Study: Psychiatric drugs overprescribed for kids
baj...@my-deja.com
The number of 2- to 4-year-olds taking psychiatric drugs like Ritalin
and Prozac soared 50 percent between 1991 and 1995, according to a new
study that experts said reveals a troubling and growing trend.
Doctors said the effects of such drugs are largely unknown in children
so young and they worry the drugs could affect the development of young
minds.
More than 200,000 preschool-aged children around the country were
studied for the report in today's Journal of the American Medical
Association.
"These are substantial increases with little or no data supporting
their use. I think that's the message that should go out," said Julie
Magno Zito, the lead author and an assistant professor of pharmacy and
medicine at the University of Maryland.
The researchers suggest the increase is due to a growing acceptance of
such drugs and because more and more children are attending day-care
and are being pressured to conform to school standards of good
behavior.
Dr. Joseph Coyle of Harvard Medical School's psychiatry department said
the study reveals a troubling trend.
He said "there is no empirical evidence to support psychotropic drug
treatment in very young children" -- and there are valid concerns that
such treatment could harm brain development.
"These disturbing prescription practices suggest a growing crisis in
mental health services to children and demand more thorough
investigation," Coyle wrote in a JAMA editorial.
The authors reviewed Medicaid prescription records from 1991, 1993 and
1995 for preschoolers from a Midwestern state and a mid-Atlantic state;
and for those in an HMO in the Northwest. The states were not
identified.
Use of stimulants, anti-depressants, anti-psychotics and clonidine -- a
drug used in adults to treat high blood pressure and increasingly for
insomnia in hyperactive children -- were examined.
Substantial increases were seen in every category except anti-
psychotics, though in some cases the actual number of prescriptions was
quite small.
The number of children getting any of the drugs totaled about 100,000
in 1991, and jumped to 150,000 in 1995. That year, 60 percent of the
youngsters on drugs were age 4, 30 percent were 3 and 10 percent were 2-
year-olds.
The use of clonidine skyrocketed in all three groups. Although the
numbers were small, the researchers said the clonidine increases were
particularly remarkable because its use for attention disorders is "new
and largely uncharted."
They noted that slowed heart beat and fainting have been reported in
children who use clonidine with other medications for attention
disorders.
Dr. David Fassler, chairman of the American Psychiatric Association's
council on adolescents and their families, said the medications
studied "can be extremely helpful for some children, even quite young
children."
However, because their effects on younger children and their
development aren't known, Fassler said, the Food and Drug
Administration has recently instructed pharmaceutical companies to
study the connection.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
J. Clarke
--
---
--- John
Reply to jclarke at eye bee em dot net
<baj...@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:8i2pcb$3so$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
EmmaAnne
> He said "there is no empirical evidence to support psychotropic drug
> treatment in very young children" -- and there are valid concerns that
> such treatment could harm brain development.
You know, you could say, just as truthfully, "there is no empirical
evidence that psychotropic drug treatment in young children is harmful -
and there are valid concerns that not treating emotional/behavioral
conditions results in permanent harm to the child."
If we don't know, it seems to me the solution is to find out more,
instead of scare mongering.
--
"After long thought and much perplexity,
to be very brief was all that she could determine
on with any confidence of safety."
-- Jane Austen in _Northanger Abbey_,
Tralalaah
"You know, you could say, just as truthfully, "there is no empirical
evidence that psychotropic drug treatment in young children is harmful -
and there are valid concerns that not treating emotional/behavioral
conditions results in permanent harm to the child."
If we don't know, it seems to me the solution is to find out more,
instead of scare mongering.
"
And that of course was the point of the research. The word "over-prescribed" is
not in the study.
baj...@my-deja.com
Shoot first and ask questions later seems to be an acceptable practice
in treating pre-school children but anyone who questions this sort of
insanity or implies that it may be in excess is labled "scare
mongering". Ploop ploop fiz fiz oh what a wonderful world it is.
NEW YORK, Dec 14 (Reuters Health) -- The number of doctor visits made
by youngsters diagnosed with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder
(ADHD) increased by 90% between 1989 and 1996, and three-quarters of
those visits involved drug treatment, according to a report published
in the December issue of the Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent
Medicine.
Dr. Julie Magno Zito of the University of Maryland in Baltimore led a
team of researchers in analyzing data from the National Ambulatory
Medical Care Survey, looking at visits for ADHD made by children aged 5
to 14, and at prescription patterns for these visits.
The proportion of youth visits to physicians that were for ADHD
increased steadily from 1989 to 1996, and so did the number of visits
that involved drug treatments. For example, the proportion of ADHD
youth visits that involved prescription for stimulants increased from
62% to 77%.
About 61% of ADHD visits were made to primary care providers, about 25%
to psychiatrists, and about 8% to neurologists. The investigators found
significant differences in prescribing patterns according to specialty:
primary care doctors were more likely to prescribe stimulants alone,
while psychiatrists were more likely to prescribe other
psychotherapeutic drugs either alone or in combination with stimulants.
Zito and colleagues note that the standard therapy for ADHD is
stimulants, and over 80% of ADHD visits that involved medications
involved just those. But about 8% of medication-related visits involved
other drugs instead of stimulants, and about 10% involved both.
Youngsters receiving "more complex" drug therapy were more likely to
have depression or behavior disorders than those children given only
stimulants. The nonstandard drugs most often given to children with
ADHD were antidepressants, clonidine, and antipsychotics.
The authors suggest that their findings should be used to guide
systematic research evaluating different therapies for different groups
of ADHD patients. Writing in an editorial in the same issue, Dr. Mark
L. Wolraich of Vanderbilt University in Nashville, Tennessee, agrees.
"In the future, we will need to demonstrate that the treatments make a
difference in how the children behave," Wolraich states.
"As Zito and her colleagues point out, until we are better able to
address practice questions, it will be difficult for us to provide
realistic and effective practice guidelines and we will not be able to
answer the continuing public concern about to what extent is current
stimulant medication use appropriate," Wolraich concludes.
SOURCE: Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine 1999;153:1257-
1263, 1220-1221.
baj...@my-deja.com
mb...@earthlink.net (EmmaAnne) wrote:
> <baj...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>
> > He said "there is no empirical evidence to support psychotropic drug
that
> > such treatment could harm brain development.
>
> evidence that psychotropic drug treatment in young children is
harmful -
> and there are valid concerns that not treating emotional/behavioral
> conditions results in permanent harm to the child."
>
> If we don't know, it seems to me the solution is to find out more,
> instead of scare mongering.
Shoot first and ask questions later seems to be an acceptable practice
in treating pre-school children but anyone who questions this sort of
insanity or implies that it may be in excess is labled "scare
mongering". Ploop ploop fiz fiz.
baj...@my-deja.com
> evidence that psychotropic drug treatment in young children is
harmful -
> and there are valid concerns that not treating emotional/behavioral
> conditions results in permanent harm to the child."
>
> If we don't know, it seems to me the solution is to find out more,
> instead of scare mongering.
> "
>
prescribed" is
> not in the study.
Pay close attention the the last sentence. If you can*!+%#*#!+&&%
$#*+^$#@
"If you thought that because a doctor puts a child on these medications
then it's safe, that's a false assumption," said lead study author Dr.
Julie Magno Zito, of the University of Maryland.
The drugs could be affecting children at a vulnerable time. "Early
childhood is a time of tremendous change for the human brain,"
according to an accompanying JAMA editorial, and there are "legitimate
concerns" that psychotropic drugs, as they are called, "could have
deleterious effects on the developing brain."
Off-label prescriptions for children are "unknown and uncharted," said
Magno Zito. "We never know the long-term consequences ... and
regulations should be tightened."
"There's an enormous hazard over the lack of regulation over how
doctors prescribe drugs to their patients," said Dr. Peter Breggin,
author of Talking Back to Ritalin and Reclaiming Our Children, and a
longtime critic of the pharmaceutical industry. "As long as it doesn't
offend the narcotics control authorities, doctors are pretty much home
free."
"I don't think the FDA is being careful enough," said Dr. Alan Sager of
the Boston University School of Public Health. "Its a laissez-faire,
caveat emptor mode, and we need to start speaking Engligh rather than
French or Latin — let's get some trustworthy evidence on benefits and
risks."
Before the heightened awareness of attention deficity/hyperactivity
disorder in older children, Magno Zito said, "it never occurred to
anybody to think of ADHD as a condition that's appropriate for a 2-year-
old or a 3-year-old, and the same with depression." She surmised the
clonidine was being prescribed as a sedative to counteract the insomnia
often caused by Ritalin and other stimulants.
"Psychiatry and the drug companies have convinced the public that the
problems children have are biological and genetic, and this has opened
the road to medicating soon after birth," said Breggin. "Soon they'll
be giving drugs to pregnant women if the baby's overactive in the
womb."
"It appears that behaviorally disturbed children are now increasingly
subjected to quick and unexpected pharmacologic fixes," said Dr. Joseph
Coyle, chair of the department of psychiatry at Harvard Medical School,
in the accompanying editorial.
"Pediatric use of medication should be our highest of level of
certainly of effectiveness and safety," said Magno Zito. "The standard
should be 'we can't do without it' instead of 'let's try this and
see.'"
Tralalaah
"Shoot first and ask questions later seems to be an acceptable practice
in treating pre-school children..."
Why, how very unprofessional of you! You should be drummed out of the
profession for diagnosing that way! Shame on you!
You ARE a diagnostician, right? That's why you have such vast expertise on how
these pre-school children ended up in the treatment plan they're in?
You have expert, first-hand knowledg that this is happening?
Because -- once again -- it's not what the research said.
You're not also Tiaploppa or whoever it is also, are you??
Tralalaah
""If you thought that because a doctor puts a child on these medications
then it's safe, that's a false assumption," "
I'm sorry. Just exactly how did you come to the conclusion that this is news to
anyone here?
Please explain the concept of "risk/benefit ratio."
We'll wait. :)
J. Clarke
news:20000613201752...@ng-fc1.aol.com...
> >From: baj...@my-deja.com
> >Date: 06/13/2000 10:31 AM US Eastern Standard Time
> >Message-id:
>
> >Shoot first and ask questions later seems to be an acceptable practice
> >insanity or implies that it may be in excess is labled "scare
>
>
my
> daycare center.......of 38 years. Ritalin is NOT supposed to be given to
any
> child under the age of six. That seems to be ignored.
It isn't? According to who? And exactly how many children under 6 who were
being treated with Ritalin _did_ you see in those 38 years?
> It seems most folks here on this group don't want to hear any negatives
about
> Ritalin.
We're happy to hear negatives that are supported by the facts. But you
haven't posted such.
> Per example. We know that Ritalin prescribing keeps increasing......
Yes? And this is a negative in what way?
> *but the words overprescribing aren't in the study*
No, they aren't. You seem to think that increasing usage implies
overprescription. Those of us whose ADHD has gone untreated for a long
period of time think it more likely that it implies correction of a previous
condition of underprescription. You can't claim that a study demonstrates
overprescription unless it _does_ demonstrate that.
> Or
>
> There are valid concerns with starting children on Ritalin at age two or
three.
>
> *But that is scare mongering*..
It is. "Valid concerns" are not the same as "reasons not to".
baj...@my-deja.com
Your games are very obvious and I would be surprised if anyone is
fooled by them. Like I said before pay close attention to the last
sentence.
JDrew63929
>Shoot first and ask questions later seems to be an acceptable practice
>in treating pre-school children but anyone who questions this sort of
>insanity or implies that it may be in excess is labled "scare
>mongering". Ploop ploop fiz fiz oh what a wonderful world it is.
That's correct. As much as Mark dislikes hearing it, that is what I saw in my
daycare center.......of 38 years. Ritalin is NOT supposed to be given to any
child under the age of six. That seems to be ignored.
It seems most folks here on this group don't want to hear any negatives about
Ritalin.
Per example. We know that Ritalin prescribing keeps increasing......
*but the words overprescribing aren't in the study*
Or
There are valid concerns with starting children on Ritalin at age two or three.
*But that is scare mongering*..
Jan
Joe Parsons
>>From: baj...@my-deja.com
>>Date: 06/13/2000 10:31 AM US Eastern Standard Time
>>Message-id:
>
>>Shoot first and ask questions later seems to be an acceptable practice
>>in treating pre-school children but anyone who questions this sort of
>>insanity or implies that it may be in excess is labled "scare
>>mongering". Ploop ploop fiz fiz oh what a wonderful world it is.
>
>
>That's correct. As much as Mark dislikes hearing it, that is what I saw in my
>daycare center.......of 38 years. Ritalin is NOT supposed to be given to any
>child under the age of six. That seems to be ignored.
That's what is called "off-label prescribing." It's quite commonplace, and is
routinely done with many medications.
I am not offering an opinion with respect to the advisability of using
stimulants like methylphenidate with children under 6--but when the
manufacturer's package insert says "has not been tested with children under 6,"
that's all it means.
>It seems most folks here on this group don't want to hear any negatives about
>Ritalin.
I think it would be more accurate to say, "Most folks on this newsgroup are
reluctant to hear inaccurate, unsubstantiated claims."
>Per example. We know that Ritalin prescribing keeps increasing......
Do we? What makes you believe that?
>*but the words overprescribing aren't in the study*
That's interesting--but that didn't stop bwanawhatzizface from putting his own
spin in the header, did it? See, in any reputable study, words like
"overprescribed" are not used, unless they represent a quantifiable conclusion
from the data.
>Or
>
>There are valid concerns with starting children on Ritalin at age two or three.
Do you have some post from anyone in this newsgroup who'd say there is NO valid
concern? I have a pretty decent newsfeed, and I don't recall having seen any
post like that--but I could be wrong. Help me out and show me what I might have
missed.
>*But that is scare mongering*..
Oftentimes, yes--it is.
>Jan
I'll look forward to hearing from you what data you have by which you've
concluded that "Ritalin prescribing keeps increasing."
Joe Parsons
[snip rest]
==========================================================
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
"Ritalin is NOT supposed to be given to any
child under the age of six."
Not by a long shot, JD...
JDrew63929
>Date: 06/13/2000 9:24 PM US Eastern Standard Time
>Message-id: <20000613222421...@ng-fu1.aol.com>
>
>jdrew displayed yet more ignorance:
Ignored.
>"Ritalin is NOT supposed to be given to any
>child under the age of six."
>
>Not by a long shot, JD...
You need to get your facts straight.
Jan
JDrew63929
>Date: 06/13/2000 2:23 PM US Eastern Standard Time
>Message-id: <3946d...@news3.prserv.net>>> >From: baj...@my-deja.com
>> >Date: 06/13/2000 10:31 AM US Eastern Standard Time
>> >Message-id:
>>
>> >Shoot first and ask questions later seems to be an acceptable practice
>> >in treating pre-school children but anyone who questions this sort of
>> >insanity or implies that it may be in excess is labled "scare
>> >mongering". Ploop ploop fiz fiz oh what a wonderful world it is.
>>
>>
>> That's correct. As much as Mark dislikes hearing it, that is what I saw in
>my
>any
>> child under the age of six. That seems to be ignored.
>
>being treated with Ritalin _did_ you see in those 38 years?
Well let's see..........Exactly......hmmm........seems I didn't write it down.
But my daycare center only took kids 6 and under, so I'll let you figure it
out.
>> It seems most folks here on this group don't want to hear any negatives
>about
>> Ritalin.
>
>We're happy to hear negatives that are supported by the facts. But you
>haven't posted such.
LOL....yes I see how happy everyone is.........it seems you choose to support
facts *only* by the experts/Md's that agree with your pov.
>> Per example. We know that Ritalin prescribing keeps increasing......
>
>Yes? And this is a negative in what way?
Duh. More kids on drugs. IMHO this is negative.
>> *but the words overprescribing aren't in the study*
>
>No, they aren't. You seem to think that increasing usage implies
>overprescription.
Well how does one increase usage without a prescription?
Those of us whose ADHD has gone untreated for a long
>period of time think it more likely that it implies correction of a previous
>condition of underprescription. You can't claim that a study demonstrates
>overprescription unless it _does_ demonstrate that.
See above.
>> Or
>>
>> There are valid concerns with starting children on Ritalin at age two or
>three.
>>
>> *But that is scare mongering*..
>
>It is. "Valid concerns" are not the same as "reasons not to".
One relates to the other.
Jan
John Palmer
>>From: tral...@aol.com (Tralalaah)
>>Date: 06/13/2000 9:24 PM US Eastern Standard Time
>>Message-id: <20000613222421...@ng-fu1.aol.com>
>>
>>jdrew displayed yet more ignorance:
>
>
>
>Ignored.
