful
> but there are so many other ways alot of children can be helped
without
> drugging them
Not for true ADHD.
and so many ignorant doctors that go only for the drugs and don't
> suggest anything else.
Parents should educate themselves and use all the tools.
Very sad that most parents have to learn how to really
> help their children through other parents, not doctors.
Not really.
--
Mark Probert
Children can be cruel...unless adults teach them to be kind.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Mark Probert
jdrew...@aol.com (JDrew63929) wrote:
> >From: Joe Parsons j...@cyber-mall.com
> >Date: 05/29/2000 10:30 AM US Eastern Standard Time
> >Message-id:
>
> >Ritalin isn't an antidepressant--it's a stimulant.
> >
> >And no worries about eating pizza with it! The track record of
safety for
> >Ritalin over 50 years is excellent.
> >
> >Joe Parsons
>
part we
> don't need to drug our kids!
Could you post verifiable sources to demonstrate that the track record
of MPH is other than safe and effective? Please avoid anecdotes, and
the proven liars.
Dr. S.
--
Over 125 articles (indexed by topic, or keyword with an on-site
search engine) plus nearly 1,000 scientific references on nutritional
therapeutics are posted at http://doctoryourself.com Links to other
clinical nutrition and alternative medicine sites are provided.
In article <1831875e...@usw-ex0105-038.remarq.com>,
Mark Probert <mtreborp...@aol.com.invalid> wrote:
> In article <8gjd1c$9eb$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, Dr. S.
> <drs...@juno.com> wrote:
> >There is an old *Shoe* cartoon where the overweight, cigar-
> smoking
> >Perfesser is sitting at a diner counter and is told to eat his
> carrotts
> >because it's been shown that they prevent cancer in rats. His
> response
> >is, "Why would I want to prevent cancer in rats?"
>
> First Bart Simpson...now a Shoe cartoon...
>
> Aside to John:
>
> John, buddy, Dr. Saul's sources are more credible than yours.
>
> * Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion
Network *
> The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet -
Free!
>
>
Mark Probert
jdrew...@aol.com (JDrew63929) wrote:
> >From: Mark Probert mark...@my-deja.com
> >Date: 05/30/2000 7:12 AM US Eastern Standard Time
> >Message-id: <8h0b66$40e$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>
> >
> >In article <20000527011419...@ng-fe1.aol.com>,
> > sha...@aol.com (SHAKYES) wrote:
> >> >It is truly the most tragic aspect of ADHD that even today, MPH
> >> >and other meds are woefully underused.
> >>
> >> You have got to be kidding!
> >
> >Absolutely not kidding. I constantly see parents who are ridden with
> >guilt for delaying effective pharmacotherapy. The ideas that MPH is
> >overprescribed and that ADHD is overdiagnosed are myths.
>
Is that supposed to be an alternative antidote for facts?
Here is an early draft of a postion of a FAQ I am writing about ADHD
and its treatment:

In a study “Are Stimulants Overprescribed? Treatment of ADHD in Four
U.S. Communities” by a team of researchers from the National Institute
of Mental Health, Bethesda, MD the rising concerns about the possible
overdiagnosis of attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and
over-treatment with stimulants was investigated.
They reported that, to date, almost no studies have examined ADHD in
unbiased community-based studies, ascertaining both the prevalence of
the diagnosis within nonreferred populations and the extent to which
various treatments (i.e., stimulant medication, mental health
treatments, and educational interventions) are used.
The authors examined epidemiological survey data obtained from 1,285
children and their parents across four U.S. communities. Analyses
examined the frequency of children's ADHD diagnosis, the extent to
which medications were prescribed, as well as the provision of other
services (e.g., psychosocial treatments, school-based educational
interventions).
They found that 5.1% of children met full DSM-III-R ADHD criteria
across the pooled sample. However, only 12.5% of children meeting ADHD
criteria had been treated with stimulants during the previous 12
months.
Some children who had been prescribed stimulants did not meet full ADHD
diagnostic criteria, but since these children manifested high levels of
ADHD symptoms, they felt that the medication had been appropriately
prescribed.
Further, they found that children with ADHD were generally more likely
to receive mental health counseling and/or school-based interventions
than medication.
They concluded that medication treatments are often not used in
treating ADHD children identified in the community, and suggested that
there be better education of parents, physicians, and mental
health professionals about the effectiveness of these treatments.
Further, they conclude that on the basis of their data it cannot be
concluded that substantial “overtreatment” with stimulants is occurring
across communities in general. (J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry
1999 Jul;38(7):797-804)
See? Underprescribed and underdiagnosed.
> >I agree that in some cases drugs are very helpful
> >> but there are so many other ways alot of children can be helped
> >without
> >> drugging them
> >
> >Not for true ADHD.
> >
> >and so many ignorant doctors that go only for the drugs and don't
> >> suggest anything else.
> >
> >Parents should educate themselves and use all the tools.
> >
> >Very sad that most parents have to learn how to really
> >> help their children through other parents, not doctors.
> >
> >Not really.
>
> Ha ha.......I'll just bet Mark is one of those handing out drugs to
three years
> olds.
I see. You had to personally atack me to prove your point. How sad.
Do you understand why I think that those who advocate for alternative
medicine (the politically correct term for quackery) are uninformed?
Invariably, that is your only "proof."
Mark Probert
jdrew...@aol.com (JDrew63929) wrote:
> >From: Mark Probert mtreborp...@aol.com.invalid
> >Date: 05/30/2000 6:44 AM US Eastern Standard Time
> >Message-id:
>
> ><3933623E...@bellsouth.net>, Connie
> ><cgr...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> >>Debunked? by whom? A "scientific study?" How quaint.
> >
>
> >So, you prefer fantasy based medicine to fact based medicine?
> >How weird.
>
There you go again, attacking me personally. It is truly sad that you
sdo not have any faith in your ideas that you resort to personal
attacks.
[Note, I did not personally attack Connie, but referred to her idea as
weird, which is is.]
> >Perhaps you should
> >>canvass the thousands of parents whose children have benefitted
> >from removing
> >>various foods from their children's diets, a la Feingold?
>
> >Nice anecdotes. Not provable. Did you know that the advertising
> >industry actively alters anecdotes to enhance the proof of the
> >points they make? If you want to believe in fantasies, do so.
>
> Naah....let's just *drug* our kids.
I do no advocate using drugs on kids. Kids who require medications
should be given them. Drugging kids with illegal substances is wrong.
> >Ther Fool$gold Diet has been shown numerous times to be useless
> >in treating ADHD. If the diet affects the behaviors, then, the
> >proper diagnosis is food allergy, not ADHD. Look up the DSM and
> >the AAP diagnostic protocol and see how ADHD is diagnosed.
>
> >>Too cumbersome?
> >
>
> >Nope. Too useless.
>
> And soooo much trouble. Hey it's easier to just give the kids a pill.
Wrong. Using a thoroughly debunked theorem such as the Fool$gold Diet
is a utter waste of a child's life.
> >Of
> >>course. One must pack everyone into that little science box
> >for any suitable or
> >>acceptable "truth" - most inconvenient for studiites.
> >
>
> >Actually, the use of scientice is very inconvenient. You need to
> >spend time studying things, learning, applying laws, and, of
> >course, thinking about what your findings mean. Then, of couse,
> >you have to find a peer reviewed journal to examine your astudy
> >and find that it has scientific merit.
>
> >IOW, it is not fantasy
> >based.
>
> ZZZZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzz,
That is rather intelligent. I see your responses are getting more to
the point.
> >>It is also most fortunate for many children that many parents
> >pursue
> >>alternatives and ignore/reject all the little boxes the
> >studiites wish to stuff
> >>them into.
>
> >How sad that these parents are delaying effective treatment of
> >alife wasting condition.
>
> YEAH.....bring on the drugs!
You seem to be stuck on one note (zzzzzzzzzzzzz).
> Their children are more likely to spend
> >years in drug rehab, possibly resort to crime, etc. What a shame
> >that you support that.
>
> Yes, you should be ashamed!
Not me. My son has been effecitvely treated for years, and thanks me
daily.
> >>Have a nice day.
> >
> >Always do, when refuting the clueless.
>
> Get lost............clueless.
Nope.
> Jan
>
--
Mark Probert
Children can be cruel...unless adults teach them to be kind.
Dr. S.
children's behavior and Ritalin because 1) they are written by an
emminently qualified psychiatrist and biochemist 2) they discuss niacin
and other vitamins in behavioral disorders and 3) if you try Hoffer's
protocols on kids, they work.
I know of a 10 year old boy who was having school and behavior problems
up the wazoo and he was already on physician-prescribed little bits of
niacin, with a daily dose of less than 150 mg. Not bad, since the RDA
for kids is under 20 mg/day. But it wasn't enough, and the boy was
slated for the Ritalin-for-lunch bunch.
Hoffer's work suggested trying him on 500 mg niacinamide three times
daily (1,500 mg total; that's a lot, but niacinamide produces no
flushing). Mom did so.
What a difference.
More on this approach is in the cutely-titled but important book,
Hoffer's A.B.C. of Natural Nutrition for Children. Quarry Press.
Kingston, ON 1999
And for serious parents, Dr. Hoffer's complete nutrition/behavior
bibliography has just been posted at
http://doctoryourself.com/biblio_hoffer.html
It consists of several hundred articles spanning 50 years.
Those other references again are:
http://doctoryourself.com/hoffer_paradigm.html
http://doctoryourself.com/hoffer_editorial.html
http://doctoryourself.com/hoffer_JOM.html
http://doctoryourself.com/hoffer_psychosis.html
--
Over 125 articles (indexed by topic, or keyword with an on-site
search engine) plus nearly 1,000 scientific references on nutritional
therapeutics are posted at http://doctoryourself.com Links to other
clinical nutrition and alternative medicine sites are provided.
In article <8gkc9b$itk$1...@bob.news.rcn.net>,
wri...@nospam.clam (David Wright) wrote:
> In article <8gjcbn$8vs$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, Dr. S. <drs...@juno.com>
wrote:
> >I think the following statement by the FDA is sufficient to warrant
> >greatly increased caution with Ritalin: "FDA considers the results of
> >the studies a signal of a weak cancer-causing potential for this
drug."
> >
> >I sincerely appreciate your posting the links to both the Ritalin
> >toxicology study and the warning letter. Thank you.
>
> Did you bother to read them? There were two studies, one on mice and
> one on rats. The mice showed a slight tendency towards tumors. Some
> of the rats actually showed a *decline* in certain types with
> increasing dosage. How about them apples, eh?
>
> Also, the dosages being given were very large, probably at least 20
> times as much as would be given to a child, with the adults getting
> comparatively even less.
>
> >The viewpoints of an M.D. with over 45 years experience as a
> >psychiatrist and researcher are posted at
> >
> None of them even mention ADHD, but there I go nitpicking again.
>
> -- David Wright :: wright at ibnets.com :: Not a Spokesman for
Anyone
> These are my opinions only, but they're almost always correct.
> The Millennium actually begins on January 1, 2001
> So Get Ready for a Second Round of Parties
Mark Probert
jdrew...@aol.com (JDrew63929) wrote:
> >From: "Karuna" kar...@ihug.com.au
> >Date: 05/27/2000 11:06 PM US Eastern Standard Time
> >Message-id:
>
> >Jan, I'd be interested to hear some of the effects you noticed in
the kids
> >who were on it? Three years old! Incredible.
> >
> >karuna
>
> As an example, one little boy we had would trip, shove, pitch any
kids near
> him. The worse part was at naptime.
It is called impulsiveness. A symptom of ADHD. Scientific studies show
that, even among professionals, the symptoms are mistaken for side
effects.
