New to Group duaghter just diagnosed with ADHD
Mandy Martensen
daughter. They have diagnosed her with ADHD and now we are waiting to
see the Psychyrist. We are looking for ways to deal with this without
putting her on medication. My husband and I really do not want to
medicate her, but we do want our sanity back. She will be starting
kindergarten this fall and if I don't do something now I know there will
be problems.
Mandy
Caitriona Mac Fhiodhbhuidhe
Hi, Mandy. Welcome to ASAD!
A couple bits of info for you here -
1) Sites with good info:
http://add.about.com
http://www.cyber-mall.com/asad
http://www.chadd.org
2) If you can help your daughter learn coping skills without meds,
great! However, if she needs meds in addition to the other *required*
techniques, don't feel guilty about it or feel like you've failed as a
parent. That's a common trap, and it's not good for you or for your
daughter. AD/HD requires a multi-modal approach that *must* include
behavioral control training, anger management training, organizational
skill training, and effective parenting techniques training as well as
many other aspects and *may* require medication in addition to these
other measures.
3) There are diets that are reported to work for some. However, the
statistics are that dietary measures are effective for only 3-5% of
ADDers. If you consider trying one of the many dietary approaches,
please do not do so to the neglect of the necessary behavior, anger
management, organizational, and parenting skills knowledge needed.
4) Feel free to post questions, vents, rants, jokes, etc here. ASAD
sometimes seems wild and wooly, but a large part of that is how we deal
with what we all live with.
5) Watch out for the trolls. If you would like a list of my troll
filters, please feel free to email me. There are others here who may
have even more extensive lists than I do, but the ones I've implemented
do tend to keep out most of the trash.
6) Learn to have fun with AD/HD. Find the *good* aspects of your
daughter's version of AD/HD. Make life *FUN*. Enjoy the quirkiness!
7) Relax. You and your daughter will make it through this.
Kitten
singletary2
opinion from a complete physical examination. Including blood work to
determine if any chemical inbalance exists that combat the meds.
My 9 year old was placed on a generic brand of Thorazine in conjunction with
a central nervous system stimulant, Dextrostat. We later learned that the
evening dosage prescribed by the psych. was an over dose by manufacturer
recomendations. The Thor. was tapered off and terminated. David's behavior
and grades made a drastic turn for the better.
Reasearch every med that your child is prescribed!
Blue Skies
A
Norma
Contact her teacher or someone in the office and request an IEP.
(Individualized education program). She has a right to one according
to the law. You may see how she does in school, and then go from
there. But if it turns out she winds up needing medication, don't feel
guilty or bad in having to do it.
What I did with my daughter is try to work with the teacher in helping
her in class. She was unmedicated for Kindergarten. But in first grade
she just couldn't cope in class without medication so I put her on it.
It's a big difference. Off of it she doesn't listen to directions,
can't sit still, etc. On meds she has less social difficulty, doesn't
get in trouble with the teacher, is able to concentrate on her work
better. Right now I'm taking her for therapy to strengthen her social
skills and learn proper behavior.
Norma
<Sigline space for rent>
Norma
Yes. I think it's best for us as parents to know as much as possible
about meds, so we could know when kids are overmedicated, or when a
med isn't working well, etc, and also you know what side effects a med
has, so if it happens to your child you would know what to do.
Thomas Cuny o@o
Mandy Martensen <ch...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
> They have diagnosed her with ADHD and now we are waiting to
>see the Psychyrist. We are looking for ways to deal with this without
>putting her on medication.
>
See www.hriptc.org
nknisley
>
> On Mon, 26 Mar 2001 19:02:52 GMT, Mandy Martensen
> <ch...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
>
> >Last week we finally got back the results on the testing for our
> >daughter. They have diagnosed her with ADHD and now we are waiting to
> >see the Psychyrist. We are looking for ways to deal with this without
> >putting her on medication. My husband and I really do not want to
> >medicate her, but we do want our sanity back. She will be starting
> >kindergarten this fall and if I don't do something now I know there will
> >be problems.
> >
> >Mandy
>
> Contact her teacher or someone in the office and request an IEP.
> (Individualized education program).
That's assuming her daughter will be attending a public school.
If she is going to a public school, may I suggest that if she wants to
request an IEP evaluation for her daughter, she ought to put it in
writing and address it to the person in charge of IEP's at her
daughter's school. AFAIK, if a parent just tells a teacher or someone in
the office that he or she is requesting an IEP evaluation, the school
has no legal obligation to honor the request. But the school must act if
they receive a written request for evaluation.
> She has a right to one according to the law.
Maybe, maybe not, if you mean the right to an IEP. Not every child with
ADHD is educationally disabled. My son does not have an IEP, but he does
have a 504. Other parents have been unable even to get a 504 for their
child.
Nancy
Unique, like everyone else
nknisley
I just read the information on "Biochemical Treatment of Mental Illness
and Behavior Disorders." I'm not usually this blunt, but, geez...what a
*crock*!!!
SWA...@postoffice.swbell.net
tics, take her off of it immediately.
nknisley
Mandy,
It may be that behavioral interventions or treatment and perhaps some
supports and accommodations in school will suffice to help your
daughter. OTOH, a recent study shows that children with ADHD who receive
both behavioral treatment *and* medication do the best, while those
children who received *only* medication came in a close second. Those
who received *only* behavioral treatment did not do as well.
http://add.about.com/health/add/library/weekly/aa012400a.htm
No parent wants to put their child on medication of any kind, especially
when the medication might be long term.
You've got to weigh the costs and benefits of medication vs. no
medication. Will your daughter be able to learn and succeed in school if
she does not take medication? Will she develop the necessary social
skills? Will her behavior drive you crazy? Will she develop more serious
problems when she gets older if she remains untreated with medication?
Read this article "The Consequences of Untreated ADD/ADHD Vs. The Risks
of Medication"
http://add.about.com/health/add/library/weekly/aa041700a.htm
It'll probably give you lots to think about.
Educate yourself about ADHD and the medications used to treat it. I
think you'll feel better once you read *reliable* sources of information
about ADHD medications.
One thing you'll find out is that the medications commonly used to treat
ADHD remain in the body for a short time. If your daughter starts
experiencing bothersome side effects or you are worried about changes
you see in her behavior, just stop the medication, and it's out of her
body in a short time.