>
>
>>"Ritalin is NOT supposed to be given to any
>>child under the age of six."
>>
>>Not by a long shot, JD...
>
>You need to get your facts straight.
The statement that there have not been studies on safety and
efficacy on children younger than six is correct. Now, if you can figure
out how to ethically justify 'pure' experimentation on young children, I'm
sure the medical world would love to hear from you.
However, the statement is simply that there is a lack of experimental
data, not that the meds are "NOT supposed to be given".
There was a time when people believed that infants didn't feel pain.
Why? Presumably because they couldn't grab the doctor and scream "HEY, I'M
IN PAIN YOU TWIT, WHEN ARE YOU GOING TO ORDER THE PAINKILLER YOU PROMISED?"
(to be fair, the idea that a non-verbal mind can't 'think' and
remember and 'feel' the way a verbal mind does isn't completely crazy.)
Now, they recognize that infants can feel pain, and they treat it. Yes,
they are cautious; I'll bet that most meds haven't been tested in infants
(unless they are infant-specific). When faced with a choice of "try
something that tends to work on older children, or just ignore the
suffering", doctors tend to want to relieve the suffering.
--
Everything I needed to know in life, I learned in kindergarten. Like:
Wrestling with a lion and a grizzly bear is not necessarily the best
way to prove that you're "Tuff Enuff"
Tralalaah
Ignored. Which of course is part of what leaves you ignorant. :)
Tralalaah
"We're happy to hear negatives that are supported by the facts. But you
haven't posted such."
What I find astounding about those who want to paint Ritalin as the "bogeyman
under the bed" is that they are so CLUELESS they don't even know what the real
issues are.
I imagine a giant cult of people irrationally fearful of Ritalin. They all
attend a giant convention, where they are all told the same nonsense.
Then they accuse those who do take Ritalin of being stupefied and forced to
conform to society while THEY all parrot the same misinformation.
They remain so busy listening to each other chirp the same things that they
never find out the real issues.
I am not going to enlighten them.
JDrew63929
>Date: 06/13/2000 7:52 PM US Eastern Standard Time
>Message-id: <08ldksoor243jp3qp...@4ax.com>
>>>Message-id:
>>
>>>in treating pre-school children but anyone who questions this sort of
>>>insanity or implies that it may be in excess is labled "scare
>>>mongering". Ploop ploop fiz fiz oh what a wonderful world it is.
>>
>>
>>That's correct. As much as Mark dislikes hearing it, that is what I saw in
>my
>>child under the age of six. That seems to be ignored.
>
>is
>routinely done with many medications.
Exactly it is quite commonplace and routinely done. That's my point.
>I am not offering an opinion with respect to the advisability of using
>stimulants like methylphenidate with children under 6--but when the
>manufacturer's package insert says "has not been tested with children under
>6,"
>that's all it means.
All? Would you want your underage child to be the first to test it? Why hasn't
it been tested for kids under age 6?? You seem to want everything proven, yet
this doesn't bother you?
>>It seems most folks here on this group don't want to hear any negatives
>about
>>Ritalin.
>
>I think it would be more accurate to say, "Most folks on this newsgroup are
>reluctant to hear inaccurate, unsubstantiated claims."
That all depends on which expert you choose to believe.
>>Per example. We know that Ritalin prescribing keeps increasing......
>
>Do we? What makes you believe that?
From the post that was made here, plus many other articles.
>>*but the words overprescribing aren't in the study*
>
>That's interesting--but that didn't stop bwanawhatzizface
Who?? I thought you didn't find it necessary to call names?
from putting his
>own
>spin in the header, did it? See, in any reputable study, words like
>"overprescribed" are not used, unless they represent a quantifiable
>conclusion
>from the data.
We seem to be going in circles here. Which expert/MD do you consider
*reputable*?
>>Or
>>
>>There are valid concerns with starting children on Ritalin at age two or
>three.
>
>Do you have some post from anyone in this newsgroup who'd say there is NO
>valid
>concern? I have a pretty decent newsfeed, and I don't recall having seen any
>post like that--but I could be wrong. Help me out and show me what I might
>have
>missed.
From what I have read, it seems there are very few concerns.
>>*But that is scare mongering*..
>
>Oftentimes, yes--it is.
No, that's words that all debunkers use.
>>Jan
>
>I'll look forward to hearing from you what data you have by which you've
>concluded that "Ritalin prescribing keeps increasing."
I'll bet you are! It's just my imagination Joe, hardly any kids are taking
Ritalin,,,,,,and doctors are very reluctant to prescribe it.
I don't know anything about the effects of Ritalin, just 38 years of
involvement with familes and having their kids 50 hours a week. I know this
means nothing to you, but it's called first hand experience.
My experiences are posted on the mha.
Jan
Nessa
(in message <20000614001205...@ng-fq1.aol.com>):
>> From: "J. Clarke" nos...@nospam.nospam
>> Date: 06/13/2000 2:23 PM US Eastern Standard Time
>> Message-id: <3946d...@news3.prserv.net>
>>
>> It isn't? According to who? And exactly how many children under 6 who
>> were
>> being treated with Ritalin _did_ you see in those 38 years?
>
>
> Well let's see..........Exactly......hmmm........seems I didn't write it
> down.
> But my daycare center only took kids 6 and under, so I'll let you figure it
> out.
Well that still doesnıt tell me how many kids you saw, just that all of
your kids were under six.
Iım really curious since I always thought that my son was the exception
to the rule starting Ritalin so young.
--
nessa
--
If a person with multiple personalities
threatens to commit suicide,
is it a hostage situation?
Joe Parsons
>>From: Joe Parsons j...@cyber-mall.com
>>Date: 06/13/2000 7:52 PM US Eastern Standard Time
>>Message-id: <08ldksoor243jp3qp...@4ax.com>
>>
>>On 14 Jun 2000 00:17:52 GMT, jdrew...@aol.com (JDrew63929) wrote:
>>
>>>>From: baj...@my-deja.com
>>>>Date: 06/13/2000 10:31 AM US Eastern Standard Time
>>>>Message-id:
>>>
>>>>Shoot first and ask questions later seems to be an acceptable practice
>>>>in treating pre-school children but anyone who questions this sort of
>>>>insanity or implies that it may be in excess is labled "scare
>>>>mongering". Ploop ploop fiz fiz oh what a wonderful world it is.
>>>
>>>
>>>That's correct. As much as Mark dislikes hearing it, that is what I saw in
>>my
>>>daycare center.......of 38 years. Ritalin is NOT supposed to be given to any
>>>child under the age of six. That seems to be ignored.
There's a difference between "not supposed to" and "prohibited."
>>That's what is called "off-label prescribing." It's quite commonplace, and
>>is
>>routinely done with many medications.
>
>
>Exactly it is quite commonplace and routinely done. That's my point.
Do you have the same concern for off-label prescribing with respect to other
medications? If so, which ones, and why?
>>I am not offering an opinion with respect to the advisability of using
>>stimulants like methylphenidate with children under 6--but when the
>>manufacturer's package insert says "has not been tested with children under
>>6,"
>>that's all it means.
>
>
>
>All? Would you want your underage child to be the first to test it? Why hasn't
>it been tested for kids under age 6?? You seem to want everything proven, yet
>this doesn't bother you?
This kind of off-label prescribing has been done for years. My child would
*certainly* not be the first.
>>>It seems most folks here on this group don't want to hear any negatives
>>about
>>>Ritalin.
>>
>>I think it would be more accurate to say, "Most folks on this newsgroup are
>>reluctant to hear inaccurate, unsubstantiated claims."
>
>
>That all depends on which expert you choose to believe.
Not really. The unending stream of "inaccurate, unsubstantiated claims" we see
in ASAD almost invariably takes the form of vague assertions that no one ever
seems able to attribute. Case in point: Connie claims there are "hundreds of
documented side effects" of Ritalin. That should be an easy claim to back
up--but in spite of my several requests for at least *some* sort of data to back
up the statement, I remain disappointed.
>>>Per example. We know that Ritalin prescribing keeps increasing......
>>
>>Do we? What makes you believe that?
>
>
>From the post that was made here, plus many other articles.
[incredulous look]
Excuse me?? You're relying on something someone wrote to a NEWSGROUP as being
authoritative? Oh. I see you've seen many other articles. Assuming you mean
articles in the press (and not Usenet articles), could you point me to a few of
them? I'd like to see them--I'm always willing to abandon faulty information.
>>>*but the words overprescribing aren't in the study*
>>
>>That's interesting--but that didn't stop bwanawhatzizface
>
>
>
>Who?? I thought you didn't find it necessary to call names?
Oh, give me a break. If you have some actual objection to a statement I make,
then raise the objection. But if complaining about my mangling someone else's
posting name (not attaching an insulting personal description) is the strongest
component of your argument, well, I have to wonder what sort of discussion we're
really likely to have.
> from putting his
>>own
>>spin in the header, did it? See, in any reputable study, words like
>>"overprescribed" are not used, unless they represent a quantifiable
>>conclusion
>>from the data.
>
>
>
>We seem to be going in circles here. Which expert/MD do you consider
>*reputable*?
Jan, do you have *any* idea about experimental design? Do you know what goes
into writing the report for a study?
>>>Or
>>>
>>>There are valid concerns with starting children on Ritalin at age two or
>>three.
>>
>>Do you have some post from anyone in this newsgroup who'd say there is NO
>>valid
>>concern? I have a pretty decent newsfeed, and I don't recall having seen any
>>post like that--but I could be wrong. Help me out and show me what I might
>>have
>>missed.
>
>
>
>From what I have read, it seems there are very few concerns.
See, now there is a statement I can agree with: you've just said that YOUR
IMPRESSION is that there are few concerns. Now--would you mind referencing a
specific post that gave you that impression?
>>>*But that is scare mongering*..
>>
>>Oftentimes, yes--it is.
>
>
>No, that's words that all debunkers use.
If I go into misc.health.alternative and post repeatedly that "STUDIES SHOW
VITAMIN C LINKED TO CANCER," for example, then refuse to discuss what I've
posted, what would you call it?
Joe Parsons
Joe Parsons
>jdrew said: ">jdrew displayed yet more ignorance:
>Ignored. Which of course is part of what leaves you ignorant. :)
Do you think there might be some connection between your embedded insults and
people's growing reluctance to have anything to do with you?
JDrew63929
>Date: 06/14/2000 8:05 AM US Eastern Standard Time
>Message-id:
>On Wed, 14 Jun 2000 0:12:05 -0400, JDrew63929 wrote
>(in message <20000614001205...@ng-fq1.aol.com>):
>
>>> From: "J. Clarke" nos...@nospam.nospam
>>> Date: 06/13/2000 2:23 PM US Eastern Standard Time
>>> Message-id: <3946d...@news3.prserv.net>
>>>
>>> It isn't? According to who? And exactly how many children under 6 who
>>> were
>>> being treated with Ritalin _did_ you see in those 38 years?
>>
>>
>> Well let's see..........Exactly......hmmm........seems I didn't write it
>> down.
>> But my daycare center only took kids 6 and under, so I'll let you figure it
>> out.
>
>
>Well that still doesnıt tell me how many kids you saw, just that all of
>your kids were under six.
I can't give you a figure. In 38 years I didn't keep track. My point is that
many doctors just hand it out without making a disgnose. I sympathize with
parents, I know an ADD child can disrupt the whole family. People are just too
busy to change lifestyles, but running to the doctor for a magic pill isn't the
answer either. I am against putting small children on drugs.I know it helps in
the beginning, it has been my experience that these original symptoms return
even greater. Then the Ritalin is increased. One big vicious circle.
>Iım really curious since I always thought that my son was the exception
>to the rule starting Ritalin so young.
That hasn't been my experience.
Jan
Tralalaah
"I can't give you a figure. In 38 years I didn't keep track. My point is that
many doctors just hand it out without making a disgnose."
But you haven't supported that statement.
JDrew63929
>Date: 06/14/2000 9:57 AM US Eastern Standard Time
>Message-id:
>On 14 Jun 2000 05:33:31 GMT, tral...@aol.com (Tralalaah) wrote:
>
>>jdrew said: ">jdrew displayed yet more ignorance:
>>Ignored. Which of course is part of what leaves you ignorant. :)
Thank you. Ignoring insults when the party is wrong seems reasonable to me.
Strange that you didn't notice the insult was based upon false
information,......... but were eager to insult me.
>Do you think there might be some connection between your embedded insults and
>people's growing reluctance to have anything to do with you?
>
Uh...er...Joe. I wasn't the one who gave the insult. The topic
was.........Ritalin is NOT suppose to be given to kids under 6. The reply was
that I was ignorant. I was in fact correct, so I ignored the insult.
Nice try Joe. Personal attacks because I am against giving drugs to young
children. Maybe you use these tactics to insult the party that you disagree
with.
Hmmmm......and right after you posted that excellent article on NG behavior.
I see a bit of Rich here. Sorry to NOT play your little game.
Jan
>Joe Parsons
JDrew63929
>Date: 06/14/2000 9:55 AM US Eastern Standard Time
>Message-id:
>On 14 Jun 2000 05:49:07 GMT, jdrew...@aol.com (JDrew63929) wrote:
>
>>>From: Joe Parsons j...@cyber-mall.com
>>>Date: 06/13/2000 7:52 PM US Eastern Standard Time
>>>Message-id: <08ldksoor243jp3qp...@4ax.com>
>>>
>>>On 14 Jun 2000 00:17:52 GMT, jdrew...@aol.com (JDrew63929) wrote:
>>>
>>>>>From: baj...@my-deja.com
>>>>>Date: 06/13/2000 10:31 AM US Eastern Standard Time
>>>>>Message-id:
>>>>
>>>>>Shoot first and ask questions later seems to be an acceptable practice
>>>>>in treating pre-school children but anyone who questions this sort of
>>>>>insanity or implies that it may be in excess is labled "scare
>>>>>mongering". Ploop ploop fiz fiz oh what a wonderful world it is.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>That's correct. As much as Mark dislikes hearing it, that is what I saw in
>>>my
>>>>daycare center.......of 38 years. Ritalin is NOT supposed to be given to
>any
>>>>child under the age of six. That seems to be ignored.
>
>There's a difference between "not supposed to" and "prohibited."
Oh? I see you added another line here in the discussion. How cute!
Uh huh........Some people feel the need to wait until it is
prohibited............others use common sense.
>>>That's what is called "off-label prescribing." It's quite commonplace, and
>>>is
>>>routinely done with many medications.
>>
>>
>>Exactly it is quite commonplace and routinely done. That's my point.
>
>Do you have the same concern for off-label prescribing with respect to other
>medications? If so, which ones, and why?
Yes. Let's not go there. Let's just stick with the topic......Ritalin
>>>I am not offering an opinion with respect to the advisability of using
>>>stimulants like methylphenidate with children under 6--but when the
>>>manufacturer's package insert says "has not been tested with children under
>>>6,"
>>>that's all it means.
>>
>>
>>
>>All? Would you want your underage child to be the first to test it? Why
>hasn't
>>it been tested for kids under age 6?? You seem to want everything proven,
>yet
>>this doesn't bother you?
>
>This kind of off-label prescribing has been done for years.
Bingo!
My child would
>*certainly* not be the first.
You didn't address my question. Why are there no studies on young children? Why
bother to have this info on the label??
>>>>It seems most folks here on this group don't want to hear any negatives
>>>about
>>>>Ritalin.
>>>
>>>I think it would be more accurate to say, "Most folks on this newsgroup are
>>>reluctant to hear inaccurate, unsubstantiated claims."
>>
>>
>>That all depends on which expert you choose to believe.
>
>Not really. The unending stream of "inaccurate, unsubstantiated claims" we
>see
>in ASAD almost invariably takes the form of vague assertions that no one ever
>seems able to attribute. Case in point: Connie claims there are "hundreds
>of
>documented side effects" of Ritalin. That should be an easy claim to back
>up--but in spite of my several requests for at least *some* sort of data to
>back
>up the statement, I remain disappointed.
Well well..........do I see a bit of behind the scenes going ons here? Like
Joe can take up where Rich left off?? Sorry to not play your little bash Connie
game. Rich has already screwed that one up..............
>
>>>>Per example. We know that Ritalin prescribing keeps increasing......
>>>
>>>Do we? What makes you believe that?
>>
>>
>>From the post that was made here, plus many other articles.
>
>[incredulous look]
Of course.........In your opinion.
