Ritalin
JDrew63929
J. Clarke
--
---
--- John
Reply to jclarke at eye bee em dot net
"JDrew63929" <jdrew...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20000608123231...@ng-cr1.aol.com...
>
> http://www.breggin.com/consensusnihfails.html
Norma
add this JDrew character to my ever growing block list. The temptation to
engage in debates or play with trolls is a great one with me. However I find
it wastes most of my time thus the filters work wonders...
Norma
"J. Clarke" <nos...@nospam.nospam> wrote in message
news:393fd...@news3.prserv.net...
corn...@my-deja.com
"J. Clarke" <nos...@nospam.nospam> wrote:
> Yawn again.
Yet another brilliant response from the pro-add'ers - not!
Is the first 'symptom' of 'adhd' a closed mind? The inability to see
both sides of an argument? Name calling?
The cat's out of the bag - and the myth of 'adhd' is soon to come to an
end, once and for all.
> --
>
> ---
>
> --- John
>
> Reply to jclarke at eye bee em dot net
> "JDrew63929" <jdrew...@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:20000608123231...@ng-cr1.aol.com...
> >
> > http://www.breggin.com/consensusnihfails.html
>
>
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
goddess...@my-deja.com
corn...@my-deja.com wrote:
> In article <393fd...@news3.prserv.net>,
> "J. Clarke" <nos...@nospam.nospam> wrote:
> > Yawn again.
>
> Yet another brilliant response from the pro-add'ers - not!
>
> Is the first 'symptom' of 'adhd' a closed mind? The inability to see
> both sides of an argument? Name calling?
>
> The cat's out of the bag - and the myth of 'adhd' is soon to come to
an
> end, once and for all.
>
Hmmmmm.... you never did answer my questions to you in other two threads
in which I attempted a clear rational discussion with you. Wanna try
again?
--
Light, Love, & Laughter,
Kitten
"Thousands of years ago, cats were worshipped as gods. Cats have never
forgotten this." - Anonymous
"Cats seem to go on the principle that it never does any harm to ask for
what you want." - Joseph Wood Krutch
Tralalaah
HREF="http://www.breggin.com/consensusnihfails.html">http://www.crackpot.c
om/biased.interpretation.html</A>
"
jdrew seems to be a bregginite.
Anyone who will read Breggin but not Barkley, Solden, Hallowell, Ratey, etc.,
has a shallow mind.
If the shoe fits, wear it.
Rich
wrote:
>I'm so glad Outlook Express makes it easy to block people. I will have to
>add this JDrew character to my ever growing block list. The temptation to
>engage in debates or play with trolls is a great one with me. However I find
>it wastes most of my time thus the filters work wonders...
>
>
> Norma
>
Yes indeed. And Jan thinks that she is performing a public service by
posting such nonsense. It is unlikely that she even reads through the
information that she posts very carefully and if she does she does not
know how to critically analyze it. To Jan if it is pro alt it is good
and if it is anti-conventional it is even better.
For those of you who have not been reading misc.health.alternative,
Jan Drew likely is suffering from some kind of psychosomatic disorder
and has very bad experiences with conventional medicine who do not
give into her delusional beliefs about her health.
She has had all her amalgams removed due to believing that she had
mercury poisoning and only DAYS after having them removed she reported
that she felt better than she has in years. Of course anyone who knows
anything about mercury toxicity realizes that her improvement had
nothing to do with the removal of the amalgams. If anything her
mercury level would be slightly elevated unless perfect protocol was
used to remove her amalgams. In any case there would be NO decrease in
her mercury level at this point. She also is a Hulda "Quack"
Clark supporter and believes that she was infected with multiple
parasites including loa loa which is not found in North America.
Jan is a sick individual who tries to recruit people to her way of
thinking. She is not very bright and cannot tolerate individuals who
disagree with her point of view.
I am truly sorry that I made her aware of this support group with,
from what little I have seen, has dedicated and intelligent
individuals struggling with a difficult problem. The last thing that
you need is Jan Drew mail bombing your group with her nonsense. Again
I apologize to ADAD and encourage all of you to keep up the good work.
I will continue to try to keep posters on mha honest and challenge the
very dubious claims. I sure wish some of you ADAP guys would help me
out over at mha. It sure is difficult doing this short handed and I
bet you guys have more energy than I do:-))
Aloha,
Rich
--------------------------------------
---------------------------------------
I have my own life experiences to go by.
I don't need to do any math.
ka & g
Christopher Eliot
> In article <393fd...@news3.prserv.net>,
> "J. Clarke" <nos...@nospam.nospam> wrote:
>> Yawn again.
>
> Yet another brilliant response from the pro-add'ers - not!
>
> Is the first 'symptom' of 'adhd' a closed mind? The inability to see
> both sides of an argument? Name calling?
No, but the ability to process information quickly, is. With this ability,
it is possible to quickly recognize that a web site that looks like quack,
reads like a quack, and tries to sue the entire APA, like a quack, is, well,
a quack.
Mark Probert
Rich, not to worry. Jan is a lightweight, a mere speck on the monitor.
She thinks that the proven liar Breggin is an authority.
Let's face it, the citing of Breggin is automatically a sign of person
bereft of cogent argument and the ability to use critical thinking
skils.
Jan must be a sad case. I hope she gets the help she desperately needs.
I can tell that you truly care about people such as her.
Mark Probert
corn...@my-deja.com wrote:
> In article <393fd...@news3.prserv.net>,
> "J. Clarke" <nos...@nospam.nospam> wrote:
> > Yawn again.
>
> Yet another brilliant response from the pro-add'ers - not!
>
> Is the first 'symptom' of 'adhd' a closed mind? The inability to see
> both sides of an argument? Name calling?
>
an
> end, once and for all.
Jan, meet Cornball. Cornball, meet Jan.
Just do not breed. We have enough Freddie Kreuger movies.
> >
> > Reply to jclarke at eye bee em dot net
> > "JDrew63929" <jdrew...@aol.com> wrote in message
> > news:20000608123231...@ng-cr1.aol.com...
> > >
> > > http://www.breggin.com/consensusnihfails.html
> >
> >
>
> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> Before you buy.
>
--
Mark Probert
Children can be cruel...unless adults teach them to be kind.
Mark Probert
goddess...@my-deja.com wrote:
> In article <8hoth3$fgi$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> corn...@my-deja.com wrote:
> > In article <393fd...@news3.prserv.net>,
> > "J. Clarke" <nos...@nospam.nospam> wrote:
> > > Yawn again.
> >
> > Yet another brilliant response from the pro-add'ers - not!
> >
> > Is the first 'symptom' of 'adhd' a closed mind? The inability to see
> > both sides of an argument? Name calling?
> >
> > The cat's out of the bag - and the myth of 'adhd' is soon to come to
> an
> > end, once and for all.
> >
>
threads
> in which I attempted a clear rational discussion with you. Wanna try
> again?
>
Kitten, even tho you have nine lives, DO NOT hold your breath,.
Cornball is not interested in such a thing. When I gave s/h/it the
proof he demanded, s/h/it tucked its tail between its legs and would
not respond to my posts again.
S/h/it cannot handle facts.
J. Clarke
news:9234F13C2C4CB269.FA288598...@lp.airnews.net...
> x-no-archive: yes
>
> On Thu, 08 Jun 2000 23:23:21 GMT, Mark Probert <mark...@my-deja.com>
> wrote:
>
> >Rich, not to worry. Jan is a lightweight, a mere speck on the monitor.
> >She thinks that the proven liar Breggin is an authority.
> >
> >Let's face it, the citing of Breggin is automatically a sign of person
> >bereft of cogent argument and the ability to use critical thinking
> >skils.
> >
> >Jan must be a sad case. I hope she gets the help she desperately needs.
> >
> >I can tell that you truly care about people such as her.
>
> to us *why* you feel Breggin is a liar?
Explaining why one feels that Breggin is a liar is like explaining why one
feels that Bill Clinton is the President. It's something so well
established that there's no point to rehashing it. If you really care about
the arguments, plug "Breggin" into deja.
> Citing an author who publishes opinions which run
> contradictory to your own does not necessarily denote a lack of
> critical thinking skills.
No, but citing Breggin does.
> Rich and Andrew obviously support Ritalin (as they do pretty
> much anything else that is firmly rooted in allopathy).
Don't know about them, but most folks I've encountered who actually _have_
ADHD and have been treated for it support "allopathy" in preference to all
the non allopathic remedies they've tried that didn't work. If you know of
a non-allopathic treatment that has been shown by credible researchers to be
as effective as the allopathic treatment and as safe as the allopathic
treatment, please let us know about it.
> However, they
> don't back up their support with citations from any research papers,
> or useful websites. At least Jan went out of her way to provide us
> with some data. (Regardless of what you feel about the source).
Nope, Jan provided you with propaganda.
--
---
--- John
Ann
> Intead of slinging ad hominem remarks, why don't you explain
>to us *why* you feel Breggin is a liar?
That has been done so many times in ASAD, do a Deja search on it.
We've beat it to death. He's FOS, and that's all there is to it.
--
Ann
ann...@thecia.net
Jim Manson
>>Because he should know better.
>
>
>Is this an opinion? It doesn't answer the question.
>
Do some research. Breggin gets blown out of the water fairly regularly
on this group. We're not going to go over it again and again every
time someone comes in that's gullible enough to believe him.
If you don't want to do the research on Deja then just drop it.
Rich
<back...@netexpress.net> wrote:
>x-no-archive: yes
>
>On Thu, 08 Jun 2000 23:23:21 GMT, Mark Probert <mark...@my-deja.com>
>wrote:
>
>>Rich, not to worry. Jan is a lightweight, a mere speck on the monitor.
>>She thinks that the proven liar Breggin is an authority.
>>
>>Let's face it, the citing of Breggin is automatically a sign of person
>>bereft of cogent argument and the ability to use critical thinking
>>skils.
Quite true backcracker (chiro student).
What do you think about someone (chiropractor ) who feels that
subluxations (tm) are the root cause of most all illness in terms of
ability to use critical thinking?? After all that is what YOU think.
Give us the best OBJECTIVE evidence for that assertion.
Before you accuse someone else of lacking ability to use critical
thinking I would take a look in the mirror.
TarBaby
<Empire...@mediaone.net> wrote:
>No, but the ability to process information quickly, is. With this ability,
>it is possible to quickly recognize that a web site that looks like quack,
>reads like a quack, and tries to sue the entire APA, like a quack, is, well,
>a quack.
What I find interesting is that Dr. Breggin does not seem to dispute
that ADD/ADHD disorder exists, nor does he (AFAIK) dispute the way
it's diagnosed. Instead he opposes the use of medication for ADD/ADHD
and other psychiatric disorders.
Why does that, in and of itself, make him a "quack" in everyone's
eyes?
J. Z. Al-Huriyeh
===================================
"This is my father's house, and now
strangers have come to drive me out."
P[a]lestinian Proverb
Tralalaah
"What I find interesting is that Dr. Breggin does not seem to dispute
that ADD/ADHD disorder exists, nor does he (AFAIK) dispute the way
it's diagnosed. Instead he opposes the use of medication for ADD/ADHD
and other psychiatric disorders.
Why does that, in and of itself, make him a "quack" in everyone's
eyes?
"
Christopher Eliot
> If you have an axe to grind with the author of her citation,
> then I sincerely would like to hear about it. And I hope that your
> rebuttle goes beyond simple opinion.
I think that if Breggin got together with a bunch of ADDers, there might be
a lynching.
Yes, we have an axe to grind with the author or her citation.
There are (or will be) web sites specifically devoted to refuting Breggin. I
don't think it needs to be posted here. He is not regarded as a credible
authority by any of the people I know in alt.support.attn-deficit.
Tralalaah
" Intead of slinging ad hominem remarks, why don't you explain
to us *why* you feel Breggin is a liar?"
Oh, hi, Backcracker! You've been seen on AOL, too...
We call Breggin a liar because he IS a liar. And no, no one here has to quote
his bilge for the purpose of refuting it.
I'm not saying people should not read his book. Read his book. But ALSO read
Barkley's book, and compare the documentations. Figure the thing out for
yourself.
JDrew63929
Rich, not to worry. Jan is a lightweight, a mere speck on the monitor.
>>>She thinks that the proven liar Breggin is an authority.
>>>
>>>Let's face it, the citing of Breggin is automatically a sign of person
>>>bereft of cogent argument and the ability to use critical thinking
>>>skils.
Rich replied:
>Quite true backcracker (chiro student).
And? Is that beneath you Rich?
> What do you think about someone (chiropractor ) who feels that
>subluxations (tm) are the root cause of most all illness in terms of
>ability to use critical thinking?? After all that is what YOU think.
>Give us the best OBJECTIVE evidence for that assertion.
>
>
>
>Before you accuse someone else of lacking ability to use critical
>thinking I would take a look in the mirror.
Were we talking about chiropractors? I thought you always stuck with the topic
and were logical in having a discussion?
Guess you just blew that one out of the water.............Now could we get back
to the subject??
Intead of slinging ad hominem remarks, why don't you explain
to us *why* you feel Breggin is a liar?
Citing an author who publishes opinions which run
contradictory to your own does not necessarily denote a lack of
critical thinking skills.
Some how you *accidently* snipped these questions.....Rich.