The teachers always rubbed his back to get
> him to sleep. Then he constantly jerked while he was asleep. It was
pityful. I
> was friends to the step grandparents. The parents didn't know how to
deal with
> the child, whch was of course a big problem. We worked with them and
finally
> convinced them to take him off the Ritalin. He still had behavior
problems, but
> the jerking at naptime subsided. We felt so sorry for him, that my
husband
> would come over (he worked the nightshift) and carry him around, put
him in his
> lap at activity time, and show him much love and understanding.
That's sweet. Irrelevant to the treatment of ADHD.
> I had another little girl who pulled out her hair.
Not a known and demonstrated side effect.
> Others who could not sit still and had a very short attention span.
That is a symptom of ADHD, not a side effect of MPH.
> What I have seen is that Ritalin is effective in the beginning, then
the
> original symptoms are greatly increased.
Disproven by scientifc research.
> The booklet that I helped with had many testimonies from families who
had many
> bad experiences.
Testimonial evidence in medicine is not evidence.
> Jan
>
--
Mark Probert
Children can be cruel...unless adults teach them to be kind.
Dr. S.
Here's something that isn't:
Vitamins for ADHD, Bipolar disorder, Psychosis, Learning Disabilities:
Extensive Bibliography Just Posted at
http://doctoryourself.com/biblio_hoffer.html
Dr. Abram Hoffer's papers certainly apply to any serious discussion of
children's behavior and Ritalin because 1) they are written by an
eminently qualified M.D., biochemist and psychiatrist 2) they discuss
niacin and other vitamins in behavioral disorders and 3) if you try
Hoffer's protocols on kids, they work.
I know of a 10 year old boy who was having school and behavior problems
up the wazoo and he was already on physician-prescribed little bits of
niacin, with a daily dose of less than 150 mg. Not bad, since the RDA
for kids is under 20 mg/day. But it wasn't enough, and the boy was
slated for the Ritalin-for-lunch bunch.
Hoffer's work suggested trying him on 500 mg niacinamide three times
daily (1,500 mg total; that's a lot, but niacinamide produces no
flushing). Mom did so.
What a difference.
More on this approach is in the cutely-titled but important book,
Hoffer's A.B.C. of Natural Nutrition for Children. Quarry Press.
Kingston, ON 1999
And for serious parents, Dr. Hoffer's complete nutrition/behavior
bibliography has just been posted at
http://doctoryourself.com/biblio_hoffer.html
It consists of several hundred articles spanning 50 years.
Those other references again are:
http://doctoryourself.com/hoffer_paradigm.html
http://doctoryourself.com/hoffer_editorial.html
http://doctoryourself.com/hoffer_JOM.html
http://doctoryourself.com/hoffer_psychosis.html
(Personal email on this subject is welcome, as I do not frequent this
newsgroup. I have no financial connection whatsoever to the supplement
industry, incidentally.)
--
Over 125 articles (indexed by topic, or keyword with an on-site
search engine) plus nearly 1,000 scientific references on nutritional
therapeutics are posted at http://doctoryourself.com Links to other
clinical nutrition and alternative medicine sites are provided.
In article <0cd53510...@usw-ex0105-038.remarq.com>,
Mark Probert <mtreborp...@aol.com.invalid> wrote:
> In article <8ggjan$7vc$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, Dr. S.
> <drs...@juno.com> wrote:
> >Whew! Thank you for the post. One may add (or is that "adhd,"
> in child
> >psych lingo) the possible side effect of Ritalin-induced
> cancer, which
> >has been so thoroughly demonstrated in mice that a couple of
> years ago,
> >the US government sponsored a mailing warning of this to over
> 100,000
> >US pediatricians. No such mailing was made to patients'
> families.
> >
> >"When I can't stops me fiddlin' I just takes me Ritalin; I'm
> poppin'
> >and sailin', man!" (Bart Simpson)
>
> Now, that is just what I call one heck of an authoritative
> source. Higher than John uses, way below that of someone who
> professes to be a doctor.
>
> >In article <8gd8ah$tkr$1...@newsg3.svr.pol.co.uk>,
> > "John" <wh...@whaleto.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
> >> Ritalin Fraud http://www.ritalinfraud.com/
>
> Breggin drivel, repeated by the King of Drivel, deleted....
Dr. S.
daily is justification for increased caution. If you want your kids on
drugs, go ahead. I choose vitamins. If you accept the cancer risk, it
is your decision. I prefer to avoid such risk. There are alternatives
to Ritalin; they are safer, they are more natural; they are even less
costly. And, they work as well or better.
Thank you for your suggestion; we just updated
http://doctoryourself.com with these new articles closely
related to this subject:
http://doctoryourself.com/biblio_hoffer.html
This resource listing consists of several hundred nutrition/behavior
articles spanning 50 years.
Other posted vitamin/behavior articles include:
http://doctoryourself.com/hoffer_paradigm.html
http://doctoryourself.com/hoffer_editorial.html
http://doctoryourself.com/hoffer_JOM.html
http://doctoryourself.com/hoffer_psychosis.html
And, of course, your fave:
http://doctoryourself.com/ADHD.html
I welcome corrections and suggestions for improving or updating any
specific article, as stated at my site. Personal email on this subject
is welcomed and encouraged.
--
Over 125 articles (indexed by topic, or keyword with an on-site
search engine) plus nearly 1,000 scientific references on nutritional
therapeutics are posted at http://doctoryourself.com Links to other
clinical nutrition and alternative medicine sites are provided.
In article <283f1916...@usw-ex0105-038.remarq.com>,
Mark Probert <mtreborp...@aol.com.invalid> wrote:
> In article <8gjcbn$8vs$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, Dr. S.
> <drs...@juno.com> wrote:
> >I think the following statement by the FDA is sufficient to
> warrant
> >greatly increased caution with Ritalin: "FDA considers the
> results of
> >the studies a signal of a weak cancer-causing potential for
> this drug."
>
> However, the researchers who did the work, and studied the issue
> said:
>
> "Increased incidences of neoplasms (cancers) were not seen in
> rats. However, there was a notable decrease in mammary gland
> fibroadenomas in female rats and a marginal decrease in benign
> pheochromocytomas in male rats.
>
> Epidemiology studies of methylphenidate have found no evidence
> of a carcinogenic effect in humans and like our findings in
> rats, report a less than expected rate of cancers in patients
> taking methylphenidate." (Toxicology 1995 Nov 30;103(2):77-84)
>
> Thus, two types of tumors are significantly reduced (when
> compared to the term 'weak signal') and, epidemiological studies
> show that the weak signal produces nothing.
>
> IOW, the evidence is clearly in favor of the conclusion that
> there is no reason to believe that there is any hightened risk
> for developing a tumor when taking MPH.
>
> To say otherwise is to engage in pure scaremongering. Breggin
> does it. I trust that is not your standard.
>
> BTW, you really ought to update your web pages on the nutrition-
> ADHD connection fantasy.
>
> * Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion
Network *
> The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet -
Free!
>
>
Dr. S.
W. C. Fields
(Famous Anti-Ritalin Activist)
Not.
--
Over 125 articles (indexed by topic, or keyword with an on-site
search engine) plus nearly 1,000 scientific references on nutritional
therapeutics are posted at http://doctoryourself.com Links to other
clinical nutrition and alternative medicine sites are provided.
In article <39306030...@lumbercartel.com>,
"D. C. & M. V. Sessions" <d...@lumbercartel.com> wrote:
> This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
> --------------4A2F4A5A9EC4A0C5565E410D
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>
> "Dr. S." wrote:
> >
> > I doubt if two wrongs will ever make a right. To even casually
compare
> > the dangers of second-hand smoke with those of first-hand Ritalin
> > consumption by 2 million children a day confirms, to me, that the
> > safety issue is a real one. The government of the people, for the
> > people should be woken up by the people.
>
> So if I casually compare drinking water with cigarette smoking,
> you'll immediately give up drinking?
>
> --
> | Bogus as it might seem, people, this really is a deliverable |
> | e-mail address. Of course, there isn't REALLY a lumber cartel. |
> | There isn't really a tooth fairy, but whois toothfairy.com works. |
> +----------- D. C. & M. V. Sessions <d...@lumbercartel.com> ----------+
> --------------4A2F4A5A9EC4A0C5565E410D
> Content-Type: text/x-vcard; charset=us-ascii;
> name="dcs.vcf"
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
> Content-Description: Card for D. C. & M. V. Sessions
> Content-Disposition: attachment;
> filename="dcs.vcf"
>
> begin:vcard
> n:Sessions;D. C.
> tel;home:01-602-867-4694
> x-mozilla-html:FALSE
> adr:;;;;;;
> version:2.1
> email;internet:d...@lumbercartel.com
> x-mozilla-cpt:;-21696
> fn:D. C. Sessions
> end:vcard
>
> --------------4A2F4A5A9EC4A0C5565E410D--
Dr. S.
often pharmacists provide a dumbed-down, highly edited caution sheet
with most filled prescriptions. There is even a layperson's PDR, but do
not waste your time with it. These "resources" provide incomplete
information about the drug. The real McCoy is found only in the
unabridged Physician's Desk Reference or the original from-the-
manufacturer package insert. Read 'em and weep.
That, or use therapeutic nutrition instead.
--
Over 125 articles (indexed by topic, or keyword with an on-site
search engine) plus nearly 1,000 scientific references on nutritional
therapeutics are posted at http://doctoryourself.com Links to other
clinical nutrition and alternative medicine sites are provided.
In article <392D4C7A...@bc.cc.ca.us>,
Chris Leithiser <clei...@bc.cc.ca.us> wrote:
> "Dr. S." wrote:
> >
> > Thank you. Any bets on how many parents have seen, let alone
actually
> > read, the full text of Ritalin's contraindications and side effects?
> >
>
> All have had the opportunity, since it's on the package insert
available
> at any pharmacy.
>
> Actually read? Damned few, of course. Damned few read the warning
> labels on the cough syrup they give, too. Or the Advil and Tylenol
> bottles.
>
> Good thing Ritalin's such a benign substance, then.
>
Mark Probert
Dr. S. <drs...@juno.com> wrote:
> Yeah, you got me on the drivel part.
> Here's something that isn't:
> Vitamins for ADHD, Bipolar disorder, Psychosis, Learning Disabilities:
> Extensive Bibliography Just Posted at
> http://doctoryourself.com/biblio_hoffer.html
>
> Dr. Abram Hoffer's papers certainly apply to any serious discussion of
> children's behavior and Ritalin because 1) they are written by an
> eminently qualified M.D., biochemist and psychiatrist
Are they peer reviewed and have the findings been duplicated with an
appropriate study?
2) they discuss
> niacin and other vitamins in behavioral disorders and
Perhaps, but where is the link to ADHD? ADHD is not a deficiency of
Niacin.
3) if you try
> Hoffer's protocols on kids, they work.
Anecdotal evidence is not reliable.
> I know of a 10 year old boy who was having school and behavior
problems
> up the wazoo and he was already on physician-prescribed little bits of
> niacin, with a daily dose of less than 150 mg. Not bad, since the RDA
> for kids is under 20 mg/day. But it wasn't enough, and the boy was
> slated for the Ritalin-for-lunch bunch.
That is derogatory. I was hoping you had higher standards. Note,
though, that I am not disappointed.
> Hoffer's work suggested trying him on 500 mg niacinamide three times
> daily (1,500 mg total; that's a lot, but niacinamide produces no
> flushing). Mom did so.
>
> What a difference.
Sure. What was the control of placebo and Hawthorne?