And, discuss your concerns about medication with your daughter's
pediatrician and psychiatrist.
If you are considering "natural" treatments for ADHD, you should know:
none have been proved effective in treating ADHD, and they may be
dangerous.
Studies have shown that specialized diets are also generally ineffective
in treating ADHD.
There has been some indication that bio-feedback can help manage ADHD,
at least in the short term, but so far, I don't know of any studies
proving that.
Nessa
(in message <3ABF9487...@tampabay.rr.com>):
Hi Mandy Welcome to the fray.
Well I am not one to suggest ways to deal with it without meds but I sure can
tell you the things we do in conjunction with meds. I am just curious as to
why you don't want to use meds. You have every right to feel that way of
course but I find many times, people feel that way based on inaccurate
informaton or personal feelings that might not be based on fact.
As far as advice,
1. be consistent this means EVERYTHING is a routine and a schedule and if you
have to change it do it as gently as possible and have patience.
2. choose your battles carefully. at one point we had 3 rules, 1. don't
play with fire. don't play with knives, don't play in the street. everything
else (and I do mean everything else) was negotiable.
3. make sure daughter gets enough sleep and a healthy diet and a lot of
fluids. (water is best but anything without caffine is fine) I just find
that many of us are cranky and tired because we are dehydrated but that's my
personal opinion.
4. make sure all adults in the child's life adhere to the same rules for the
child esp. mom and dad. grandparents get a little leeway.
5. don't over extend your child give her lots of free time and down time.
6. have patience.
I am sure others will have better ideas.
Nessa
--
If you can't say something nice at least be vague.
Catherina Mc Evoy
Uhm, a couple of questions... how much does it cost and is it covered by
insurance?
Virginiaz
WavePOINT(TM) and Edmonton Public Schools Discuss Pilot Distribution of ADHD
Program in Schools (Canada NewsWire)
WavePOINT systems Inc. today announced it has entered into discussions with
Edmonton Public Schools to determine the feasibility of delivering the
WavePOINT program for Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder to children
directly in the schools.
For the full story, go to:
http://biz.yahoo.com/cnw/010326/wavepoint_adhd_progra.html
Norma
wrote:
>
>> She has a right to one according to the law.
>
>Maybe, maybe not, if you mean the right to an IEP. Not every child with
>ADHD is educationally disabled. My son does not have an IEP, but he does
>have a 504. Other parents have been unable even to get a 504 for their
>child.
>
>Nancy
>Unique, like everyone else
Ooops I get 504s sometimes mixed up with IEP. Doesn't the law say that
all public schools have to give 504? Or is it a case of some schools
intentionally disobeying the law?
Christopher Eliot
>
> Last week we finally got back the results on the testing for our
> daughter. They have diagnosed her with ADHD and now we are waiting to
> see the Psychyrist.
No one wishes for a child to have ADHD, but welcome to the club
and to the newsgroup.
You already know the bad news about ADHD. The good news is that
with a diagnosis you now have some way to understand what you have
been dealing with and guidance for how to improve the situation.
It can be a long, frustrating ordeal, but it is a problem that
can be managed and your daughter will likely end up doing fine.
But, there is not a simple, quick, cure-all fix. You can
expect a lot of work ahead of you, much more than most
parents even dream about. You have probably figured this out
already, although maybe you something think it is your own
fault somehow - which is not true.
> We are looking for ways to deal with this without
> putting her on medication. My husband and I really do not want to
> medicate her, but we do want our sanity back.
That was our feeling a couple of years ago. We eventually tried
medication for our son and now we believe there is no other
solution.
You should gather all the information you can about medication
and other strategies for dealing with ADHD. If your daughter
starts school in the Fall, then you have at least until mid
summer to think about the issue.
nknisley
Some schools still apparently cling to the misguided notion that ADHD is
not covered under Section 504, even though the federal government issued
a policy memorandum way back in 1991 saying that children with ADHD were
eligible for accommodations and supports under Section 504. (These
clueless schools are due for a nice law suit, IMO.)
Under Section 504, a school that gets federal money (and that includes
all public schools as well as some private ones) may not discriminate
against students on the basis of disability. A 504 plan provides for
accommodations and modifications of the school's buildings, programs,
activities, etc. for children who meet that law's definition of
"handicapped person."
A "handicapped person" is someone who has a physical or mental
impairment (including ADHD) which substantially limits a major life
activity. In the case of a student, the major life activity would be
learning.
*In addition to* children who attend schools which *still* believe that
children with ADHD are not eligible for a 504 Plan, some children with
ADHD cannot get a 504 Plan from their schools because the school has
determined that their ADHD does not *substantially* limit or directly
impact their ability to learn.
Now, since the DSM IV criteria for diagnosis for ADHD requires
impairment from symptoms in two or more settings and clear evidence of
clinically significant impairment in social, academic, or occupational
functioning, *I* personally think that it would be unusual to find a
student with ADHD who didn't qualify for a 504. But, all schools must
not agree with my opinion.
(I also know that there are parents who choose not to pursue either an
IEP or 504 for various reasons, one reason being that they feel their
ADHD child does satisfactory work in school without either. That's not
my experience, but YMMV.)
If you want more information on Section 504 try:
http://www.wrightslaw.com/advoc/articles/504%5FIDEA%5FRosenfeld.html
dkjyy
diagnosis then that is all you need to show to the school and then educate
yourself on the 504 laws and print it out of the web or take it in writing
to the meeting. You can also have a 504 and an IEP plan for your child, my
son did.
Deanna
"nknisley" <nkni...@bcpl.net> wrote in message
news:3AC0B0C3...@bcpl.net...
SumBuny4Me
"dkjyy" <dk...@austin.rr.com> wrote in message
news:Pd3w6.30982$4R.76...@typhoon.austin.rr.com...
> It is also important that parents push for 504 accommodations. If you have
a
> diagnosis then that is all you need to show to the school and then educate
> yourself on the 504 laws and print it out of the web or take it in writing
> to the meeting. You can also have a 504 and an IEP plan for your child, my
> son did.