Let's have an answer please......and NOT just your opinions.........we want
proof.
Jan
JDrew63929
>Date: 06/08/2000 8:38 PM US Eastern Standard Time
>Message-id: <20000608213844.040
>backcrkr said:
>
>" Intead of slinging ad hominem remarks, why don't you explain
>to us *why* you feel Breggin is a liar?"
>
>
>Oh, hi, Backcracker! You've been seen on AOL, too...
>
>We call Breggin a liar because he IS a liar. And no, no one here has to quote
>his bilge for the purpose of refuting it.
This is an opinion....everyone has one.....we need some proof.
>I'm not saying people should not read his book. Read his book. But ALSO read
>Barkley's book, and compare the documentations. Figure the thing out for
>yourself.
>
My guess would be that Barkley pushes drugs? Does he have a website?
Jan
Christopher Eliot
faq_k...@my-dejanews.com (TarBaby) wrote:
> On Thu, 08 Jun 2000 21:17:11 GMT, "Christopher Eliot"
> <Empire...@mediaone.net> wrote:
>> No, but the ability to process information quickly, is. With this ability, it
>> is possible to quickly recognize that a web site that looks like quack, reads
>> like a quack, and tries to sue the entire APA, like a quack, is, well, a
>> quack.
> What I find interesting is that Dr. Breggin does not seem to dispute that
> ADD/ADHD disorder exists, nor does he (AFAIK) dispute the way it's diagnosed.
> Instead he opposes the use of medication for ADD/ADHD and other psychiatric
> disorders.
> Why does that, in and of itself, make him a "quack" in everyone's eyes?
What he writes is contradicted by everything we have seen. The research
claims were generally discredited 20 years ago. I would have to be taking
LSD in order to see any similarity between the way he describes AD/HD and
what I have seen. It just does not fit.
There are many, many researchers whose description of AD/HD fits with each
other and with my personal observations, and those of other people on ASAD.
Breggin's "scientific" claims do not agree with those other research
studies, or with my personal observations, or with the personal observations
of other people I have exchanged views with on ASAD.
On the one hand I see a whole lot of people willing to provide a very
detailed, interrelated and consistent view. Furthermore, I have been able to
personally compare this view with my own observations, and it has always
been consistent with what I have seen.
On the other hand I see a group who provides lots of rhetoric, no good data,
and this view does not even remain consistent. Furthermore, I have been able
to personally compare this view with my own observations, and it has never
been consistent with what I have seen (except where the two views do agree).
If you compared a consistent, detailed, and personally verified view with an
inconsistent, vague view that didn't match your personal experience, which
would you believe?
JDrew63929
>Date: 06/08/2000 8:10 PM US Eastern Standard Time
>On Thu, 08 Jun 2000 21:17:11 GMT, "Christopher Eliot"
><Empire...@mediaone.net> wrote:
>
>>No, but the ability to process information quickly, is. With this ability,
>>it is possible to quickly recognize that a web site that looks like quack,
>>reads like a quack, and tries to sue the entire APA, like a quack, is, well,
>>a quack.
>
>What I find interesting is that Dr. Breggin does not seem to dispute
>that ADD/ADHD disorder exists, nor does he (AFAIK) dispute the way
>it's diagnosed. Instead he opposes the use of medication for ADD/ADHD
>and other psychiatric disorders.
>
>Why does that, in and of itself, make him a "quack" in everyone's
>eyes?
>
>J. Z. Al-Huriyeh
Good question.
Jan
JDrew63929
>Date: 06/08/2000 8:40 PM US Eastern Standard Time
>Message-id: <20000608214023...@ng-ca1.aol.com>
>
>Tar Baby said:
>
>"What I find interesting is that Dr. Breggin does not seem to dispute
>that ADD/ADHD disorder exists, nor does he (AFAIK) dispute the way
>it's diagnosed. Instead he opposes the use of medication for ADD/ADHD
>and other psychiatric disorders.
>
>Why does that, in and of itself, make him a "quack" in everyone's
>eyes?
>"
>
>
Is this an opinion? It doesn't answer the question.
Jan
Tralalaah
">Because he should know better.
Is this an opinion? It doesn't answer the question."
It's a highly informed opinion, and in my opinion (smile) fact.
Breggin is trained (or should have been, having an M.D.) in both conducting and
in reading research. Therefore there is no excuse for the shoddy and sometimes
deliberately distorted research on which his book purports to be based.
This is exactly why I suggested comparing Barkley and Breggin's book based on
their research. The difference is remarkable.
I also have some training in research.
However, I will not quote Breggin; I will not list the cites he distorted. I
will not repeat one word he's said.
Tralalaah
"This is an opinion....everyone has one.....we need some proof.'
It's clear you don't agree with anyone here. I am sorry Rich "invited" you, but
since you don't believe anyone here, you need to find out for yourself. Or not.
It is your choice how ignorant you remain.
JDrew63929
>Date: 06/08/2000 10:29 PM US Eastern Standard Time
>Message-id:
Andrew has a history of lying. I have said none of these things.
Jan
John Palmer
>
>Intead of slinging ad hominem remarks, why don't you explain
>to us *why* you feel Breggin is a liar?
The obvious one is his distortion of statistics.
Recently, perhaps on the m.h.a newsgroup, a person posted one of
his claims: that barely 3% of those referred to a study, who were on
medication saw a clinical trial through.
Ah. . . but that's 3% of those referred. . . there were some
thousands referred, and only about 500 studied. Of the people who
started the study in the "treated my medication" group, (IIRC) 80% or
more continued through to the end of the study.
Let me create an example of the reasoning used, okay?
Let's say 5,000 people were checked to see if they could be in a
study.
Let's say 1,000 were studied.
Let's say 250 each made up the four groups studied.
Let's say 200 of the 250 finished in the group that had
medication as a treatment.
Can *YOU* think of a rational basis for comparing 200 (the number
who completed the trial) to *5,000*, the number of people who were
looked at as possible study participants? Because that is,
essentially, what he did.
Now, if this were a casual comment, thrown off in an interview,
it might be forgivable. *EVERYONE* has stupid moments at times, and
says something that they realize just didn't make sense.
He's using that number in writing intended to give people
information. He has an MD, and cites statistics.
If he didn't screw up this badly constantly, in the face of
repeated criticism, you could say "he's just stupid and incompetent."
But he keeps doing it. Either he's incredibly arrogant and
doesn't care about the truth (i.e.: he's a liar) or he's intelligent
enough to know what he's doing, and still puts forth false and/or
misleading information (i.e.: he's a liar).
If you can think of some other explanation that somehow absolves
him of the specific crime of "lying", you'll end up proving that he's
stone stupid. I don't believe a person could be that stupid and still
sign royalty checks from the books he writes damning all drug
treatments. That he has published multiple such books removes the
possibility that he's that stupid from MY mind.
In either case, he's not a worthwhile authority.
I can throw another example off, if you'd like.
--
Everything I needed to know in life I learned in Kindergarten. Like:
Once you pull the pin on Mr. Hand Grenade, he is no longer your friend.
Mark Probert
So far, you have a negative credibility rating. Andrew has a
neutral credibility rating.
Guess who is going to be believed? Hint: Do not look in the
mirror.
* 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
<9234F13C2C4CB269.FA288598...@lp.airnews.ne>On Thu, 08 Jun 2000 23:23:21 GMT, Mark Probert <markprobe@my-
deja.com>
>wrote:
>
>>Rich, not to worry. Jan is a lightweight, a mere speck on the
monitor.
>>She thinks that the proven liar Breggin is an authority.
>>
>>Let's face it, the citing of Breggin is automatically a sign
of person
>>bereft of cogent argument and the ability to use critical
thinking
>>skils.
>>
desperately needs.
>>
>>I can tell that you truly care about people such as her.
>
explain
>to us *why* you feel Breggin is a liar?
>
>contradictory to your own does not necessarily denote a lack of
>critical thinking skills.
>
pretty
>much anything else that is firmly rooted in allopathy).
>don't back up their support with citations from any research
papers,
>or useful websites. At least Jan went out of her way to provide
us
>with some data. (Regardless of what you feel about the source).
>
citation,
>then I sincerely would like to hear about it. And I hope that
your
>rebuttle goes beyond simple opinion.
Here, try this.
Breggin makes the claim that "Ritalin can cause permanent
neurological tics including Tourette's syndrome."
In a nutshell, he is saying that
1-MPH *causes* Tourettes.
2-the so-called MPH caused tics are permanent.
I looked on Medline, PublicMed, etc. and found nothing to
support either statement, i.e. that there is a direct causal
relationship or that the tics are permanent.
I did find studies showing that MPH use can bring out a latent
tic problem, and, in rare circumstances, exacerbate tics, but
not one word that would support a conclusion of causality or
permanency.
I will post the cites if asked.
Now, here is a bit of HW for you...
Visit the ChADD site and read Barkley's article 'Talk Back to
Bregin' (catchy title, no?)
Note how he describes how Breggin falsifies the findings of
studies.
Note that I did not merely accept Barkley's comments, but, I
took Breggin's book and took the study. Barkley was 100%
accurate.
I could go on, but, sometime this summer, I hope, I will be
finished with the BregginBaloney site.
So far, I have refuted every claim that he has made about ADHD
and MPH.
smoocher
> And I don't have time to do a wildcard search in Deja, and
> sift through gazillions of archived posts. Why don't you just give me
> the quick and dirty on the guy? (Also, please provide references
> which support your claim that he has lied).
>
You've got to be kidding, right? YOU don't have time to educate yourself,
but WE'RE supposed to have time to educate you? You asked for info.
Telling you where it exists rather than re-creating it WAS an answer.
smoocher
ka&g
Keyser Soze wrote:
> x-no-archive: yes
>
> On Thu, 08 Jun 2000 23:23:21 GMT, Mark Probert <mark...@my-deja.com>
> wrote:
>
> Rich and Andrew obviously support Ritalin (as they do pretty
> much anything else that is firmly rooted in allopathy). However, they
> don't back up their support with citations from any research papers,
> or useful websites. At least Jan went out of her way to provide us
> with some data. (Regardless of what you feel about the source).
good point. and it should be noted that rich and andrew, self proclaimed
ADHD experts? have not really entered into any other of the discussions.
they focus soley on discrediting and ridiculing those with whom they
disagree. it appears that there are a few regulars on that ng who also fall
easily into the name-calling-instead-of-objective-discussion rut.
> If you have an axe to grind with the author of her citation,
> then I sincerely would like to hear about it. And I hope that your
> rebuttle goes beyond simple opinion.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Backcrkr
>
> http://www.geocities.com/cbpdoc/
> --
>
> When I read about the evils of drinking, I gave up reading.
> --Henny Youngman
>
>
--
There is no pleasure in having nothing to do;
the fun is in having lots to do and not doing it. JohnW. Raper
Solitary shots should be ignored, but when they come from several
directions, it's time to pay attention.
As someone once said, "lf one calls you a donkey, ignore him. If two call
you a donkey, check for hoof prints.
If three, get a saddle." Marshall Shell
Tralalaah
">Quite true backcracker (chiro student).
>
> What do you think about someone (chiropractor ) who feels that
>subluxations (tm) are the root cause of most all illness in terms of
>ability to use critical thinking?? After all that is what YOU think.
>Give us the best OBJECTIVE evidence for that assertion.
Please don't change the subject, Rich. We are discussing
Ritalin, not chiropractic."
OK, Chiro.
What is your interest in ADHD, and where did you gain your expertise?
Have you graduated yet, by the way?
Do you think chiropractic can be used to treat ADHD?
That all IS on topic.
Tralalaah
"Visit the ChADD site and read Barkley's article 'Talk Back to
Bregin' (catchy title, no?)"
Sure but I think they spelled Breggin's name right. I would not mention it
except we do want people to find it easily... :)
Tralalaah
" While Dr. Breggin's lack of truthfulness may seem painfully
apparent to you, I don't know anything about him, his background, and
specifically when and where he has lied. "
Since you have a history of presenting yourself as an expert on ADHD-related
issues (on AOL, for instance)
that is an unacceptable level fo ignorance.
YOU have homework to do. :)
Tralalaah
" He's FOS because you say he's FOS"
Ummm.... no.
He smells like S, he makes statements that are FOS, and he props up his
intellectual house of cards with views that are FOS.
If you don't know why knowledgeable people are saying this, you're not informed
enough to be talking about Braggin -- er, Breggin.
Tralalaah
" At this time, I have elected to not choose sides."
Bravo! That is a HUGE improvement over when you were on AOL!
OK, then... here's what you do. Read Barkley's and Breggin's books, side by
side.
As you come to each item presented as fact, check out the support given by
each. Unfortunately, often you will have to go to the medical research, because
Breggin has distorted much of the research he claims as footnotes. Barkley did
not, but unless you go to the research, you'd have to take my (and others')
word on that.
We really don't have to do this work for you, and since you will be in a
medical profession, it is important that you settle these issues in your own
mind and decide who is telling the truth and who has built an intellectual
house of cards.
The ONLY way to do that is to go to THEIR sources.
So -- while you're asking others here to do this -- it's not possible. It's an
intellectual exploration, not something that can be done in one or two posts.
Tralalaah
" But he keeps doing it. Either he's incredibly arrogant and
doesn't care about the truth (i.e.: he's a liar) or he's intelligent
enough to know what he's doing, and still puts forth false and/or
misleading information (i.e.: he's a liar).