Book ad deleted
> And for serious parents, Dr. Hoffer's complete nutrition/behavior
> bibliography has just been posted at
> http://doctoryourself.com/biblio_hoffer.html
> It consists of several hundred articles spanning 50 years.
Articles? Not scientific studies?
Advertisement snipped.
> In article <0cd53510...@usw-ex0105-038.remarq.com>,
> Mark Probert <mtreborp...@aol.com.invalid> wrote:
> > In article <8ggjan$7vc$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, Dr. S.
> > <drs...@juno.com> wrote:
> > >Whew! Thank you for the post. One may add (or is that "adhd,"
> > in child
> > >psych lingo) the possible side effect of Ritalin-induced
> > cancer, which
> > >has been so thoroughly demonstrated in mice that a couple of
> > years ago,
> > >the US government sponsored a mailing warning of this to over
> > 100,000
> > >US pediatricians. No such mailing was made to patients'
> > families.
> > >
> > >"When I can't stops me fiddlin' I just takes me Ritalin; I'm
> > poppin'
> > >and sailin', man!" (Bart Simpson)
> >
> > Now, that is just what I call one heck of an authoritative
> > source. Higher than John uses, way below that of someone who
> > professes to be a doctor.
> >
> > >In article <8gd8ah$tkr$1...@newsg3.svr.pol.co.uk>,
> > > "John" <wh...@whaleto.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
> > >> Ritalin Fraud http://www.ritalinfraud.com/
> >
> > Breggin drivel, repeated by the King of Drivel, deleted....
> >
> > .
>
> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> Before you buy.
>
--
Mark Probert
Children can be cruel...unless adults teach them to be kind.
Connie
adults, they can take whatever drugs the feel helps them to function. Freedom.
For kids to take the meds you support, drivel like the studies you're posting
are leading to the ruination of our country. All these life-time drugged kids
are going to be adults one day. Those with the genes to overcome the poisons
will prolly do alright, but what about the others? You drug pushers are a sad
lot. Oh, yeah. I know. We "unscientific types are a sad lot" in your eyes.
NOTE: This is not aimed at any adults who are happy w/ their own choice to use
Ritalin, Prozac, etc.
Educate yourself: visit real people in real life situations, talk w/ some
adults who've been on Ritalin all their lives, get out of the house and meet the
people you're wanting to poison. Life isn't lived in books or studies. Drugs
aren't the only answer. Science "believers" are so frustratingly obtuse and
dogmatic! (My opinion - asbestos suit donned. ) AARRGGHH.
Besides, non-conformists RULE, man! (read your histroy books if you don't
believe it)
> So, you prefer fantasy based medicine to fact based medicine?
> How weird.
>
In your demonstrated very limited understanding.
>
> Perhaps you should
> >canvass the thousands of parents whose children have benefitted
> from removing
> >various foods from their children's diets, a la Feingold?
>
> Nice anecdotes. Not provable. Did you know that the advertising
> industry actively alters anecdotes to enhance the proof of the
> points they make? If you want to believe in fantasies, do so.
Yes, you're firmly grounded in reality. NOT. Only the reality of the tiny bit
of information that can be gleaned from studies. On drugs. You are SOO well
informed and reality based. NOT.
>
> Ther Fool$gold Diet has been shown numerous times to be useless
> in treating ADHD. If the diet affects the behaviors, then, the
> proper diagnosis is food allergy, not ADHD. Look up the DSM and
> the AAP diagnostic protocol and see how ADHD is diagnosed.
>
> >Too cumbersome?
>
> Nope. Too useless.
>
Yes. It is so useless when one finds something nutritional to improve his
condition, and the improvement is certainly fantasy. What a strange world you
live in.
>
> Of
> >course. One must pack everyone into that little science box
> for any suitable or
> >acceptable "truth" - most inconvenient for studiites.
>
> Actually, the use of scientice is very inconvenient. You need to
> spend time studying things, learning, applying laws, and, of
> course, thinking about what your findings mean. Then, of couse,
> you have to find a peer reviewed journal to examine your astudy
> and find that it has scientific merit. IOW, it is not fantasy
> based.
Oh, yes. Peer reviewed studies should be where we all live. Most educational
and realistic. Sorry - sarcasm is overtaking me. The idea of studies having
the prime authority in one's life is beyond me. How broad can study coverage
be?????? 1%, 5%?? What about the other 95%?????
>
>
> >It is also most fortunate for many children that many parents
> pursue
> >alternatives and ignore/reject all the little boxes the
> studiites wish to stuff
> >them into.
>
> How sad that these parents are delaying effective treatment of
> alife wasting condition. Their children are more likely to spend
> years in drug rehab, possibly resort to crime, etc. What a shame
> that you support that.
>
If you are an adult who has benefitted, wonderful. Your fantasy picture of
people
helped w/out life effecting consequences is simply false. And beyond sad.
>
> >Have a nice day.
>
> Always do, when refuting the clueless.
Unfortunately, I'm not clueless about this issue. Your cluelessness is
alarming.
Connie
>
>
> >Mark Probert wrote:
> >
> >> In article <qd9risorgsg5a30qb...@4ax.com>, Joe
> >> Parsons <j...@cyber-mall.com> wrote:
> >> >On Thu, 25 May 2000 14:41:22 GMT, Dr. S. <drs...@juno.com>
> >> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >>Thank you. Any bets on how many parents have seen, let
> alone
> >> actually
> >> >>read, the full text of Ritalin's contraindications and side
> >> effects?
> >> >
Connie
I understand your well-intended position now - saw the bit about your son. I'm
sorry I've been so sarcastic. The subject hits a nerve. I'm truly glad you
found something to help your son. You have had a positive experience and want
to share it. That is wonderful. Please understand there are many, many folks
who have very negative experiences w/ drugs. The stories are heart-wrenching.
The attempt to get at the root cause of the "disorder" is the impetus for the
alternative searches. And they're working. Happy, well functioning kids and
parents is a GOOD THING!
In any event, I admire your trying to help w/ what has helped you, but keep in
mind, this is also anecdotal. There is no such thing as scientific "proof."
Connie
Mark Probert wrote:
>
> Perhaps you should
> >canvass the thousands of parents whose children have benefitted
> from removing
> >various foods from their children's diets, a la Feingold?
>
> Nice anecdotes. Not provable. Did you know that the advertising
> industry actively alters anecdotes to enhance the proof of the
> points they make? If you want to believe in fantasies, do so.
>
> Ther Fool$gold Diet has been shown numerous times to be useless
> in treating ADHD. If the diet affects the behaviors, then, the
> proper diagnosis is food allergy, not ADHD. Look up the DSM and
> the AAP diagnostic protocol and see how ADHD is diagnosed.
>
> >Too cumbersome?
>
> Nope. Too useless.
>
> Of
> >course. One must pack everyone into that little science box
> for any suitable or
> >acceptable "truth" - most inconvenient for studiites.
>
> Actually, the use of scientice is very inconvenient. You need to
> spend time studying things, learning, applying laws, and, of
> course, thinking about what your findings mean. Then, of couse,
> you have to find a peer reviewed journal to examine your astudy
> and find that it has scientific merit. IOW, it is not fantasy
> based.
>
> >It is also most fortunate for many children that many parents
> pursue
> >alternatives and ignore/reject all the little boxes the
> studiites wish to stuff
> >them into.
>
> How sad that these parents are delaying effective treatment of
> alife wasting condition. Their children are more likely to spend
> years in drug rehab, possibly resort to crime, etc. What a shame
> that you support that.
>
> >Have a nice day.
>
> Always do, when refuting the clueless.
>
> >> Feingold was debunked more than a decade ago. I doubt Dr. Saul
> >> will change his stripes.
> >>
Rich
wrote:
>M There is no such thing as scientific "proof."
If you are suggesting that there is no such thing as 100% certainty
about the results of scientific study then I agree with you.
Scientific studies can only give us probabilities. Reasonable people
understand this and use the results of scientific studies accordingly.
Unreasonable people automatically reject scientific studies because
they are not able to give 100% proof. Of course these same people rely
on anecdote which gives even less certainty about proof.
Personal experience is useful. It is no substitute for arriving at
conclusions about cause and effect however. There are too many
confounding variable to arrive at any reasonable conclusions. That is
where scientific studies can be helpful. Again scientific studies do
not give 100% proof. They are useful however in giving us
probabilities.
And just because a scientific study that has been replicated,
indicated efficacy for a treatment does NOT mean that it will work for
everyone. But no one claimed that it does. There is nothing in this
world that works for everyone. But there is plenty that works for
many, most or almost all of the people. And scientific studies can be
helpful in pointing this out. Not perfect but helpful.
Of course there are many people who are so narcissistic that they
reject all scientific study as being useful to them since they did not
participate in the study.
Aloha,
Rich
>
>
-------------------------
-------------------------
Lab testing is part of the trap of
scientific lunacy that surrounds us today
Connie
Mark Probert
>
> > HOGWASH!
> >
> >Is that supposed to be an alternative antidote for facts?
> >
>
Not in this universe.
> >Some children who had been prescribed stimulants did not meet full
ADHD
> >diagnostic criteria, but since these children manifested high levels
of
> >ADHD symptoms, they felt that the medication had been appropriately
> >prescribed.
> >
>
> Well well......they felt..........that's because they were the ones'
who
> prescribed it.
If you left my brilliant writng intact, you would know that the study
was performed by the National Institutes of Health. The actual
prescribing was performed by the attending dcotors.
> >They concluded that medication treatments are often not used in
> >treating ADHD children identified in the community,
>
> They concluded wrong! It is waaaay overused........just like the
waaay over
> diagnosing!
They used facts. What are you using other than idle speculation?
> and suggested that
> >there be better education of parents, physicians, and mental
> >health professionals about the effectiveness of these treatments.
>
> They should better educate the parents of the side effects..........
Parents are provided information about *possible* side effects. Which
ones worry you the most?
> >> Ha ha.......I'll just bet Mark is one of those handing out drugs to
> >three years
> >> olds.
>
> >I see. You had to personally atack me to prove your point. How sad.
>
> I see you didn't answer the question...........
Was there a question? Your reading/writing skills need to be improved
if you thought that the persoanl attack was a question.
> >Do you understand why I think that those who advocate for alternative
> >medicine (the politically correct term for quackery) are uninformed?
>
> Oh...yes I understand...........you are full of crap. What's the
political term
> for drug pushers??
MPH is a medication. Drugs are illegal. BIG difference.
> >Invariably, that is your only "proof."
>
> Come back and talk to us again......right *AFTER* you have spend some
time with
> parents of children (drugged with Ritalin) who just committed
> suicide..............
Document that this has happened using verfiable sources or, admit that
you type without facts. No weaseling. It is your burden to prove your
claim.
Mark Probert
> >Message-id: <8h0feg$79c$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>
> >
> >In article <20000530082325...@ng-ff1.aol.com>,> >> >Date: 05/30/2000 7:14 AM US Eastern Standard Time
> >> >Message-id: <8h0bbl$48g$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>
> >> >
> >> >In article <20000529155225...@ng-cu1.aol.com>,
> >> > jdrew...@aol.com (JDrew63929) wrote:
> >> >> >From: Joe Parsons j...@cyber-mall.com
> >> >> >Date: 05/29/2000 10:30 AM US Eastern Standard Time
> >> >> >Message-id:
> >> >>
> >> >> >Ritalin isn't an antidepressant--it's a stimulant.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >And no worries about eating pizza with it! The track record of
> >> >safety for
> >> >> >Ritalin over 50 years is excellent.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Joe Parsons
> >> >>
> >> >> What nonsense! The track record is far from excellent. For the
most
> >> >part we
> >> >> don't need to drug our kids!