Do remebr that ADHD is now covered under the "Other Health Impared" section
of special education. This does need a doctor's authorisation, but will
qualifiy a child with ADHD for special education services.
http://add.about.com/health/add/library/weekly/aa031699.htm
--
Buny
http://members.delphi.com/sumbuny/index.html
SumBuny4Me
"Caitriona Mac Fhiodhbhuidhe" <kit...@whitepine.com> wrote in message
news:3ABF9ACB...@whitepine.com...
> 6) Learn to have fun with AD/HD. Find the *good* aspects of your
> daughter's version of AD/HD. Make life *FUN*. Enjoy the quirkiness!
Off of Bob Seay's site (that you mentioned earlier in your post)
ALL ABOUT THE POSITIVE ASPECTS OF BEING ADD
http://add.about.com/health/add/library/topics/blpositive030900.htm
I refer back to this often!
Another site, about reasonable accommodations for ADHD, under section 504
(ask the school counselor about a "504 plan")
http://www.add.org/content/school/list.htm
I keep a copy of this list printed out, to show me what is *reasonable* to
ask for, and to give ideas on non-medical environmental- and
behavioral-modifications we can do *at home*.
Welcome to the exciting life an ADHD family. To quote Bob Seay, "I've seen
'normal'; I am *not* impressed!"
--
Buny
Cher
nknisley <nkni...@bcpl.net> wrote in message
news:3AC0B0C3...@bcpl.net...
Is this 504 plan available in all states? My son was in a self contained
special ed. class from 2nd. grade right up to highschool...I've never heard
of it? He did have an IEP...but it was a joke for the most part. (Not to
say that all school districts do a lousy job...but ours did)
Cheryl
Cher
nknisley <nkni...@bcpl.net> wrote in message
news:3ABFFFA8...@bcpl.net...
snipped
> If you are considering "natural" treatments for ADHD, you should know:
> none have been proved effective in treating ADHD, and they may be
> dangerous.
> Nancy
Mandy...
Maybe none have been "proven" effective, but I know of many, many, many
parents who have used alternatives successfully. We use nutritional
supplements which are a blend of amino acids, EFA's and other nutrients
formulated to enhance brain function. Unfortunately my son never responded
well to medicaitons, but luckily he did to supplements. It saved his life
as far as I'm concerned. It's been two years and he continues to do better
than we ever imagined. I know of many, many parents who have (for any
number of reasons) decided to try this route and have nothing but praise for
it.
And Nancy....I would be curious as to which "natural alternative" is
considered dangerous? I guess you're referring to side effects. The ones
we use have "no known side effects"...I know there are others which could be
dangerous, but which ones would you consider the worse? (no attitude here
:)
Cheryl
Caitriona Mac Fhiodhbhuidhe
Cheryl,
Even vitamins can be dangerous if over-done.
Kitten
nknisley
>
> "dkjyy" <dk...@austin.rr.com> wrote in message
> news:Pd3w6.30982$4R.76...@typhoon.austin.rr.com...
> > It is also important that parents push for 504 accommodations. If you have
> a
> > diagnosis then that is all you need to show to the school and then educate
> > yourself on the 504 laws and print it out of the web or take it in writing
> > to the meeting. You can also have a 504 and an IEP plan for your child, my
> > son did.
>
> Do remebr that ADHD is now covered under the "Other Health Impared" section
> of special education. This does need a doctor's authorisation, but will
> qualifiy a child with ADHD for special education services.
If you are talking about "Other Health Impaired" under the IDEA, it's
not necessarily that open and shut.
Merely having ADHD (or any other disability) will not automatically
qualify a child for services under the IDEA. A student qualifies for an
IEP under OHI, *if* the child needs "special education or related
services." That's not always easy to establish, as some of us have found
out.
Here's some information from the "Joint Policy Memorandum (ADD)" by the
federal Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services:
"The term 'other health impaired' includes chronic or acute impairments
that result in limited alertness, which adversely affects educational
performance. Thus, children with ADD should be classified as eligible
for services under the "other health impaired" category in instances
where the ADD is a chronic or acute health problem that results in
limited alertness, which adversely affects educational performance. In
other words, children with ADD, where the ADD is a chronic or acute
health problem resulting in limited alertness, may be considered
disabled under Part B solely on the basis of this disorder within the
"other health impaired" category *in situations where special education
and related services are needed because of the ADD.*" (Emphasis mine.)
If you can't show your ADHD child needs special education services, no
IEP.
IIRC, there is no "other health impairment" category under Section 504.
A student qualifies for a 504 if they meet that law's definition of
"handicapped person."
The "Joint Policy Memorandum (ADD)" says WRT Section 504's applicability
to ADHD:
"Handicapped person" is defined in the Section 504 regulation as any
person who has a physical or mental impairment which substantially
limits a major life activity (e.g.,
learning). 34 CFR § 104.3(j). Thus, *depending on the severity of their
condition*, children with ADD *may* fit within that definition.
(Emphasis mine.)
That give schools just enough wiggle room to conclude that a particular
student with ADHD does not qualify for a 504 Plan.
If you want to read the Joint Policy Memorandum for yourself:
http://www.wrightslaw.com/law/code_regs/OSEP_Memorandum_ADD_1991.html
Cher
Caitriona Mac Fhiodhbhuidhe <kit...@whitepine.com> wrote in message
news:3AC0EBB9...@whitepine.com...
Yes Kitten of course :)
I only asked because it seemed Nancy made a "generalized" statement which
implied there was more of a danger (of side effects) with natural
alternatives" than with traditional meds....and that may be true in some
cases...But I was just curious as to which ones she was referring to and
what the side effects were...
Cheryl
Caitriona Mac Fhiodhbhuidhe
I think it's more that one must be very careful with *any* method used.
We all should educate ourselves about all the options.
Of course, if this isn't what she meant, I'm sure she'll clarify.
Kitten
--
邢 唷��
Norma
<rous...@NOSPAMhome.com> wrote:
>
>
>"Caitriona Mac Fhiodhbhuidhe" <kit...@whitepine.com> wrote in message
>news:3ABF9ACB...@whitepine.com...
>> 6) Learn to have fun with AD/HD. Find the *good* aspects of your
>> daughter's version of AD/HD. Make life *FUN*. Enjoy the quirkiness!