"
I believe that would make him a manipulative and unprofessional liar, actually.
The scandal here is that he has the background to get the information straight,
and instead he uses his training AND his degree to promote untruths.
Many of us have guesses as to why, but why doesn't matter, because it's the
facts that can be fought.
Tralalaah
"it appears that there are a few regulars on that ng who also fall
easily into the name-calling-instead-of-objective-discussion rut."
Nonsense.
Remember the suggestion to go to deja? You need to do it to.
I actually sympathize with you on this one. You think you have come here with
dramatic new information that somehow we have not been aware of, or didn't
explore completely, etc.
In other words (although possibly you didn't realize it) you came in here
assuming that we have ALWAYS held the opinions we hold now, and did not get
there through any thoughtful process.
So you post provocatively, hoping to begin a discussion.
Am I right so far?
FOR ME the problem is that there are only 24 hours in a day. I'm not going to
spend the rest of my life taking Algebra I over and over, and I'm not going to
spend the rest of my life having the same discussion with stranger after
stranger who wanders into our support area with misinformation.
You are assuming that most or all of us have not considered what you say, and
that what you have to say is new to us.
Neither assumption is true.
If you want to know why so many people disagree with you, start with deja, and
then read Breggin and Barkley side by side without previous bias.
Christopher Eliot
> On Thu, 8 Jun 2000 20:38:33 -0400, "J. Clarke" <nos...@nospam.nospam>
> wrote:
>
>>Explaining why one feels that Breggin is a liar is like explaining why one
>>feels that Bill Clinton is the President. It's something so well
>>established that there's no point to rehashing it. If you really care about
>>the arguments, plug "Breggin" into deja.
>
> While Dr. Breggin's lack of truthfulness may seem painfully
> apparent to you, I don't know anything about him, his background, and
> specifically when and where he has lied.
>
> And I don't have time to do a wildcard search in Deja, and
> sift through gazillions of archived posts. Why don't you just give me
> the quick and dirty on the guy? (Also, please provide references
> which support your claim that he has lied).
Here is Barkley's rebuttal of Breggin's latest book.
http://www.chadd.org/news/Russ-review.htm
I have not read Breggin's books. However, I have read *his own* summary of
his latest book. Breggin's summary of his own book includes about 25 major
points. I do not agree with any one of these claims.
Several of these claims are refuted by my own direct observations. Several
of them I dismiss as logically incoherent, irrelevant or in contradiction
with my general knowledge.
In addition, I have personally read basic research reports that contradict
about half of his claims.
In addition, I have personally read secondary research surveys that
contradict the rest of his claims.
In addition, people whose medical knowledge I trust and believe to be
greater than my own have published statements that disagree with Breggin's
claims.
In addition, a number of other people who I trust, say they have made
similar or more extensive attempts to survey the evidence for and against
Breggin's claims. Every person who I regard as well-informed about the
issues, dismisses Breggin's claims.
In addition, every person who has attempted to provide evidence in support
of Breggin's claims has proven to be uninformed about the issue, unreliable,
evasive, ignorant or dishonest regardless of how open mindedly I viewed
their claims at first.
In addition, none of the medical professionals who have personally provided
care for my children in the last seven years have ever said anything that
support's Breggin's claims. These are people whose knowledge and advice I
have trusted for many *years* before I knew or cared anything about AD/HD.
In addition, none of the various teachers and associated professionals and
staff at the three schools that my children have attended, have ever said
anything that supports Breggin's claims.
In addition, my mother has never said anything that supports Breggin's
claims, nor have any of her friends. This is relevant, to me, because she is
my mother. I think it has some additional weight, because she also has a
Ph.D. in the mental health area, about 30 years experience as a clinical
mental health provider, a faculty appointment at Harvard Medical school and
directed a mental health clinic at one of the more prestigious research
hospitals in Boston. The opinion of her friends is also relevant since many
of them are psychiatrists or other mental health professionals.
To convince me that Breggin's ideas have merit, someone would have to
provide evidence undermining the credibility of all or most of the above
sources and explain why my own observations that contradict Breggin should
be discounted.
-Christopher Eliot
>>No, but citing Breggin does.
>
> Why? Because you disagree with him? Does agreeing with your
> point of view necessarily denote good critical thinking skills?
>
>>Don't know about them, but most folks I've encountered who actually _have_
>>ADHD and have been treated for it support "allopathy" in preference to all
>>the non allopathic remedies they've tried that didn't work. If you know of
>>a non-allopathic treatment that has been shown by credible researchers to be
>>as effective as the allopathic treatment and as safe as the allopathic
>>treatment, please let us know about it.
>
> I'm not an expert on ADD and/or ADHD. What little I do know
> about it indicates that Ritalin is the drug of choice when the patient
> is being managed pharmacologically. I also know that both ADD/ADHD
> as well as it's remedy (Ritalin) are HIGHLY controversial topics.
> There is no universal agreement among the experts - let alone us
> non-experts who hang out in the usenet.
>
>>Nope, Jan provided you with propaganda.
>
> Says you. Once again, if you feel that her references are
> wrong, prove it. Provide me with references which conclusively shut
> down Dr. Breggin's theories.
>
>
> Regards,
Tralalaah
"<A
HREF="http://www.chadd.org/news/Russ-review.htm">http://www.chadd.org/news
/Russ-review.htm</A>
I have not read Breggin's books. However, I have read *his own* summary of
his latest book. Breggin's summary of his own book includes about 25 major
points. I do not agree with any one of these claims."
I have, and Barkley may have understated it (grin).
Christopher Eliot
<3C2C322606A07157.883369CF...@lp.airnews.net>, Keyser
Soze <back...@netexpress.net> wrote:
>> [...] Ritalin has been in use for quite a while and is one of the most
>> studied drugs ever. The articles sited by Jan ignore the established
>> record and use scare-mongering rhetoric.
> Ritalin has indeed been studied. And it's track record is underscored by the
> controversy surrounding it.
The controversy should be discounted because so many people who make it
controversial stand to profit from the controversy.
This includes the media people who sell "news" (of one kind or another) and
*love* a good controversy.
It includes the promoters of various 'alternative' treatments all of which
have proven to be expensive, but worthless.
It includes the people who oppose psychiatry or the drug industry for one
reason or another, and who are willing to use anything that might work as a
weapon.
It includes politicians who know how to manipulate controversy for their own
gain.
> Think about this: There are countless new drugs being currently used, or just
> now being introduced to the marketplace. How many of them have this much
> controversy? There are a few, indeed. Most don't even come close. Why is
> that? What is it about Ritalin that is so controversial?
You are also completely mistaken in saying that other drugs are *not*
controversial. There are lots of very sharp controversies within the
scientific and medical communities. However, the general public cannot
understand most of the issues involved, as they can with Ritalin, and so
these are hidden disputes.
> I would ask that you now stop arguing for the side of Ritalin. And instead,
> think about it from the other person's point of view.
Been there, done that, no need to do it again.
ka&g
Christopher Eliot wrote:
> The controversy should be discounted because so many people who make it
> controversial stand to profit from the controversy.
>
> This includes the media people who sell "news" (of one kind or another) and
> *love* a good controversy.
specifically, could you explain to me how the media actually profit from a ritalin
controversy? forgive me, i have never (as part of the general public) actually paid
much attention to this all-encompassing controversy and dont know a whole lot about
ritalin use one way or the other.
> It includes the promoters of various 'alternative' treatments all of which
> have proven to be expensive, but worthless.
again, could you provide some specific examples of alternative ritalin treatments
that folks are profiting from....i understand acupuncture has been touted as a means
of controlling ADD. would that be one of the expensive yet worthless alternatives
that you are referring to?
> It includes the people who oppose psychiatry or the drug industry for one
> reason or another, and who are willing to use anything that might work as a
> weapon.
interesting theory, but i doubt this is a clear picture. conspiracy theories are
generally frowned upon from the skepic camp when they originate with the alt camp,
so i dont suppose they hold much weight here either.
> It includes politicians who know how to manipulate controversy for their own
> gain.
again, do you have some specific examples of politicians profiting from this
controversy. i'd like to learn more about this.
> > Think about this: There are countless new drugs being currently used, or just
> > now being introduced to the marketplace. How many of them have this much
> > controversy? There are a few, indeed. Most don't even come close. Why is
> > that? What is it about Ritalin that is so controversial?
>
> You are also completely mistaken in saying that other drugs are *not*
> controversial. There are lots of very sharp controversies within the
> scientific and medical communities. However, the general public cannot
> understand most of the issues involved, as they can with Ritalin, and so
> these are hidden disputes.
sometimes the 'general public' can understand alot more than the 'gifted ones in the
know' give them credit for.
as an example, i wonder how many of the gullible pro-alt, scientifically illiterate
types stopped using dursban way before the EPA's decision to kick it to the curb.
and how many of them used soy products way before the FDA approved the heart health
claims?
> > I would ask that you now stop arguing for the side of Ritalin. And instead,
> > think about it from the other person's point of view.
>
> Been there, done that, no need to do it again.
nah, it's always good to try to look at things from different points of view.
better for everyone involved and leads to a lot less dogmatic ridicule.
science, after all, is not static and is supposed to be objective.
cici_aychar
news:39404351...@news1.lig.bellsouth.net...
> On Thu, 08 Jun 2000 21:17:11 GMT, "Christopher Eliot"
> <Empire...@mediaone.net> wrote:
>
> >No, but the ability to process information quickly, is. With this
ability,
> >it is possible to quickly recognize that a web site that looks like
quack,
> >reads like a quack, and tries to sue the entire APA, like a quack, is,
well,
> >a quack.
>
> that ADD/ADHD disorder exists, nor does he (AFAIK) dispute the way
> it's diagnosed. Instead he opposes the use of medication for ADD/ADHD
> and other psychiatric disorders.
>
have, he says:
DR. BREGGIN: There's no doubt that there are kids who are bored, who are
frustrated, who are anxious. There's no doubt that some kids don't fit into
our schools and some aren't doing well in their families, but there's no
evidence whatsoever that it's a disease or a medical disorder, it's a child
in conflict, it [sic] to be dealt with in a conflict situation.
If, as you stated above, he has since changed his stance, and he would be a
complete idiot not to in the face of the evidence provided by recent brain
mapping, and the SPECT studies, to name just a couple, let us hope he has
publicly stated his change of opinion and eaten a serving of obligatory
crow.
--
CiCi
Steven Fochi
"Christopher Eliot" <Empire...@mediaone.net> wrote in message
news:t8705.43574$Ft1.2...@typhoon.ne.mediaone.net...
> In article
> <3C2C322606A07157.883369CF...@lp.airnews.net>,
Keyser
> Soze <back...@netexpress.net> wrote:
>
> >> [...] Ritalin has been in use for quite a while and is one of the most
> >> studied drugs ever. The articles sited by Jan ignore the established
> >> record and use scare-mongering rhetoric.
>
> > Ritalin has indeed been studied. And it's track record is underscored by
the
> > controversy surrounding it.
>
> controversial stand to profit from the controversy.
Yep, like the drug companies. What better form of advertising than to make
the treatment controversial and bring it into the public eye, then to try to
display that it's not as dangerous as it's made out to be.
>
> It includes the promoters of various 'alternative' treatments all of which
> have proven to be expensive, but worthless.
A generalisation. You say that alternative health is ALL proven expensive
and also worthless, i think to make such a claim you also need to provide
some evidence. I for one can name many alt health providers who are not
expensive. I can also name many who are proven to be worthwhile, i for
example was cured of a serious illness by the use of Kinesiology and nothing
else, it was also monitored by a doctor and cannot be refuted.
Also allopathic medicine is generally expensive, I don't know how it works
in America, but here in Australia, unless your a pensioner or on some kind
of benefits, any good medical treatment is very expensive. I do admit that
many alts are expensive also, but to say they are worse than allopathy is a
gross exaggeration.
I can also argue that allopathy has been proven useless also, as some of it
has been, but to generalise and imply that it all is useless is dishonest as
is the implication that all of the alt therapies are worthless.
Love and Light
Steven
Tralalaah
"What is it about Ritalin that is so controversial?"
Lots of people leap at the chance to play a good game of "Uproar."
Christopher Eliot
"Steven Fochi" <stevencf@NO_SPAMoptushome.com.au> wrote: "Christopher Eliot"
<Empire...@mediaone.net> wrote in message
news:t8705.43574$Ft1.2...@typhoon.ne.mediaone.net... In article
<3C2C322606A07157.883369CF...@lp.airnews.net>, Keyser
Soze <back...@netexpress.net> wrote:
>>> Ritalin has indeed been studied. And it's track record is underscored by the
>>> controversy surrounding it.
>> The controversy should be discounted because so many people who make it
>> controversial stand to profit from the controversy.
> Yep, like the drug companies. What better form of advertising than to make the
> treatment controversial and bring it into the public eye, then to try to
> display that it's not as dangerous as it's made out to be.
Why would they choose to use this tactic for this particular drug, when they
don't for others? In general, the drug companies are very conservative and
try hard to avoid controversy. They are well established, and hence stand to
lose from controversy, not gain from it.
>> It includes the promoters of various 'alternative' treatments all of which
>> have proven to be expensive, but worthless.