> >> >
> >> >Could you post verifiable sources to demonstrate that the track
> >record
> >> >of MPH is other than safe and effective? Please avoid anecdotes,
and
> >> >the proven liars.
> >>
> >>
> >> Jan
> >>
> >
> >Dear Jan:
> >
> >Do you realize that you just made yourself look so pathetic that it
is
> >pointless to use facts to discuss anything with you?
>
> What's pathetic is your nonsense about drugging kids.
>
> >Recently, I upped my posting standards.
>
> I could care less about your posting standards.............I'm more
concerned
> about drugging kids!!
>
> Up yours.
>
> Ditto!
You see, I posted a simple line:
"I have upped my posting standards. Up yours." and you turn it into
something nasty. I hope something comes along to help you. You seem
very mean spirited.
>
> Jan
>
> >Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> >Before you buy.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
--
Mark Probert
Children can be cruel...unless adults teach them to be kind.
Joe Parsons
>*Any* cancer risk in a medication given to over two million children
>daily is justification for increased caution. If you want your kids on
Where do you get the idea that there are 2 million children taking Ritalin?
Joe Parsons
Roger Schlafly
> >*Any* cancer risk in a medication given to over two million children
> >daily is justification for increased caution. If you want your kids on
>
> Where do you get the idea that there are 2 million children taking Ritalin?
Instead of trying to ridicule him, why don't you just post the
facts? I see your own FAQ says:
for the year 1995, 1,461,867 children aged 5-18 were taking
methylphenidate.
http://x64.deja.com/[ST_rn=ps]/threadmsg_if.xp?AN=628417894
Presumably this is just the US. Maybe usage has increased since 1995.
Maybe the study was inaccurate. Maybe the poster is including
foreign countries, and/or 19-20 year-olds.
Mark Probert
<drs...@juno.com> wrote:
>Dr. Hoffer's
If anyone wants to get a fact based line on Dr. Hoffer, visit
www.quackwatch.com and do a search on him and his ideas.
Also, try www.ssr.com and search on him.
Mark Probert
<drs...@juno.com> wrote:
>*Any* cancer risk in a medication given to over two million
children
>daily is justification for increased caution.
Epidemiological studies demonstrate that there is no risk.
If you want your kids on
>drugs, go ahead.
I choose to treat my son with what has been clinically shown to
work, i.e., pharmacotherapy, counselling, spec ed services when
needed, etc.
>I choose vitamins. If you accept the cancer risk, it
>is your decision.
There is no real risk. The way you write seems tio imply that
there is a major risk. There is NO major risk.
I prefer to avoid such risk. There are alternatives
>to Ritalin;
None that work even as closely as well, unless you are refering
to other medications.
>they are safer, they are more natural;
'Natural' is such an overused term. Aflatoxin is natural.
Botulinum toxin is natural. I would not recommend ingenting them.
they are even less
>costly. And, they work as well or better.
Since you have made that claim, how about a published clinical,
placebo controlled study that documents that. Make sure that the
journal is peer reviewed. PROVE that you are right. Make certain
that the study pertains to ADHD.
BTW, Hoffer does not like placebo controlled studies. Facts seem
to get in his way.
Websites deleted. I do not promote bad advice.
>
>In article <283f1916...@usw-ex0105-038.remarq.com>,
> Mark Probert <mtreborp...@aol.com.invalid> wrote:
>> In article <8gjcbn$8vs$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, Dr. S.
>> * Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's
Discussion
>Network *
>> The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in
Usenet -
>Free!
>>
>>
>
>
>Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
>Before you buy.
>
>
Connie
hornet's nest, but in the interest of true understanding and
communication, I submit: for any given ailment, there are probably a
number (dozens? hundreds?) of remedies that will/can work (thank heavens!)
as in reversing or "curing"dis-ease or disorders.
For the example at hand, Ritalin has tested as an effective aid in
focusing. One problem: lack of focus, one possible antidote (for lack of
a better word) Ritalin.
Shamen, alts and others have other means of dealing w/ lack of focus.
Maybe 9 therapies are hawked by several hundred people. The Ritalin is
10% of the possibilities in the example. Read the side effects list.
Alot of parents steer clear at this point and check out the other 9
options. Some get the kids off when unnacceptable side effects invade
their lives: tics, weight loss, apathy, depression, etc. and look for
other options.
Okay. The Ritalin will help the focusing problem, but at what costs? What
is the ultimate goal of the parent, for the child?
This is the process and it is not at all unreasonable.
Holding up studies as ultimate authorities is misleading is my continual
challenge. One may have a study that proves the Ford F-100 Truck will
allow everyone to survive in a 50 mph crash. Great! But I want to drive
a Volvo sedan. What does the study have to do w/ my Volvo, or any other
of the hundreds of modes of transporation available? Nothing. But, if I
get in the market for a truck, I'll remember the Ford study. So on it
goes.
Connie
CBI
news:3933623E...@bellsouth.net...
> Debunked? by whom? A "scientific study?" How quaint. Perhaps you should
> canvass the thousands of parents whose children have benefitted from
removing
Of
> course. One must pack everyone into that little science box for any
suitable or
> acceptable "truth" - most inconvenient for studiites.
>
> alternatives and ignore/reject all the little boxes the studiites wish to
stuff
> them into.
>
This is a common complaint. Unfortunately, the facts do not bear it out.
There have been several studies done where parents who thought their kids
were affected by foods, sugars, food colorings, etc. were recruited. The
kids were given the substances the parents thought affected them on some
days and not others. Both the parents and trained observers watched the kids
and tried to determine on which days they had received the test substance.
Uniformly they have not been able to tell the difference.
--
CBI, M.D.
Please note: It is impossible to accurately diagnose medical problems
without seeing the patient and reviewing the entire history. These posts are
intended to be helpful and informative. Always check with your doctor before
following any advice given.
Joe Parsons
>Joe Parsons wrote:
>> >*Any* cancer risk in a medication given to over two million children
>> >daily is justification for increased caution. If you want your kids on
>>
>> Where do you get the idea that there are 2 million children taking Ritalin?
>
>Instead of trying to ridicule him, why don't you just post the
>facts? I see your own FAQ says:
How long have you considered that asking questions constituted "ridicule?" Is
that how you run your lectures?
> for the year 1995, 1,461,867 children aged 5-18 were taking
>methylphenidate.
>http://x64.deja.com/[ST_rn=ps]/threadmsg_if.xp?AN=628417894
>
>Presumably this is just the US. Maybe usage has increased since 1995.
>Maybe the study was inaccurate. Maybe the poster is including
>foreign countries, and/or 19-20 year-olds.
I suppose he could answer that, couldn't he? Unless he's so humiliated by my
question that he chooses never to show his face around these parts ever again.
Joe Parsons
CBI
>
> Okay. The Ritalin will help the focusing problem, but at what costs?
>
For most people none or very little. For some enough to tip the balance away
from using the drug.
> Holding up studies as ultimate authorities is misleading is my continual
> challenge. One may have a study that proves the Ford F-100 Truck will
> allow everyone to survive in a 50 mph crash. Great! But I want to drive
> a Volvo sedan. What does the study have to do w/ my Volvo, or any other
> of the hundreds of modes of transporation available? Nothing. But, if I
> get in the market for a truck, I'll remember the Ford study. So on it
> goes.
That is all well and good but it is not an appropriate analogy. You are not
saying "I want to drive a Volvo and so the study on Fords is irrelevant to
me." You are saying, "the Fords are dangerous, no matter what the studies
say, and my Volvo is better." That is a different argument altogether.
CBI
> Button pushed. Rant warning.......
>
> The acceptance of Ritalin as suitable for masses of children is horrific.
> Disclaimer: Of course there may be a TINY percentage of people helped to
focus, or
> cope, with psychotropic drugs, and for whom this choice makes their lives
bearable.
> Some of these people also use Cocaine as their drug of choice. Legality
in
> dispensation is the only difference.
>
No, safety and effectiveness is the difference.
Cocaine causes MI's, stokes, renal failure, seizures, and host of other
untoward effects. It is also highly addictive. It also, as it is commonly
used, serves no positive purpose. I don't believe there is a substantial
number of people who use cocaine with the end result of improved focus.
Ritalin has been proven to increase focus, increase academic performance,
decrease illicit drug use, increase self esteem, and overall benefit
behavior in 75% of kids with ADD (no "tiny" percentage). It does have a few
side effects in a minority of children which are minor and reversible upon
discontinuation of the drug (unlike a heart attack or stroke).
> Our US educational system bores bright children beyond their endurance,
requires
> their sitting interminably, which is against the nature of children, and
then we drug
> them into stupors because they are "unruly?" #&^&*%. Unruly? Because
they can't
> sit quietly for hours and have their minds numbed w/ stupidity????
Children should
> run, romp, explore, experiment hands on. Take the kids for a run - don't
drug them
> into catatonia.
>
Ritalin is a stimulant and is not capable of producing the "drugged and
catatonic" states you describe. ADD is only diagnosed if the kids are
exhibiting behavior that is not normal for their age. Therefore, talking
about what is normal for children is irrelevant since this, by definition,
does not apply to ADD kids.
> Talk w/ representatives of the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department, or
the U.S.
> Army about their active dislike of Ritalin.
>
Hardly reputable sources of information about the health and welfare of
children.
Rich
wrote:
>Brilliant, Huggy. I agree with everything you said.
EVERYTHING?!?!?!?!!?!? Why don't you read it again before you make
that statement. I say this because I know how prone you are to
exaggeration. And I would not want you to accuse me of being a
"literalist" (that is your term isn't it Connie) when I later hold you
to that statement:-))
And not to poke a
>hornet's nest, but in the interest of true understanding and
>communication, I submit: for any given ailment, there are probably a
>number (dozens? hundreds?) of remedies that will/can work (thank heavens!)
>as in reversing or "curing"dis-ease or disorders.
Well that depends on the ailment Connie. I think that for most self
limited conditions the body does its own healing given the proper
nutrition and support. And alternative remedies often get the credit
for the body just doing its thing.
For many illness I suspect there are not so many remedies. For example
for strep throat there is no good substitute than antibiotics. For
Hodgkins Lymphoma there is no good substitute than chemotherapy.
For severe insulin dependent diabetes there is no good substitute for
insulin (with milder diabetes diet and exercise may work but sometimes
severe life threatening diabetes can appear that requires immediate
life saving treatment with insulin). For hypothyroidism there is no
good substitute than thyroid replacement. And the list goes on and on.
One of the problems is that alt health care providers play fast and
loose with diagnoses. They diagnose various biomedical conditions such
as pancreatic deficiency, adrenal insufficiency, skin cancer, etc but
cannot provide good objective evidence that their diagnoses are
reliable or valid.
And then claims are made that these illnesses were successfully
treated with alt methods. Perhaps these people never even had these
illnesses!!!!! This is a major problem.
How does one determine whether the biomedical diagnoses made by alt
practitioners are accurate?? Do we just accept their diagnoses in
faith??? Is faith an acceptable method to determine validity and
reliability?? I realize that for you Connie, the answer is yes.
A while back in one of our discussions I asked you a question which
you responded "I don't know. I will have to think about that.". You
never gave the answer.
The question was "Connie, how do you decide what information you
believe and what information you don't"?? What are your criteria for
deciding if a statement is truthful or not?? What are your criteria
for deciding if a treatment for a medical condition will be effective
for that condition?? And what are your criteria for determining if an
alt diagnosis is accurate??
Of course you can say that you go by personal experience. If you or
your loved one gets better then that is proof that the specific
diagnosis made by the alt practitioner was accurate. Do you see a
problem with this conclusion???