>
>
>Off of Bob Seay's site (that you mentioned earlier in your post)
>
>ALL ABOUT THE POSITIVE ASPECTS OF BEING ADD
>http://add.about.com/health/add/library/topics/blpositive030900.htm
>
>I refer back to this often!
I'm reading this to remind myself. Eventually I'll get to that place.
>
>Another site, about reasonable accommodations for ADHD, under section 504
>(ask the school counselor about a "504 plan")
>http://www.add.org/content/school/list.htm
>
>I keep a copy of this list printed out, to show me what is *reasonable* to
>ask for, and to give ideas on non-medical environmental- and
>behavioral-modifications we can do *at home*.
>
>Welcome to the exciting life an ADHD family. To quote Bob Seay, "I've seen
>'normal'; I am *not* impressed!"
Many aspects of being normal are quite boring.
Joe Parsons
[snip]
>Yes Kitten of course :)
>I only asked because it seemed Nancy made a "generalized" statement which
>implied there was more of a danger (of side effects) with natural
>alternatives" than with traditional meds....and that may be true in some
>cases...But I was just curious as to which ones she was referring to and
>what the side effects were...
Some people seem to make an issue out of "side effects," as though "side
effects" of any sort would always be a reason not to consider prescription
drugs.
Let's get a couple of things clear, though: first, anything you take to cure or
ease any condition *is* a drug--it matters not whether that drug can be obtained
only with a physician's prescription or whether it has been purchased from your
local MLM salesperson. It's still a drug.
The other thing to remember is that "side effects," which are typically
mentioned in dire tones by people trying to hawk "all natural alternatives" to
whatever, are a possibility with *any* drug. One of the reasons to ingest drugs
with a doctor's supervision is that whatever side effects there may be have been
discovered clinically, disclosed and (if necessary) managed.
One of the reasons you don't see the level of disclosure for "all-natural
alternatives" hawked by MLM salespeople and the like is that they are not
*required* to make extensive disclosures--all they have to do is give the
toothless FDA-required disclaimer, "This is not intended to treat or cure..."
(wink, wink).
It is true that there is a *possibility* of side effects ("danger" is quite a
loaded word, don't you think?) with prescription drugs like methylphenidate--but
the actual incidence of their occurrence and their severity is startlingly low.
If a vitamin, mineral or some other substance works for a particular person,
that's fine. But the minute you (generic "you") begin talking about the
"dangers" of duly prescribed drugs, while hawking some direct-sales nostrum--no
matter what you personally might have experienced--your motives will be ever
more stringently questioned.
Joe Parsons
----------------------------------------------------------------
Streaming Multimedia production and delivery--served with a SMILe
http://www.yankeemedia.net
Amethyst Menace
wrote:
>Some people seem to make an issue out of "side effects," as though "side
>effects" of any sort would always be a reason not to consider prescription
>drugs.
>
>Let's get a couple of things clear, though: first, anything you take to cure or
>ease any condition *is* a drug--it matters not whether that drug can be obtained
>only with a physician's prescription or whether it has been purchased from your
>local MLM salesperson. It's still a drug.
>
>The other thing to remember is that "side effects," which are typically
>mentioned in dire tones by people trying to hawk "all natural alternatives" to
>whatever, are a possibility with *any* drug. One of the reasons to ingest drugs
>with a doctor's supervision is that whatever side effects there may be have been
>discovered clinically, disclosed and (if necessary) managed.
>
>One of the reasons you don't see the level of disclosure for "all-natural
>alternatives" hawked by MLM salespeople and the like is that they are not
>*required* to make extensive disclosures--all they have to do is give the
>toothless FDA-required disclaimer, "This is not intended to treat or cure..."
>(wink, wink).
>
Back when I was in college, I read a novel by Marge Piercy called
_Woman on the Edge of Time_. One of the characters init made a
statement I have never forgotten: Drugs [supplements, foods] have no
side effects, only effects.
The idea of a "side effect" comes from separating the condition for
which you took the drug [supplement, food] from the rest of your life.
For example, some people take Catapres for high blood pressure;
drowsiness is called a side effect. A parent here mentioned her
daughter taking it to calm her; lowering blood pressure becomes the
side effect.
This isn't dsiputing anything anyone has said, BTW. I just think it's
an interesting observation.
AmMen
nknisley
AFAIK, any "natural" remedy *may* be dangerous since natural products
like nutritional supplements are not tested for safety in the same way
that medications (either OTC or prescribed) are.
As for the safety of specific natural products touted as a treatment for
ADHD, I seem to recall that one (was it blue-green algae?) was found to
contain toxic metals.
How do you know that the nutritional supplement you take is safe--other
than perhaps because the manufacturer says it is?
SteveSov
nknisley wrote:
>
> Norma wrote:
> >
{snip}
Man, I'm glad I didn't throw in my 2 cents worth...until I read this, I
didn't know just how little I actually knew!
SteveSov
alexplore==
http://www.ritalinfraud.com/
http://www.breggin.com/csppintro.html
See Ritalin news posts in Goggle news archives under
the name of "RitalinHater", "SSRIHater".
Ritalin has (at last) been discovered to work on the same
mechanism as cocaine (dopanergic system).
You have been warned.
==============================
Mandy Martensen <ch...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
news:3ABF9487...@tampabay.rr.com...
> Last week we finally got back the results on the testing for our
> daughter. They have diagnosed her with ADHD and now we are waiting to
> see the Psychyrist. We are looking for ways to deal with this without
> putting her on medication. My husband and I really do not want to
> medicate her, but we do want our sanity back. She will be starting
alexplore==
goddess...@my-deja.com NOW <kit...@whitepine.com> fled across state
lines from AK to TX, to drug her Child against father's wishes. Real father
seeks custody!
Note in the photo, the "Prozakian eyes" of the insane. She also
pushes/"prescribes"/recomends drugging Children. See her posting history
under both e-mail addys in Google.
She is accompanied by current sex partner - also a "headcase."
Her photo below - pass along.
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Forum/6082/KEN-ME94.JPG
Cher
nknisley <nkni...@bcpl.net> wrote in message
news:3AC14DB5...@bcpl.net...
Yes, of course, there can be dangerous side effects with any
treatment...even those which are tested.