> A generalisation. You say that alternative health is ALL proven expensive and
> also worthless, i think to make such a claim you also need to provide some
> evidence.
I was speaking of alternative treatments for ADHD, only. These topics have
been beaten to death on alt.support.attn-deficit and I am sick of it. You
can look in the archives at deja news, or read the FAQ from
alt.support.attn-deficit if you need proof.
[...]
Christopher Eliot
Christopher Eliot wrote:
>> The controversy should be discounted because so many people who make it
>> controversial stand to profit from the controversy.
>> This includes the media people who sell "news" (of one kind or another) and
>> *love* a good controversy.
> specifically, could you explain to me how the media actually profit from a
> ritalin controversy? forgive me, i have never (as part of the general public)
> actually paid much attention to this all-encompassing controversy and dont
> know a whole lot about ritalin use one way or the other.
The media profits from *any* controversy, if they can use it to get people
to buy their magazines or watch their show. Once something becomes a good
way to sell the news, there is no incentive for the news media to allow the
issue to look like it has been settled. Then they could not report about it
any more.
There is a strong reason for them to stick with an established controversy
also. They build up a library of background material and a list of people
they can reliably interview. They recycle that as long as they can because
it takes time, money and effort to build up.
This does not mean that the media cares who is right. But their interest
conflicts with the possibility of an issue being settled.
>> It includes the promoters of various 'alternative' treatments all of which
>> have proven to be expensive, but worthless.
> again, could you provide some specific examples of alternative ritalin
> treatments that folks are profiting from....i understand acupuncture has been
> touted as a means of controlling ADD. would that be one of the expensive yet
> worthless alternatives that you are referring to?
I've never heard of acupuncture having been shown to be useful for ADD.
There are lots of expensive 'supplement' products that have been dis-proven.
Some of the companies have been penalized or shut down for making false
claims about their effectiveness for ADD.
>> It includes the people who oppose psychiatry or the drug industry for one
>> reason or another, and who are willing to use anything that might work as a
>> weapon.
> interesting theory, but i doubt this is a clear picture. conspiracy theories
> are generally frowned upon from the skepic camp when they originate with the
> alt camp, so i dont suppose they hold much weight here either.
The L Ron Hubbard people have made documented attempts to discredit
psychiatry. They have also made attempts to disrupt
alt.support.attn-deficit.
>> It includes politicians who know how to manipulate controversy for their own
>> gain.
> again, do you have some specific examples of politicians profiting from this
> controversy. i'd like to learn more about this.
>>> Think about this: There are countless new drugs being currently used, or
>>> just now being introduced to the marketplace. How many of them have this
>>> much controversy? There are a few, indeed. Most don't even come close. Why
>>> is that? What is it about Ritalin that is so controversial?
>> You are also completely mistaken in saying that other drugs are *not*
>> controversial. There are lots of very sharp controversies within the
>> scientific and medical communities. However, the general public cannot
>> understand most of the issues involved, as they can with Ritalin, and so
>> these are hidden disputes.
> sometimes the 'general public' can understand alot more than the 'gifted ones
> in the know' give them credit for.
Sometimes this is true. But, nevertheless, few people care about a lot of
medical questions. ADHD affects enough children so that the issue is very
much in the face of many people.
> as an example, i wonder how many of the gullible pro-alt, scientifically
> illiterate types stopped using dursban way before the EPA's decision to kick
> it to the curb.
> and how many of them used soy products way before the FDA approved the heart
> health claims?
>>> I would ask that you now stop arguing for the side of Ritalin. And instead,
>>> think about it from the other person's point of view.
>> Been there, done that, no need to do it again.
> nah, it's always good to try to look at things from different points of view.
I have to allocate my time as best I can. The Bregin people have gotten more
than their fair share of my time.
> better for everyone involved and leads to a lot less dogmatic ridicule.
Look at the ASAD archives.
ka&g
Christopher Eliot wrote:
> In article <39412A78...@mpinet.net>, ka&g <kaa...@mpinet.net> wrote:
> Christopher Eliot wrote:
>
> >> The controversy should be discounted because so many people who make it
> >> controversial stand to profit from the controversy.
>
> >> This includes the media people who sell "news" (of one kind or another) and
> >> *love* a good controversy.
>
> > specifically, could you explain to me how the media actually profit from a
> > ritalin controversy? forgive me, i have never (as part of the general public)
> > actually paid much attention to this all-encompassing controversy and dont
> > know a whole lot about ritalin use one way or the other.
>
> The media profits from *any* controversy, if they can use it to get people
> to buy their magazines or watch their show. Once something becomes a good
> way to sell the news, there is no incentive for the news media to allow the
> issue to look like it has been settled. Then they could not report about it
> any more.
>
> There is a strong reason for them to stick with an established controversy
> also. They build up a library of background material and a list of people
> they can reliably interview. They recycle that as long as they can because
> it takes time, money and effort to build up.
> This does not mean that the media cares who is right. But their interest
> conflicts with the possibility of an issue being settled.
i dont doubt the general premises of your argument at all. but, specifically about
ritalin use or non use, how does it apply? i am a (fairly decently educated) spender
of money. i have yet to watch a show or buy a magazine due to the ritalin
controversy. surely i am not in a minority??!!
> >> It includes the promoters of various 'alternative' treatments all of which
> >> have proven to be expensive, but worthless.
>
> > again, could you provide some specific examples of alternative ritalin
> > treatments that folks are profiting from....i understand acupuncture has been
> > touted as a means of controlling ADD. would that be one of the expensive yet
> > worthless alternatives that you are referring to?
>
> I've never heard of acupuncture having been shown to be useful for ADD.
> There are lots of expensive 'supplement' products that have been dis-proven.
> Some of the companies have been penalized or shut down for making false
> claims about their effectiveness for ADD.
could you provide the info? if you are going to say that it is in deja archives and
that i should just look it up, could you clue me in on some search terms to try
using?
> >> It includes the people who oppose psychiatry or the drug industry for one
> >> reason or another, and who are willing to use anything that might work as a
> >> weapon.
>
> > interesting theory, but i doubt this is a clear picture. conspiracy theories
> > are generally frowned upon from the skepic camp when they originate with the
> > alt camp, so i dont suppose they hold much weight here either.
>
> The L Ron Hubbard people have made documented attempts to discredit
> psychiatry. They have also made attempts to disrupt
> alt.support.attn-deficit.
ah, so religious background has bearing on the ritalin controversy? anyway, these
folks are hardly representative of the larger pro alt camp, wouldnt you say?
> >> It includes politicians who know how to manipulate controversy for their own
> >> gain.
you missed answering this one:
> > again, do you have some specific examples of politicians profiting from this
> > controversy. i'd like to learn more about this.
> > sometimes the 'general public' can understand alot more than the 'gifted ones
> > in the know' give them credit for.
>
> Sometimes this is true. But, nevertheless, few people care about a lot of
> medical questions. ADHD affects enough children so that the issue is very
> much in the face of many people.
bu many people is not a huge majority, right?
> > as an example, i wonder how many of the gullible pro-alt, scientifically
> > illiterate types stopped using dursban way before the EPA's decision to kick
> > it to the curb.
>
> > and how many of them used soy products way before the FDA approved the heart
> > health claims?
>
> >>> I would ask that you now stop arguing for the side of Ritalin. And instead,
> >>> think about it from the other person's point of view.
>
> >> Been there, done that, no need to do it again.
>
> > nah, it's always good to try to look at things from different points of view.
>
> I have to allocate my time as best I can. The Bregin people have gotten more
> than their fair share of my time.
see, i dont even know who 'the bregin people' are. i am a completely unbiased
outsider to this huge controversy. it appears that i will not be getting inducted by
the attn-deficit ng folks. i guess that's understandable. you all have your own
battles and decisions to make without attempting to make sense of it all to some
newbie who accidently got sucked in by someone's crossposting from another ng.
> > better for everyone involved and leads to a lot less dogmatic ridicule.
>
> Look at the ASAD archives.
well, never mind i guess.
no one from your ng seems all that interested in discussing the subject with someone
like me who has never even paid much attention to this 'huge' controversy and has no
personal experience with ADD.
perhaps that is part of the problem?
Joe Parsons
>x-no-archive: yes
>
>Hi Andrew,
>
>>You may not be aware of this, but I am an Acupuncture
>>student, not a knee-jerk allopath supporter. I practice alt-med and
>>have a little bit of background in Psychology (BA).
>
> Okay.
>
>>I have also
>>treated ADHD kids. While I'm not an expert on the topic, I do
>>believe that Ritalin's track record and my limited clinical
>>experiences are congruent.
>
> Both ADHD as well as Ritalin are extremely controversial.
>There are a lot of people on both sides of the track who have been
>very outspoken.
The volume of opposition does not lend credibility to the position.
> At this time, I have elected to not choose sides. But rather,
>I would rather gather more data (in order to be able to make an
>informed decision on the subject). Jan provided links to a few web
>sites which clearly were anti-Ritalin in nature. With that, a few
>pro-Ritalin people scoffed at her and her references. They say that
>the author of the references is a so-called proven liar. And that it
>should be painfully obvious to anybody with any modicum of
>intelligence.
>
>>Face it, some drugs are pretty effective.
>
> Agreed. Let me make this point perfectly clear (especially for
>Richard Jacobson): I am not anti-drug/anti-medical/anti-surgical.
>There is certainly a time and place for all those things.
>
>>Ritalin has been in use
>>for quite a while and is one of the most studied drugs ever. The
>>articles sited by Jan ignore the established record and use
>>scare-mongering rhetoric.
>
> Ritalin has indeed been studied. And it's track record is
>underscored by the controversy surrounding it.
I'm not sure quite what you mean by this. Yes, there is some controversy, but
for the most part, I believe that controversy has been created artificially
(more further down).
> Think about this: There are countless new drugs being
>currently used, or just now being introduced to the marketplace. How
>many of them have this much controversy? There are a few, indeed. Most
>don't even come close. Why is that? What is it about Ritalin that is
>so controversial?
A couple of things come to mind immediately. One is that methylphenidate
(Ritalin) is a CNS stimulant, it does have the *potential* for abuse. It is
because of that *potential* that the Drug Enforcement Administration (a law
enforcement organization, an arm of the Department of Justice) has placed the
drug on Schedule II. All this means is that in the opinion of the DEA, this
substance meets certain criteria for Scheduling. Because some of the other
substances that are also on S-II are scary--methamphetamine and cocaine, for
example--some people tend to equate methylphenidate with those commonly-abused
drugs.
Another reason for the "controversy" (I put it in quotes because I believe it is
largely not legitimate) is due to the nature of ADHD. It can *look* like bad
behavior resulting from ineffective parenting, poor teachers and generally
deficient character on the part of the ADHD person. Frankly, ADHD can present
as extreme brattiness in many cases. To many people, it just seems reasonable
that anyone SHOULD be able to control his or her behavior, activity and
attentiveness--and in many cases, that's true. So I *could* make the argument
that Ritalin, which can help improve the behavior, is being administered for
*my* convenience as a parent or teacher.
Are there instances where this is true? Probably--but the people holding this
kind of position almost always resort to loaded and misleading rhetoric, logical
fallacy--and yes, even outright lies--in an effort to support their position.
The FAQ for alt.support.attn-deficit is posted every Friday, along with several
supporting documents, and there are some examples of what I mean--but here are a
couple:
The production of Ritalin increased by 700% from 1990 - 1995.
Therefore, it is overprescribed. [The fact of its increased
production does not lead inescapably to that conclusion; improved
diagnostic protocols and greater awareness are two other
possibilities]
There is no objective, definitive psychometric test for ADHD.
Therefore, the diagnosis is completely subjective and leads
to wholesale misdiagnosis and drugging. [There are many
conditions for which no "objective, definitive" diagnostic
test exists; depression, schizophrenia and chronic pain are
three on a long list]
> I would ask that you now stop arguing for the side of Ritalin.
>And instead, think about it from the other person's point of view.
No one is "arguing for the side of Ritalin." So far, those whom we might
characterize as being "anti-Ritalin" don't bring any data to the table. It
might also be helpful for you to know that many of the people coming to ASAD
spouting anti-medication rhetoric have some sort of product to sell--and in
almost every case we've seen over the last six years or so, they've displayed an
astonishing ignorance about the condition they claim to have a "cure" for.
With respect to Jan's sources, she has quoted three websites. One,
http://user.cybrzn.com/~kenyonck/add/adc.htm, comes from "Balance Check," a
former participant in ASAD. The content in the page Jan referenced actually
contradicts what she seems to believe. This leads me to believe she hasn't read
much of what she believes to be evidence.
She also referenced an October, 1995 PBS broadcast by John Merrow, "ADD: A
Dubious Diagnosis." http://www.pbs.org/merrow/tv/add/. This broadcast was
quickly discredited as being overly sensational, misleading and in many
instances, told outright lies--I call them "lies" because no journalist I've
ever known or worked with would have missed or misinterpreted obvious facts.
The misrepresentations HAD to be intentional.
Finally, she provided many links to Peter Breggin's website
(http://www.breggin.com). Dr. Breggin, a psychiatrist, has carved out a living
as a vocal critic of pharmacological interventions to psychiatric conditions (he
contributed much of the material for the Merrow broadcast) and resorts to the
same fallacies, distortions and falsehoods that many other "anti-medication"
proponents rely on.