Again I understand that your number one priority is you and your
family being healthy and recovering from whatever maladies you may
experience. And I agree that this SHOULD be your number one priority.
But my question has to do with your SPECIFIC beliefs about the
SPECIFIC conditions which the alt providers claim that you have. How
do you know if they are accurate?? How do you know if they are not
accurate and that your improvement is primarily due to your own body
just doing its thing in healing itself and that the diagnosis made is
wrong???
Remember Connie, that you have made many SPECIFIC claims of
biomedical conditions which alt therapies have helped. Before you
accuse ME of being hung up on names I would look in the mirror and ask
why you believe that you and your family members actually had the
various conditions for which the alt providers made diagnoses.
>
>For the example at hand, Ritalin has tested as an effective aid in
>focusing. One problem: lack of focus, one possible antidote (for lack of
>a better word) Ritalin.
>
>Shamen, alts and others have other means of dealing w/ lack of focus.
I am sure that they do. There is no objective evidence that these
methods will work for lack of focus secondary to ADD. If you want to
believe that they have an effective therapy that is your choice. I
understand that you have a need to believe that alt therapies can
supplant conventional therapies. It gives you peace of mind.
>Maybe 9 therapies are hawked by several hundred people. The Ritalin is
>10% of the possibilities in the example. Read the side effects list.
Actually in the case of Ritalin it has few side effects when used at
reasonable doses. And other than stimulants there is no objective
evidence that these other therapies work. And some (eg Feingold diet)
have been tested and debunked.
>
>Okay. The Ritalin will help the focusing problem, but at what costs?
That varies from child to child. What are the costs in not giving the
Ritalin and using some other therapy. I realize that you believe the
anecdotes that you hear but objective evidence is sorely lacking. Have
you considered the possibility that in many cases, withholding the
stimulants from children with ADD may result in a worsening of the
condition??
What
>is the ultimate goal of the parent, for the child?
To have a happy, healthy well adjusted child.
>
>Holding up studies as ultimate authorities is misleading is my continual
>challenge. One may have a study that proves the Ford F-100 Truck will
>allow everyone to survive in a 50 mph crash. Great! But I want to drive
>a Volvo sedan. What does the study have to do w/ my Volvo, or any other
>of the hundreds of modes of transporation available? Nothing.
You are correct. I am not sure what this story has to do with
scientific studies.
Good studies are done on *randomized* populations.
Do you understand what randomization is and why it is so useful? If
not I would recommend that you look into study design. It is the
randomization which allows one to make reasonable conclusions about
how a person in the general population will respond.
When people start talking about how studies do not apply to everyone
they are correct. However randomization increases dramatically the
probability that they will apply to an individual.
Thanx for the interesting discussion.
Aloha,
Rich
Connie
> "Connie" <cgr...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
> news:39343BD8...@bellsouth.net...
> >
> > Okay. The Ritalin will help the focusing problem, but at what costs?
> >
>
> For most people none or very little. For some enough to tip the balance away
> from using the drug.
Okay. But there are risks for some that are unacceptable.
>
>
> > Holding up studies as ultimate authorities is misleading is my continual
> > challenge. One may have a study that proves the Ford F-100 Truck will
> > allow everyone to survive in a 50 mph crash. Great! But I want to drive
> > a Volvo sedan. What does the study have to do w/ my Volvo, or any other
> > of the hundreds of modes of transporation available? Nothing. But, if I
> > get in the market for a truck, I'll remember the Ford study. So on it
> > goes.
>
> That is all well and good but it is not an appropriate analogy. You are not
> saying "I want to drive a Volvo and so the study on Fords is irrelevant to
> me."
That is what I thought I was saying.
> You are saying, "the Fords are dangerous, no matter what the studies
> say, and my Volvo is better." That is a different argument altogether.
That isn't what I was trying to say. It was a different paragraph. I think I
said what I meant to say. I had no intent to imply Fords were dangerous here,
sorry if I did.
(The above thoughts in another paragraph about Ritalin being dangerous, I
suspect are true for alot of folks.) The point is, there are other tools
available that many will consider and be helped with.
Connie
Connie
effect. What size was the sample of this study?
This is one area that causes parents to run in a panic to the alts: MD's that
cannot understand the effects on the children of what is taken in - ie. diet,
environmental exposure, etc. - because _studies_ are not definitive, there is a
lack of simple common sense? This is a common sense issue. Even programmers
understand "garbage in - garbage out." Animal keepers understand this.
Veterinarians. Herbalist. Nutritionists. Old Timers. Parents. etc. etc.
Respectfully, why can some MD's not understand this? (Fortunately, some MD's are
moving in the nutrtional direction - may they hurry and bring their peers. )
Connie
CBI wrote:
> "Connie" <cgr...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
> news:3933623E...@bellsouth.net...
> > Debunked? by whom? A "scientific study?" How quaint. Perhaps you should
> > canvass the thousands of parents whose children have benefitted from
> removing
> > various foods from their children's diets, a la Feingold? Too cumbersome?
> Of
> > course. One must pack everyone into that little science box for any
> suitable or
> > acceptable "truth" - most inconvenient for studiites.
> >
> > It is also most fortunate for many children that many parents pursue
> > alternatives and ignore/reject all the little boxes the studiites wish to
> stuff
> > them into.
> >
>
> This is a common complaint. Unfortunately, the facts do not bear it out.
>
> There have been several studies done where parents who thought their kids
> were affected by foods, sugars, food colorings, etc. were recruited. The
> kids were given the substances the parents thought affected them on some
> days and not others. Both the parents and trained observers watched the kids
> and tried to determine on which days they had received the test substance.
> Uniformly they have not been able to tell the difference.
>
Connie
> On Tue, 30 May 2000 17:08:24 -0500, Connie <cgr...@bellsouth.net>
> wrote:
>
> >Brilliant, Huggy. I agree with everything you said.
>
> EVERYTHING?!?!?!?!!?!? Why don't you read it again before you make
> that statement. I say this because I know how prone you are to
> exaggeration. And I would not want you to accuse me of being a
> "literalist" (that is your term isn't it Connie) when I later hold you
> to that statement:-))
Go ahead. Light the pyre.
>
>
> And not to poke a
> >hornet's nest, but in the interest of true understanding and
> >communication, I submit: for any given ailment, there are probably a
> >number (dozens? hundreds?) of remedies that will/can work (thank heavens!)
> >as in reversing or "curing"dis-ease or disorders.
>
> Well that depends on the ailment Connie. I think that for most self
> limited conditions the body does its own healing given the proper
> nutrition and support. And alternative remedies often get the credit
> for the body just doing its thing.
Okay. Is it never the alt treatment?
>
>
> For many illness I suspect there are not so many remedies.
Agreed.
> For example
> for strep throat there is no good substitute than antibiotics. For
> Hodgkins Lymphoma there is no good substitute than chemotherapy.
> For severe insulin dependent diabetes there is no good substitute for
> insulin (with milder diabetes diet and exercise may work but sometimes
> severe life threatening diabetes can appear that requires immediate
> life saving treatment with insulin). For hypothyroidism there is no
> good substitute than thyroid replacement. And the list goes on and on.
But, this is your list of what is "best." Other paths could be "best" for
other types of "believers," those who are not "science conventional medicine
believers."
>
>
> One of the problems is that alt health care providers play fast and
> loose with diagnoses. They diagnose various biomedical conditions such
> as pancreatic deficiency, adrenal insufficiency, skin cancer, etc but
> cannot provide good objective evidence that their diagnoses are
> reliable or valid.
Okay. And MD's do not? They do not speculate? Their tests are always
definitive? Think about this one.
>
>
> And then claims are made that these illnesses were successfully
> treated with alt methods. Perhaps these people never even had these
> illnesses!!!!! This is a major problem.
So all MD diagnoses are on target?
>
>
> How does one determine whether the biomedical diagnoses made by alt
> practitioners are accurate?? Do we just accept their diagnoses in
> faith??? Is faith an acceptable method to determine validity and
> reliability?? I realize that for you Connie, the answer is yes.
How does one determine the MD's diax is accurate? All conditions are testable
with blood and urine? .
>
>
> A while back in one of our discussions I asked you a question which
> you responded "I don't know. I will have to think about that.". You
> never gave the answer.
>
> The question was "Connie, how do you decide what information you
> believe and what information you don't"?? What are your criteria for
> deciding if a statement is truthful or not?? What are your criteria
> for deciding if a treatment for a medical condition will be effective
> for that condition?? And what are your criteria for determining if an
> alt diagnosis is accurate??
How do you decide what info you believe and what info you don't? Why do you
believe in pharmacopaea? Do you choose it over nutrition? Why? Because it's
worked for you? For people you know or have read about?
>
>
> Of course you can say that you go by personal experience. If you or
> your loved one gets better then that is proof that the specific
> diagnosis made by the alt practitioner was accurate. Do you see a
> problem with this conclusion???
If you get better after taking an powerful antibiotic, you assume you had a
bacterial infection. Why?
>
>
> Again I understand that your number one priority is you and your
> family being healthy and recovering from whatever maladies you may
> experience. And I agree that this SHOULD be your number one priority.
>
> But my question has to do with your SPECIFIC beliefs about the
> SPECIFIC conditions which the alt providers claim that you have. How
> do you know if they are accurate??
How do you know they were not? How do you know your doc's diax are accurate?
The findings of every test you've ever had was accurate? How do you know?
> How do you know if they are not
> accurate and that your improvement is primarily due to your own body
> just doing its thing in healing itself and that the diagnosis made is
> wrong???
How do you know the diax you get is accurate? That the tests are accurate?
That there has been no contamination?
>
>
> Remember Connie, that you have made many SPECIFIC claims of
> biomedical conditions which alt therapies have helped.
Yep. I stated what I thought happened. So sue me.
> Before you accuse ME of being hung up on names I would look in the mirror and
> ask why you believe that you and your family members actually had the
> various conditions for which the alt providers made diagnoses.
Oh,dunno. Symptoms? Progression? Improvement? Isn't this ground powdery and
finely plowed yet?
>
>
> >
> >For the example at hand, Ritalin has tested as an effective aid in
> >focusing. One problem: lack of focus, one possible antidote (for lack of
> >a better word) Ritalin.
> >
> >Shamen, alts and others have other means of dealing w/ lack of focus.
>
> I am sure that they do. There is no objective evidence that these
> methods will work for lack of focus secondary to ADD. If you want to
> believe that they have an effective therapy that is your choice.
YES... MY CHOICE. excuse me for shouting. Objective evidence according to
whom?
> I understand that you have a need to believe that alt therapies can
> supplant conventional therapies. It gives you peace of mind.
And having MD's and pharmos available gives me peace of mind also. Yep. Me and
#### other alt seekers.
>
>
> >Maybe 9 therapies are hawked by several hundred people. The Ritalin is
> >10% of the possibilities in the example. Read the side effects list.
>
> Actually in the case of Ritalin it has few side effects when used at
> reasonable doses.
Okay. So you say. There have been no instances of suspected heart damage or
personality changes?
> And other than stimulants there is no objective
> evidence that these other therapies work. And some (eg Feingold diet)
> have been tested and debunked.
No one is ever helped by eliminating certain foods, chemicals and dyes from
their diets?
>
>
>
> >
> >Okay. The Ritalin will help the focusing problem, but at what costs?
>
> That varies from child to child. What are the costs in not giving the
> Ritalin and using some other therapy. I realize that you believe the
> anecdotes that you hear but objective evidence is sorely lacking.
Long term use of stimulents on growing bodies and brains doesn't concern you?