>Excuse me?? You're relying on something someone wrote to a NEWSGROUP as
>being
>authoritative? Oh. I see you've seen many other articles. Assuming you
>mean
>articles in the press (and not Usenet articles), could you point me to a few
>of
>them? I'd like to see them--I'm always willing to abandon faulty
>information.
I've already told you what I am relying on. It's called first hand experience.
>>>>*but the words overprescribing aren't in the study*
>>>
>>>That's interesting--but that didn't stop bwanawhatzizface
>>
>>
>>
>>Who?? I thought you didn't find it necessary to call names?
>
>Oh, give me a break. If you have some actual objection to a statement I
>make,
>then raise the objection. But if complaining about my mangling someone
>else's
>posting name (not attaching an insulting personal description) is the
>strongest
>component of your argument, well, I have to wonder what sort of discussion
>we're
>really likely to have.
Mee too.
>> from putting his
>>>own
>>>spin in the header, did it? See, in any reputable study, words like
>>>"overprescribed" are not used, unless they represent a quantifiable
>>>conclusion
>>>from the data.
>>
>>
>>
>>We seem to be going in circles here. Which expert/MD do you consider
>>*reputable*?
>
>Jan, do you have *any* idea about experimental design? Do you know what goes
>into writing the report for a study?
I know that there are sceintists for hire. If the study doesn't turn out as the
*payee* wanted, it never gets published.
>>>>Or
>>>>
>>>>There are valid concerns with starting children on Ritalin at age two or
>>>three.
>>>
>>>Do you have some post from anyone in this newsgroup who'd say there is NO
>>>valid
>>>concern? I have a pretty decent newsfeed, and I don't recall having seen
>any
>>>post like that--but I could be wrong. Help me out and show me what I might
>>>have
>>>missed.
>>
>>
>>
>>From what I have read, it seems there are very few concerns.
>
>See, now there is a statement I can agree with: you've just said that YOUR
>IMPRESSION is that there are few concerns. Now--would you mind referencing a
>specific post that gave you that impression?
Yes, I would mind. I'm not going to waste my time looking for a specific
post.......there are just too many of them. Perhaps I should ask you to clarify
every word you have ever spoken??
>>>>*But that is scare mongering*..
>>>
>>>Oftentimes, yes--it is.
>>
>>
>>No, that's words that all debunkers use.
>
>If I go into misc.health.alternative and post repeatedly that "STUDIES SHOW
>VITAMIN C LINKED TO CANCER," for example, then refuse to discuss what I've
>posted, what would you call it?
>
>Joe Parsons
Bait, bait, bait Joe. Not playing. I have expressed my beliefs about drugging
young kids. You disagree. Your attempt to make me look stupid is
well..............
End of discussion.
Jan
Christopher Eliot
> Uh...er...Joe. I wasn't the one who gave the insult. The topic
> was.........Ritalin is NOT suppose to be given to kids under 6. The reply was
> that I was ignorant. I was in fact correct, so I ignored the insult.
No, you are ignorant about the way drugs are used in medicine and about the
meaning of the word "supposed".
For example, a bottle of aspirin says something like "Do not take more than
this amount, except under the direction of a doctor."
If your doctor says to take more, then you (in one sense) taking more
aspirin than the label says you are "supposed to take".
In this case, the label specifically lists the condition in which exceptions
should be made.
The prescribing information in the PDR is a RECOMMENDATION for the doctors.
One of the reasons you ask a doctor for advice is because they learn about
the EXCEPTIONS to these recommendations.
The entire book is effectively subject to the footnote: 'unless more recent
or more specialized information says otherwise'.
Joe Parsons
special attention to the attributions (who-said-what). I did NOT say those
things that offend you.
Joe Parsons
(posted and mailed)
On 14 Jun 2000 16:30:59 GMT, jdrew...@aol.com (JDrew63929) wrote:
[snip]
>Uh...er...Joe. I wasn't the one who gave the insult. The topic
>was.........Ritalin is NOT suppose to be given to kids under 6. The reply was
>that I was ignorant. I was in fact correct, so I ignored the insult.
>
>
>
>Nice try Joe. Personal attacks because I am against giving drugs to young
>children. Maybe you use these tactics to insult the party that you disagree
>with.
>
>Hmmmm......and right after you posted that excellent article on NG behavior.
>
>I see a bit of Rich here. Sorry to NOT play your little game.
>
goddess...@my-deja.com
jdrew...@aol.com (JDrew63929) wrote:
<snipped>
> Thank you. Ignoring insults when the party is wrong seems reasonable
to me.
> Strange that you didn't notice the insult was based upon false
> information,......... but were eager to insult me.
>
Jan,
It's not Joe's habit to alter the attributions of posts he is responding
to. He likes to keep it so that everyone can tell exactly what he's
responding to.
Here's the article where you thought Joe was insulting you. Please
review the attributions. Single (>)'s show Joe's comments. Double
(>>)'s show Tra's comments.
In article <597fkso0uf4ebtflp...@4ax.com>,
j...@cyber-mall.com wrote:
> On 14 Jun 2000 05:33:31 GMT, tral...@aol.com (Tralalaah) wrote:
>
> >jdrew said: ">jdrew displayed yet more ignorance:
> >Ignored. Which of course is part of what leaves you ignorant. :)
>
> Do you think there might be some connection between your embedded
insults and
> people's growing reluctance to have anything to do with you?
>
> Joe Parsons
>
--
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
Joe Parsons
If I have said anything that you believe to be in any way untrue or
manipulative, I apologize, because that has never been my intent.
On 14 Jun 2000 17:01:36 GMT, jdrew...@aol.com (JDrew63929) wrote:
>>From: Joe Parsons j...@cyber-mall.com
>>Date: 06/14/2000 9:55 AM US Eastern Standard Time
>>Message-id:
>
>>On 14 Jun 2000 05:49:07 GMT, jdrew...@aol.com (JDrew63929) wrote:
>>
>>>>From: Joe Parsons j...@cyber-mall.com
>>>>Date: 06/13/2000 7:52 PM US Eastern Standard Time
>>>>Message-id: <08ldksoor243jp3qp...@4ax.com>
>>>>
>>>>On 14 Jun 2000 00:17:52 GMT, jdrew...@aol.com (JDrew63929) wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>From: baj...@my-deja.com
>>>>>>Date: 06/13/2000 10:31 AM US Eastern Standard Time
>>>>>>Message-id:
>>>>>
>>>>>>Shoot first and ask questions later seems to be an acceptable practice
>>>>>>in treating pre-school children but anyone who questions this sort of
>>>>>>insanity or implies that it may be in excess is labled "scare
>>>>>>mongering". Ploop ploop fiz fiz oh what a wonderful world it is.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>That's correct. As much as Mark dislikes hearing it, that is what I saw in
>>>>my
>>>>>daycare center.......of 38 years. Ritalin is NOT supposed to be given to
>>any
>>>>>child under the age of six. That seems to be ignored.
>>
>>There's a difference between "not supposed to" and "prohibited."
>
>
>Oh? I see you added another line here in the discussion. How cute!
Excuse me? Do you believe I have taken anything out of context, or that I am in
any way misrepresenting what you have said? If you've read much of what I've
posted to this (and other) newsgroups in the past, you ought to be aware that I
am a stickler for clear quoting and attribution.
>Uh huh........Some people feel the need to wait until it is
>prohibited............others use common sense.
>>>>That's what is called "off-label prescribing." It's quite commonplace, and
>>>>is
>>>>routinely done with many medications.
>>>
>>>
>>>Exactly it is quite commonplace and routinely done. That's my point.
>>
>>Do you have the same concern for off-label prescribing with respect to other
>>medications? If so, which ones, and why?
>
>
>
>Yes. Let's not go there. Let's just stick with the topic......Ritalin
The reason I ask is that there seems to be a great deal of attention paid to
this particular medication, when there are numerous other drugs that are
potentially far more dangerous than Ritalin, but which are routinely prescribed
off-label. It's not an inherently dangerous practice, as some want to assert.
>>>>I am not offering an opinion with respect to the advisability of using
>>>>stimulants like methylphenidate with children under 6--but when the
>>>>manufacturer's package insert says "has not been tested with children under
>>>>6,"
>>>>that's all it means.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>All? Would you want your underage child to be the first to test it? Why
>>hasn't
>>>it been tested for kids under age 6?? You seem to want everything proven,
>>yet
>>>this doesn't bother you?
>>
>>This kind of off-label prescribing has been done for years.
>
>
>
>Bingo!
>
>
> My child would
>>*certainly* not be the first.
>
>
>You didn't address my question. Why are there no studies on young children? Why
>bother to have this info on the label??
There are certain ethical restrictions on pure research on young children. This
does not mean a particular drug should not be used--it means that the
prescribing physician and all involved need to be alert to problems.
Now--with all that said, I have *personal* reservations about prescribing a
stimulant to, say, a 2 year old. I *personally* would expect to have a long and
detailed conversation with the doctor before agreeing to it. While I
*personally* find it difficult to imagine diagnosing a 2 or 3 year old with
ADHD, I have not lived with a genuinely ADHD 2 year old. I know some who have,
though--and I don't know of a single parent who entered into the decision
frivolously or irresponsibly.
But I think this gets us a bit into the weeds. The discussion you and I are
trying to have is really about distinguishing between statements that are
"verifiably true," statements that are "pure opinion" and those that can be
categorized as "blowing smoke."
See, Jan, my standards of "proof" are pretty lax--unacceptably so by the
standards of card-carrying scientists. I'm easy: if you tell me, "There are
page after page of the bad effects of Ritalin," for example, I'd very much like
to see more than an indirect reference to it. And you might notice I haven't
even taken issue with the fact that you helped write the booklet in question.
Or when you make an assertion (like saying any information available from CHADD
would be unreliable because they have received support from a pharmaceutical
company), I'd like to see at least *something* to substantiate it. (I put that
under the heading of "blowing smoke," by the way)
>>>>>It seems most folks here on this group don't want to hear any negatives
>>>>about
>>>>>Ritalin.
>>>>
>>>>I think it would be more accurate to say, "Most folks on this newsgroup are
>>>>reluctant to hear inaccurate, unsubstantiated claims."
>>>
>>>
>>>That all depends on which expert you choose to believe.
>>
>>Not really. The unending stream of "inaccurate, unsubstantiated claims" we
>>see
>>in ASAD almost invariably takes the form of vague assertions that no one ever
>>seems able to attribute. Case in point: Connie claims there are "hundreds
>>of
>>documented side effects" of Ritalin. That should be an easy claim to back
>>up--but in spite of my several requests for at least *some* sort of data to
>>back
>>up the statement, I remain disappointed.
>
>
>
>Well well..........do I see a bit of behind the scenes going ons here? Like
>Joe can take up where Rich left off?? Sorry to not play your little bash Connie
>game. Rich has already screwed that one up..............
I could not possibly care less about whatever history there might be between
"Rich" and anyone else; his behavior (and your reaction to it) is utterly
irrelevant to the conversation I am trying to have with you.
But how do you figure it is "bashing" for me to mention (in the context of
substantiating statements) that Connie, a regular, prolific poster, has not seen
fit to back up a statement posted and represented as a fact? Have you seen me
behave toward you or her in any way that was other than courteous and topical?
Have you seen me impugn your motives? Have you seen me make statements that I
have not been willing to substantiate?
>>>>>Per example. We know that Ritalin prescribing keeps increasing......
>>>>
>>>>Do we? What makes you believe that?
>>>
>>>
>>>From the post that was made here, plus many other articles.
>>
>>[incredulous look]
>
>
>Of course.........In your opinion.
>
>
>
>>Excuse me?? You're relying on something someone wrote to a NEWSGROUP as
>>being
>>authoritative? Oh. I see you've seen many other articles. Assuming you
>>mean
>>articles in the press (and not Usenet articles), could you point me to a few
>>of
>>them? I'd like to see them--I'm always willing to abandon faulty
>>information.
>
>
>I've already told you what I am relying on. It's called first hand experience.
You just said you had read postings to the newsgroup (ASAD or MHA, I presume)
that led you to say that Ritalin prescription is increasing. A statement like
that is not a matter of "opinion;" it is a matter of fact. In a discussion
involving good faith on both sides, it is customary to substantiate one's
assertions, and, if unable to do that, to concede one's error or to admit there
*is* no substantiation for the statement.
Does that strike you as unreasonable?
But, Jan--you posted a number of links to Peter Breggin's site, and you
represented that information as being "studies." Remember? Would you agree
that Breggin is, um...not a "fan" of any pharmaceuticals, especially Ritalin?
I try to be as accommodating as I can, but you just can't have it both ways.
>>>>>Or
>>>>>
>>>>>There are valid concerns with starting children on Ritalin at age two or
>>>>three.
>>>>
>>>>Do you have some post from anyone in this newsgroup who'd say there is NO
>>>>valid
>>>>concern? I have a pretty decent newsfeed, and I don't recall having seen
>>any
>>>>post like that--but I could be wrong. Help me out and show me what I might
>>>>have
>>>>missed.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>From what I have read, it seems there are very few concerns.
>>
>>See, now there is a statement I can agree with: you've just said that YOUR
>>IMPRESSION is that there are few concerns. Now--would you mind referencing a
>>specific post that gave you that impression?
>
>
>
>Yes, I would mind. I'm not going to waste my time looking for a specific
>post.......there are just too many of them.
The more there are, the easier it is to find one or two. Here's a link to Deja:
http://www.deja.com/home_ps.shtml. Just enter a few parameters, and you'll be
able to find anything you want in a jiffy.
>Perhaps I should ask you to clarify
>every word you have ever spoken??
Feel free. Since my memory is not all that great, I make it a point to say
*only* those things I can stand behind--even years later. I think it was Will
Rogers who said that the advantage of telling the truth is that you don't need a
good memory.
Anyway, go ahead--try me. :)
>>>>>*But that is scare mongering*..
>>>>
>>>>Oftentimes, yes--it is.
>>>
>>>
>>>No, that's words that all debunkers use.
>>
>>If I go into misc.health.alternative and post repeatedly that "STUDIES SHOW
>>VITAMIN C LINKED TO CANCER," for example, then refuse to discuss what I've
>>posted, what would you call it?
>>
>>Joe Parsons
>
>
>
>Bait, bait, bait Joe. Not playing. I have expressed my beliefs about drugging
>young kids. You disagree. Your attempt to make me look stupid is
>well..............
>
>End of discussion.
I am very disappointed, Jan. I have been careful to keep our discussion
courteous, objective and relevant. I have repeatedly expressed my willingness
to distinguish between those things that are verifiably, objectively true and
those things that are simply personal preference--matters of "faith," if you
will.
It's unfortunate that you've chosen to leave so many questions unanswered--more
the pity because they should be so easy for you back up.
Joe Parsons
Joe Parsons
with the "embedded insults." It wasn't.
Joe Parsons
On 14 Jun 2000 16:30:59 GMT, jdrew...@aol.com (JDrew63929) wrote:
>>From: Joe Parsons j...@cyber-mall.com
>>Date: 06/14/2000 9:57 AM US Eastern Standard Time
>>Message-id:
>
>>On 14 Jun 2000 05:33:31 GMT, tral...@aol.com (Tralalaah) wrote:
>>
>>>jdrew said: ">jdrew displayed yet more ignorance:
>>>Ignored. Which of course is part of what leaves you ignorant. :)
>
>
>Thank you. Ignoring insults when the party is wrong seems reasonable to me.
>Strange that you didn't notice the insult was based upon false
>information,......... but were eager to insult me.
>
>
>
>>Do you think there might be some connection between your embedded insults and
>>people's growing reluctance to have anything to do with you?
>>
>
>
>Uh...er...Joe. I wasn't the one who gave the insult. The topic
>was.........Ritalin is NOT suppose to be given to kids under 6. The reply was
>that I was ignorant. I was in fact correct, so I ignored the insult.
>
>
>
>Nice try Joe. Personal attacks because I am against giving drugs to young
>children. Maybe you use these tactics to insult the party that you disagree
>with.
>
>Hmmmm......and right after you posted that excellent article on NG behavior.
>
>I see a bit of Rich here. Sorry to NOT play your little game.
>
>Jan
>
>
>
>>Joe Parsons
J. Clarke
> >From: "J. Clarke" nos...@nospam.nospam
> >Date: 06/13/2000 2:23 PM US Eastern Standard Time
> >Message-id: <3946d...@news3.prserv.net>
> >
> >"JDrew63929" <jdrew...@aol.com> wrote in message
> >news:20000613201752...@ng-fc1.aol.com...