There are some legitimate concerns about the use of Ritalin and other
medications used in treating and managing ADHD--and it is unfortunate that few
of the "anti-medication" people seem to be willing to enter into a discussion in
good faith.
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/
Tralalaah
"specifically, could you explain to me how the media actually profit from a
ritalin
controversy?"
You're kidding -- you don't know about "sweeps weeks?"
TV revenues are based on numbers of people watching, which is measured at
specific times of the year.
Many times the local stations (and national ones) have saved their most
alarmist stories for 'sweeps' weeks.'
The most aggressive do it all year and just up the ante for sweeps week.
ka&g
Andrew Kingoff wrote:
> On Fri, 09 Jun 2000 08:53:19 -0700, ka&g <kaa...@mmpinet.net> wrote:
>
> >>
> >> Rich and Andrew obviously support Ritalin (as they do pretty
> >> much anything else that is firmly rooted in allopathy). However, they
> >> don't back up their support with citations from any research papers,
> >> or useful websites. At least Jan went out of her way to provide us
> >> with some data. (Regardless of what you feel about the source).
> >
> >good point. and it should be noted that rich and andrew, self proclaimed
> >ADHD experts? have not really entered into any other of the discussions.
> >they focus soley on discrediting and ridiculing those with whom they
> >disagree. it appears that there are a few regulars on that ng who also fall
> >easily into the name-calling-instead-of-objective-discussion rut.
>
> So, why are you weighing in? It seems you focus solely on
> discrediting and ridiculing those with whom you disagree.
who said i disagree with you or rich about ritalin, andy? as usual, you dont
think before you post. anger and frustration will cause that to happen often, as
you must know.
> You
> haven't contributed
> to the discussion, just presented your need to be involved by
> projecting your ideals as to how others should think & write.
i have already explained and freely admitted my ignorance on the larger issues
of ritalin use. (admitting ignorance about a subject is not something that you
are familiar with, i am sure.) i dont presume to tell anyone how to think, but
i certainly do find it entertaining to rib you guys (who think you are on a
mission) over your abuse of attempts to communicate and sound objectively
scientific while you are trying.
> Perhaps going to several weekly support groups would give you some
> of the unconditional validation without accountability you seek.
> This way, you'll actually be able to look down upon the faces of those
> you address in real life, instead of trying to look down your nose
> over the NG. While admitting you have a problem is the usually
> considered the first step, YOU are going to need to take an additional
> step, down off your High Horse.
again, andrew's words, created in an attempt to ridicule, fit his own posting
history to a tee. of course, andrew has (or his didactic acupuncture elves have)
nuked his posting history, so it's kind of hard to trace. one just has to read
his comments in other people's responses to get the gist of things.
> Again, the deafening silence that follows your skeptic bashing
> recruitment drives is the sound of the NG saying "Nyet, nanny" to
> the Net Nanny.
andrew, a 'skeptic recruitment drive' exists only in your imagination. (i have
gone over this issue with you umpteen times and you still dont get it. you dont
WANT to get it i guess. remember me telling you oh so many times that i was
doing this acupuncture questioning waaay before you came on the scene? and that
i have already discussed a few of the skeptic's reasons for remaining silent
with them ON the ng?)
my asking rich about not noticing your whoppers about florida law and your
acupuncture school was not an attempt to 'drum up support' from rich. not by any
means. judging by his sig file and the last post he made, i am sure i would be
one of the last posters rich would ever attempt to 'support'. be that as it may,
as i have said repeatedly, i *already* managed to take care of business as far
as your claims went all by myself. it's a done deal, andy. you were busted.
my mentioning this to rich was perfectly justified by his having made a claim of
being thee Honesty guy of mha. (his excuse for hounding connie)
if rich were truly (and objectively) thee Honesty guy, attempts by a student of
acupuncture (andy) to equate his school and profession with conventional medical
schools (not to mention the mistaking of florida law) would not have gone
'unreprimanded.' none of the other 'skeptics' have made the claim (recently)
that they are the truth police of mha. nor have they cross posted this rather
questionable title to another ng in a boastful, self-congratulatory manner.
do let us know what the florida board of acupuncture has to say about the
ordering of blood tests by APs, btw.
ka&g
Andrew Kingoff wrote:
> On Fri, 09 Jun 2000 10:33:44 -0700, ka&g <kaa...@mpinet.net> wrote:
>
> >Christopher Eliot wrote:
> >
> >> The controversy should be discounted because so many people who make it
> >> controversial stand to profit from the controversy.
> >>
> >> This includes the media people who sell "news" (of one kind or another) and
> >> *love* a good controversy.
> >
> >specifically, could you explain to me how the media actually profit from a ritalin
> >controversy? forgive me, i have never (as part of the general public) actually paid
> >much attention to this all-encompassing controversy and dont know a whole lot about
> >ritalin use one way or the other.
> >
>
> DId you ever hear of the OJ trial or what happened to Elian Gonzales?
> Try reading the paper or watching the news.
>
> >> It includes the promoters of various 'alternative' treatments all of which
> >> have proven to be expensive, but worthless.
> >
> >again, could you provide some specific examples of alternative ritalin treatments
> >that folks are profiting from....i understand acupuncture has been touted as a means
> >of controlling ADD. would that be one of the expensive yet worthless alternatives
> >that you are referring to?
>
> Books. NAET. Reiki. Chiropractic Supplements. Cleanses.
>
> >
> >> It includes the people who oppose psychiatry or the drug industry for one
> >> reason or another, and who are willing to use anything that might work as a
> >> weapon.
> >
> >interesting theory, but i doubt this is a clear picture. conspiracy theories are
> >generally frowned upon from the skepic camp when they originate with the alt camp,
> >so i dont suppose they hold much weight here either.
> >
> The difference is the Sci-Meds aren't claiming a conspiracy, just
> knee-jerk, paranoid ignorance. Bunches of fools jumping up to save
> society from something because they heard someone say something about
> a study someone heard a relative heard from somebody that says
> Ritalin is a public health threat.
>
> No, it is not the cooly orchestrated machinations of a well ordered
> scheme, just self-righteous, scientifically illiterate,
> hypersomatically vigilanteism, an Insane Clown Posse.
>
> >> It includes politicians who know how to manipulate controversy for their own
> >> gain.
> >
> >again, do you have some specific examples of politicians profiting from this
> >controversy. i'd like to learn more about this.
>
> Good Question, for a change! Perhaps there are politicians
> exploiting the fear factor to curry favor....maybe not.
> >
> >> > Think about this: There are countless new drugs being currently used, or just
> >> > now being introduced to the marketplace. How many of them have this much
> >> > controversy? There are a few, indeed. Most don't even come close. Why is
> >> > that? What is it about Ritalin that is so controversial?
> >>
> >> You are also completely mistaken in saying that other drugs are *not*
> >> controversial. There are lots of very sharp controversies within the
> >> scientific and medical communities. However, the general public cannot
> >> understand most of the issues involved, as they can with Ritalin, and so
> >> these are hidden disputes.
> >
> >sometimes the 'general public' can understand alot more than the 'gifted ones in the
> >know' give them credit for.
>
> How self-congratulatory! Is Jan a good example of this?
> >
> >as an example, i wonder how many of the gullible pro-alt, scientifically illiterate
> >types stopped using dursban way before the EPA's decision to kick it to the curb.
> >
> >and how many of them used soy products way before the FDA approved the heart health
> >claims?
>
> What does that do with their understanding of Ritalin? The long
> established track record is just that, a matter of record. Look at
> all the alarmist dogma they spew on the topic. Where are all
> the horrific consequences they have been warning us about for
> all these years?
>
> Andrew Kingoff
Tralalaah
">again, do you have some specific examples of politicians profiting from this
>controversy. i'd like to learn more about this."
Hillary Rodham Clinton.
EmmaAnne
> A generalisation. You say that alternative health is ALL proven expensive
> and also worthless, i think to make such a claim you also need to provide
> some evidence.
I don't think anyone here thinks that all alternative health products
are worthless. I, for example, use slippery elm on my sore throats - it
works better than anything else.
Few alternative products have been shown to help much with ADD, though.
Caffeine is used by some, with some success, but it tends to make most
people too nervous and edgy (and also it's addictive). Something called
ephedrine also seems to help some people, but there are real worries
about its safety. Beyond those, I can't think of anything.
Not everyone can take the available meds for ADD, and they don't work
for everyone. I hope that neurofeedback will prove to be effective, but
so far the evidence is mixed at best. :-(
--
"Watch me. I have many skills"
Xena: Warrior Princess
Chris Leithiser
And some nuts in Colorado and Arkansas.
Chris Leithiser
J. Clarke
news:C266B7B93893B4DB.B7920DFF...@lp.airnews.net...
> x-no-archive: yes
>
> On Thu, 8 Jun 2000 20:38:33 -0400, "J. Clarke" <nos...@nospam.nospam>
> wrote:
>
> >Explaining why one feels that Breggin is a liar is like explaining why
one
> >feels that Bill Clinton is the President. It's something so well
> >established that there's no point to rehashing it. If you really care
about
> >the arguments, plug "Breggin" into deja.
>
> While Dr. Breggin's lack of truthfulness may seem painfully
> apparent to you, I don't know anything about him, his background, and
> specifically when and where he has lied.
Pity.
> And I don't have time to do a wildcard search in Deja, and
> sift through gazillions of archived posts.
285 != gazillions
> Why don't you just give me
> the quick and dirty on the guy? (Also, please provide references
> which support your claim that he has lied).
The quick and dirty is that he lies. If you want references find them
yourself. We in this newsgroup are bloody sick and tired of having to
rehash the same old discussion for every newby who pokes his head in.
> >No, but citing Breggin does.
>
> Why? Because you disagree with him? Does agreeing with your
> point of view necessarily denote good critical thinking skills?
Being unable to recognize a nutcake when one inspects his website denots
poor critical thinking skills.
> >Don't know about them, but most folks I've encountered who actually
_have_
> >ADHD and have been treated for it support "allopathy" in preference to
all
> >the non allopathic remedies they've tried that didn't work. If you know
of
> >a non-allopathic treatment that has been shown by credible researchers to
be
> >as effective as the allopathic treatment and as safe as the allopathic
> >treatment, please let us know about it.
>
> I'm not an expert on ADD and/or ADHD.
You're not? If you're going to express opinions you should educate yourself
then.
> What little I do know
> about it indicates that Ritalin is the drug of choice when the patient
> is being managed pharmacologically.
"Managed pharmacologically"? Most people with ADHD do not consider
ourselves to be "managed".
> I also know that both ADD/ADHD
> as well as it's remedy (Ritalin) are HIGHLY controversial topics.
So? The fact that a group of politicos can create a controversy out of
whole cloth has no bearing on the validity of ADHD as a diagnosis nor does
it have bearing on the utility of any particular medication.
> There is no universal agreement among the experts - let alone us
> non-experts who hang out in the usenet.
Depends on how you define "universal agreement" and "experts". If you're
talking people who have systematically researched the topic, not by reading
about it buy by conducting actual experiments, then there doesn't seem to be
a whole lot of difference of opinion.
As for the non-experts who hang out on USENET, I don't know about you but I
have first hand, up close and personal experience with ADHD and the
medications used to treat it. I know what they do in a way that no person
who does not have ADHD can _ever_ know. Many of the rest of the people with
whom you are corresponding at the moment can say the same.
> >Nope, Jan provided you with propaganda.
>
> Says you. Once again, if you feel that her references are
> wrong, prove it. Provide me with references which conclusively shut
> down Dr. Breggin's theories.
Why? What purpose would it serve? Every ignorant lout on USENET seems to
pop in here and spout the same bullshit and make the same demands for proof.
Go search deja. If you disagree with what you find there, _then_ come back
and ask about it.
--
---
--- John
Reply to jclarke at eye bee em dot net
J. Clarke
Coalition. What's wrong with Amurrica is that it's not 1950 anymore. We
don't need these highfaluting pills and whatnot, just whack them kids and
give 'em a good dose o' that ol' time religion.
There was a time when I bought into that party line.
--
---
--- John
Reply to jclarke at eye bee em dot net
"Chris Leithiser" <clei...@bc.cc.ca.us> wrote in message
news:39413CD5...@bc.cc.ca.us...
Chris Leithiser
>
> This was one of the major stalking horses of the Radical Right/Christian
> Coalition. What's wrong with Amurrica is that it's not 1950 anymore. We
> don't need these highfaluting pills and whatnot, just whack them kids and
> give 'em a good dose o' that ol' time religion.
Paganism? :)
Christopher Eliot
> i have already explained and freely admitted my ignorance on the larger issues
> of ritalin use. (admitting ignorance about a subject is not something that you
> are familiar with, i am sure.)
Not in this newsgroup. The most ignorant people all seem to think they know
everything.
The ones who stay silent issues, or qualify their statements the most, are
probably the most knowledgeable.
I'm not known for staying silent. :-)
Christopher Eliot
Let me bring a point from the bottom up to the top:
>> Look at the ASAD archives.
> well, never mind i guess.
> no one from your ng seems all that interested in discussing the subject with
> someone like me who has never even paid much attention to this 'huge'
> controversy and has no personal experience with ADD.