>
> Have you considered the possibility that in many cases, withholding the
> stimulants from children with ADD may result in a worsening of the
> condition??
Have you considered that the Ritalin may worsen the condition? Have you
considered that the underlaying cause of the difficulty may be a simple allergy
or nutritional deficiency, or complex problem of these and other things which
can be addressed, but only with a great deal of patience and persistence? (your
own personal strength)
>
> What
> >is the ultimate goal of the parent, for the child?
>
> To have a happy, healthy well adjusted child.
Agreed.
>
>
> >
> >Holding up studies as ultimate authorities is misleading is my continual
> >challenge. One may have a study that proves the Ford F-100 Truck will
> >allow everyone to survive in a 50 mph crash. Great! But I want to drive
> >a Volvo sedan. What does the study have to do w/ my Volvo, or any other
> >of the hundreds of modes of transporation available? Nothing.
>
> You are correct. I am not sure what this story has to do with
> scientific studies.
Are you being cute? Or do you really not see the point???
>
>
> Good studies are done on *randomized* populations.
> Do you understand what randomization is and why it is so useful? If
> not I would recommend that you look into study design. It is the
> randomization which allows one to make reasonable conclusions about
> how a person in the general population will respond.
>
> When people start talking about how studies do not apply to everyone
> they are correct. However randomization increases dramatically the
> probability that they will apply to an individual.
That has nothing to do with the truck example above. Just because one thing is
being tested does not exclude all other possibilities.
>
>
> Thanx for the interesting discussion.
Ditto.
Connie
Mark Probert
<cgr...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>And counter studies to demonstrate the opposite. Diet is
important. Dyes do
>effect. What size was the sample of this study?
The size of the samples are irrelevant to the extent that there
were multiple studies using various well tested models, that all
reached the same conlcusion: ADHD is not caused by, or treated
by diet.
One study was reported in 1993. It used the double-blind placebo
controlled cross over model to challenge parents and expert
observers who swore up down and sideways that they could
**always** tell when their kids were ingesting sugar. The
researchers used three separate groups and, at various times,
gave them does of sugar, placebo and aspartame.
No one could accurately pick out the sugar eaters, etc. IOW,
those who swore they could, could not.
>This is one area that causes parents to run in a panic to the
alts: MD's that
>cannot understand the effects on the children of what is taken
in - ie. diet,
>environmental exposure, etc. - because _studies_ are not
definitive, there is a
>lack of simple common sense?
Wrong. The studies have been definitive. Dozens, with
duplication and confirmation. ADHD is NOT caused by diet,
enf\vironmental exposure, etc. Especially the etc.
This is a common sense issue. Even programmers
>understand "garbage in - garbage out." Animal keepers
understand this.
>Veterinarians. Herbalist. Nutritionists. Old Timers.
Parents. etc. etc.
>Respectfully, why can some MD's not understand this?
(Fortunately, some MD's are
>moving in the nutrtional direction - may they hurry and bring
their peers. )
Nutrition is important, but it is not determinative of behavior
to the point where it causes ADHD.
D. C. & M. V. Sessions
> Dr. Abram Hoffer's papers certainly apply to any serious discussion of
> children's behavior and Ritalin because 1) they are written by an
> eminently qualified M.D., biochemist and psychiatrist 2) they discuss
> niacin and other vitamins in behavioral disorders and 3) if you try
> Hoffer's protocols on kids, they work.
Has anyone else noticed that there's a common theme in the
'alternative-medicine' posters to these groups (Scudamore being
the most conspicuous) in that they are without exception stuck
in the Great Authority mode of reasoning? The Renaissance seems
to have passed them by. While the rest of the world has learned
to expect reproducible evidence, they are stuck relying on the
_argumentum_ad_verecundiam_
Other than 'alternative medicine' the main home for this paradigm
is in theology, where the present world is almost by definition
declined from the apex of an earlier age.
Then again, maybe I'm making a distinction without a difference.
D. C. & M. V. Sessions
>
> *Any* cancer risk in a medication given to over two million children
> daily is justification for increased caution. If you want your kids on
> is your decision. I prefer to avoid such risk. There are alternatives
> to Ritalin; they are safer, they are more natural; they are even less
> costly. And, they work as well or better.
So what are the carcinogenicity profiles for these chemicals?
(Don't tell us that there is none, because *any* chemical to
excess causes chronic wounding -- and thus cancer.) Or are
you taking on faith that since they haven't been studied that
they must be safe?
A friend (biochemist working in a cancer research lab) has a
long list of natural foods and their carcinogenicity. It's
a *really* long list. Basically, there isn't a natural plant
on Earth that doesn't contain at least one chemical that is
illegal as a food additive due to cancer-causing potential.
D. C. & M. V. Sessions
>
> In article <3933623E...@bellsouth.net>, Connie
> Of
> >course. One must pack everyone into that little science box
> for any suitable or
> >acceptable "truth" - most inconvenient for studiites.
>
> Actually, the use of scientice is very inconvenient. You need to
> spend time studying things, learning, applying laws, and, of
> course, thinking about what your findings mean. Then, of couse,
> you have to find a peer reviewed journal to examine your astudy
> and find that it has scientific merit. IOW, it is not fantasy
> based.
You left out the most annoying requirement of all: actively
considering the possibility that you might be wrong...
D. C. & M. V. Sessions
>
> Brilliant, Huggy. I agree with everything you said. And not to poke a
> hornet's nest, but in the interest of true understanding and
> communication, I submit: for any given ailment, there are probably a
> number (dozens? hundreds?) of remedies that will/can work (thank heavens!)
> as in reversing or "curing"dis-ease or disorders.
>
> focusing. One problem: lack of focus, one possible antidote (for lack of
> a better word) Ritalin.
>
> Shamen, alts and others have other means of dealing w/ lack of focus.
> 10% of the possibilities in the example. Read the side effects list.
> options. Some get the kids off when unnacceptable side effects invade
> their lives: tics, weight loss, apathy, depression, etc. and look for
> other options.
>
> is the ultimate goal of the parent, for the child?
>
>
> challenge. One may have a study that proves the Ford F-100 Truck will
> allow everyone to survive in a 50 mph crash. Great! But I want to drive
> a Volvo sedan. What does the study have to do w/ my Volvo, or any other
> get in the market for a truck, I'll remember the Ford study. So on it
> goes.
The problem is that you're mixing up two different uses of the word,
'work'. One of my (professional) .sig lines is, "To an engineer, the
scariest two words are, 'It works.'" Explained by another, "It's not
an engineer's job to make something work. It's an engineer's job to
make things that WILL work."
Behavioral psychology is fascinating. We know now, for instance, that
all animal learning is heavily slanted towards reward. If you randomly
punish or reward the same behavior, the reward wins. If you reward the
behavior intermittently, the behavior is actually learned MORE quickly
than if you reward it all the time.
What this means is that if tell some fool to treat menstrual cramps
with Bach sonatas there is an excellent chance that she'll soon swear
by it. Why? Because sometimes the cramps end soon after the playing
of Bach. Intermittent reinforcement.
Which is why all sorts of superstitions take hold. Lucky socks and all.
Plenty of study has gone into this, and it's the main reason that all
sorts of folk remedies are popular, DESPITE the fact that (for instance)
wedding rings on a string are precisely as accurate as flipping coins
for predicting the sex of babies: people only remember and pass along
the cases where the prediction came out correct.
D. C. & M. V. Sessions
> On Tue, 30 May 2000 19:17:08 -0500, Connie <cgr...@bellsouth.net>
> wrote:
> >Rich wrote:
> >> One of the problems is that alt health care providers play fast and
> >> loose with diagnoses. They diagnose various biomedical conditions such
> >> as pancreatic deficiency, adrenal insufficiency, skin cancer, etc but
> >> cannot provide good objective evidence that their diagnoses are
> >> reliable or valid.
> >
> >Okay. And MD's do not? They do not speculate? Their tests are always
> >definitive? Think about this one.
>
> Sometimes they speculate, sure. And when they do hopefully they will
> communicate that to their patients. An MD would not tell a person they
> have adrenal insufficiency without a blood test. An MD would not tell
> a person that they have skin cancer without a biopsy. At least it
> would be irresponsible for them to do it. Sometimes in medicine there
> is no definitive test and one must speculate.
>
> The problem is that alt speculate almost all the time. They don't do
> definitive tests when they are available. They pretend that they could
> make diagnoses without tests. And many people such as you believe
> them.
The issue isn't whether or not someone speculates, because speculation
is always the starting point for troubleshooting. The issue is whether
they TEST their speculations to see how they measure up against reality.
The honest troubleshooter -- hardware, software, or wetware -- constantly
bears in mind her own fallibility.
It's been an interesting couple of weeks. (Disclaimer for those who
don't know me -- I'm an electronic engineer and volunteer emergency
care tech.) Two weeks ago a customer, having trouble, asked to have
an engineer come visit to troubleshoot. Common enough, but this one
is in Europe.
On the way there, about an hour out from the USA, the PA comes on and
asks for an MD. No MD. EMT? Yuppers. Turns out someone had severe
lower right quadrant abdominal pain, guarding, worse on palpation,
most of the usual symptoms of appendicitis. Rapid onset. It also
could have been any of several other things, and if it *was* an
appendix, chances were that we had time to get to Amsterdam anyway.
On consultation with an MD on the ground and onboard EMTs, the captain
decided to turn the plane around. It just wasn't worth the chance.
(Turns out it wasn't an appendix after all, but if we had it to do over
again the decision would have been the same. YOU JUST CAN'T BE SURE,
and that's not the same as "this is my Truth and yours may be different.")
Gee whiz -- speculation, with hypothesis testing, consideration of
contingencies, risks, major $$$ and 240 upset passengers.
In Europe, we set about speculating (there's that word again) about
the possible causes of the problem. We then spent the weekend doing
experiments to confirm or rule out our guesses. By Monday we were
closing in on it when an engineer elsewhere announced that he'd come
up with the answer. End of story? Nope, even though his answer fit
nicely with the data we'd come up with independently. We spent half
of Tuesday running experiments to test his conclusion.
SAME PROCESS, and if any of you think that the behavior of complex
semiconductors is some subjective, "this is MY truth" situation, we
have nothing meaningful to discuss.
Hard-nosed, high-stakes engineering and high-risk, long-odds medical
decisions. Both with the same basic decision process, because the
method of "observe, conjecture, infer, and test" is the most
reliable one ever found for getting to the truth. And I don't mean
your truth, my truth, or the Pope's truth -- I mean answers that can
be counted upon to work for ANYONE, which is what you'd better be
hoping for when the results really count because if the "truth"
depends on who you are, it may not be your turn this time.
D. C. & M. V. Sessions
>
> On Tue, 30 May 2000 21:24:49 -0700, "D. C. & M. V. Sessions"
> <d...@lumbercartel.com> wrote:
>
> If you reward the
> >behavior intermittently, the behavior is actually learned MORE quickly
> >than if you reward it all the time.
>
> continous reinforcement. However it is more difficult to extinguish
> behavior that is learned through intermittent reinforcement.
>
> For example if you give a dog a treat every time he does a trick he
> will learn the trick quicker than if you give him a treat on average
> every other time.
>
> However once the dog has learned the trick if you stop giving the
> treat he will stop doing the trick sooner if his reinforcement was
> continuous.
>
> Aloha,
>
> Rich
>
> >
> >What this means is that if tell some fool to treat menstrual cramps
> >with Bach sonatas there is an excellent chance that she'll soon swear
> >by it. Why? Because sometimes the cramps end soon after the playing
> >of Bach. Intermittent reinforcement.
> >
> >Which is why all sorts of superstitions take hold. Lucky socks and all.