> >> >Date: 06/13/2000 10:31 AM US Eastern Standard Time
> >> >Message-id:
> >>
> >> >Shoot first and ask questions later seems to be an acceptable practice
> >> >in treating pre-school children but anyone who questions this sort of
> >> >insanity or implies that it may be in excess is labled "scare
> >> >mongering". Ploop ploop fiz fiz oh what a wonderful world it is.
> >>
> >>
> >> That's correct. As much as Mark dislikes hearing it, that is what I saw
in
> >my
> >> daycare center.......of 38 years. Ritalin is NOT supposed to be given
to
> >any
> >> child under the age of six. That seems to be ignored.
> >
were
> >being treated with Ritalin _did_ you see in those 38 years?
>
>
> Well let's see..........Exactly......hmmm........seems I didn't write it
down.
> But my daycare center only took kids 6 and under, so I'll let you figure
it
> out.
Figure it out? OK, then, according to my figures you saw exactly, none.
> >> It seems most folks here on this group don't want to hear any negatives
> >about
> >> Ritalin.
> >
> >We're happy to hear negatives that are supported by the facts. But you
> >haven't posted such.
>
>
> LOL....yes I see how happy everyone is.........it seems you choose to
support
> facts *only* by the experts/Md's that agree with your pov.
No, we choose to support FACTS. It doesn't matter WHO they're from as long
as the research was done properly and was successfully replicated. Until
that happens, all you have is opinion.
> >> Per example. We know that Ritalin prescribing keeps increasing......
> >
> >Yes? And this is a negative in what way?
>
>
> Duh. More kids on drugs. IMHO this is negative.
More kids on drugs? Since kids with ADHD who are on medication are _less_
likely to use drugs, the net effect should be _less_ kids on drugs.
> >> *but the words overprescribing aren't in the study*
> >
> >No, they aren't. You seem to think that increasing usage implies
> >overprescription.
>
>
> Well how does one increase usage without a prescription?
Prescription and _over_ prescription are not the same.
> Those of us whose ADHD has gone untreated for a long
> >period of time think it more likely that it implies correction of a
previous
> >condition of underprescription. You can't claim that a study
demonstrates
> >overprescription unless it _does_ demonstrate that.
>
>
> See above.
I've seen it. And I don't see what bearing your inability to distinguish
between the words "prescription" and "overprescription" has on the issue.
> >> Or
> >>
> >> There are valid concerns with starting children on Ritalin at age two
or
> >three.
> >>
> >> *But that is scare mongering*..
> >
> >It is. "Valid concerns" are not the same as "reasons not to".
>
>
> One relates to the other.
In what way?
--
---
J. Clarke
> >From: Nessa ne...@ix.netcom.com
> >Date: 06/14/2000 8:05 AM US Eastern Standard Time
> >Message-id:
>
> >On Wed, 14 Jun 2000 0:12:05 -0400, JDrew63929 wrote
> >(in message <20000614001205...@ng-fq1.aol.com>):
> >
> >>> Date: 06/13/2000 2:23 PM US Eastern Standard Time
> >>> Message-id: <3946d...@news3.prserv.net>
> >>>
who
> >>> were
> >>> being treated with Ritalin _did_ you see in those 38 years?
> >>
> >>
> >> Well let's see..........Exactly......hmmm........seems I didn't write
it
> >> down.
> >> But my daycare center only took kids 6 and under, so I'll let you
figure it
> >> out.
> >
> >
> >your kids were under six.
>
>
Was it more than 1? More than 10? More than 100? More than 1000? More
than 10,000? And how many kids did you see _total_?
> My point is that
> many doctors just hand it out without making a disgnose.
And you base this on what information? How many of their medical records
did you review?
> I sympathize with
> parents, I know an ADD child can disrupt the whole family.
Yes, an ADD child can. But there are many ADD children who do not.
> People are just too
> busy to change lifestyles, but running to the doctor for a magic pill
isn't the
> answer either.
So how do you propose to treat ADHD?
> I am against putting small children on drugs.I know it helps in
> the beginning, it has been my experience that these original symptoms
return
> even greater.
It has? I thought you only saw kids under 6. How do you know what happens
when they're 16 or 26 or 46?
> Then the Ritalin is increased. One big vicious circle.
>
>
>
> >Išm really curious since I always thought that my son was the exception
> >to the rule starting Ritalin so young.
>
>
> That hasn't been my experience.
But you claim that you can't even make a guess as to how many kids you saw,
so your experience seems pretty worthless as an indicator.
J. Clarke
What one can "do without" is often a matter of personal preference. And
other time's it's a matter of who's holding the gun.
JDrew63929
>Date: 06/14/2000 1:29 PM US Eastern Standard Time
>Message-id:
>Jan, please pay attention to who has said what. You seem to think I was the
>one
>with the "embedded insults." It wasn't.
Here is what you said.
Do you think there might be some connection between your embedded insults and
people's growing reluctance to have anything to do with you?
Joe Parsons
I didn't make the insult. Tralalaah did. I ignored it. Then she made another
insult:
jdrew said: ">jdrew displayed yet more ignorance:
Ignored. Which of course is part of what leaves you ignorant. :)
Then you found it necessary to accuse me of embedded insults. Funny how you
didn't address either one of her insults...........
I also see that you made two posts here, this is the second one.
Jan, please look more closely at the posts to which you are responding. Pay
special attention to the attributions (who-said-what). I did NOT say those
things that offend you.
Joe Parsons
You realized that you were the one who did INDEED mention *embedded* insults,
thus the second post.
Think I don't know how these games are played??
Now isn't this childish?
I'm NOT here to play word games.
I have gone on record as saying, I don't like giving drugs to young
children..........AND I have given my reasons. So we can just agree to
disagree.
I have a life and it is a complete waste of time to play word games.......for
no other reason that to show one another that......nan-nan-naa.nan-nan, my
reasons are better than your reasons. I didn't allow those games in my daycare
center, so no need to start now.
Jan
goddess...@my-deja.com
Jan,
Re-read it. He was responding to Tra's post!! If you had any knowledge
of the posting history between the two of them, you'd understand.
He was not making that comment in reference to you. He was making it in
reference to Tralalaah.
In article <20000614162827...@ng-ff1.aol.com>,
--
Christopher Eliot
>>
>> "Pediatric use of medication should be our highest of level of
>> certainly of effectiveness and safety," said Magno Zito. "The standard
>> should be 'we can't do without it' instead of 'let's try this and see.'"
>
> What one can "do without" is often a matter of personal preference. And
> other time's it's a matter of who's holding the gun.
There are so many things that should be "highest" priority that it becomes
silly to talk about.
Here are all the things I can think of in 60 seconds that people might call
"highest" priority.
School bus safety.
Infectuous disease control.
Reading, writing and arithmetic.
Preventing teen pregnancy.
Improving scientific literacy.
Teaching tolerance.
Handicap access.
Earthquake preparedness.
Preventing airplanes from falling out of the sky.
Fair elections.
Keeping poisons out of the water supply.
Preventing nuclear accidents and war.
Preventing plagues that might kill all life on earth.
I could go on. Obviously this list is totally random, but there are a number
of terrible disasters that people can worry about. But do you worry more
about criminals or tidal waves or moral corruption?
Anytime you hear about the "most important" problem you should do a reality
check.
Joe Parsons
>>From: Joe Parsons j...@cyber-mall.com
>>Date: 06/14/2000 1:29 PM US Eastern Standard Time
>>Message-id:
>
>>Jan, please pay attention to who has said what. You seem to think I was the
>>one
>>with the "embedded insults." It wasn't.
>
>Here is what you said.
[I am going to add "quoted" symbols to help keep who said what less confusing]
I said this:
>>Do you think there might be some connection between your embedded insults and
>>people's growing reluctance to have anything to do with you?
Jan, you're not quoting the entire post. Here it is:
[begin quoted text]
Path:
news1.frmt1.sfba.home.com!newshub2.rdc1.sfba.home.com!news.home.com!news1.frmt1.sfba.home.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Joe Parsons <j...@cyber-mall.com>
Newsgroups: alt.support.attn-deficit
Subject: Re: Study: Psychiatric drugs overprescribed for kids
Organization: Yankee Enterprises
Reply-To: j...@cyber-mall.com
Message-ID: <597fkso0uf4ebtflp...@4ax.com>
References: <20000613235909...@ng-fq1.aol.com>
<20000614013331...@ng-ct1.aol.com>
X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.8/32.548
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Lines: 15
Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2000 14:57:34 GMT
NNTP-Posting-Host: 24.20.137.181
X-Complaints-To: ab...@home.net
X-Trace: news1.frmt1.sfba.home.com 960994654 24.20.137.181 (Wed, 14 Jun 2000
07:57:34 PDT)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2000 07:57:34 PDT
Xref: newshub2.rdc1.sfba.home.com alt.support.attn-deficit:30095372
On 14 Jun 2000 05:33:31 GMT, tral...@aol.com (Tralalaah) wrote:
>jdrew said: ">jdrew displayed yet more ignorance:
>Ignored. Which of course is part of what leaves you ignorant. :)
Do you think there might be some connection between your embedded insults and
people's growing reluctance to have anything to do with you?
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/
[end quoted text]
>Joe Parsons
>
[you said this]:
>I didn't make the insult. Tralalaah did. I ignored it. Then she made another
That's exactly correct--and nowhere did I say or imply that I was referring to
anyone other than that specific person to whom I was replying.
>insult:
>
[Tralalalalaaaaah said t his]:
>jdrew said: ">jdrew displayed yet more ignorance:
>Ignored. Which of course is part of what leaves you ignorant. :)
*sigh*
Okay. Here's _that_ post, in its entirety:
[begin quoted text]
Path:
news1.frmt1.sfba.home.com!newshub2.rdc1.sfba.home.com!news.home.com!news-peer.gip.net!news.gsl.net!gip.net!europa.netcrusader.net!152.163.239.129!portc01.blue.aol.com!audrey05.news.aol.com!not-for-mail
From: tral...@aol.com (Tralalaah)
Newsgroups: alt.support.attn-deficit
Subject: Re: Study: Psychiatric drugs overprescribed for kids
Lines: 4
NNTP-Posting-Host: ladder06.news.aol.com
X-Admin: ne...@aol.com
Date: 14 Jun 2000 05:33:31 GMT
References: <20000613235909...@ng-fq1.aol.com>
Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com
Message-ID: <20000614013331...@ng-ct1.aol.com>
Xref: newshub2.rdc1.sfba.home.com alt.support.attn-deficit:30095307
jdrew said: ">jdrew displayed yet more ignorance:
Ignored. Which of course is part of what leaves you ignorant. :)
[end quoted text]
[I said this]:
>>Then you found it necessary to accuse me of embedded insults. Funny how you
>>didn't address either one of her insults...........
Jan, please work harder on your reading comprehension. You are firing grapeshot
at someone who has not attacked or insulted you (but it wouldn't be all that
difficult to change my stance at this point).
[you said this]:
>I also see that you made two posts here, this is the second one.
That's exactly correct. The first one, a follow-up (posted to the newsgroup) to
give you an opportunity to fix your error. When I saw that you had made a
similar error in another post, I wrote a follow-up again, with a copy to you by
e-mail to be sure you would receive it outside the vagaries of Usenet
propagation.
[I said this]:
>>Jan, please look more closely at the posts to which you are responding. Pay
>>special attention to the attributions (who-said-what). I did NOT say those
>>things that offend you.
>>
>>Joe Parsons
[You]:
>You realized that you were the one who did INDEED mention *embedded* insults,
>thus the second post.
>
>Think I don't know how these games are played??
>
>Now isn't this childish?
I think "childish" would be continuing to insist on a falsity when objective
evidence demonstrates the opposite.
>I'm NOT here to play word games.
>I have gone on record as saying, I don't like giving drugs to young
>children..........AND I have given my reasons. So we can just agree to
>disagree.
This is not at all about anyone's position with regard to drugs. It's about
your flying off the handle and spewing accusations at an innocent person.
>I have a life and it is a complete waste of time to play word games.......for
>no other reason that to show one another that......nan-nan-naa.nan-nan, my
>reasons are better than your reasons. I didn't allow those games in my daycare
>center, so no need to start now.
Please read this post carefully, then revisit the posts you are complaining
about--all of them. If you'd like, I can provide a custom Deja link to that
portion of the thread.
Joe Parsons
>goddess said:
>
>"Jan,
>
>It's not Joe's habit to alter the attributions of posts he is responding
>to. He likes to keep it so that everyone can tell exactly what he's
>responding to."
>
>
>Absolutely. No love lost between me and Joe, but he rarely gets attributions
>wrong.
That should be "never."
>Once a person has demonstrated that he didn't say somtething, Jan, a
>good response would be "Oh -- sorry."
Agreed. It's far better (and easier on one's dignity) to acknowledge and
correct a mistake promptly once it's been called to one's attention, and
apologize if appropriate.
When people fail to do this, it can appear that the improper attribution was
done intentionally.
JDrew63929
>Date: 06/14/2000 4:18 PM US Eastern Standard Time
>Message-id:
>Jan, please work harder on your reading comprehension. You are firing
>grapeshot
>at someone who has not attacked or insulted you (but it wouldn't be all that
>difficult to change my stance at this point).
Okay. I see now see that you weren't talking to me. Please accept my apology.
>This is not at all about anyone's position with regard to drugs. It's about
>your flying off the handle and spewing accusations at an innocent person.
Sorry, I don't feel I flew off the handle.
Jan
Tralalaah
"Jan,
It's not Joe's habit to alter the attributions of posts he is responding
to. He likes to keep it so that everyone can tell exactly what he's
responding to."
Absolutely. No love lost between me and Joe, but he rarely gets attributions
wrong. Once a person has demonstrated that he didn't say somtething, Jan, a
JDrew63929
>Date: 06/14/2000 4:59 PM US Eastern Standard Time
>Message-id: <20000614175923...@ng-cf1.aol.com>
Yes, I did just that.
Now how about your response of accusing me of being mean spirited when I said
(to Rich) * I guess you don't think twins are close*
What is mean spirited about that?
Jan
JDrew63929
>Date: 06/14/2000 5:05 PM US Eastern Standard Time
>Message-id:
>On 14 Jun 2000 21:59:23 GMT, tral...@aol.com (Tralalaah) wrote:
>
>>goddess said:
>>
>>"Jan,
>>
>>It's not Joe's habit to alter the attributions of posts he is responding
>>to. He likes to keep it so that everyone can tell exactly what he's
>>responding to."
>>
>>
>>Absolutely. No love lost between me and Joe, but he rarely gets attributions
>>wrong.
>
>That should be "never."
>
>>Once a person has demonstrated that he didn't say somtething, Jan, a
>>good response would be "Oh -- sorry."
>
>Agreed. It's far better (and easier on one's dignity) to acknowledge and
>correct a mistake promptly once it's been called to one's attention, and
>apologize if appropriate.
>
>When people fail to do this, it can appear that the improper attribution was
>done intentionally.
Agree 100 %. We have a problem with this on the mha by a certain person. It is
really sad.
Jan
Joe Parsons
Thanks for your interest.
Joe Parsons
On Wed, 14 Jun 2000 22:15:13 GMT, goddess...@my-deja.com wrote:
>*posted AND emailed*
>
>Jan,
>
>Re-read it. He was responding to Tra's post!! If you had any knowledge
>of the posting history between the two of them, you'd understand.
>
>He was not making that comment in reference to you. He was making it in
>reference to Tralalaah.
>
>
>
>In article <20000614162827...@ng-ff1.aol.com>,
> jdrew...@aol.com (JDrew63929) wrote:
>> >From: Joe Parsons j...@cyber-mall.com
>> >Date: 06/14/2000 1:29 PM US Eastern Standard Time
>> >Message-id:
>>
>> >Jan, please pay attention to who has said what. You seem to think I
>was the
>> >one
>> >with the "embedded insults." It wasn't.
>>
>> Here is what you said.
>>
>> Do you think there might be some connection between your embedded
>insults and
>> people's growing reluctance to have anything to do with you?
>>
>> Joe Parsons
>>
>> I didn't make the insult. Tralalaah did. I ignored it. Then she made
>another
>> insult:
>>
>> jdrew said: ">jdrew displayed yet more ignorance:
>> Ignored. Which of course is part of what leaves you ignorant. :)
>>
>> Then you found it necessary to accuse me of embedded insults. Funny
>how you
>> didn't address either one of her insults...........