> As for the safety of specific natural products touted as a treatment for
> ADHD, I seem to recall that one (was it blue-green algae?) was found to
> contain toxic metals.
I don't know if it was (blue-green algae) or not...I thought you knew?
Actually I thought that this blue green alage was similar to Barleygreen in
that it actually removes these very toxic materials from our systems. What
were the side effects...I mean how seriuos were they?
> How do you know that the nutritional supplement you take is safe--other
> than perhaps because the manufacturer says it is?
> Nancy
> Unique, like everyone else
Not to bring up an "old issue", but the supplement we use ( formula) is
marketed under another
name as well. It is also called SAAVE.. SAAVE has no known side effects
according to the PDR. Pregnant women, PKU are advised to seek a physicians
advise before taking but that's about it.
We also take Barleygreen. It too has no known side effects except if
someone is allergic to a type of green vegetable they should probably not
take it. The barley plant in itself is quite harmless and is one of the
most nutritious, naturally, occurring foods known..
Nancy, I'm not trying to start anything really....I just thought you implied
that alternative treatments, such as a nutrional approach should be avoided
because they're dangerous. I have no argument with you or anyone else who
claims that any approach can be dangerous, especially if one does not
educate themselves. :)
Cheryl
SumBuny4Me
"nknisley" <nkni...@bcpl.net> wrote in message
news:3AC10D0E...@bcpl.net...
>
> If you are talking about "Other Health Impaired" under the IDEA, it's
> not necessarily that open and shut.
>
> Merely having ADHD (or any other disability) will not automatically
> qualify a child for services under the IDEA. A student qualifies for an
> IEP under OHI, *if* the child needs "special education or related
> services." That's not always easy to establish, as some of us have found
> out.
Good point...in my younger son's case, it was painfully obvious. In my
older son's case, his ADHD was mild enough to be handled under 504.
Just wanted to remind people that this was a legal option to consider...and
to get the help that they need (in the form of specialists-behavioral,
special ed staffing, psycholigist, psychiatrist, etc) in order to get the
child the help that he/she needs.
--
Buny
http://members.delphi.com/sumbuny/index.html
SumBuny4Me
"Cher" <crge...@i-55.com> wrote in message
news:kJ5w6.12223$aW5.1...@dfw-read.news.verio.net...
>
> Is this 504 plan available in all states? My son was in a self contained
> special ed. class from 2nd. grade right up to highschool...I've never
heard
> of it? He did have an IEP...but it was a joke for the most part. (Not to
> say that all school districts do a lousy job...but ours did)
It had better be, considering that it is part of a *FEDERAL* act...
http://www.dol.gov/dol/oasam/public/regs/statutes/sec504.htm
This is section 504 of the Federal Rehabilitation Act of 1973. Reading
through this, you will see that only a small portion of it has to do with
education....this is the act that began the accessability rules in
businesses, parking lots, etc....
--
Buny
nknisley
> > Some schools still apparently cling to the misguided notion that ADHD is
Yes.
There are three different federal laws that *all* U.S. public schools
have to follow WRT students with disabilities: The Individuals with
Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act
of 1973, and the Americans with Disabilities Act.
Each law guarantees slightly different rights to students with
disabilities. Sometimes if children don't qualify for supports and
accommodations under the IDEA, they can get them under the other two
laws.
> My son was in a self contained
> special ed. class from 2nd. grade right up to highschool...I've never heard
> of it?
See what great stuff you learn on ASAD! And, some of it is actually on
topic.
GOtterBMe
" And Nancy....I would be curious as to which "natural alternative" is
considered dangerous? "
I would be interested to hear what Nancy has to say on this, but ...
Valerian is a sedative, a very bad choice to treat ADHD...
Gingko biloba interferes with the clotting of blood. Take too much, or take it
along with something else that has that effect (aspirin derivitives, for
example) and you can have a serious problem That has happened; it's not just
speculation.
People who take kava kava have been arrested for drunk driving. I tried it, and
became disoriented and anxious -- and my arms went partiall numb. I felt as if
I were moving in slow motion, and I'm VERY glad I wasn't driving.
Our livers remove most foreign substances from our bodies (the exception is
highly water-soluble substances), and children's livers are markedly more
susceptible to damage than adults'.
I think it foolhardy at best to give children unproven substances lightly (I
know you didn't do it lightly).
GOtterBMe
"I only asked because it seemed Nancy made a "generalized" statement which
implied there was more of a danger (of side effects) with natural
alternatives" than with traditional meds.."
This is another of those annying situations where I have not yet seen the
orignal (Nancy's) message, but I think it dangerous to look for implications in
plainly-stated language.
There IS a real danger with alternatives in that we DON'T KNOW what they should
and shouldn't be taken with except for anecdotal reports.
In fact there is growing evidence that St. John's Wort may have some very
serious side-effects. It may affect sperm count, for instance.
At least when it comes to prescriptions, we can look at the research. There's
very little well-done research (not anecdotals, research) on alternatives, and
virtually none of it involves children.
GOtterBMe
"As for the safety of specific natural products touted as a treatment for
ADHD, I seem to recall that one (was it blue-green algae?) was found to
contain toxic metals."
I don't know about SBGA, but I did see a study about a year ago where Chinese
herbs were analyzed for toxic metals.
Fully one-forth of them had significant levels of LEAD.
smoocher
"GOtterBMe" <gott...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20010328231339...@ng-cd1.aol.com...
> Cheryl said:
>
> " And Nancy....I would be curious as to which "natural alternative" is
> considered dangerous? "
> I think it foolhardy at best to give children unproven substances lightly
(I
> know you didn't do it lightly).
It goes back to research and testing and distillation of *natural* chemicals
into their most effective form as processed meds..
Am I wrong in remembering that aspirin is derived from tree bark? Who wants
to chew some tree bark, and what could be the bark of half a tree, to get
the effect of swallowing an aspirin AND forego the internal damage tree bark
can cause to the digestive tract?
Bah. I'd rather trust Squibb, Smithkline, et al than Ewell Gibbons.
smoocher
(who is just anal hyphen retentive enough to HAVE to change the mispelling
in the subj header . . . )
Caitriona Mac Fhiodhbhuidhe
>
<snipped>
>
> Gingko biloba interferes with the clotting of blood. Take too much, or take it
> along with something else that has that effect (aspirin derivitives, for
> example) and you can have a serious problem That has happened; it's not just
> speculation.