No offense meant, but this is exactly right. I am sick to death of this
controversy, and I enjoy argumentation more than most people. All of my
questions were answered long ago, and I have more interesting things to
think about.
If you want to ask me about what I have learned, that is fine. If you want
to argue about it, I would prefer that you argue with someone else. If you
want to convince me to change my mind, don't waste your time and mine.
With that said, I'll try to answer your questions below, but I don't intend
to take much time doing it. If my answers don't satisfy you or convince you,
fine. If you have additional *questions* about something that I know about,
I'll read them and maybe answer. But, I don't want to continue this as a
debate.
*Don't* take that personally. I've argued about this topic with many other
people, and I have other things to worry about.
> Christopher Eliot wrote:
I don't know of anyone who says they buy anything because of the
advertising, but industry says that advertising increases business. It must
work on someone. Similarly shock journalism increases ratings. I don't know
why, but that's not my field.
When a successful grade "B" magazine puts something on the cover, I assume
they know what they are doing, and that they are trying to sell grade "B"
magazines.
>>>> It includes the promoters of various 'alternative' treatments all of which
>>>> have proven to be expensive, but worthless.
>>> again, could you provide some specific examples of alternative ritalin
>>> treatments that folks are profiting from....i understand acupuncture has
>>> been touted as a means of controlling ADD. would that be one of the
>>> expensive yet worthless alternatives that you are referring to?
>> I've never heard of acupuncture having been shown to be useful for ADD. There
>> are lots of expensive 'supplement' products that have been dis-proven. Some
>> of the companies have been penalized or shut down for making false claims
>> about their effectiveness for ADD.
> could you provide the info? if you are going to say that it is in deja
> archives and that i should just look it up, could you clue me in on some
> search terms to try using?
The ASAD FAQ was posted today and includes sections on this:
<00e2ks8rs2g17jate...@4ax.com>
From the FAQ
"10. WHY IS EVERYONE SO NEGATIVE ABOUT NON-DRUG ALTERNATIVES?
In almost every case, people eager to discuss (or "share information about")
vitamins, herbs and other food supplements are distributors for these
products."
>>>> It includes the people who oppose psychiatry or the drug industry for one
>>>> reason or another, and who are willing to use anything that might work as a
>>>> weapon.
>>> interesting theory, but i doubt this is a clear picture. conspiracy theories
>>> are generally frowned upon from the skepic camp when they originate with the
>>> alt camp, so i dont suppose they hold much weight here either.
>> The L Ron Hubbard people have made documented attempts to discredit
>> psychiatry. They have also made attempts to disrupt alt.support.attn-deficit.
> ah, so religious background has bearing on the ritalin controversy? anyway,
> these folks are hardly representative of the larger pro alt camp, wouldnt you
> say?
I didn't say religious people, I said L Ron Hubbard people. I don't think it
has anything to do with religion. However, L Ron Hubbard's organization
sells its own version of treatment for ADHD (which it is very expensive and
unproven). In the past few months people with documented (or acknowledged)
connections to that group have attempted to disrupt this newsgroup.
Published documents from L Ron Hubbard describe their belief that Psychiatry
should be discredited.
This is not a general conspiracy theory. This is a specific, documented
conflict.
>>>> It includes politicians who know how to manipulate controversy for their
>>>> own gain.
> you missed answering this one:
Find I'll give you this point. Politicians should be trusted completely
because they always tell the truth and would never consider manipulating a
controversy for their own gain.
>>> again, do you have some specific examples of politicians profiting from this
>>> controversy. i'd like to learn more about this.
>>> sometimes the 'general public' can understand alot more than the 'gifted
>>> ones in the know' give them credit for.
>> Sometimes this is true. But, nevertheless, few people care about a lot of
>> medical questions. ADHD affects enough children so that the issue is very
>> much in the face of many people.
> bu many people is not a huge majority, right?
I don't see the relevance. More people think about ADHD and care about it
than many other medical issues. When scummy people want to create a
controversy, they need something with emotional impact, regardless of the
truth about it.
Which has more emotional impact as a newspaper headline:
"questions about the safety of medication given to children."
"Is teflon or stainless steel more effective in hip joint replacement."
>>> as an example, i wonder how many of the gullible pro-alt, scientifically
>>> illiterate types stopped using dursban way before the EPA's decision to kick
>>> it to the curb.
>>> and how many of them used soy products way before the FDA approved the heart
>>> health claims?
>>>>> I would ask that you now stop arguing for the side of Ritalin. And
>>>>> instead, think about it from the other person's point of view.
>>>> Been there, done that, no need to do it again.
>>> nah, it's always good to try to look at things from different points of
>>> view.
>> I have to allocate my time as best I can. The Bregin people have gotten more
>> than their fair share of my time.
> see, i dont even know who 'the bregin people' are. i am a completely unbiased
> outsider to this huge controversy. it appears that i will not be getting
> inducted by the attn-deficit ng folks. i guess that's understandable. you all
> have your own battles and decisions to make without attempting to make sense
> of it all to some newbie who accidently got sucked in by someone's
> crossposting from another ng.
The simple explanation is that the people who dig into the scientific
research on the subject almost all agree. Most of the few who don't agree,
stand to profit from selling books or something else, based upon their
position. Another group appears to have duped by this first group that only
have a profit motive.
Another line of disagreement is based upon traditional vs modern views of
human nature and morality.
Tralalaah
"Few alternative products have been shown to help much with ADD, though.
Caffeine is used by some, with some success, but it tends to make most
people too nervous and edgy (and also it's addictive). Something called
ephedrine also seems to help some people, but there are real worries
about its safety. Beyond those, I can't think of anything."
I'm getting good results with ginseng.
However, I do think it's a stimulant. It masks being short of sleep, and then
as it wears off I have an overwhelming urge to take a nap.
If it's a stimulant, it *may* be addictive.
Ann
>He's FOS because you say he's FOS. And I'm supposed to accept
>your opinion at face value? I'm sorry, but I will not do that. If you
>can provide me with references which show how, where, and when he's
>lied, then I'll read them.
No, he's FOS because he just is, and it's been proven to me time and
time again. And to lots of other people in ASAD. *You* go find out
why. I'm sick of the jerk.
--
Ann
ann...@thecia.net
ka&g
Christopher Eliot wrote:
> In article <39413A3D...@mpinet.net>, ka&g <kaa...@mpinet.net> wrote:
>
> Let me bring a point from the bottom up to the top:
>
> >> Look at the ASAD archives.
yes, i have seen that rebuttal bandied about quite alot. i did look at the FAQ. not
much actual specific info there about the issues that you raised which i was
questioning you on.
> > well, never mind i guess.
>
> > no one from your ng seems all that interested in discussing the subject with
> > someone like me who has never even paid much attention to this 'huge'
> > controversy and has no personal experience with ADD.
>
> No offense meant, but this is exactly right. I am sick to death of this
> controversy, and I enjoy argumentation more than most people. All of my
> questions were answered long ago, and I have more interesting things to
> think about.
you were the one who made the points about this 'controversy' and the supposed
conspiracies behind its existence. (which i am still not convinced actually exists
except in the minds of a few people who seem to WANT it to be controversial for some
reason) i simply questioned your reasoning for making a few statements that seemed
rather general to me.
> If you want to ask me about what I have learned, that is fine. If you want
> to argue about it, I would prefer that you argue with someone else.
why do you assume that i want to 'argue' about it just because i asked you to
clarify several statements that you made about a supposed controversy? are the
answers to my questions to you in the archive? if so, like i said, give me some
hints on some search words to use and i'll look it up. should i try 'conroversy and
profit' or something?
> If you
> want to convince me to change my mind, don't waste your time and mine.
why would i want to change your mind? i am not sure where you are getting this from.
i simply asked you to clarify some generalized statements which, to me, sounded a
bit odd.
> With that said, I'll try to answer your questions below, but I don't intend
> to take much time doing it. If my answers don't satisfy you or convince you,
> fine. If you have additional *questions* about something that I know about,
> I'll read them and maybe answer. But, I don't want to continue this as a
> debate.
>
> *Don't* take that personally. I've argued about this topic with many other
> people, and I have other things to worry about.
yes, you are about the third person to have said this to several different of us mha
posters who somehow got dragged over here by some happy cross posters. i would have
to suggest that if you want your group to remain closed and if you dont want newbie
questions, dont cross post. (not that you initiated or continued it)
but cut us some slack. we are all adults here, after all.
i still dont see any specific examples of any medium profiting from this 'ritalin
controversy'. but that's ok. i see now that you were just generalizing to support
your belief about who is 'behind' this controversy without having any *specific*
examples in mind.
> >>>> It includes the promoters of various 'alternative' treatments all of which
> >>>> have proven to be expensive, but worthless.
>
> >>> again, could you provide some specific examples of alternative ritalin
> >>> treatments that folks are profiting from....i understand acupuncture has
> >>> been touted as a means of controlling ADD. would that be one of the
> >>> expensive yet worthless alternatives that you are referring to?
>
> >> I've never heard of acupuncture having been shown to be useful for ADD. There
> >> are lots of expensive 'supplement' products that have been dis-proven. Some
> >> of the companies have been penalized or shut down for making false claims
> >> about their effectiveness for ADD.
>
> > could you provide the info? if you are going to say that it is in deja
> > archives and that i should just look it up, could you clue me in on some
> > search terms to try using?
>
> The ASAD FAQ was posted today and includes sections on this:
> <00e2ks8rs2g17jate...@4ax.com>
>
> From the FAQ
> "10. WHY IS EVERYONE SO NEGATIVE ABOUT NON-DRUG ALTERNATIVES?
>
> In almost every case, people eager to discuss (or "share information about")
> vitamins, herbs and other food supplements are distributors for these
> products."
yes, i read this FAQ earlier. still, not very specific. who *exactly* is attempting
to pull the wool over ritalin users eyes in order to make a fast buck?
> >>>> It includes the people who oppose psychiatry or the drug industry for one
> >>>> reason or another, and who are willing to use anything that might work as a
> >>>> weapon.
>
> >>> interesting theory, but i doubt this is a clear picture. conspiracy theories
> >>> are generally frowned upon from the skepic camp when they originate with the
> >>> alt camp, so i dont suppose they hold much weight here either.
>
> >> The L Ron Hubbard people have made documented attempts to discredit
> >> psychiatry. They have also made attempts to disrupt alt.support.attn-deficit.
>
> > ah, so religious background has bearing on the ritalin controversy? anyway,
> > these folks are hardly representative of the larger pro alt camp, wouldnt you
> > say?
>
> I didn't say religious people, I said L Ron Hubbard people. I don't think it
> has anything to do with religion.
scientology is a religion. a wacky and cultish one, no doubt, but it is a religion.
> However, L Ron Hubbard's organization
> sells its own version of treatment for ADHD (which it is very expensive and
> unproven).
well, there ya go! i did not know that! so now i have an answer to one of my
questions. thank you.
> In the past few months people with documented (or acknowledged)
> connections to that group have attempted to disrupt this newsgroup.
> Published documents from L Ron Hubbard describe their belief that Psychiatry
> should be discredited.
well, i can assure you that i am neither a scientologist nor do i stand to profit
from anyone deciding TO use or NOT to use ritalin. just like a whole bunch of other
folks.
> This is not a general conspiracy theory. This is a specific, documented
> conflict.
well, i will accept this as a valid example. the others are still a bit nonspecific.
> >>>> It includes politicians who know how to manipulate controversy for their
> >>>> own gain.
>
> > you missed answering this one:
>
> Find I'll give you this point. Politicians should be trusted completely
> because they always tell the truth and would never consider manipulating a
> controversy for their own gain.
again, if a pro alt said this regarding the use of herbs or something they would be
laughed off of the ng. (i am referring to mha) while i do not disagree with your
sarcastic portrayal of politicians at all, i still dont know of any specific
examples of any of them profiting in any way by some 'ritalin controversy'.
> >>> again, do you have some specific examples of politicians profiting from this
> >>> controversy. i'd like to learn more about this.
>
> >>> sometimes the 'general public' can understand alot more than the 'gifted
> >>> ones in the know' give them credit for.
>
> >> Sometimes this is true. But, nevertheless, few people care about a lot of
> >> medical questions. ADHD affects enough children so that the issue is very
> >> much in the face of many people.
>
> > bu many people is not a huge majority, right?
>
> I don't see the relevance. More people think about ADHD and care about it
> than many other medical issues.
well, i guess i AM in the minority. i always thought things like cancer and heart
disease were the hot topics. <G>
> When scummy people want to create a
> controversy, they need something with emotional impact, regardless of the
> truth about it.
again, except for the scientologists, you havent given me any specific examples of
these 'scummy people' and/or their actions.
> Which has more emotional impact as a newspaper headline:
>
> "questions about the safety of medication given to children."
>
> "Is teflon or stainless steel more effective in hip joint replacement."
ok, that's a good point. i had no idea that the media was anti-ritalin. i always
rather assumed it was the other way around.
> >>> as an example, i wonder how many of the gullible pro-alt, scientifically
> >>> illiterate types stopped using dursban way before the EPA's decision to kick
> >>> it to the curb.
>
> >>> and how many of them used soy products way before the FDA approved the heart
> >>> health claims?
>
> >>>>> I would ask that you now stop arguing for the side of Ritalin. And
> >>>>> instead, think about it from the other person's point of view.