>>
==========================================================
Joe Parsons
>>From: Joe Parsons j...@cyber-mall.com
>>Date: 06/14/2000 4:18 PM US Eastern Standard Time
>>Message-id:
>
>>Jan, please work harder on your reading comprehension. You are firing
>>grapeshot
>>at someone who has not attacked or insulted you (but it wouldn't be all that
>>difficult to change my stance at this point).
>
>
>Okay. I see now see that you weren't talking to me. Please accept my apology.
Accepted. Bygones.
>>This is not at all about anyone's position with regard to drugs. It's about
>>your flying off the handle and spewing accusations at an innocent person.
>
>
>
>
>Sorry, I don't feel I flew off the handle.
Jan, believe me--I *know* about getting attacked and insulted. I find little
reason to criticize anyone for reacting in whatever way he or she thinks is
appropriate at the time.
I think the "target acquisition" phase is critical, though--because it's so easy
for reasonable, righteous indignation to get blunted by reacting to the wrong
person.
If there's anything I can do to help you avoid this kind of problem in the
future, please drop me a line.
Joe Parsons
(posted and mailed)
>
>Jan
Tralalaah
"Yes, I did just that.
Now how about your response of accusing me of being mean spirited when I said
(to Rich) * I guess you don't think twins are close*"
I did think it was mean-spirited.
Ann
>Bait, bait, bait Joe. Not playing. I have expressed my beliefs about drugging
>young kids. You disagree. Your attempt to make me look stupid is
>well..............
Funny thing is, Joe doesn't have to try to make you look stupid, you
do a fine job of it on your own.....
--
Ann
ann...@thecia.net
JDrew63929
>Date: 06/14/2000 5:18 PM US Eastern Standard Time
>Message-id:<mt0gksod6phlq1rn7...@4ax.com>
Thanks for the sincere post Joe.
Jan
baj...@my-deja.com
I'm sure you could go on and on avoiding the subject which I consider a
no comment. Just for the fun of it what do you think of Dr. Mark L.
Wolraich editorial in the same issue:
"In the future, we will need to demonstrate that the treatments make a
difference in how the children behave," Wolraich states.
"As Zito and her colleagues point out, until we are better able to
address practice questions, it will be difficult for us to provide
realistic and effective practice guidelines and we will not be able to
answer the continuing public concern about to what extent is current
stimulant medication use appropriate,"
baj...@my-deja.com
"J. Clarke" <nos...@nospam.nospam> wrote:
> So where in the _study_ does the word "overprescribed" appear?
Who said it did? Over-prescribed was my take on the study. I could have
said inappropriately prescribed or irresponsibly prescribed, all of
which may have described my opinion about the study. I am
sure you have respect for people who may not share your opinions and
your complaint is that I am misrepresenting the contents of the study.
Over-prescribed or under-prescribed are simply descriptive since there
are no standards, guidelines perhaps but no clear cut rules that can be
used to determine whether or not these drugs are appropriately
prescribed.
The title of the study "Trends in the Prescribing of Psychotropic
Medications to Preschoolers" shows that the study is about the trend in
prescribing medication and words used in the study include:
rates of increased use of these drugs
Sizable increases in prevalence
increased at each site
increased dramatically
significantly increased
a great increase in stimulant treatment
had sizable increases
the frequent use of stimulants
has increased substantially
had nearly 3 times more
increased substantially
substantial increase
a greater proportional increase
a general increase in total stimulant use
stimulant medications rose
antidepressants increased dramatically
antidepressant use increased
large increases for all study medications
treatment in preschoolers increased approximately 3-fold
overall increased stimulant use
the most dramatic increases
its increased prescribing
their use increased substantially
increase in use of SSRIs
expanded use of this medication
These words and statements like the ones below lead me to believe these
drugs are over-perscribed.
Several prominent trends characterized the use of psychotropic
medications in preschoolers during the early to mid 1990s. Overall,
there were large increases for all study medications (except the
neuroleptics) and considerable variation according to gender, age,
geographic region, and health care system. These findings are
remarkable in light of the limited knowledge base that underlies
psychotropic medication use in very young children.10 Controlled
clinical studies to evaluate the efficacy and safety of psychotropic
medications for preschoolers are rare.3 Efficacy data are essentially
lacking for clonidine and the SSRIs and methylphenidate's adverse
effects for preschool children are more pronounced than for older
youths.11 Consequently, the vast majority of psychotropic medications
prescribed for preschoolers are being used off-label.
Clonidine had the most dramatic increases, although its use in 1995 was
only 15% to 35% of the prevalence rate of stimulants. Clonidine use is
particularly notable because its increased prescribing is occurring
without the benefit of rigorous data to support it as a safe and
effective treatment for attentional disorders. Cardiovascular adverse
effects including bradycardia, atrioventricular block, and syncope with
exercise have been reported in children treated with clonidine in
combination with other medications for the treatment of ADHD and its
comorbidities.15, 16 Problems with abrupt withdrawal producing
noradrenergic overdrive have been reported. Its use to combat the
insomnia associated either with ADHD itself or secondary to the
stimulant treatment of ADHD is new and largely uncharted,17, 18 and its
increased use for ADHD since 1991 helps explain the increased clonidine
poisonings in children taking either their own medications or that of
siblings.19, 20
Second, randomized, double-blind, controlled clinical trials are needed
for off-label indications to evaluate dosages, efficacy, and safety of
single and multiple agents shown to be commonly used or widely
recommended.
Unresolved questions involve the long-term safety of psychotropic
medications, particularly in light of earlier ages of initiation and
longer durations of treatment. While it is reassuring that anecdotal
reports have rarely documented these problems, the possibility of
adverse effects on the developing brain cannot be ruled out.29 Active
surveillance mechanisms for ascertaining subtle changes that the
developing personality may undergo as a result of a psychotropic drug's
impact on brain neurotransmitters should be developed.
Christopher Eliot
> In article <_HS15.49551$Ft1.2...@typhoon.ne.mediaone.net>,
> "Christopher Eliot" <Empire...@mediaone.net> wrote:
>>
>> >>
>>>> "Pediatric use of medication should be our highest of level of certainly of
>>>> effectiveness and safety," said Magno Zito. "The standard should be 'we
>>>> can't do without it' instead of 'let's try this and see.'"
>>> What one can "do without" is often a matter of personal preference. And
>>> other time's it's a matter of who's holding the gun.
>> There are so many things that should be "highest" priority that it becomes
>> silly to talk about. [...]
> I'm sure you could go on and on avoiding the subject which I consider a no
> comment.
No. My comment is that "we can't do without it" is an idiotic standard. The
standard should be based upon an expectation of benefit with an acceptable
risk of harm taking into account what is and is not known.
In this equation, a high certainty of effectiveness is actually *not* very
important provided there is a very low risk.
> Just for the fun of it what do you think of Dr. Mark L. Wolraich
> editorial in the same issue:
> "In the future, we will need to demonstrate that the treatments make a
> difference in how the children behave," Wolraich states.
> "As Zito and her colleagues point out, until we are better able to address
> practice questions, it will be difficult for us to provide realistic and
> effective practice guidelines and we will not be able to answer the continuing
> public concern about to what extent is current stimulant medication use
> appropriate,"
> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> Before you buy.
Kevin P OConnor
<j...@cyber-mall.com> writes:
>Subject: Re: Study: Psychiatric drugs overprescribed for kids
>From: Joe Parsons <j...@cyber-mall.com>
>Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2000 22:05:23 GMT
>
>On 14 Jun 2000 21:59:23 GMT, tral...@aol.com (Tralalaah) wrote:
>
>>goddess said:
>>
>>"Jan,
>>
>>It's not Joe's habit to alter the attributions of posts he is responding
>>to. He likes to keep it so that everyone can tell exactly what he's
>>responding to."
>>
>>
>>Absolutely. No love lost between me and Joe, but he rarely gets attributions
>>wrong.
>
>That should be "never."
>
>>Once a person has demonstrated that he didn't say somtething, Jan, a
>>good response would be "Oh -- sorry."
>
>Agreed. It's far better (and easier on one's dignity) to acknowledge and
>correct a mistake promptly once it's been called to one's attention, and
>apologize if appropriate.
>
>When people fail to do this, it can appear that the improper attribution was
>done intentionally.
>
>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/
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------- Headers --------------------
>
>Path:
>lobby!newstf02.news.aol.com!portc03.blue.aol.com!logbridge.uoregon.edu!ne
wsfeed.direct.ca!newshub2.rdc1.sfba.home.com!news.home.com!news1.frmt1.sfb
a.home.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
>From: Joe Parsons <j...@cyber-mall.com>
>Newsgroups: alt.support.attn-deficit
>Subject: Re: Study: Psychiatric drugs overprescribed for kids
>Organization: Yankee Enterprises
>Reply-To: j...@cyber-mall.com
>Message-ID: <f80gksck83fia4g3i...@4ax.com>
>References: <8i8oqm$e42$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>
><20000614175923...@ng-cf1.aol.com>
>X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.8/32.548
>MIME-Version: 1.0
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>Lines: 32
>Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2000 22:05:23 GMT
>NNTP-Posting-Host: 24.20.137.181
>X-Complaints-To: ab...@home.net
>X-Trace: news1.frmt1.sfba.home.com 961020323 24.20.137.181 (Wed, 14 Jun 2000
>15:05:23 PDT)
>NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2000 15:05:23 PDT
>
>
Joe, does your ego have ANY boundaries? Good grief! I thought you were a
precise writer. Haven't you learned yet that it only takes one example to
disprove a claim of "never" having done a thing?
I would have thought that your recent, erroneous statement concerning "never"
calling anyone a name would have taught you a lesson. You're a slow learner,
aren't you?
Kevin P. O'Connor
J. Clarke
> In article <3944f...@news3.prserv.net>,
> "J. Clarke" <nos...@nospam.nospam> wrote:
> > So where in the _study_ does the word "overprescribed" appear?
>
> Who said it did? Over-prescribed was my take on the study.
Oh, OK, I don't have a problem with your expressing that opinion, as long as
it's clear that it's an opinion.
> I could have
> said inappropriately prescribed or irresponsibly prescribed, all of
> which may have described my opinion about the study. I am
> sure you have respect for people who may not share your opinions and
> your complaint is that I am misrepresenting the contents of the study.
Yes.
> Over-prescribed or under-prescribed are simply descriptive since there
> are no standards, guidelines perhaps but no clear cut rules that can be
> used to determine whether or not these drugs are appropriately
> prescribed.
Actually, there are standards. The DSM-IV diagnostic criteria constitute
the standard.
Why do they lead you to believe that they are now overprescribed instead of
leading you to believe that they were formerly underprescribed?
I don't see anything there that suggests that the patients in question did
not have ADHD, nor do I see anything to suggest that the use of medications
for the treatment of ADHD is questionable in any way. What I do see, is
that we don't know as much as we would like to know (universally true in
medicine), that one particular medication has problems, and that more
research should be conducted.
Incidentally, you will find that academic studies almost always find some
reason to suggest that more research should be conducted. Academics get
paid to do research.
Joe Parsons
Okay, Kevin. As always, I'm open to being proven wrong.
Show me where I've used incorrect attributions.
goddess...@my-deja.com
> >Joe, does your ego have ANY boundaries? Good grief! I thought you
were a
> >precise writer. Haven't you learned yet that it only takes one
example to
> >disprove a claim of "never" having done a thing?
> >
> >I would have thought that your recent, erroneous statement concerning
"never"
> >calling anyone a name would have taught you a lesson. You're a slow
learner,
> >aren't you?
> >
> >Kevin P. O'Connor
>
> Okay, Kevin. As always, I'm open to being proven wrong.
>
> Show me where I've used incorrect attributions.
>
> Joe Parsons
OI!!! Not *this* can of worms 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
Kevin P OConnor
<j...@cyber-mall.com> writes:
>Subject: Re: Never Did That ( was Re: Study: Psychiatric drugs
overprescribed
>for kids)
>From: Joe Parsons <j...@cyber-mall.com>
>Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2000 19:18:47 GMT
>
>On 15 Jun 2000 15:25:55 GMT, kevinp...@aol.com (Kevin P OConnor) wrote:
>
>>Joe, does your ego have ANY boundaries? Good grief! I thought you were a
>>precise writer. Haven't you learned yet that it only takes one example to
>>disprove a claim of "never" having done a thing?
>>
>>I would have thought that your recent, erroneous statement concerning
>"never"
>>calling anyone a name would have taught you a lesson. You're a slow learner,
>>aren't you?
>>
>>Kevin P. O'Connor
>
>Okay, Kevin. As always, I'm open to being proven wrong.
>
>Show me where I've used incorrect attributions.
>
>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/
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------- Headers --------------------
>
>Path:
>lobby!newstf02.news.aol.com!portc03.blue.aol.com!gip.net.MISMATCH!news-pe
er.gip.net!news.gsl.net!gip.net!newshub2.rdc1.sfba.home.com!news.home.com!
news1.frmt1.sfba.home.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
>From: Joe Parsons <j...@cyber-mall.com>
>Newsgroups: alt.support.attn-deficit
>Subject: Re: Never Did That ( was Re: Study: Psychiatric drugs overprescribed
>for kids)
>Organization: Yankee Enterprises
>Reply-To: j...@cyber-mall.com
>Message-ID: <mvaikskg08bqgs5qv...@4ax.com>
>References: <f80gksck83fia4g3i...@4ax.com>
><20000615112555...@nso-ca.aol.com>
>X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.8/32.548
>MIME-Version: 1.0
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>Lines: 96
>Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2000 19:18:47 GMT
>NNTP-Posting-Host: 24.20.137.181
>X-Complaints-To: ab...@home.net
>X-Trace: news1.frmt1.sfba.home.com 961096727 24.20.137.181 (Thu, 15 Jun 2000
>12:18:47 PDT)
>NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2000 12:18:47 PDT
>
>
No thanks, I'll pass. By the way, I hope you liked reading the ENTIRE post
above, before getting to my actual comment. Are my attributions correct? Did I
quote anything out of context? Did I try to hide anything?
Kevin P. O'Connor
Joe Parsons
[snip]
>>>Joe, does your ego have ANY boundaries? Good grief! I thought you were a
>>>precise writer. Haven't you learned yet that it only takes one example to
>>>disprove a claim of "never" having done a thing?
>>>
>>>I would have thought that your recent, erroneous statement concerning
>>"never"
>>>calling anyone a name would have taught you a lesson. You're a slow learner,
>>>aren't you?
>>>
>>>Kevin P. O'Connor
>>
>>Okay, Kevin. As always, I'm open to being proven wrong.
>>
>>Show me where I've used incorrect attributions.
>>
>>Joe Parsons
[snip quoted headers]
>>From: Joe Parsons <j...@cyber-mall.com>
>>Newsgroups: alt.support.attn-deficit
>>Subject: Re: Never Did That ( was Re: Study: Psychiatric drugs overprescribed
>>for kids)
>>Organization: Yankee Enterprises
>>Reply-To: j...@cyber-mall.com
[snip headers]
>>Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2000 19:18:47 GMT
>>NNTP-Posting-Host: 24.20.137.181
>>X-Complaints-To: ab...@home.net
>>X-Trace: news1.frmt1.sfba.home.com 961096727 24.20.137.181 (Thu, 15 Jun 2000
>>12:18:47 PDT)
>>NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2000 12:18:47 PDT
>>
>>
>
>No thanks, I'll pass. By the way, I hope you liked reading the ENTIRE post
>above, before getting to my actual comment. Are my attributions correct? Did I
>quote anything out of context? Did I try to hide anything?
Thank you for acknowledging your earlier error (wrt my attributions).
(Actually, I *would* like to know if I've ever messed them up)
J. Clarke
> In article <39491...@news3.prserv.net>,
If the person has ADHD, which the diagnostic criteria determine, then the
meds are appropriate.
> Which came first the chichen or the egg? Do you mean before pre-school
> aged children were diagnosed with this disorder or before drugs were
> prescribed as treatment?
Before they were diagnosed.
> Do you believe the increased use of drugs as
> treatment is the result of better diagnosis, or that there is an
> increase in kids who have problems? I think we would both agree the
> study shows a remarkable increase.
Better diagnosis.
> I find it hard to believe you can make that statement in good faith. I
> don't hear that in the authors comment:
> Several prominent trends characterized the use of psychotropic
> medications in preschoolers during the early to mid 1990s. Overall,
> there were large increases for all study medications (except the
> neuroleptics) and considerable variation according to gender, age,
> geographic region, and health care system.