>
Gingko is now being used for high altitude sickness by some SAR teams
and others who have to go into high altitudes without time for their
bodies to slowly adjust to the altitude. IIRC, it's because gingko is a
vassal dilator, which expands the blood vessels. In these instances,
the greater bloodflow to the brain counteracts the decrease in oxygen
levels.
Kitten
who thinks maybe she and Viking both need some gingko this morning
Cher
nknisley <nkni...@bcpl.net> wrote in message
news:3AC28F11...@bcpl.net...
Exactly! One of several reason I really do love this group!
Cheryl
Cher
GOtterBMe <gott...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20010328231339...@ng-cd1.aol.com...
> Cheryl said:
>
> " And Nancy....I would be curious as to which "natural alternative" is
> considered dangerous? "
>
>
> I would be interested to hear what Nancy has to say on this, but ...
>
> Valerian is a sedative, a very bad choice to treat ADHD...
>
> Gingko biloba interferes with the clotting of blood. Take too much, or
take it
> along with something else that has that effect (aspirin derivitives, for
> example) and you can have a serious problem That has happened; it's not
just
> speculation.
>
> People who take kava kava have been arrested for drunk driving. I tried
it, and
> became disoriented and anxious -- and my arms went partiall numb. I felt
as if
> I were moving in slow motion, and I'm VERY glad I wasn't driving.
I have heard of these occurances, yet I wonder if there are any statistics
compaing the the incidences involving the natural alternatives compared with
the incidences involving the pharmecuticals, and the various side effects
experienced by both sides? If anyone knows of such stats please pass them
on...
Cher
GOtterBMe <gott...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20010328231856...@ng-cd1.aol.com...
While this maybe true.at least a relatively few people ingest "Chinese
Herbs" On the otherhand lots of people drink arsenic contaminated water
among other things.....Please read the following...it's an eye opener for
sure!
PBS has the transcripts from Moyers report "Trade Secrets" at:
> http://www.pbs.org/tradesecrets/transcript.html
I always assumed there was some federal process by which chemical
products - from weed killer to furniture polish to plastics - are deemed
safe for
human use. But there isn't. Of the 15,000 chemicals produced in the United
States every year, only
43 percent have ever been properly tested to see if they cause injury to
humans.
As a result, our bodies are archives of our chemical exposure dating from
birth. For the show,
Moyers took part in a nine-person study that tested for 1or more
chemicals in each person's
body during a 24-hour period. Moyers' body contained 84. He had 31
different
polychlorinated biphenyls, a now-banned family of chemicals and 13
different dioxins.
Except for lead, none of the chemicals existed at the turn of
thecentury.
Surely it is no coincidence that breast cancer rates have tripled
since 1940, brain cancer
among children is up 26 percent, testicular cancer among adolescent
men has doubled,
learning disabilities have skyrocketed.
nknisley
Yep, it was blue-green algae that may be toxic. The information is in a
report "Algae, False Claims and Hype" on the Quackwatch web site:
Read especially the information under "Possible Toxicity." It indicates
that blue-green algae may contain toxins dangerous to the liver. It also
adds that "some species of
blue-green algae naturally produce toxins known as microcystins."
If you want to read about the "safety" and "efficacy" of other
alternative/natural treatments, begin with this page:
GOtterBMe
" learning disabilities have skyrocketed."
The increased incidence of learning disabilities correlates EXACTLY with ...
the coining of the word for the first time in 1963 by a fellow by the name of
Kirk.
It started out slowly. When I started in special education in 1972, it was a
fairly uncommon diagnosis. However, as expertise in diagnosing it increased,
the number of diagnoses when up.
There's no mystery there. The students we would call "LD" now have always been
there.
nknisley
> > How do you know that the nutritional supplement you take is safe--other
> > than perhaps because the manufacturer says it is?
> Not to bring up an "old issue", but the supplement we use ( formula) is
> marketed under another
> name as well. It is also called SAAVE.. SAAVE has no known side effects
> according to the PDR.
AAGGGHHH! Cheryl, we've already been through this!
Who puts the information that SAAVE "has no side effects" in the PDR?
The manufacturer.
Is the information which the manufacturer of SAAVE gave to the PDR's
publisher verified by either the PDR or some disinterested third party?
Probably not.
Has SAAVE ever undergone any published peer reviewed study which shows
it is either safe or effective for *any* treatment whatsoever? No. At
least you haven't been able to provide one yet, although goodness only
knows you've been asked enough times.
> Pregnant women, PKU are advised to seek a physicians
> advise before taking but that's about it.
> We also take Barleygreen. It too has no known side effects except if
> someone is allergic to a type of green vegetable they should probably not
> take it. The barley plant in itself is quite harmless and is one of the
> most nutritious, naturally, occurring foods known..
What else is in Barleygreen besides barley? If there are other
ingredients, how you you know they are safe, either alone or in
combination? How do you know that even barley *in this form* isn't
harmful? Because the manufacturer told you so? Do you know of *any*
published peer reviewed studies showing that Barleygreen isn't harmful?
> Nancy, I'm not trying to start anything really....
I believe you.
(But, did you ever notice that although you don't try to "start
anything," some of the threads that generate a lot of "discussion",
start with one of yours? That's not a criticism, BTW. Just an
observation.)
>I just thought you implied
> that alternative treatments, such as a nutrional approach should be avoided
> because they're dangerous. I have no argument with you or anyone else who
> claims that any approach can be dangerous, especially if one does not
> educate themselves. :)
Yes, my point wasn't that alternative treatments like nutritional
supplements are always dangerous. I use a supplement (one that *has*
been the subject of peer review studies) on a regular basis myself--at
the urging of my doctors, by the way.
I agree that anyone considering using an alternative treatment has to
educate themselves--and not just with information provided by
manufacturers and distributors (no offense meant.)
In addition, people have to use critical thinking skills when they
evaluate what they read or hear about various products and treatments.
Just because someone wrote something good (or bad) about a product in a
book or on a web site, or because someone on TV said something good
about it, doesn't mean it's true.