>
> >>>> Been there, done that, no need to do it again.
>
> >>> nah, it's always good to try to look at things from different points of
> >>> view.
>
> >> I have to allocate my time as best I can. The Bregin people have gotten more
> >> than their fair share of my time.
>
> > see, i dont even know who 'the bregin people' are. i am a completely unbiased
> > outsider to this huge controversy. it appears that i will not be getting
> > inducted by the attn-deficit ng folks. i guess that's understandable. you all
> > have your own battles and decisions to make without attempting to make sense
> > of it all to some newbie who accidently got sucked in by someone's
> > crossposting from another ng.
>
> The simple explanation is that the people who dig into the scientific
> research on the subject almost all agree. Most of the few who don't agree,
> stand to profit from selling books or something else, based upon their
> position. Another group appears to have duped by this first group that only
> have a profit motive.
well, i belong to neither group. go figure.
> Another line of disagreement is based upon traditional vs modern views of
> human nature and morality.
yes, that one seems to pop up everywhere.
well, i wont ask you to continue this, but it was nice talking to you. (you seem
rather bothered about my questioning you.) i realize that you all are sick of
dealing with peple questioning your decisions, so i shant bother you anymore. just
try not to beat up so badly on newbies who get dragged into your discussions by
cross postings.
see, some of us dont fit into ANY of your prenamed file drawers.
ka&g
work (and the reason for his obviously personal dislike of me, feel free to check
out any of the acupuncture threads on mha. he's our resident acupuncture
student-who-really-wants-to-be-a-doctor.)
Andrew Kingoff wrote:
> On Fri, 09 Jun 2000 20:46:49 GMT, "Christopher Eliot"
> <Empire...@mediaone.net> wrote:
>
> >In article <39413A3D...@mpinet.net>, ka&g <kaa...@mpinet.net> wrote:
> >
> >Let me bring a point from the bottom up to the top:
> >
> >>> Look at the ASAD archives.
> >
> >> well, never mind i guess.
> >
> >> no one from your ng seems all that interested in discussing the subject with
> >> someone like me who has never even paid much attention to this 'huge'
> >> controversy and has no personal experience with ADD.
> >
> >No offense meant, but this is exactly right. I am sick to death of this
> >controversy, and I enjoy argumentation more than most people. All of my
> >questions were answered long ago, and I have more interesting things to
> >think about.
>
> Kaalga displays many dependency issues in dealing with topics over her
> head. She first intrudes on discussions with her criticisms of other
> posters without following the topic. Then when asked why she is
> bothering to enter the discourse, she asks someone to clue her in
> to what is going on. She has her priorities ass-backwards.
>
> She wants you to help her research the issue and the help her with her
> counterargument. She'll also want you to be quick and civil about
> it, too.
>
> >If you want to ask me about what I have learned, that is fine. If you want
> >to argue about it, I would prefer that you argue with someone else. If you
> >want to convince me to change my mind, don't waste your time and mine.
> >
> Bingo. That's it in a nutshell. She won't try to make a case for
> changing your mind, but multiple pleas for help and condemnations
> of your netiqutte.
>
> >With that said, I'll try to answer your questions below, but I don't intend
> >to take much time doing it. If my answers don't satisfy you or convince you,
> >fine. If you have additional *questions* about something that I know about,
> >I'll read them and maybe answer. But, I don't want to continue this as a
> >debate.
> >
> >*Don't* take that personally. I've argued about this topic with many other
> >people, and I have other things to worry about.
>
> She only comes to the NG for amusement and to apply her English
> degree. That is what she has repeatedly said and you can check
> www.deja.com for that. She is a troll and feeds off of negative
> attention.
>
> Watch & see if she contributes anything of value.
>
> Andrew Kingoff
ka&g
understand.
"My school was accredited by the same bodies that accredited all the
other medical schools in Florida." andrew kingoff, acupuncture student
"I am in a Medical College, licensed as such by the state of Florida in
the USA." andrew kingoff, acupuncture student
" Disharmonies, by legal definition in Florida, are diseases. They are treated
as such by the Legal, Medical, Educational, and Insurance industries."
andrew kingoff, acupuncture student
Andrew Kingoff wrote:
> On Fri, 09 Jun 2000 14:04:09 -0700, ka&g <kaa...@mpinet.net> wrote:
>
> >> So, why are you weighing in? It seems you focus solely on
> >> discrediting and ridiculing those with whom you disagree.
> >
> >who said i disagree with you or rich about ritalin, andy? as usual, you dont
> >think before you post. anger and frustration will cause that to happen often, as
> >you must know.
> >
>
> You didn't even care what our views were, just your view of
> netiquette. You don't even contribute to the discussion, but
> attempt to interject your preferences as standards for others to
> post by. Your grandiosity is charming, but the smugness is
> quite annoying.
>
> >> You
> >> haven't contributed
> >> to the discussion, just presented your need to be involved by
> >> projecting your ideals as to how others should think & write.
> >
> >i have already explained and freely admitted my ignorance on the larger issues
> >of ritalin use. (admitting ignorance about a subject is not something that you
> >are familiar with, i am sure.) i dont presume to tell anyone how to think, but
> >i certainly do find it entertaining to rib you guys (who think you are on a
> >mission) over your abuse of attempts to communicate and sound objectively
> >scientific while you are trying.
> >
> Please, you have been telling everyone how to post and how not to.
> Other than that and your admission of ignorance, you've done squat.
> Oh, yes, you did proclaim how you don't care what others think but you
> continue to obsessively scrutinize our posts.
>
> >> Perhaps going to several weekly support groups would give you some
> >> of the unconditional validation without accountability you seek.
> >> This way, you'll actually be able to look down upon the faces of those
> >> you address in real life, instead of trying to look down your nose
> >> over the NG. While admitting you have a problem is the usually
> >> considered the first step, YOU are going to need to take an additional
> >> step, down off your High Horse.
> >
> >again, andrew's words, created in an attempt to ridicule, fit his own posting
> >history to a tee. of course, andrew has (or his didactic acupuncture elves have)
> >nuked his posting history, so it's kind of hard to trace. one just has to read
> >his comments in other people's responses to get the gist of things.
> >
> >> Again, the deafening silence that follows your skeptic bashing
> >> recruitment drives is the sound of the NG saying "Nyet, nanny" to
> >> the Net Nanny.
> >
> >andrew, a 'skeptic recruitment drive' exists only in your imagination. (i have
> >gone over this issue with you umpteen times and you still dont get it. you dont
> >WANT to get it i guess. remember me telling you oh so many times that i was
> >doing this acupuncture questioning waaay before you came on the scene? and that
> >i have already discussed a few of the skeptic's reasons for remaining silent
> >with them ON the ng?)
> >
> Keep sounding the call and we'll keep calling you on it.
>
> >do let us know what the florida board of acupuncture has to say about the
> >ordering of blood tests by APs, btw.
>
> I'll keep you posted.
Tralalaah
Have you accepted the idea to read Barkley and Breggin side by side to compare
the quality of their respective scholarly research?
Do you really think a few posts could compare to that?
I did that, and I think that effort has earned me the right to say that Breggin
is FOS.
Ann
>At this time, I have elected to not choose sides. But rather,
>I would rather gather more data
Well then _go_gather_data! Stop waiting for everyone to spoon feed it
to you!
--
Ann
ann...@thecia.net
Ann
>I don't think anyone here thinks that all alternative health products
>are worthless. I, for example, use slippery elm on my sore throats - it
>works better than anything else.
I use several herbal remedies when applicable, my mother is an
herbalist. But....
>
>Few alternative products have been shown to help much with ADD, though.
>Caffeine is used by some, with some success, but it tends to make most
>people too nervous and edgy (and also it's addictive). Something called
>ephedrine also seems to help some people, but there are real worries
>about its safety. Beyond those, I can't think of anything.
What EmmaAnne said above is exactly how I feel about the 'alternative'
treatments for ADHD. None of them did a thing for me.
>
>Not everyone can take the available meds for ADD, and they don't work
>for everyone. I hope that neurofeedback will prove to be effective, but
>so far the evidence is mixed at best. :-(
And I am an unmedicated late diagnosed ADHD mother of two boys, ADHD
inattentive type and ADHD Hyperactive. The inattentive one didn't
have great success on medication, the Hyper boy has done wonderfully
on Ritalin in the past, and now Adderal. I should qualify that he
only takes it during school, not 24/7.
--
Ann
ann...@thecia.net
Tralalaah
" If you're sick and tired of rehashing the old discussions
(ADD/ADHD and Ritalin), then what the fuck are you doing in an
ADD/ADHD newsgroup?"
Oh my. Aren't there ANY requirements for ability to reason in Chiropracty
school???
If someone doesn't want to go over an old discussion for the fifth or maybe
tenth time -- they shouldn't be here?
And this means that you should swear at them?
No wonder you aren't on AOL. They won't allow the F word. Did you leave, or did
they cancel your account? I do know a lot of your posts had to be pulled for
inappropriateness.
Mark Probert
jdrew...@aol.com (JDrew63929) wrote:
> >From: Mark Probert mark...@my-deja.com
> >Date: 06/08/2000 6:23 PM US Eastern Standard Time
> >Message-id:
>
> Mercy all you people on Ritalin sure do explode when given some facts
that
> don't suit you.
>
> Maybe not facing reality is one of the signs of ADHD.
Perhaps it is. However, you have fallen for the trap. i do not have
ADHD. Thus, your comment is intrinsicly specious.
BTW, it is also inherently offensive. Perhaps you should take a herb?
How about extract of Nightshade?
> Rich shows signs....he's coming apart at the seams.........Rantin and
ravin
> like a mad dog.
You were responding to my post. You really should develop an ability to
engage in reading for content.
> I believe he got soooo carried away that he broke a few charter
rules..........
Rich didn't. You are clueless, aren;t you?
> >Jan must be a sad case. I hope she gets the help she desperately
needs.
> >
>
> That's what bothers Richie so much, I am getting well from all the
things that
> shoots a hole in his closed minded beliefs.
Jan. I am glad you have an open mind. However, after reading your posts
for some time, I have come tothe conclusion that your mind was so open
that your brain fell out. Sorry. But there are no living brain donors.
> Oh and the fact that I don't believe in drugging
kids..............why it's a
> wonder I haven't been shot yet...........how dare me to post studies
that prove
> all of you to be wrong....
You have not posted studies. You have posted reference to Breggin who
cites studies to 'rove' himself right, when the studies he cites prove
him wrong. He, like you, has a seriously impaired ability to read for
content.
The one 'study' you posted in your feeble attempt to show MPH is
addictive, actually proved that MPH, when used a prescribed, is not
addictive.
Did you know that there is evidence that MPH should be used to treat
Cocaine addiction? Can you imagine that? No. I did not. I read it on
Medline.
> >I can tell that you truly care about people such as her.
>
> Yes, Richie is very caring........
Yes, he is. He is almost as caring as I am. He believes in using valid
information, not thirty eight years of delusions to help people.
BTW, PMH also has shown promise in treating Alzheimers. When will you
start?
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Mark Probert
j...@cyber-mall.com wrote:
> On 09 Jun 2000 00:19:14 GMT, jdrew...@aol.com (JDrew63929) wrote:
>
> >>From: Mark Probert mark...@my-deja.com
> >>Date: 06/08/2000 6:23 PM US Eastern Standard Time
> >>Message-id:
> >
> >
> >Mercy all you people on Ritalin sure do explode when given some
facts that
> >don't suit you.
> >
> >Maybe not facing reality is one of the signs of ADHD.
>
mean anything
> at all to you?
>
Nah. S/h/it will never figure it out.
S/h/it is genetically clueless.
Mark Probert
jba...@aol.com (John Bain) wrote:
> Rich <kal...@hawaii.rr.com> writes:
>
> Another nice set of lies.
>
> >To Jan if it is pro alt it is good
> >and if it is anti-conventional it is even better.
>
> Jan has never said this.
S/h/it does not have to. Anyone with critical reading skills can
readily read its messages and conclude this. It really is not hard.
Just requires thinking.
> >For those of you who have not been reading misc.health.alternative,
> >Jan Drew likely is suffering from some kind of psychosomatic disorder
> >and has very bad experiences with conventional medicine who do not
> >give into her delusional beliefs about her health.
>
> Your opinion based on no evidence at all.
Rich does not do that. he does not use altLogic.
> >She has had all her amalgams removed due to believing that she had
> >mercury poisoning and only DAYS after having them removed she
reported
> >that she felt better than she has in years. Of course anyone who
knows
> >anything about mercury toxicity realizes that her improvement had
> >nothing to do with the removal of the amalgams.
>
> And your proof of this?
> You know nothing about Jan's condition and how it was affected by the
dental
> work.
Perfect! Knowing nothing is a prerequisite for believing in alternative
therapies!
> >She also is a Hulda "Quack"
> > Clark supporter and believes that she was infected with multiple
> >parasites including loa loa which is not found in North America.
>
> And she had the lab reports that stated loa loa.
Hulda just escaped jail on a technicality.
> >Jan is a sick individual who tries to recruit people to her way of
> >thinking. She is not very bright and cannot tolerate individuals who
> >disagree with her point of view.
>
> Rich doesn't like Jan because she stands uo to him.