Statement of fact, pure and simple. Does not call anything into question.
> These findings are
> remarkable in light of the limited knowledge base that underlies
> psychotropic medication use in very young children.
"Remarkable". In other words unexpected. Not "questionable".
> Controlled
> clinical studies to evaluate the efficacy and safety of psychotropic
> medications for preschoolers are rare.
Yes, they are. This does not mean that the meds are not efficacious or
safe, it means that we don't know all the answers.
> Efficacy data are essentially
> lacking for clonidine and the SSRIs and methylphenidate's adverse
> effects for preschool children are more pronounced than for older
> youths.
Clonidine and the SSRIs are not the mainstream of ADHD treatment. From my
own experience the "adverse" effects don't have to be very adverse to be
more pronounced than for older youths. Again this is not questioning
anything, it is stating that more research is desirable.
> Consequently, the vast majority of psychotropic medications
> prescribed for preschoolers are being used off-label.
Another statement of fact. The use of aspirin in the treatment of heart
attacks is also "off-label". Doesn't make it "questionable".
> > that we don't know as much as we would like to know (universally true
> in
> > medicine), that one particular medication has problems, and that more
> > research should be conducted.
> >
> > Incidentally, you will find that academic studies almost always find
> some
> > reason to suggest that more research should be conducted. Academics
> get
> > paid to do research.
>
> I think we need at least some reasearch.
There has been "at least some research".
> The problem I have, which I
> think this study supports, is the use of these drugs on very young
> children.
I don't see how this study supports any conclusion other than that we should
conduct more research.
> Will we ever know all we would like to know, of course not,
> the question is do we know enough now.
Obviously a significant number of medical professionals feel that we do.
Kevin P OConnor
<j...@cyber-mall.com> writes:
>Subject: Re: Never Did That ( was Re: Study: Psychiatric drugs
overprescribed
>for kids)
>From: Joe Parsons <j...@cyber-mall.com>
>Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2000 23:37:45 GMT
Actually, I do not know if you ever did mess up an attribution. If you did, I
don't remember it.
>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/
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------- Headers --------------------
>
>Path:
>lobby!newstf02.news.aol.com!portc03.blue.aol.com!cyclone2.usenetserver.co
m!news-out.usenetserver.com!newshub2.rdc1.sfba.home.com!news.home.com!news
1.frmt1.sfba.home.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
>From: Joe Parsons <j...@cyber-mall.com>
>Newsgroups: alt.support.attn-deficit
>Subject: Re: Never Did That ( was Re: Study: Psychiatric drugs overprescribed
>for kids)
>Organization: Yankee Enterprises
>Reply-To: j...@cyber-mall.com
>Message-ID: <s1qiks06hl6mg33ju...@4ax.com>
>References: <mvaikskg08bqgs5qv...@4ax.com>
><20000615190951...@nso-fv.aol.com>
>X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.8/32.548
>MIME-Version: 1.0
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>Lines: 52
>Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2000 23:37:45 GMT
>NNTP-Posting-Host: 24.20.137.181
>X-Complaints-To: ab...@home.net
>X-Trace: news1.frmt1.sfba.home.com 961112265 24.20.137.181 (Thu, 15 Jun 2000
>16:37:45 PDT)
>NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2000 16:37:45 PDT
>
>
Kevin P. O'Connor
Joe Parsons
[snip]
>>>No thanks, I'll pass. By the way, I hope you liked reading the ENTIRE post
>>>above, before getting to my actual comment. Are my attributions correct? Did
>>I
>>>quote anything out of context? Did I try to hide anything?
I said:
>>Thank you for acknowledging your earlier error (wrt my attributions).
>>
>>(Actually, I *would* like to know if I've ever messed them up)
>>
Kevin said:
>Actually, I do not know if you ever did mess up an attribution. If you did, I
>don't remember it.
Thank you.
baj...@my-deja.com
For pre-school aged children? Off-label?
> > The title of the study "Trends in the Prescribing of Psychotropic
Which came first the chichen or the egg? Do you mean before pre-school
aged children were diagnosed with this disorder or before drugs were
prescribed as treatment? Do you believe the increased use of drugs as
treatment is the result of better diagnosis, or that there is an
increase in kids who have problems? I think we would both agree the
study shows a remarkable increase.
> > Several prominent trends characterized the use of psychotropic
I find it hard to believe you can make that statement in good faith. I
don't hear that in the authors comment:
Several prominent trends characterized the use of psychotropic
medications in preschoolers during the early to mid 1990s. Overall,
there were large increases for all study medications (except the
neuroleptics) and considerable variation according to gender, age,
geographic region, and health care system. These findings are
remarkable in light of the limited knowledge base that underlies
psychotropic medication use in very young children.10 Controlled
clinical studies to evaluate the efficacy and safety of psychotropic
medications for preschoolers are rare.3 Efficacy data are essentially
lacking for clonidine and the SSRIs and methylphenidate's adverse
effects for preschool children are more pronounced than for older
youths.11 Consequently, the vast majority of psychotropic medications
prescribed for preschoolers are being used off-label.7
> that we don't know as much as we would like to know (universally true
in
> medicine), that one particular medication has problems, and that more
> research should be conducted.
>
> Incidentally, you will find that academic studies almost always find
some
> reason to suggest that more research should be conducted. Academics
get
> paid to do research.
I think we need at least some reasearch. The problem I have, which I
think this study supports, is the use of these drugs on very young
children. Will we ever know all we would like to know, of course not,
the question is do we know enough now.
baj...@my-deja.com
"J. Clarke" <nos...@nospam.nospam> wrote:
> <baj...@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:8ickmo$746
That seems to be the current attitude in the medical community. My
concern is the off-label use of these drugs. Perhaps I am wrong but
isn't that another way of saying experimental? I know you don't share
the same amount of concern as I do with this growing trend but I think
this drug therapy has gone to far. I sympathize with parents who have a
child that is so far out of control they must resort to drug therapy. I
am sure they do so out of desperation. I can't imagine the guilt they
must feel but I am sure they have no other choice.
I guess I just did not know there were so many sick kids out there. In
the past, before these drugs, what did parents do? What happened to
these children? Did they ever get better? If the numbers are the same
today as they were in the past how did all these parents survive
without the use of drugs for themselves? I must be one of those anti-
drug idiots but none of this really adds up to me. I will try to keep
an open mind and look at both sides of the issue but for now I will
remain cautiously optimistic. Time will tell.
The off-label use of these drugs troubles me and I feel this is an area
that needs better scrutiny. I will do my home work and get back with
more on this subject, I would not want to come across as "knee jerk",
although it may be hard to do given the make-up of this NG.
I will cut here for now.
J. Clarke
> In article <3949d...@news3.prserv.net>,
> "J. Clarke" <nos...@nospam.nospam> wrote:
> > <baj...@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:8ickmo$746
> concern is the off-label use of these drugs. Perhaps I am wrong but
> isn't that another way of saying experimental?
In a sense, but not in the sense of "we don't have any idea what's going to
happen". More in the sense of "well, it helps 8 year olds and I have this 7
year old who's having real problems, so let's try it and keep a close eye on
him and see if it helps and try to catch any problems it's causing before
they become serious". After a while "well, it seems to be helping 7 year
olds, and I've got this 6 year old who's having real problems, so let's try
it and keep a close eye on him and see if it helps and try to catch any
problems it's causing before they become serious". And so on.
> I know you don't share
> the same amount of concern as I do with this growing trend but I think
> this drug therapy has gone to far.
Have you been there and done that? Do you know first hand what the meds do
and do not do?
> I sympathize with parents who have a
> child that is so far out of control they must resort to drug therapy.
Most ADDers are not "out of control". It is the ones who are who first led
to the medical community becoming aware of ADHD, but there are many of us
who are very quiet and keep to ourselves a lot. And many of us, since we
were not "out of control", never got diagnosed until later in life we
figured out that we had a problem.
> I
> am sure they do so out of desperation.
Not necessarily desperation, if they're paying attention to the kid they may
very well pick up that he's having problems of various kinds, socialization
for example, and decide to get some expert advice.
> I can't imagine the guilt they
> must feel but I am sure they have no other choice.
This notion that treating your kid for a neurological disorder should make
you feel guilty is one of the most pernicious aspects of the
anti-meds/anti-ADHD propaganda. If the kid has ADHD and it's being treated
effectively, one has nothing to feel guilty about. The real guilt should
come with NOT treating it.
> I guess I just did not know there were so many sick kids out there.
Sick? Sir, I am not "sick". Neither are any of the rest of the adults who
have ADHD and are participating in this newsgroup.
> In
> the past, before these drugs, what did parents do?
Whatever they could. My parents tried really hard to get me to socialize
with other kids, for example. But they couldn't come up with an effective
strategy, and it never occured to them that I might have something that was
treatable medically. I would give a great deal to have been diagnosed and
treated when I was a preschooler. Instead I have to fight the aftermath of
40+ years of living as an ADDer and try to undo 40+ years of bad habits.
> What happened to
> these children?
Some became doctors, lawyers, soldiers, actors, etc. Very possibly one is
now President of the United States. Others went to jail. Others sank into
poverty and never managed to dig themselves out. Others drifted from job to
job. Others self-medicated with street drugs and became addicts. My father
had a very successful career in the Navy, but when he retired he couldn't
hold a civilian job for more than a few months.
Right now, read the messages on this newsgroup. Moe the Joe is having
trouble dealing with a relationship, Brent is worried that in law school
he's not going to be able to get by on pure intellect anymore. Laura has
just lost her third or fourth job this year, and a few months ago she came
within an inch of setting her house on fire. Kicka's impoverished with
three kids and an abusive alcoholic. Not a one of us is having an easy go
of it. This is how these children turn out.
> Did they ever get better?
Depends on how you define "get better". Some develop coping strategies--you
might want to read a book called "Sidetracked Home Executives"--it's not the
best coping strategy for everybody, but it's worthwhile to read to see how
life can be for undiagnosed, untreated ADDers and what they go through
before they get any kind of control over it. The coping strategies let them
function well enough to achieve a measure of success in society. Others get
themselves into situations where a lot of structure is applied externally,
the military for example. Some get "hooked" on a particular profession and
hyperfocus on it, which carries them through a career nicely. But if one
doesn't develop coping strategies or have external structure forced on one
or find something that hold's one's attention and that pays the bills, then
no, one does not "get better". And even the ones who appear to have "gotten
better" are often working ten times as hard as a non-ADD person to achieve
the same result, which means they're achieving a lot less than they might.
And even when they do achieve a measure of success, they often screw it up
somehow--I don't know if Bill Clinton has ADD, but the whole Monica Lewinski
affair is very much something that a person with ADD would do--an impulsive
act that we _know_ we shouldn't do but do anyway because that part of our
brain is far enough behind that we're committed before the "this is a really
_bad_ idea" message gets through, and then an instinctive attempt to cover
somehow. We develop the habit of covering early in life because we screw up
so much.
> If the numbers are the same
> today as they were in the past how did all these parents survive
> without the use of drugs for themselves?
Often they didn't. Or they survived poorly. Or they found an understanding
spouse who took care of them. Or had a brilliant career until the day that
their attention chose to deficit in the middle of something critical or
dangerous.
> I must be one of those anti-
> drug idiots but none of this really adds up to me. I will try to keep
> an open mind and look at both sides of the issue but for now I will
> remain cautiously optimistic. Time will tell.
> The off-label use of these drugs troubles me and I feel this is an area
> that needs better scrutiny. I will do my home work and get back with
> more on this subject, I would not want to come across as "knee jerk",
> although it may be hard to do given the make-up of this NG.
If you don't have ADHD yourself, try to spend some time with ADDers. You'll
get a different perspective once you see what it's really like.
smoocher
"J. Clarke" <nos...@nospam.nospam> wrote in message
news:394a5...@news3.prserv.net...
> Depends on how you define "get better". Some develop coping
strategies--you
> might want to read a book called "Sidetracked Home Executives"--it's not
John this has me intrigued, since both mr. smoocher and I work at home
(unable to corporate-conform). An Amazon search did not turn it up.
Author? Some of the strategies?
smoocher
baj...@my-deja.com
"J. Clarke" <nos...@nospam.nospam> wrote:
> <baj...@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:8idfc5$pd3
$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> > In article <3949d...@news3.prserv.net>,
> > "J. Clarke" <nos...@nospam.nospam> wrote:
> > > <baj...@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:8ickmo$746
> > $1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> > > > In article <39491...@news3.prserv.net>,
> > > > "J. Clarke" <nos...@nospam.nospam> wrote:
> > > > > <baj...@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:8ianje$r11
> > > > $1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> > > > > > In article <3944f...@news3.prserv.net>,
> > > > > > "J. Clarke" <nos...@nospam.nospam> wrote:
> > > > > > > So where in the _study_ does the word "overprescribed"
appear?
> > > > > >
>
Thanks for sharing your knowledge and your personal perspective with
me. I want you to know that in my quest to understand what is going on
here it is not my intention to offend anyone for what they believe to
be appropriate therapy. My main concern is the use of these drugs with
such young children. After reading your comments I begin to wonder if
the vast majority of us would not qualify for treatment. Are any of us
perfect? Don't we all have some problems that need working out. I can't
imagine taking drugs for everything that troubles us. You asked if I
had been there done that, come to think of it yes I have had problems
but never did I dream of drug therapy as a remedy. Guess I am old
fashion in thinking it is part of growing up and maturing, which is an
on going process. Again my concern is the use of these drugs on very
young children and so far I am not convinced we know enough about the
effects these drugs have on them. I will continue searching for those
studies.
J. Clarke
news:Z8u25.14038$7o1.3...@news2.rdc1.on.home.com...
>
> "J. Clarke" <nos...@nospam.nospam> wrote in message
> news:394a5...@news3.prserv.net...
> strategies--you
> > might want to read a book called "Sidetracked Home Executives"--it's not
>
>
> (unable to corporate-conform). An Amazon search did not turn it up.
> Author? Some of the strategies?
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0446377651/o/qid=961179434/sr=8-1/ref
=aps_sr_b_1_1/102-3880542-0056151
The authors are two sisters who as far as I know have never been diagnosed
with ADHD, but as I read the book it was clear that if they don't have it
whatever they do have gives them the same problems.
The system they came up with many people seem to find _too_ structured. But
it does work--they created it in the context of keeping house, having meals
on the table, maintaining a reasonable state of cleanliness, and having time
to do things they wanted to do.
The book starts out with their existence in a state of total disorder, and
they detail their travails in the process of getting control of their lives.
First thing they did in terms of technique, and they aren't explicit about
this, was coaching--each one served as the other's coach basically--they met
regularly to discuss progress, if one was having trouble at any given point
the other would provide incentive or encouragement or advice or a kick in
the butt as appropriate.
The next thing, and this is the main thrust of the book, was establish a
procedure to impose structure on their lives. In a nutshell, every task
that they needed to perform they wrote down on a 3x5 index card. They kept
the cards in a box with dividers for morning, afternoon, days 1-31, months
Jan-Dec, and years after that. On each card they wrote the task, the time
required to perform it (if known--and for stuff they did regularly they did
measure), how often it needed to be performed if it was more than once, what
schedule was required, and whether it was a morning or afternoon task if it
mattered.
They defined groups of related tasks and decided that each group would be
done on a specific day of the week--all shopping would be on a certain day
for example, all advance food preparation (baking, etc) on another, cleaning
on another, one day a week would be a free day. They then grouped the cards
accordingly.
Each day, they would read the cards and do the tasks. When a task was
complete, the card was moved to the next time-slot in which that task would
be performed. If it was weekly on shopping day for example, it got moved to
the next week's shopping day. If any task could not be performed for some
reason, then its card was just moved to the next scheduled time. If
something unexpected came up, then the next free day's cards were swapped
with the current day.
That's it in a nutshell. They reported amazing results. I tried it and got
the same, then this _strange_ woman moved in and promptly through out all my
cards, and I never managed to get back on track.
Laura Goodwin
> Joe, does your ego have ANY boundaries? Good grief!
Kevin, and all y'all, lay offa Joe. Leem alone. Everybody go get a
hobby or something.
--
Laura Goodwin
"Think like a man of action, and act like a man of thought."
(Henri Bergson)
Joe Parsons
>Kevin P OConnor wrote:
>
>> Joe, does your ego have ANY boundaries? Good grief!
>
>Kevin, and all y'all, lay offa Joe. Leem alone. Everybody go get a
>hobby or something.