Supplements and other alternative products *may* be dangerous because
manufacturers or those selling them do not have to prove they are safe.
Plus, manufacturers also do not have to prove that these treatments are
effective for the treatment of anything.
In fact, the manufacturer's have to publish a FDA required statement on
their products that: "This product is not intended to diagnose, treat,
cure or prevent any disease." (Query: Then what the heck *are* they
intended to do?)
In the end, if you use some of these alternatives, at best, your
pocketbook is substantially lighter. Worse, you may have delayed getting
treatment that would have worked. And still worse, they may harm you.
Let's be careful out there.
Catherina Mc Evoy
>
<snipped>
> the Quackwatch web site:
<gag>
I've no respect for those guys. IMO, they're nearly as bad as the
$cienos and Breggin.
--
Kitten
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
I'm a bitch, I'm a lover; I'm a child, I'm a mother
I'm a sinner, I'm a saint; I do not feel ashamed
I'm your hell, I'm you dream; I'm nothing in between
You know you wouldn't want it any other way
-
- - Meredith Brooks
GOtterBMe
"I've no respect for those guys. IMO, they're nearly as bad as the
$cienos and Breggin.
"
Oh heavens no. They have a bias, but they acknowledge their bias, and they back
their claims up. There really IS a lot of quackery out there.
Caitriona Mac Fhiodhbhuidhe
Yes, there is quackery out there. But Barrett is, IMO, a pseudo-skeptic
(unproven = disproven) rather than a true skeptic. And he's pushy and
arrogant.
nknisley
>
> GOtterBMe wrote:
> >
> > Catherina said:
> >
> > "I've no respect for those guys. IMO, they're nearly as bad as the
> > $cienos and Breggin.
> > "
> >
> > Oh heavens no. They have a bias, but they acknowledge their bias, and they back
> > their claims up. There really IS a lot of quackery out there.
>
> Yes, there is quackery out there. But Barrett is, IMO, a pseudo-skeptic
> (unproven = disproven) rather than a true skeptic. And he's pushy and
> arrogant.
How about an example of Barrett claiming something was disproved when,
in fact, it is only unproved?
As to pushy and arrogant: LOL! You don't have to marry the guy! <Someone
send the good Doctor some Arrogant Bastard!>
Caitriona Mac Fhiodhbhuidhe
>
> Caitriona Mac Fhiodhbhuidhe wrote:
> >
> > GOtterBMe wrote:
> > >
> > > Catherina said:
> > >
> > > "I've no respect for those guys. IMO, they're nearly as bad as the
> > > $cienos and Breggin.
> > > "
> > >
> > > Oh heavens no. They have a bias, but they acknowledge their bias, and they back
> > > their claims up. There really IS a lot of quackery out there.
> >
> > Yes, there is quackery out there. But Barrett is, IMO, a pseudo-skeptic
> > (unproven = disproven) rather than a true skeptic. And he's pushy and
> > arrogant.
>
> How about an example of Barrett claiming something was disproved when,
> in fact, it is only unproved?
Can you find a single thing in here that doesn't insinuate that Reiki is
quackery?
He also has things like this:
http://www.quackwatch.com/00AboutQuackwatch/comments.html#anchor129310273632
"From a licensed massage therapist from North Carolina:
"It bothers me that you have topics listed but no information regarding
them. You simply state on some of them that the information is "to be
posted." Anyone visiting your web site will simply see that massage
therapy is a "quack" profession but will not see any reason posted.
"I replied (in part):
"I share your concern, but we do the best we can. I believe that
properly performed massage is useful. The title of the pending says that
your profession is riddled with quackery. This statement is based on
observations of massage therapy journals and massage therapy school Web
sites, plus information received from students at massage therapy
schools. One recent journal, for example, contained ads for at least 20
dubious seminars and products. I am sorry that we are unable to post an
article making this clear, but we have higher priority projects."
How does, "One recent journal, for example, contained ads for at least
20 dubious seminars and products," lead to "your profession is riddled
with quackery"?
>
> As to pushy and arrogant: LOL! You don't have to marry the guy! <Someone
> send the good Doctor some Arrogant Bastard!>
>
You ever had any dealings with him? He's not quite as pushy as the
$cienos, but he's not much better.
Katz Heitmann
Caitriona Mac Fhiodhbhuidhe wrote:
> Mandy Martensen wrote:
> >
> > Last week we finally got back the results on the testing for our
> > daughter. They have diagnosed her with ADHD and now we are waiting to
> > see the Psychyrist. We are looking for ways to deal with this without
> > putting her on medication. My husband and I really do not want to
> > medicate her, but we do want our sanity back. She will be starting
> > kindergarten this fall and if I don't do something now I know there will
> > be problems.
> >
Hey there are always problems it's called the human conditions. You work
through them you hang in there with encoragement and you look out for each
other. Maybe she should be on meds maybe behavior modification, coping skills
and a good sense of humor will help. Maybe some combo of all of them.
Remember you're doing the best you can and even if it doesn't work out the way
you thought it would then life is like that. Hang in there babe it gets
better. Try activities she's gotta put that energy somewhere.
Hey I survived without meds though I wouldn't recommend it. It's akin to
torture. It wasn't anyone's fault. They thought I had epilepsy for a while
there. Well at least it's not epilepsy. That can really make things
interesting because it scares the crap out of you on a regular basis. At
least she's got all her appendages no strabismus that might cause blindness
from one eye. At least she's more or less healthy too. She's got several
strikes less against her than I did so she'll manage kids are strong they have
to be or they wouldn't be able to survive childhood intact.
>
>
> Hi, Mandy. Welcome to ASAD!
>
> A couple bits of info for you here -
>
> 1) Sites with good info:
>
> http://add.about.com
> http://www.cyber-mall.com/asad
> http://www.chadd.org
>
> 2) If you can help your daughter learn coping skills without meds,
> great! However, if she needs meds in addition to the other *required*
> techniques, don't feel guilty about it or feel like you've failed as a
> parent. That's a common trap, and it's not good for you or for your
> daughter. AD/HD requires a multi-modal approach that *must* include
> behavioral control training, anger management training, organizational
> skill training, and effective parenting techniques training as well as
> many other aspects and *may* require medication in addition to these
> other measures.