> He will be killfiling her next.
I won't. I do not do killfiles. I do kill-bullshit.
> >I am truly sorry that I made her aware of this support group
>
> You didn't 'make her aware of it' until confusion set in, you
crossposted her
> to it, deliberately.
That is a means to make a person aware of something. However, that
statement does not apply if you use altLogic.
> > The last thing that
> >you need is Jan Drew mail bombing your group with her nonsense.
>
> How can she do this, she is only posting to MHA, like me.
> If anyone thinks ASA-D should read this, please repost it to them
It is posted to them.
> >Again
> >I apologize to ADAD and encourage all of you to keep up the good
work.
>
> You should apologise, but for your own behavior.
Jan should apologize for bullshiting.
> >I will continue to try to keep posters on mha honest and challenge
the
> >very dubious claims.
>
> And you do not consider Andrew's, acupuncture 'disharmonies' are
legally
> defined in the Florida statutes, is a dubious claim.
legally defined does not make them real. Politics is following money.
> No, you pick on people and if they challenge you, killfile them.
Not me.
Tralalaah
" Not wanting my posts to be archived in Deja News equates to
being an "intellectual coward"? "
Well, that's not the only way you have displayed it, but it's good as *one*
example.
DreamWeaver
_______________________________________________________________
ATTENTION DEFICIT DISORDER- A DUBIOUS DIAGNOSIS?
Ah--the well-regarded John Merrow "documentary," October, 1995.
{*snort*} <--this is to indicate sarcasm and contempt
_______________________________________________________________
Come on Joe, we know that {*snort*} didn't have anything to do
with sarcasm and contempt, did it? You were snorting Ritalin
again, weren't you? Admit it! :P
Just kidding.... I have been on the computer too long today...
(nothing quite like a good dose of Hyper Focus)
John
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
J. Clarke
news:p63bkso1p9j9ce1rr...@4ax.com...
<snip>
>
> What Merrow isn't saying: The DEA has placed certain substances on
Schedule II
> under the Controlled Substances Act of 1970, methylphenidate among them.
The
> DEA specifically refers to "withdrawal effects" in ABUSE
> situations--specifically parenteral abuse.
I hate to be a critic, but remember your audience. "Par-en-ter-al" has four
syllables. It's probably beyond his abilities.
<snip>
Joe Parsons
>x-no-archive: yes
>
>On Mon, 12 Jun 2000 05:16:33 -0700, Mark Probert
><mtreborp...@aol.com.invalid> bored us with the following
>blathering:
>
>>Sure sign of an intellectual coward. Afraid his words will catch
>>up with him one day.
>
> Not wanting my posts to be archived in Deja News equates to
>being an "intellectual coward"? Pullleeessseee. What the heck is an
>"intellectual coward"? Is that more of the psycho-babble that your
>witch doctor mutters before shoving more amphetamines down your throat
>in order to make you a complacent and obedient patient? Thought so.
>
>>A BoneWhacker wannabe is in no postion to make such claims.
>
> It's a free country. And I'll say any damn thing I want. For
>example:
Of course, there are often consequences for saying "any damn thing" you want.
For example, there are times when quoting someone's copyrighted work without
permission can create problems for the person violating the copyright. (Please
note: I am not saying you have done this; I am simply saying that there can be
consequences. For all I know, you have permission in writing from the copyright
holder to post this here)
>ATTENTION DEFICIT DISORDER- A DUBIOUS DIAGNOSIS?
Ah--the well-regarded John Merrow "documentary," October, 1995.
{*snort*} <--this is to indicate sarcasm and contempt
I won't waste a lot of time rehashing what's been said about this repeatedly
over the nearly five years since it was aired, but there are a couple of points
worth mentioning:
>Thousands of parents turn to A.D.D. "support groups" for information
>and help. They expect that the information will be accurate, unbiased
>and complete. The largest of these support groups is CHADD, Children
>and Adults with Attention Deficit Disorder.
>
>
>As we report in "Attention Deficit Disorder: A Dubious Diagnosis?",
>many parents do not know that CHADD has for years been receiving large
>sums of money from the maker of Ritalin, Ciba-Geigy.
>Here is some of what CHADD's literature tells parents, along with
>information it doesn't present.
Merrow tried to make a case that CHADD received clandestine contributions from
Ciba-Geigy. What he neglected to mention in his irresponsible, inaccurate,
lurid "ambush journalism" that all contributions to nonprofit organizations are
fully disclosed as a matter of law. Further, he somehow neglected to show that
CHADD was "promoting" the sale of Ritalin or any other drug. For more
information about this particular bit of nonsense, go to
http://cyber-mall.com/asad/chadd.html (yes, that's my site and my article--but
the text withstands any scrutiny one might care to inflict)
>CHADD SAYS:
>"Psychostimulant medications are not addictive."
>
>WHAT'S NOT SAID:
>Methylphenidate and Ritalin are nearly identical to amphetamine-
>otherwise known as "speed".
Ask any biochemist or pharmacist. They'll tell you that while both are CNS
stimulants, they are quite different in structure. To say that they are "nearly
identical" is, well...lying.
>The federal Drug Enforcement
>Administration puts methylphenidate in the same class of drugs as
>morphine and codeine- drugs with legitimate medical application, but a
>high potential for abuse. Withdrawal effects (agitation, marked
>anxiety, and tension) from psychostimulants are common, and many
>doctors recommend tapering the dosage before discontinuing medication.
What Merrow isn't saying: The DEA has placed certain substances on Schedule II
under the Controlled Substances Act of 1970, methylphenidate among them. The
DEA specifically refers to "withdrawal effects" in ABUSE
situations--specifically parenteral abuse.
With respect to "tapering the dosage," I have never met a single physician who
advocated doing that when stopping Ritalin. It has a serum half life on the
order of 2-4 hours. It does not accumulate in the body as some other
medications do. Let's call this one "sloppy reporting" or "failure to check
facts."
For more information about this bit of silliness, go to
http://cyber-mall.com/asad/ritalin.html
>CHADD SAYS:
>"The most likely cause of A.D.D. is a chemical imbalance or deficiency
>in certain chemicals in the brain that are located in the area
>responsible for attention and activity."
>
>WHAT'S NOT SAID:
>CHADD bases this claim on a 1990 study by Dr. Alan Zametkin of the
>National Institutes of Health (NIH), which found slightly lower levels
>of glucose metabolism in the brains of adults diagnosed with
>hyperactivity. Not mentioned by CHADD are the succeeding attempts* to
>replicate those results in children. Dr. Zametkin's later studies
>found "no statistically significant differences" between the brains of
>normal children and children diagnosed with A.D.H.D. The root cause of
>the disorder remains unknown.
>
>*Brain Metabolism in Teenagers With ADHD" ( Arch. Gen. Psychiatry,
>Vol. 50, May 1993) and "Reduced Brain Metabolism is Hyperactive Girls"
>( J. Am. Acad. Child Adolesc. Psychiatry, 33: 6, July/August 1994)
>
>CHADD SAYS:
>"Emotional difficulties, including substance abuse, are more likely to
>occur when a child with A.D.D. is not treated."
>
>WHAT'S NOT SAID:
>There are no conclusive studies showing that treatment of A.D.D.
>reduces the risk of drug abuse. Even Ciba-Geigy's chief physician
>declined to support CHADD's assertion.
>
>CHADD SAYS:
>"Medication is not used to control behavior-medication is used to
>improve the symptoms of A.D.D."
>
>WHAT'S NOT SAID:
>The symptoms of A.D.D. outlined by the American Psychiatric
>Association (fidgets with hands or feet or squirms in seat, has
>difficulty remaining seated when required to do so, is easily
>distracted by extraneous stimuli, etc.) are all behavioral. Medication
>is used to help control these symptoms. Controlling behavior and
>improving the symptoms of A.D.D. are one and the same.
Of course, Merrow (assuming this is still from the program) neglects to mention
that the diagnostic criteria are not so vague or broad as might seem from
reading this. The criteria for "persisting for more than six months" and
"occurring in more than one setting" and "maladaptive for grade and age" seem to
be missing.
>CHADD SAYS:
>"Between 70-80% of children respond positively to these
>(psycho-stimulant) medications."
>
>WHAT'S NOT SAID:
>Research suggests that medication may not be so effective a treatment.
>Dr. James Swanson, Director of the Child Development Center at the
>University of California, has written: "...the short term effects of
>stimulants on academic performance are minimal compared to the effects
>on behavior, and there is no evidence of beneficial effects on
>learning or academic achievement."*
>
>*"Treatment of A.D.D.: Beyond Medication" (Beyond Behavior, Fall
>1992/Vol. 4 No,1)
>
>CHADD SAYS:
>"Hundreds of studies on thousands of children have been conducted
>regarding the effects of psycho-stimulant medications. Relatively few
>long term side effects have been identified."
>
>WHAT'S NOT SAID:
>Hundreds of studies on stimulant medications have been conducted, but
>few have looked at long term side effects. Measuring the long term
And what the Merrow documentary fails to mention is that MPH has been used quite
extensively since the mid '60s. There are few reports of long-term problems
stemming from the use of the drug therapeutically.
>effects of pediatric medications is prohibitive because of legal and
>ethical dilemmas surrounding the use of children as test subjects. The
>federal Food and Drug Administration labeling for Ritalin includes the
>specific warning "Sufficient data on the safety and efficacy of long
>term use of Ritalin in children are not yet available."
>
>http://www.pbs.org/merrow/tv/add/chadd.html
>
>>You make lots of mistakes. You sarcasm is offensive. Why not
>>adjust your attidtude?
>
> Maybe I need some Ritalin? Then perhaps I'll be a shining
>example of politeness. (Such as yourself or Mr. Clarke).
This sort of gratuitous insult would have been far more effective if both your
targets actually used medication. One of the crucial (and elementary) aspects
of "target acquisition" on Usenet is to be certain that an insult you choose is
actually appropriate and relevant. Saves embarrassment.
Too late this time, but maybe later.
>>That is a quote from the treatise "I have an IQ of Two, What
>>About You?" and should have been in quotation marks.
>
> I'll defer to your expertise in this area. After all, you
>were the author of said treatise. And who am I to infringe on your
>turf?
>
>>For a chiropractic student to say this is demonstrative of the
>>symptom of projection.
>
> For an amphetamine addict to say this is demonstrative of more
>psycho-babble that he picks up in group session. :)
>
>>Thank you for removing your previous bullshit.
>
> I just love these self referential statements.
A first cousin to the venerable Spelling Flame is the beautiful bud deadly
"TWYABWAI" Not too often we get a chance to see a specimen like that--textbook,
right here in our own ASAD.
Joe Parsons
(leaving the rest of the exegesis as an exercise for the reader)
>>Is that what happened to you? They were handing out minds, and
>>you said, "Never!"
>
> What a witty repartee. You must've had your writers up all
>night thinking up that one. Good thing you had plenty of Ritalin.
>
>>And, then, there are assholes who do not bother to lurk and read
>>the newsgroup for a while and get the flow of things. Then when
>>they come in, they may be aware of the fact that there are hot
>>buttons.
>
> That's okay. I'm sure most of your fellow Ritalin-munching
>bretherin will someday forgive you.
>
>>That was intelligent. Then, you are going to BoneWhacker school.
>>Perhaps that explains it.
>
> As a matter of fact, it does.
>
>>Sure. If you want to remain utterly clueless, go right ahead.
>
> No, I felt that aura while hanging out in your presence. I'm
>now looking for enlightenment. When I'm finished with Dr. Breggin's
>books, perhaps I'll send 'em your way. You look like you could use a
>good dose of the truth.
>
>>After all, you are going to ChiroCollege and that is another
>>means to insure cluelessness.
>
> ...said the amphetamine addict.
>
>>And, calling anyone 'drugged up justifies calling you an idiot.
>
> Hey, if the shoe fits. Have some more Ritalin.
>
>>What a f*cuking hypocrite. (And the reason for the abusive
>>nature of my post.)
>
> Oh really, Mark? It thought it was due to your being an
>abusive asshole.
>
>>You need an attitude adjustment.
>
> You need to quit popping pills.
>
>
>Nothing but love,
>
>
>Backcrkr
>
>http://www.geocities.com/cbpdoc/
==========================================================
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/
Joe Parsons
>"Joe Parsons" <j...@cyber-mall.com> wrote in message
>news:p63bkso1p9j9ce1rr...@4ax.com...
>
><snip>
>>
>> What Merrow isn't saying: The DEA has placed certain substances on
>Schedule II
>> under the Controlled Substances Act of 1970, methylphenidate among them.
>The
>> DEA specifically refers to "withdrawal effects" in ABUSE
>> situations--specifically parenteral abuse.
>
>I hate to be a critic, but remember your audience. "Par-en-ter-al" has four
>syllables. It's probably beyond his abilities.
Shhhhh!!
>
><snip>
Mark Probert
tral...@aol.com (Tralalaah) wrote:
> Backcracker said:
>
> " Not wanting my posts to be archived in Deja News equates to
> being an "intellectual coward"? "
>
*one*
> example.
Hi Tra:
I ran back...@netexpress.net on Deja and got 1000 hits.
Goes to show you that the best laid plans of mice, men, and
intellectual cowards, i.e., those not willing to stand by their words,
often go astray.
Chuckle.
What a fool.