I think they have one--me. :)
AmethystMenace
>Thanks for sharing your knowledge and your personal perspective
with
>me. I want you to know that in my quest to understand what is
going on
>here it is not my intention to offend anyone for what they
believe to
>be appropriate therapy. My main concern is the use of these
drugs with
>such young children. After reading your comments I begin to
wonder if
>the vast majority of us would not qualify for treatment. Are any
of us
>perfect? Don't we all have some problems that need working out.
I can't
>imagine taking drugs for everything that troubles us. You asked
if I
>had been there done that, come to think of it yes I have had
problems
>but never did I dream of drug therapy as a remedy. Guess I am
old
>fashion in thinking it is part of growing up and maturing, which
is an
>on going process. Again my concern is the use of these drugs on
very
>young children and so far I am not convinced we know enough
about the
>effects these drugs have on them. I will continue searching for
those
>studies.
>
Well, if there were just that list of symptoms I'd agree with
you. But there's an additional requirement that the symptoms
occur before age seven; affect more than one life area; and *are
significantly more severe* than those of the same age. So by
definition, although we are all imperfect, most of us *cannot* be
worse off than average. That violates the definition of average.
I can agree that some doctors, parents, teachers, etc., may jump
to a false conclusion in a borderline case. I remember once being
very skeptical of an ADHD diagnosis in one of my students. His
folks had just said (in the first IEP conference) that NOTHING in
Kiddo's home life could be causing school problems. And I knew
that was not true, but since my knowledge was confidential, I
couldn't call bullshit on them. I just looked at them and tried
to impel them to tell the truth. At the time, I thought, that
poor kid is going to be drugged because his parents are splitting
up, and one of them is trying (unsuccessfully) to dry out...
Now I wonder if they weren't thinking, God help us we don't want
to lie, but we've got to get Kiddo some help!
I suspect some professionals see ADHD in every fidget. But it
seems, at least by the stories I have heard, there are far more
who wouldn't know ADHD if several people with ADHD jumped up and
down on them. Or wandered aimlessly in their general direction.
AmMen
Got questions? Get answers over the phone at Keen.com.
Up to 100 minutes free!
http://www.keen.com
goddess_kitten
>On Fri, 16 Jun 2000 15:15:00 -0400, Laura Goodwin
<lal...@altavista.net> wrote:
>
>>Kevin P OConnor wrote:
>>
>>> Joe, does your ego have ANY boundaries? Good grief!
>>
>>Kevin, and all y'all, lay offa Joe. Leem alone. Everybody go
get a
>>hobby or something.
>
>I think they have one--me. :)
>
Are they gonna hafta fight Ann for ya?
LL&L
Kitten
"I'm on *@&#$%* Remarq?!?!?!?!? What the heck???"
JDrew63929
>Date: 06/16/2000 1:44 PM US Eastern Standard Time
>Message-id: <8idsi4$44f$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>
<snip>
>Again my concern is the use of these drugs on very
>young children and so far I am not convinced we know enough about the
>effects these drugs have on them. I will continue searching for those
>studies.
I'm with you. I don't think there are any studies on young children? So we just
wing it?? IMHO, drugging young children is WRONG! And yes I have had
experience, been there, done that. That's WHY I have these opinions.
Jan
Ann
>Are they gonna hafta fight Ann for ya?
Nah, Joe isn't a hobby for me, just a good cyberfriend :o)
--
Ann
ann...@thecia.net
Jim Manson
>On Fri, 16 Jun 2000 19:46:13 -0400, Ann <ann...@thecia.net> wrote:
>
>>goddess_kitten <kittenN...@whitepine.com.invalid> expounded:
>>
>>>Are they gonna hafta fight Ann for ya?
>>
>>Nah, Joe isn't a hobby for me, just a good cyberfriend :o)
>
>MmmmmmmmWAH!
>
>I like you, too. :)
>
>Joe Parsons
Ok everybody....group hug time.............
Pencil Necked Geek
late not keeping their hands to themselves during that group hug...
"Hey! *$&%^$!!! Whose hand is that?!?" "BAD TOUCH!! BAD TOUCH!!"
Jim Manson <J...@Manson.com> wrote in message
news:lknlksc3vkif85jcc...@4ax.com...
Laura Goodwin
> Nah, Joe isn't a hobby for me, just a good cyberfriend :o)
Well, I already have a hobby, but if I didn't...*can* you make a _man_ a
~hobby~? What does the survey say?
--
Laura Goodwin - Field Researcher for the Institute for the Very
Seriously Scientific Study of Human Sexuality and Bar and
Grill...*Specials Daily!*
Laura Goodwin
>
> Ok everybody....group hug time....
Me! Me! Everybody hug me. It's all really about me, forget about
Joe. ;)
Joe Parsons
>goddess_kitten <kittenN...@whitepine.com.invalid> expounded:
>
>>Are they gonna hafta fight Ann for ya?
>
>Nah, Joe isn't a hobby for me, just a good cyberfriend :o)
MmmmmmmmWAH!
I like you, too. :)
Joe Parsons
==========================================================
Joe Parsons
>Jim Manson wrote:
>>
>> Ok everybody....group hug time....
>
>Me! Me! Everybody hug me. It's all really about me, forget about
>Joe. ;)
Watch out, Laura--some of us get grabby... ;>
Nessa
Gawd Tim Curry in a garter belt. LOL
On Fri, 16 Jun 2000 23:31:04 -0400, Laura Goodwin wrote
(in message <394AF0F8...@altavista.net>):
> Ann wrote:
>
>> Nah, Joe isn't a hobby for me, just a good cyberfriend :o)
>
> Well, I already have a hobby, but if I didn't...*can* you make a _man_ a
>> hobby~? What does the survey say?
>
>
>
--
Nessa
--
Does a radioactive cat have 18 half lives?
baj...@my-deja.com
If there were studies why are these drugs prescribed off-label?
When I look back on my life I'm glad these drugs were not used like
they are today because I probably would have been put on them. I was
not the typical child and I did not fit in. I gave my parents a hard
time because from as far back as I can remember I had a mind of my own.
I was not the classical student in school and most of the time I was
bored to death. I spent much of my time in school either day dreaming
or horsing around, I was always it seems in trouble. If I were in the
school system today I would probably be a candidate for drug therapy.
Thank God we are not all the same and for those who march to a
different drummer more power to them. What would this world be like if
we all conformed to what our parents, teachers, and government
officials deemed appropriate behavior? Imagine what the world would be
like today if all the gifted individuals of the past had been drugged
at an early age, we would still be in the dark ages. The people who are
different are the ones who make changes, dream up new concepts, explore
the frontiers, lead other men. To hell with conformity I want diversity.
Ann
>When I look back on my life I'm glad these drugs were not used like
>they are today because I probably would have been put on them. I was
>not the typical child and I did not fit in. I gave my parents a hard
>time because from as far back as I can remember I had a mind of my own.
>I was not the classical student in school and most of the time I was
>bored to death. I spent much of my time in school either day dreaming
>or horsing around, I was always it seems in trouble. If I were in the
>school system today I would probably be a candidate for drug therapy.
Pretty much describes my life, too. I was originally in a
psychiatrist's office when I was six because of my behaviour. Very
hyperactive, but they didn't prescribe anything for me, they just told
my parents to put me in a private school to realize my full potential
(!!) which was ridiculous, my parents weren't well off enough to
afford it.
>Thank God we are not all the same and for those who march to a
>different drummer more power to them. What would this world be like if
>we all conformed to what our parents, teachers, and government
>officials deemed appropriate behavior? Imagine what the world would be
>like today if all the gifted individuals of the past had been drugged
>at an early age, we would still be in the dark ages. The people who are
>different are the ones who make changes, dream up new concepts, explore
>the frontiers, lead other men. To hell with conformity I want diversity.
That would be wonderful, I really do think people should be
themselves, I like the Why Be Normal bumpersticker that's upside down.
I march to my own drummer, always have, always will.
The problem comes when you have children who can't pay enough
attention to learn. I was very fortunate, I had no learning problems,
I was taught to read early (4), and read and learned much on my own.
I was bored to tears in school, and got in trouble for bothering other
students. Got excellent grades, though.
My sons, on the other hand, weren't that fortunate. While both of
them are bright, they both have learning problems that when combined
with ADHD prevented them from prospering in school. With medication
they were able to pay attention to the tutoring, bring up their skill
levels and stay with their class. I don't see that as conforming, I
see it as achieving personal success in a very constrictive
environment. The meds made it possible. If I had the money I'd of
put them both in private school. No can do, though.
I hope we see a day where children's individual learning styles are
taken into consideration throughout their educational experience. I
do think society spends way too much time and energy pounding square
pegs into round holes and creating far more problems than it solves.
I couldn't sacrifice my children's success, though, waiting for this
to happen.
--
Ann
ann...@thecia.net
Mark Probert
>
>>From: baj...@my-deja.com
>>Date: 06/16/2000 1:44 PM US Eastern Standard Time
>>Message-id: <8idsi4$44f$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>
>
><snip>
>
>>Again my concern is the use of these drugs on very
>>young children and so far I am not convinced we know enough about the
>>effects these drugs have on them. I will continue searching for those
>>studies.
>
>I'm with you. I don't think there are any studies on young children?
Incorrect. There are studies that have been completed and reported, and others
in progress.
So we
>just
>wing it?? IMHO, drugging young children is WRONG! And yes I have had
>experience, been there, done that. That's WHY I have these opinions.
So, you drugged kids, eh?
Couldn't handle them, eh?
Mark Probert
A vote for Pat Buchanan is a vote for America's First Fuhrer!
JDrew63929
>Date: 06/17/2000 12:05 PM US Eastern Standard Time
>Message-id: <20000617130500...@nso-fs.aol.com>
>
>In article <20000616192330...@ng-cl1.aol.com>, jdrew...@aol.com
>(JDrew63929) writes:
>
>>
>>>From: baj...@my-deja.com
>>>Date: 06/16/2000 1:44 PM US Eastern Standard Time
>>>Message-id: <8idsi4$44f$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>
>>
>><snip>
>>
>>>Again my concern is the use of these drugs on very
>>>young children and so far I am not convinced we know enough about the
>>>effects these drugs have on them. I will continue searching for those
>>>studies.
>>
>>I'm with you. I don't think there are any studies on young children?
>
>Incorrect. There are studies that have been completed and reported, and
>others
>in progress.
Proof please. Post them here.
>So we
>>just
>>wing it?? IMHO, drugging young children is WRONG! And yes I have had
>>experience, been there, done that. That's WHY I have these opinions.
>
>So, you drugged kids, eh?
No.
>Couldn't handle them, eh?
LOL Just two daycare centers for 38 years.
Jan
AmethystMenace
>Didn=B9t Dr. Frank N Furter build a man? (In Rocky Horror) <g>
>
>Gawd Tim Curry in a garter belt.
Lick lips. Sigh. Shift in seat. Quickly move on to next thread.
SOOOOO sexy!
AmMen
Mark Probert
>>From: mtre...@aol.comxyxyxyxy (Mark Probert)
>>Date: 06/17/2000 12:05 PM US Eastern Standard Time
>>Message-id: <20000617130500...@nso-fs.aol.com>
>>
>>In article <20000616192330...@ng-cl1.aol.com>,
jdrew...@aol.com
>>(JDrew63929) writes:
>>
>>>
>>>>From: baj...@my-deja.com
>>>>Date: 06/16/2000 1:44 PM US Eastern Standard Time
>>>>Message-id: <8idsi4$44f$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>
>>>
>>><snip>
>>>
>>>>Again my concern is the use of these drugs on very
>>>>young children and so far I am not convinced we know enough
about the
>>>>effects these drugs have on them. I will continue searching
for those
>>>>studies.
>>>
>>>I'm with you. I don't think there are any studies on young
children?
>>
>>Incorrect. There are studies that have been completed and
reported, and
>>others
>>in progress.
>
>
>Proof please. Post them here.
Look them up on Medline. Posting studies to you has always been
a waste of time.
You have no credibility in a.s.a.d.
>>So we
>>>just
>>>wing it?? IMHO, drugging young children is WRONG! And yes I
have had
>>>experience, been there, done that. That's WHY I have these
opinions.
>>
>>So, you drugged kids, eh?
>
>
>No.
>
>>Couldn't handle them, eh?
>
>LOL Just two daycare centers for 38 years.
38 years 38 years 38 years 38 years
38 years 38 years 38 years 38 years
38 years 38 years 38 years 38 years
38 years 38 years 38 years 38 years
38 years 38 years 38 years 38 years
38 years 38 years 38 years 38 years
38 years 38 years 38 years 38 years
38 years 38 years 38 years 38 years
38 years 38 years 38 years 38 years
38 years 38 years 38 years 38 years
38 years 38 years 38 years 38 years
38 years 38 years 38 years 38 years
38 years 38 years 38 years 38 years
38 years 38 years 38 years 38 years
38 years 38 years 38 years 38 years
38 years 38 years 38 years 38 years
J. Clarke
> In article <20000616192330...@ng-cl1.aol.com>,
> jdrew...@aol.com (JDrew63929) wrote:
> > >From: baj...@my-deja.com
> > >Date: 06/16/2000 1:44 PM US Eastern Standard Time
> > >Message-id: <8idsi4$44f$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>
> >
> > <snip>
> >
> > >Again my concern is the use of these drugs on very
> > >young children and so far I am not convinced we know enough about the
> > >effects these drugs have on them. I will continue searching for those
> > >studies.
> >
> > I'm with you. I don't think there are any studies on young children?
> > wing it?? IMHO, drugging young children is WRONG! And yes I have had
> > experience, been there, done that. That's WHY I have these opinions.
> >
>
> If there were studies why are these drugs prescribed off-label?
For the same reason that aspirin is often used off-label. There's something
called "bureaucratic inertia".
> When I look back on my life I'm glad these drugs were not used like
> they are today because I probably would have been put on them.
Why are you "glad" about this? If you've never experienced them how do you
know that you wouldn't like them?
> I was
> not the typical child and I did not fit in. I gave my parents a hard
> time because from as far back as I can remember I had a mind of my own.
> I was not the classical student in school and most of the time I was
> bored to death. I spent much of my time in school either day dreaming
> or horsing around, I was always it seems in trouble. If I were in the
> school system today I would probably be a candidate for drug therapy.
Did you meet the DSM-IV criteria?
> Thank God we are not all the same and for those who march to a
> different drummer more power to them. What would this world be like if
> we all conformed to what our parents, teachers, and government
> officials deemed appropriate behavior? Imagine what the world would be
> like today if all the gifted individuals of the past had been drugged
> at an early age, we would still be in the dark ages. The people who are
> different are the ones who make changes, dream up new concepts, explore
> the frontiers, lead other men. To hell with conformity I want diversity.
Excuse me, but I think you will find that most the _medicated_ individuals
who frequent this newsgroup are a good deal less conformist than you are.
If we all conformed to what our parents, teachers, and government officials
(I notice you left out the clergy) deemed appropriate behavior then for one
thing there would be a lot less crime. But medication for ADHD has
_nothing_ _whatsoever_ to do with _conforming_. If all the gifted
individuals of the past who had ADHD had been treated for it they would have
achieved a lot more than they did. Maybe if they had been "drugged" as you
put it then Rome would have become a technologically advanced civilization,
conquered the rest of the world, and then gone on to bigger and better
things. One who can't find his sword or keep his rifle clean isn't much
good on the frontiers, dreaming up new concepts is a worthless ability
unless you have the persistence to _do_ something with them, you're less
likely to lead your men into disaster if you aren't forever forgetting about
important details, and often changes occur because people who are
"different" are causing problems.
Really, sir, if you come into this newsgroup and start prattling about how
"drugs" somehow enforce "conformity", then you're not only displaying your
ignorance but also insulting the lot of us.
---
Mark Probert
>
>In article <20000616192330...@ng-cl1.aol.com>,
> jdrew...@aol.com (JDrew63929) wrote:
>> >From: baj...@my-deja.com
>> >Date: 06/16/2000 1:44 PM US Eastern Standard Time
>> >Message-id: <8idsi4$44f$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>> >Again my concern is the use of these drugs on very
>> >young children and so far I am not convinced we know enough about the
>> >effects these drugs have on them. I will continue searching for those
>> >studies.
>>
>> I'm with you. I don't think there are any studies on young children?
>So we just
>> wing it?? IMHO, drugging young children is WRONG! And yes I have had
>> experience, been there, done that. That's WHY I have these opinions.
>>
>> Jan
>
>If there were studies why are these drugs prescribed off-label?