> >Plenty of study has gone into this, and it's the main reason that all
> >sorts of folk remedies are popular, DESPITE the fact that (for instance)
> >wedding rings on a string are precisely as accurate as flipping coins
> >for predicting the sex of babies: people only remember and pass along
> >the cases where the prediction came out correct.
... which explains even better than my (erroneous) version why
the failures of various superstitions don't erode the faith
of their adherents.
> -------------------------
> -------------------------
>
> Lab testing is part of the trap of
> scientific lunacy that surrounds us today
>
> Connie
--
Rich
wrote:
>Rich wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 30 May 2000 17:08:24 -0500, Connie <cgr...@bellsouth.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >Brilliant, Huggy. I agree with everything you said.
>>
>> EVERYTHING?!?!?!?!!?!? Why don't you read it again before you make
>> that statement. I say this because I know how prone you are to
>> exaggeration. And I would not want you to accuse me of being a
>> "literalist" (that is your term isn't it Connie) when I later hold you
>> to that statement:-))
>
>Go ahead. Light the pyre.
>
>>
>>
>> And not to poke a
>> >hornet's nest, but in the interest of true understanding and
>> >communication, I submit: for any given ailment, there are probably a
>> >number (dozens? hundreds?) of remedies that will/can work (thank heavens!)
>> >as in reversing or "curing"dis-ease or disorders.
>>
>> Well that depends on the ailment Connie. I think that for most self
>> limited conditions the body does its own healing given the proper
>> nutrition and support. And alternative remedies often get the credit
>> for the body just doing its thing.
>
>Okay. Is it never the alt treatment?
I don't know. But I would not claim that it was without more evidence
than you have.
I find it ironic that you Connie accuse me of jumping to conclusions
with inadequate information and yet YOU have gone on record saying
that your infant son had a life threatening pancreatic disorder with
no objective evidence of that, that you had adrenal insufficiency with
no objective evidence of that and that your mother had skin cancer
with no objective evidence of that.
In each case you arrived at a conclusion with insufficient evidence.
Your son may have had a gastrointestinal disorder, you may had
symptoms due to stress and your mother may have had some skin lesion
that was not cancer. Cancer is a diagnosis made by biopsy. It is
diagnosed by a pathologist who examines the tissue microscopically. So
before you accuse OTHERS of jumping to conclusions with insufficient
evidence I would look in the mirror. Your evidence is solely based on
faith. That is fine if you are talking about religion but not so fine
when you are talking about potentially life threatening conditions.
>
>> For example
>> for strep throat there is no good substitute than antibiotics. For
>> Hodgkins Lymphoma there is no good substitute than chemotherapy.
>> For severe insulin dependent diabetes there is no good substitute for
>> insulin (with milder diabetes diet and exercise may work but sometimes
>> severe life threatening diabetes can appear that requires immediate
>> life saving treatment with insulin). For hypothyroidism there is no
>> good substitute than thyroid replacement. And the list goes on and on.
>
>But, this is your list of what is "best." Other paths could be "best" for
>other types of "believers," those who are not "science conventional medicine
>believers."
Only if they thought it was best to die instead of using conventional
methods. All of the above conditions are potentially life threatening.
And with a couple of the above it is more than just potential. It is
almost a certainty without conventional treatment. Now you can live in
a fantasy world thinking that someone can treat Hodgkins Lymphoma or
severe insulin dependent diabetes in an alt way and it would be best
for them, unless they want to die of course.
>
>>
>>
>> One of the problems is that alt health care providers play fast and
>> loose with diagnoses. They diagnose various biomedical conditions such
>> as pancreatic deficiency, adrenal insufficiency, skin cancer, etc but
>> cannot provide good objective evidence that their diagnoses are
>> reliable or valid.
>
>Okay. And MD's do not? They do not speculate? Their tests are always
>definitive? Think about this one.
Sometimes they speculate, sure. And when they do hopefully they will
communicate that to their patients. An MD would not tell a person they
have adrenal insufficiency without a blood test. An MD would not tell
a person that they have skin cancer without a biopsy. At least it
would be irresponsible for them to do it. Sometimes in medicine there
is no definitive test and one must speculate.
The problem is that alt speculate almost all the time. They don't do
definitive tests when they are available. They pretend that they could
make diagnoses without tests. And many people such as you believe
them.
>
>>
>>
>> And then claims are made that these illnesses were successfully
>> treated with alt methods. Perhaps these people never even had these
>> illnesses!!!!! This is a major problem.
>
>So all MD diagnoses are on target?
Who said that?? With all due respect Connie, discussing things with
you takes on a surreal quality. I make a statement and then you make
your typical strawman argument.
It would be like my saying that I don't think that untrained
individuals should fly airplanes because they likely will not know how
to do it and will crash the plane and your saying "Oh so you think all
licensed pilots never make mistakes"??
But I guess the strawman is the only argument you win. You won another
one Connie. What would you like for a prize??
>>
>> How does one determine whether the biomedical diagnoses made by alt
>> practitioners are accurate?? Do we just accept their diagnoses in
>> faith??? Is faith an acceptable method to determine validity and
>> reliability?? I realize that for you Connie, the answer is yes.
>
>How does one determine the MD's diax is accurate?
Depends on the condition Connie. Each medical condition has certain
criteria to make the diagnosis. Diagnoses are made based upon
objective criteria for the most part. The more objective the criteria,
the more likely the diagnosis will be accurate.
All conditions are testable
>with blood and urine? .
No Connie they are not. But adrenal insufficiency is and you never had
a blood test. Skin cancer is (biopsy) but your mother never had one.
Infantile pancreatic insufficiency does not but you interestingly
claimed that your child had such a blood test. Life is a bitch huh
Connie??
You are 0 for 3.
>
>>
>>
>> A while back in one of our discussions I asked you a question which
>> you responded "I don't know. I will have to think about that.". You
>> never gave the answer.
>>
>> The question was "Connie, how do you decide what information you
>> believe and what information you don't"?? What are your criteria for
>> deciding if a statement is truthful or not?? What are your criteria
>> for deciding if a treatment for a medical condition will be effective
>> for that condition?? And what are your criteria for determining if an
>> alt diagnosis is accurate??
>
>How do you decide what info you believe and what info you don't?
Asking a question with a question??
Why do you
>believe in pharmacopaea?
For WHAT Connie??
Do you choose it over nutrition?
For WHAT Connie???
It is not a simple choosing medication or nutrition. You need to be
specific. In some cases I would choose medication and in some cases
would not. As far as nutrition goes I try to eat as healthfully as I
can so if I don't choose medication I would not make any major changes
in diet unless there were some specific reasons (for example if my
blood sugar was mildly elevated I might exercise more and try to lower
my body fat)
>
>>
>>
>> Of course you can say that you go by personal experience. If you or
>> your loved one gets better then that is proof that the specific
>> diagnosis made by the alt practitioner was accurate. Do you see a
>> problem with this conclusion???
>
>If you get better after taking an powerful antibiotic, you assume you had a
>bacterial infection. Why?
No I would not assume that. If I had strep throat (Dx'd by throat
culture) and took an antibiotic and got better I would assume that.
If I happened to take an antibiotic for cold symptoms and got better I
would NOT assume that it was the antibiotics since I know there is no
evidence that antibiotics work for viral infections and because I know
that cold symptoms are self limited and usual caused by viruses.
>
>
>>
>>
>> Again I understand that your number one priority is you and your
>> family being healthy and recovering from whatever maladies you may
>> experience. And I agree that this SHOULD be your number one priority.
>>
>> But my question has to do with your SPECIFIC beliefs about the
>> SPECIFIC conditions which the alt providers claim that you have. How
>> do you know if they are accurate??
>
>How do you know they were not?
Because you provided no objective evidence that they were.
How do you know your doc's diax are accurate?
Good question. That depends. If I went to a doctor and he said I had
adrenal insufficiency I would ask for evidence for that. If he said I
had cancer I would ask for evidence of that. If the doctor said that I
did not need a blood test or biopsy and to just accept the Dx on faith
then I would find another doctor. If the biopsy revealed that I had
cancer I would ask for two independent pathologists to independently
review the biopsy before assuming it was true. Of course we can never
know anything 100%. I just like to go with the best odds and avoid
leaving things to faith. This is where you and I differ. You are faith
(some would say fantasy) based and I am science (some would say
objective) based.
>The findings of every test you've ever had was accurate?
I don't. What is your point? Nothing in life is 100%. Just because I
don't know that every test that I have had was accurate is no reason
to not have tests.
>
>> How do you know if they are not
>> accurate and that your improvement is primarily due to your own body
>> just doing its thing in healing itself and that the diagnosis made is
>> wrong???
>
>How do you know the diax you get is accurate? That the tests are accurate?
>That there has been no contamination?
I don't know with 100% certainty about anything Connie. What is your
point?? I try to base my decisions on as increased certainty I can
realizing that it will never be perfect. And my certainty increases
with information that is based upon objective findings rather than
fantasy or belief.
>
>>
>>
>> Remember Connie, that you have made many SPECIFIC claims of
>> biomedical conditions which alt therapies have helped.
>
>Yep. I stated what I thought happened. So sue me.
No you did not. You did not say that you THOUGHT that these conditions
were present. You said that they were!!!! Based upon what?????
You STILL have not answered my question even though I have answered
yours. Why do you believe that your infant son had a life threatening
pancreatic disorder as opposed to a self limited gastrointestinal
disorder that caused his persistent vomiting??? Why do you believe
that your mother had skin cancer without a biospy???
If you are going to now ask me if biopsies are 100% accurate save your
breath. They are not. Does that mean that we should not get them in an
effort to increase the chances of an accurate diagnosis. Your replies
suggest that you do.
>
>> Before you accuse ME of being hung up on names I would look in the mirror and
>> ask why you believe that you and your family members actually had the
>> various conditions for which the alt providers made diagnoses.
>
>Oh,dunno. Symptoms? Progression? Improvement?
Don't you think that many things cause symptoms, progression and
improvement??? Why do you assume without ANY objective evidence that
you are correct??? It is PURE faith.
>> I am sure that they do. There is no objective evidence that these
>> methods will work for lack of focus secondary to ADD. If you want to
>> believe that they have an effective therapy that is your choice.
>
>YES... MY CHOICE. excuse me for shouting. Objective evidence according to
>whom?
Objective observers.
>>
>>
>> >Maybe 9 therapies are hawked by several hundred people. The Ritalin is
>> >10% of the possibilities in the example. Read the side effects list.
>>
>> Actually in the case of Ritalin it has few side effects when used at
>> reasonable doses.
>
>Okay. So you say. There have been no instances of suspected heart damage or
>personality changes?
Eating peanuts can kill you if you are allergic to them. Should we ALL
stop eating peanuts. Anything is possible Connie. We need to weigh
benefit risk.
>
>> And other than stimulants there is no objective
>> evidence that these other therapies work. And some (eg Feingold diet)
>> have been tested and debunked.
>
>No one is ever helped by eliminating certain foods, chemicals and dyes from
>their diets?
Who said that??
>
>>
>>
>>
>> >
>> >Okay. The Ritalin will help the focusing problem, but at what costs?
>>
>> That varies from child to child. What are the costs in not giving the
>> Ritalin and using some other therapy. I realize that you believe the
>> anecdotes that you hear but objective evidence is sorely lacking.
>
>Long term use of stimulents on growing bodies and brains doesn't concern you?
Do you have evidence that I should be concerned?? Milliions of
children have been taking Ritalin for years. Is there long term
evidence of problems Connie?? Or is this just more paranoid
speculation on your part??