>
>When I look back on my life I'm glad these drugs were not used like
>they are today because I probably would have been put on them. I was
>not the typical child and I did not fit in. I gave my parents a hard
>time because from as far back as I can remember I had a mind of my own.
>I was not the classical student in school and most of the time I was
>bored to death. I spent much of my time in school either day dreaming
>or horsing around, I was always it seems in trouble. If I were in the
>school system today I would probably be a candidate for drug therapy.
>
>Thank God we are not all the same and for those who march to a
>different drummer more power to them. What would this world be like if
>we all conformed to what our parents, teachers, and government
>officials deemed appropriate behavior? Imagine what the world would be
>like today if all the gifted individuals of the past had been drugged
>at an early age, we would still be in the dark ages. The people who are
>different are the ones who make changes, dream up new concepts, explore
>the frontiers, lead other men. To hell with conformity I want diversity.
You see, it is not about conformity. There is your fundamental error.
It is about having a decent life, the life that one part of the mind wants, and
the other part prevents.
It is as 'simple' as that.
baj...@my-deja.com
"J. Clarke" <nos...@nospam.nospam> wrote:
> <baj...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:8ig1cm$egg$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> > jdrew...@aol.com (JDrew63929) wrote:
> > > >From: baj...@my-deja.com
> > > >Date: 06/16/2000 1:44 PM US Eastern Standard Time
> > > >Message-id: <8idsi4$44f$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>
> > >
> > > <snip>
> > >
> > > >Again my concern is the use of these drugs on very
> > > >young children and so far I am not convinced we know enough
about the
> > > >effects these drugs have on them. I will continue searching for
those
> > > >studies.
> > >
> > > I'm with you. I don't think there are any studies on young
children?
> > So we just
> > > wing it?? IMHO, drugging young children is WRONG! And yes I have
had
> > > experience, been there, done that. That's WHY I have these
opinions.
> > >
> > > Jan
> >
> > If there were studies why are these drugs prescribed off-label?
>
something
> called "bureaucratic inertia".
Right, no studies done.
> > When I look back on my life I'm glad these drugs were not used like
> > they are today because I probably would have been put on them.
>
> Why are you "glad" about this? If you've never experienced them how
do you
> know that you wouldn't like them?
Very funny, you sound like a street corner pusher.
> > I was
> > not the typical child and I did not fit in. I gave my parents a hard
> > time because from as far back as I can remember I had a mind of my
own.
> > I was not the classical student in school and most of the time I was
> > bored to death. I spent much of my time in school either day
dreaming
> > or horsing around, I was always it seems in trouble. If I were in
the
> > school system today I would probably be a candidate for drug
therapy.
>
> Did you meet the DSM-IV criteria?
I'm sure a few teachers I had would say yes and my parents would have
said absolutely. Of course this is not an exact science and like having
your taxes done by 10 different accountants will get you 10 different
tax liabilities, meeting the DSM-IV criteria is much the same, it all
depends on who is doing the diagnosis.
> > Thank God we are not all the same and for those who march to a
> > different drummer more power to them. What would this world be like
if
> > we all conformed to what our parents, teachers, and government
> > officials deemed appropriate behavior? Imagine what the world would
be
> > like today if all the gifted individuals of the past had been
drugged
> > at an early age, we would still be in the dark ages. The people who
are
> > different are the ones who make changes, dream up new concepts,
explore
> > the frontiers, lead other men. To hell with conformity I want
diversity.
>
> Excuse me, but I think you will find that most the _medicated_
individuals
> who frequent this newsgroup are a good deal less conformist than you
are.
I was speaking in general terms, but good for them and more power to
them, I'm just glad I don't have to
take them.
> If we all conformed to what our parents, teachers, and government
officials
Now see there you go getting all pushed out of shape and being nasty.
You don't do yourself or the others you are representing any good when
you lose it. Calm down and take it easy. Let's all agree to disagree
and hopefully get past this defensive attitude. If you want only people
in this group who agree with you than isn't that conforming to your
standards. Seems like you support my views and not your own.
I would like to see some scientific evidence that supports the use of
these drugs in preschoolers. The more I find out about what I think
should be considered an epidemic (the use of drugs for behavioral
problems) in this county the more I realize how much fuzzy science is
behind it all. You can call me ignorant and insulting but that is a
cheap shot and not all that worthy of your intellect. Perhaps you have
failed to enlighten me and you see yourself as a victim. Who knows but
I hope you get over it.
Joe Parsons
>In article <394c8...@news3.prserv.net>,
> "J. Clarke" <nos...@nospam.nospam> wrote:
>> <baj...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
>news:8ig1cm$egg$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
>> > In article <20000616192330...@ng-cl1.aol.com>,
>> > jdrew...@aol.com (JDrew63929) wrote:
>> > > >From: baj...@my-deja.com
>> > > >Date: 06/16/2000 1:44 PM US Eastern Standard Time
>> > > >Message-id: <8idsi4$44f$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>
[snip]
>> > I was
>> > not the typical child and I did not fit in. I gave my parents a hard
>> > time because from as far back as I can remember I had a mind of my
>own.
>> > I was not the classical student in school and most of the time I was
>> > bored to death. I spent much of my time in school either day
>dreaming
>> > or horsing around, I was always it seems in trouble. If I were in
>the
>> > school system today I would probably be a candidate for drug
>therapy.
>>
>> Did you meet the DSM-IV criteria?
>
>I'm sure a few teachers I had would say yes and my parents would have
>said absolutely. Of course this is not an exact science and like having
I think we can take that as a "no." Matter of fact, I'm getting the strong
impression--reinforced by this last comment--that you don't even know how ADHD
is actually diagnosed.
>your taxes done by 10 different accountants will get you 10 different
>tax liabilities, meeting the DSM-IV criteria is much the same, it all
>depends on who is doing the diagnosis.
I think we can also assume you know very little about tax preparation, either.
Let's not go *there*, shall we?
[snip]
>> Really, sir, if you come into this newsgroup and start prattling
>about how
>> "drugs" somehow enforce "conformity", then you're not only displaying
>your
>> ignorance but also insulting the lot of us.
>
>Now see there you go getting all pushed out of shape and being nasty.
>You don't do yourself or the others you are representing any good when
>you lose it. Calm down and take it easy.
I'm always amused when people on Usenet seem to believe they can actually know
the emotional state of someone from words on the screen.
>Let's all agree to disagree
Translation: "Quit answering my unsupported, judgmental, ignorant and insulting
bullshit with logic."
Joe Parsons
Nessa
(in message <8iilmt$vpk$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>):
> If you want only people
> in this group who agree with you than isn't that conforming to your
> standards. Seems like you support my views and not your own.
In a group called support (such as ASAD is) then no we don't want someone
who blatantly disagrees with our POVs.
See coming in and asking questions and being receptive to what will be
said and coming to learn is different than coming in to argue and debate
and berate.
Think about it.
--
Nessa
--
as seen on a purple pickup truck in a home depot parking lot:
Sorry I didn't go to Church on Sunday,
I was too busy learning Witchcraft
and practicing to be a lesbian.
J. Clarke
<baj...@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:8iilmt$vpk$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...<deep attributions snipped>
> > > If there were studies why are these drugs prescribed off-label?
> >
> > For the same reason that aspirin is often used off-label. There's
> something
> > called "bureaucratic inertia".
>
> Right, no studies done.
How does bureaucratic inertia equate to "no studies done"? The "label" is a
government approved publication. It doesn't get changed until someone
convinces an agency of the Federal government that it needs to be. Ever try
to convince a government bureaucrat to change anything?
> > > When I look back on my life I'm glad these drugs were not used like
> > > they are today because I probably would have been put on them.
> >
> > Why are you "glad" about this? If you've never experienced them how
> do you
> > know that you wouldn't like them?
>
> Very funny, you sound like a street corner pusher.
Or a person who does know first hand what the medications do, who had the
same attitude toward them that you did before I tried them, and who found
out that they are _nothing_ like I believed them to be.
> > > I was
> > > not the typical child and I did not fit in. I gave my parents a hard
> > > time because from as far back as I can remember I had a mind of my
> own.
> > > I was not the classical student in school and most of the time I was
> > > bored to death. I spent much of my time in school either day
> dreaming
> > > or horsing around, I was always it seems in trouble. If I were in
> the
> > > school system today I would probably be a candidate for drug
> therapy.
> >
> > Did you meet the DSM-IV criteria?
>
> I'm sure a few teachers I had would say yes and my parents would have
> said absolutely.
They would? Had any of them read DSM-IV?
> Of course this is not an exact science and like having
> your taxes done by 10 different accountants will get you 10 different
> tax liabilities, meeting the DSM-IV criteria is much the same, it all
> depends on who is doing the diagnosis.
Have you read DSM-IV? If so, please demonstrate by posting the
criterial--lurkers, I want the baja bum to do it to see if he can, so please
don't "help".
> > > Thank God we are not all the same and for those who march to a
> > > different drummer more power to them. What would this world be like
> if
> > > we all conformed to what our parents, teachers, and government
> > > officials deemed appropriate behavior? Imagine what the world would
> be
> > > like today if all the gifted individuals of the past had been
> drugged
> > > at an early age, we would still be in the dark ages. The people who
> are
> > > different are the ones who make changes, dream up new concepts,
> explore
> > > the frontiers, lead other men. To hell with conformity I want
> diversity.
> >
> > Excuse me, but I think you will find that most the _medicated_
> individuals
> > who frequent this newsgroup are a good deal less conformist than you
> are.
>
> I was speaking in general terms, but good for them and more power to
> them, I'm just glad I don't have to
> take them.
I guess you're a conformist then who won't go with the less than 10% of the
population with the guts to admit that we have a problem and try to do
something about it. And as for your "general terms", what is your source
for information?
Being nasty? Does the truth hurt?
> You don't do yourself or the others you are representing any good when
> you lose it.
I'm not representing anybody but myself, sir.
> Calm down and take it easy.
Interesting. The whole thrust of your argument is that the meds make one
into a quiet little conformist, but now you're telling someone who is on
meds to "calm down". What does that do to your view of meds? Can't you see
the inconsistency? As for calming down and taking it easy, I'm sorry but
I'm one of those "different" folk you talked about earlier who _won't_ take
bullshit lying down.
> Let's all agree to disagree
> and hopefully get past this defensive attitude.
Defensive attitude? Interesting--you insult someone and when they take
exception to it they have a "defensive attitude"?
> If you want only people in this group who agree with you than isn't that
> conforming to your standards. Seems like you support my views and not your
own.
There is truth and there is fantasy. And you don't seem to know the
difference. You have some notion that meds act in a certain manner. Those
who are being treated with them have a different view. And yet you seem to
think that your opinion should be accepted as equally valid. Well, it
doesn't work that way.
In any case, this is a support group. You're not offering or requesting any
support, so take your bullshit to a more appropriate place.
> I would like to see some scientific evidence that supports the use of
> these drugs in preschoolers. The more I find out about what I think
> should be considered an epidemic (the use of drugs for behavioral
> problems) in this county the more I realize how much fuzzy science is
> behind it all. You can call me ignorant and insulting but that is a
> cheap shot and not all that worthy of your intellect.
I see, so you insult us and then when we call you on it we're "taking a
cheap shot"?
> Perhaps you have
> failed to enlighten me and you see yourself as a victim.
No, I see you as an offensive clod.
> Who knows but
> I hope you get over it.
I got over putting up with twits like you a long time ago.
<plonk>
EmmaAnne
wrote:
> I suspect some professionals see ADHD in every fidget. But it
> seems, at least by the stories I have heard, there are far more
> who wouldn't know ADHD if several people with ADHD jumped up and
> down on them. Or wandered aimlessly in their general direction.
Depending on whether they are hyperactive or inattentive subtype? :-)
--
"Why do they call you the Warrior Princess?"
"Ceasar was already taken"
Xena: Warrior Princess
baj...@my-deja.com
All this could have been settled with some real facts such as the
studies that show these drugs are safe to use on preschoolers. I will
have to assume that you have none and therefore must resort to insult
and ridicule. You might want to get some facts together if you expect
reasonable people to buy your story. If you would like to support your
beliefs with creditable evidence we may have something to discuss but I
will not respond to any further verbal abuse from you or anyone else.
John Palmer
(After quoting many pages of material that's totally irrelevant to the
situation,)
>All this could have been settled with some real facts such as the
>studies that show these drugs are safe to use on preschoolers.
Or, alternately, by your being honest. . . had you not insisted that
"the government hasn't changed the 'label'" means "there are no studies",
the argument wouldn't have progressed.
> I will
>have to assume that you have none and therefore must resort to insult
>and ridicule.
Ridicule is appropriate to a person who says "there are no studies"
in response to someone who points out that the government must make
changes, and the government moves slowly.
--
Everything I needed to know in life, I learned in kindergarten. Like:
Wrestling with a lion and a grizzly bear is not necessarily the best
way to prove that you're "Tuff Enuff"
baj...@my-deja.com
Ann <ann...@thecia.net> wrote:
> baj...@my-deja.com expounded:
>
> >When I look back on my life I'm glad these drugs were not used like
> >not the typical child and I did not fit in. I gave my parents a hard
> >time because from as far back as I can remember I had a mind of my
own.
> >I was not the classical student in school and most of the time I was
> >bored to death. I spent much of my time in school either day dreaming
> >or horsing around, I was always it seems in trouble. If I were in the
> >school system today I would probably be a candidate for drug therapy.
>
> psychiatrist's office when I was six because of my behaviour. Very
> hyperactive, but they didn't prescribe anything for me, they just told
> my parents to put me in a private school to realize my full potential
> (!!) which was ridiculous, my parents weren't well off enough to
> afford it.
>
> >different drummer more power to them. What would this world be like
if
> >we all conformed to what our parents, teachers, and government
> >officials deemed appropriate behavior? Imagine what the world would
be
> >like today if all the gifted individuals of the past had been drugged
> >at an early age, we would still be in the dark ages. The people who
are
> >different are the ones who make changes, dream up new concepts,
explore
> >the frontiers, lead other men. To hell with conformity I want
diversity.
>
> themselves, I like the Why Be Normal bumpersticker that's upside down.
> I march to my own drummer, always have, always will.
>
> The problem comes when you have children who can't pay enough
> attention to learn. I was very fortunate, I had no learning problems,
> I was taught to read early (4), and read and learned much on my own.
> I was bored to tears in school, and got in trouble for bothering other
> students. Got excellent grades, though.
>
> My sons, on the other hand, weren't that fortunate. While both of
> them are bright, they both have learning problems that when combined
> with ADHD prevented them from prospering in school. With medication
> they were able to pay attention to the tutoring, bring up their skill
> levels and stay with their class. I don't see that as conforming, I
> see it as achieving personal success in a very constrictive
> environment. The meds made it possible. If I had the money I'd of
> put them both in private school. No can do, though.
>
> I hope we see a day where children's individual learning styles are
> taken into consideration throughout their educational experience. I
> do think society spends way too much time and energy pounding square
> pegs into round holes and creating far more problems than it solves.
> I couldn't sacrifice my children's success, though, waiting for this
> to happen.
I understand your position and I hope your sons do well. Institutions
change slowly but individuals can make a difference. Hopefully your
sons will be those individuals who make things happen. They are the
future.
AmethystMenace
>Depending on whether they are hyperactive or inattentive
>subtype? :-)
Yes. D'you suppose the third type would be aimless but fast?
AmMen
Chris Leithiser
>
> mb...@earthlink.net (EmmaAnne) wrote:
> >Depending on whether they are hyperactive or inattentive
> >subtype? :-)
>
> Yes. D'you suppose the third type would be aimless but fast?
>
MADct
> mb...@earthlink.net (EmmaAnne) who wrote:
> >Depending on whether they are hyperactive or inattentive
> >subtype? :-)
>
> Yes. D'you suppose the third type would be aimless but fast?
Nah. . . 3rd type is 'superlative,' I think.
MADct ..Yeah, That's The TickADD..
AndyS
Let me tell you that I have a friend that till the age of 13 didn't learn
and you could find him in the playground with the 10 yo.s. His father took
him to a psychiatrist and found him to be normal. The kid was NOT put on any
medication nor given any treatment. He got his first degree at the age of 17
and his third (Dr.) at the age of 21. All with exceptional scores.....
again, no drugs just a hones psychiatrist that told the father that "every
flower will open, some sooner and some later".
I know it is not a usual situation but I wouldn't put anybody on brain
modifying chemicals unless he is a danger to others or to himself.
Cheers,
Andy