>
>>
>
>> Have you considered the possibility that in many cases, withholding the
>> stimulants from children with ADD may result in a worsening of the
>> condition??
>
>Have you considered that the Ritalin may worsen the condition?
Of course. And if it does you stop or reduce the dosage. Guess you did
not read my post or are you just trying to be your endearing
frustrating self?
Have you
>considered that the underlaying cause of the difficulty may be a simple allergy
>or nutritional deficiency, or complex problem of these and other things which
>can be addressed, but only with a great deal of patience and persistence? (your
>own personal strength)
No evidence for this.
>>
>>
>> Good studies are done on *randomized* populations.
>> Do you understand what randomization is and why it is so useful? If
>> not I would recommend that you look into study design. It is the
>> randomization which allows one to make reasonable conclusions about
>> how a person in the general population will respond.
>>
>> When people start talking about how studies do not apply to everyone
>> they are correct. However randomization increases dramatically the
>> probability that they will apply to an individual.
>
>That has nothing to do with the truck example above. Just because one thing is
>being tested does not exclude all other possibilities.
You are correct. Guess you did not understand randomization because
that is exactly what randomization does. Randomization works to
exclude confounding variables!!
And before you ask your usual question let me answer it. No Connie, it
is not 100% accurate.
Rich
Aloha,
Rich
-------------------------
AndyS
> They found that 5.1% of children met full DSM-III-R ADHD criteria
> across the pooled sample. However, only 12.5% of children meeting ADHD
> criteria had been treated with stimulants during the previous 12
> months.
Hi Mark,
I am new to these news groups and to all this issue (Ritalin, ADD, ADHD)
and I am just familiarizing myself. My question is: If I understand you
correctly, we are talking about a Normal Distribution (Statistically) when
we are talking about IQ, Weight, ADD and its symptoms (etc.). As we know,
the Normal Distribution is Symmetric and Bell shaped. In other words, your
5.1% on one side of the distribution bell, also means that there are 88.8%
non ADHD criteria AND not too quiet. 88.8% are "Normal".
I think (please correct me if I am wrong) that only 88.8% are normal is
very low and can mean that the testing process, the how much is too much
- was set up incorrectly.
Cheers,
Andy
Mark Probert
Andy, you emailed me and posted. I responded in email. Please alert
people when you do that.
Mark Probert
"Karuna" <kar...@ihug.com.au> wrote:
>
> Rich <kal...@gte.net> wrote in message
> news:3936ea54...@news.gte.net...
> > On Tue, 30 May 2000 16:51:26 +1000, "Karuna" <kar...@ihug.com.au>
> > wrote:
> >
> > >Yes, methylphenidate (ritalin) it is a psychostimulant - I
believe it is
> > >one of the "speed" group, along with such as methadrine and
effadrine.
> > >However its more usual *effects* in the commonly prescribed doses
are to
> > >cause the child to become more obediant,
> >
> > The child is more obedient as a result of him/her being less
> > distractible and less impulsive. Ritalin does not sedate children
with
> > ADD. It actually makes them MORE alert but also more focused.
>
> Yes, they may even become 'overfocused'. Although not 'actually'
sedated,
> in at least some instances the resulting behaviour seems similar to
that of
> sedation.
> For example, Swanson et al (1992) say that "...compliant behaviour
may be
> accompanied by isolated, withdrawn and *overfocused* behaviour" (my
> emphasis). They refer to some children becoming "zombie-like", and
say
> that "high doses which make ADHD children more "sombre", "quiet"
and "still"
> may produce social isolation"
>
> They also maintain that there is no evidence that ritalin improves
learning
> or academic perfomance, a view shared by Breggin (1991), Codes (1987)
and
> McGuinness (1989).
Update your research a bit. You are a decade out of date.
Also, citing Breggin is never a good idea. He is a proven liar and is
readily debunked on the facts.
> > Btw, I noticed that you snipped the part about ADD being a genetic
> > disorder with some neurophysiologic abnormality that is corrected by
> > stimulants. If it can be demonstrated that there is some
> > neuropathology causing the impulsivity would you be more willing to
> > see Ritalin as a possible treatment modality??
>
> I am sorry about that Rich. It was not my intention to snip anything.
At
> that point in my reply to your post, I was experiencing some ADHD-like
> symptoms myself (restlessness, fidgeting, etc) so went to take a
break,
> posting what I had written with the intention of replying to the rest
later.
> Then the day 'got away' on me...
>
> I would like to know your source of the idea that ADHD may sometimes
be a
> 'genetic disorder with some neurophysiologic abnormality', and to
read some
> of that myself before commenting.
>
> Golden (1991) says "Attempts to define a biological basis for ADHD
have been
> consistently unsuccessful. The neuroanatomy of the brain, as
demonstrated by
> neuroimaging studies, is normal. No neuropathologic substrate has been
>
demonstrated..."
Try updating your research.
> > Refs:
> Breggin, P. (1991). Toxic psychiatry: Why therapy, empathy and love
must
> replace the drugs, electroshock and biochemical theories of the 'new
> psychiatry'. New York: St. Martin's Press
Breggin has writtin lots of books. How many peer reviewed papers has he
published?
> Codes, G. (1987). The learning mystique: A critical look at 'learning
> disabilities'. New York: Pantheon Books.
Ditto.
> Golden, G.S. (1991, March). Role of attention deficit hyperactivity
disorder
> in leaning disabilities. Seminars in neurology ll:No. l, pp. 3541.
>
> McGuinness, D. (1989). Attention deficit disorder The emperor's new
clothes,
> animal "pharm," and other fiction. In Fisher, S. and Greenberg, R.P.
(Eds.).
> The limits of biological treatments for psychological distress.
Hillsdale,
> NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, pp. 151-188.
Another book. Anyone can write a book. Try real science.
> Swanson, J.M., Cantwell, D., Lerner, M., McBurnetL K., Pfiffner, L.
and
> Kotkin, R (1992, fall). Treatment of ADHD: Beyond medication. Beyond
> behavior 4: No. 1, pp. 13-22.
>
>
--
Mark Probert
Children can be cruel...unless adults teach them to be kind.
Mark Probert
jdrew...@aol.com (JDrew63929) wrote:
> >From: Mark Probert mtreborp...@aol.com.invalid
> >Date: 05/30/2000 6:34 AM US Eastern Standard Time
> >Message-id:
>
> >In article <39335E31...@bellsouth.net>, Connie
> ><cgr...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> >>Button pushed. Rant warning.......
> >
> >Ditto.......................
> >
>
> >>The acceptance of Ritalin as suitable for masses of children is
> >horrific.
> >
> >lives would be spent uselessly have a means to lead productive
> >lives.
>
> Why not
> get yourself some real knowledge?
I have. You use fantasy based medicine. I deal in fact based medicine.
That is real knowledge.
> >#&^&*%. Unruly? Because they can't
> >>sit quietly for hours and have their minds numbed w/
> >stupidity???? Children should
> >>run, romp, explore, experiment hands on. Take the kids for a
> >run - don't drug them
> >>into catatonia.
>
> >Thank G-d that MPH does not do that.
>
> Why not
> get yourself some real knowledge?
See above. You are stuck on one note (zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz).
> >ADHD is not caused by diet.
>
> Noone said it was.
>
> >ADHD is not caused by diet.
> >
>
> Noone said it was. But it can be helped by diet.
Nope. True ADHD cannot be helped by diet. If the behaviors respond to
diet, then it is not ADHD. You mean that you are not aware of that? I
thought you had real knowledge. Guess I was wrong.
> >>supplements,
> >
> >One of the supplement manufacturers just had to eat some all
> >natural crow and withdraw their specious claims that their
> >supplement did anything for ADHD.
>
> Congrads.......now you can sell more *drugs* for kids......goda get
them
> started out right!
Nope. Use what works: appropriate pharmacotherapy as part of an overall
treatment plan.
> >>biofeedback,
> >
> >Long term viability has not been demonstrated. I know, because I
> >asked the leading researcher/salesman if it had.
>
> Are you Kali's brother?
No, I am David's brother.
> >etc. One might try these sites as starting places for
> >>information about alternatives to drugs:
> >>
> >>http://www.Feingold.org
> >
>
> >The Fool$gold organization/diet had been debunked by every
> >scientific study that has examined it.
>
> And approved by many parents who *know* it helps.
If Fool$gold works, then it is not ADHD.
> >>http://www.alternate-health.com
> >
> >Alternative medicine is the politically correct term for
> >quackery. It is based on non-science, wishful thinking, reliance
> >on the placebo effect and charlatanism. It is not fact based
> >medicine.
>
> End of discussion. Fact: Ritalin has ruined the lives of many
children and
> families.
Male bovine excreta.
> Goodbye Mark.
So, you want to remain clueless?
> Jan
Mark Probert
jdrew...@aol.com (JDrew63929) wrote:
> >From: Mark Probert mark...@my-deja.com
> >Date: 05/30/2000 8:33 AM US Eastern Standard Time
> >Message-id:
>
> > As an example, one little boy we had would trip, shove, pitch any
> >kids near
> >> him. The worse part was at naptime.
>
> >It is called impulsiveness. A symptom of ADHD. Scientific studies
show
> >that, even among professionals, the symptoms are mistaken for side
> >effects.
>
> Stuff scientific studies..............try 38 years of working with
kids.
Sad that you "think" that way. You, of course, may "think" it, but,
that does not change the reality.
Your selective snippage removed the statement that you were claiming
that the described behaivor was a side effect of MPH. I pointed out
that it is a behavior that most likely was a symptom of ADHD, i.e. poor
impulse control.
Are you intellectually dishonest? Do you often selectively snip to
change meaning?
BTW, scientific studies use facts, not alternative "thinking."
> >The teachers always rubbed his back to get
> >> him to sleep. Then he constantly jerked while he was asleep. It was
> >pityful. I
> >> was friends to the step grandparents. The parents didn't know how
to
> >deal with
> >> the child, whch was of course a big problem. We worked with them
and
> >finally
> >> convinced them to take him off the Ritalin. He still had behavior
> >problems, but
> >> the jerking at naptime subsided. We felt so sorry for him, that my
> >husband
> >> would come over (he worked the nightshift) and carry him around,
put
> >him in his
> >> lap at activity time, and show him much love and understanding.
> >
> >That's sweet. Irrelevant to the treatment of ADHD.
>
> No it's relevant to the side effects of Ritalin.
Wrong. it is not a side effect of MPH. It is more likely a side effect
of the stress you had the kid under with your constant pressure to talk
his parents out of appropriate treatment. You are not a doctor and had
you pulled that stunt with me, you would be doing time for practising
medicine without a license.
> >> I had another little girl who pulled out her hair.
> >
> >Not a known and demonstrated side effect.
>
> I don't think much of anything about Ritalin is known to you.
I know far more than you can absorb.
> >> Others who could not sit still and had a very short attention span.
> >
> >That is a symptom of ADHD, not a side effect of MPH.
> >
> >> What I have seen is that Ritalin is effective in the beginning,
then
> >the
> >> original symptoms are greatly increased.
> >
> >Disproven by scientifc research.
>
> I see you are one of those who is hung up on scientific
> research..............try more *real* experience.
Scientific research deals with real life experiences, and controls to
remove prejudices (such as yours), the placebo and Hawthorne effects,
and observer biases.
> >> The booklet that I helped with had many testimonies from families
who
> >had many
> >> bad experiences.
> >
> >Testimonial evidence in medicine is not evidence.
>
> Then stay in your little box. Thirthy eight years of evidence beats
all your
> stuffy scientific studies.
Nah. Over two thousand scientific studies beats AlternativeThink any
day.