>
> 3) There are diets that are reported to work for some. However, the
> statistics are that dietary measures are effective for only 3-5% of
> ADDers. If you consider trying one of the many dietary approaches,
> please do not do so to the neglect of the necessary behavior, anger
> management, organizational, and parenting skills knowledge needed.
>
> 4) Feel free to post questions, vents, rants, jokes, etc here. ASAD
> sometimes seems wild and wooly, but a large part of that is how we deal
> with what we all live with.
>
> 5) Watch out for the trolls. If you would like a list of my troll
> filters, please feel free to email me. There are others here who may
> have even more extensive lists than I do, but the ones I've implemented
> do tend to keep out most of the trash.
>
> 6) Learn to have fun with AD/HD. Find the *good* aspects of your
> daughter's version of AD/HD. Make life *FUN*. Enjoy the quirkiness!
>
> 7) Relax. You and your daughter will make it through this.
>
> Kitten
--
-Katz Heitmann
I never went to kindergarden so all I needed to know I learned from
Shakespeare. You won't survive long if you live in a Shakespearian tragedy.
There are few human problems which can not be solved with the jucicious
application of high explosives. (And if that doesn't work, try duct tape)
Katz Heitmann
and publish it on a web page or maybe send it to A national news service.
The only way we can get educators to cooperate is to rally together raise
hell and start taking names. Give it to the media they'll eat it up they
love a scandle. Make sure to do it around election time to get a few public
officials cashiered and ruin a few careers. Newsies love that stuff catching
politicians with their hands dirty is their sport. They sell papers that way
too.
You may worry about playing dirty but when dealing with politicians that's
the only way to get change in the government. Cut up the predecessor and
then go see the newly elected official if there's no change and ask him does
he want to be ruined. Most politicos respond to that. You hit them where
they are vulnerable the people elect them and if the people know they aren't
doing what they are supposed to do then their career is over if you do it at
the right moment the day before the election then they won't have much time
to recover because they can't get together an effective counter in that
time. That's how you hit them. The newsies love a scandal in a smal town
where the collective owns the press then you can go national or post online.
The press loves the mud fight you give them mud to throw and a scandal to
sell then they are happy. If they don't bite your bait then you can try
something to gain their attention like a march on the captol or block some
area and get the press to show up. Use old civil rights tactics you
remember.
Look up the 504 and IEP codes to see if they say that. Write as many
repressentatives to tell them what is going on in your district and if you
can't get anyone to care about it then try the direct attack on the
superintendent but the fact is most superintendents worth their salt know
about what is going on. They are probably condoning it to save money. So I
would take the direct hit on election day or the day before it without
warning them at all. Old habit I guess from the days when I had no control
over what others did to me. If they find out you're unhappy they might
denounce and continue the status quo. If you take them out fast and nasty
then it will make the new officials wary of making you angry and at the same
time eliminate most of the problems. All officials care about is getting
elected usually and if you can rip the rug out from under them then the next
batch will probably not give you anymore problems. A tactic like that is
extremely agressive but it works.
Norma wrote:
> On Mon, 26 Mar 2001 20:29:29 -0500, nknisley <nkni...@bcpl.net>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >> She has a right to one according to the law.
> >
> >Maybe, maybe not, if you mean the right to an IEP. Not every child with
> >ADHD is educationally disabled. My son does not have an IEP, but he does
> >have a 504. Other parents have been unable even to get a 504 for their
> >child.
> >
> >Nancy
> >Unique, like everyone else
>
> Ooops I get 504s sometimes mixed up with IEP. Doesn't the law say that
> all public schools have to give 504? Or is it a case of some schools
> intentionally disobeying the law?
>
> Norma
> <Sigline space for rent>
Mark Probert
Yes, I have had dealings with him. I have been reading his HealthFraud
listserv for over three years. I do not find him to be arrogant or
pushy as you describe. Opinionated? Yes. Blunt? Yes. (But, those are
my favorite personal qualities, too.)
I do not like the topics as outlined by the letter you quoted, and
have told him that I wish he would stop doing it because it lowers his
site to the level of the quacks. He could list them under a heading of
'practices where you should thoroughly research the use and providerof
the treatment' for the problem you want treated.
I also read the Reiki references. One of the problems that I see is a
lot of the truly bogus practioners include it amongst their bogus
treatments. Be mad at them because here there is guilt by association.
It may be wrong, but anyone spouting five quack treatments makes one
think that number six is bogus.
Caitriona Mac Fhiodhbhuidhe
>
> On Fri, 30 Mar 2001 04:09:45 GMT, Caitriona Mac Fhiodhbhuidhe
> <kit...@whitepine.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >You ever had any dealings with him? He's not quite as pushy as the
> >$cienos, but he's not much better.
>
> Yes, I have had dealings with him. I have been reading his HealthFraud
> listserv for over three years. I do not find him to be arrogant or
> pushy as you describe. Opinionated? Yes. Blunt? Yes. (But, those are
> my favorite personal qualities, too.)
>
I had the, uhm, "opportunity" to communicate with him at my last job,
although I'm sure he probably wouldn't remember me. Let's just say that
I wasn't impressed by his trying to bulldoze his way to what he wanted,
and he wasn't happy with me.
> I do not like the topics as outlined by the letter you quoted, and
> have told him that I wish he would stop doing it because it lowers his
> site to the level of the quacks. He could list them under a heading of
> 'practices where you should thoroughly research the use and providerof
> the treatment' for the problem you want treated.
>
Aside from his attitude, this is my biggest concern with his site. When
he lowers himself to the level of quack, how can a person decipher which
information on his site is good and what is bogus?
> I also read the Reiki references. One of the problems that I see is a
> lot of the truly bogus practioners include it amongst their bogus
> treatments. Be mad at them because here there is guilt by association.
> It may be wrong, but anyone spouting five quack treatments makes one
> think that number six is bogus.
I wouldn't mind at all if he had something saying, "Here is what you
need to look for in a reliable practitioner of <name your favorite
modality>" But he doesn't. He gives the impression (intentionally,
IMO) that anything other than conventional med is fraudulant. IMO, this
is quackery on a level with the worst of the "quacks" he tries to
expose.
With Reiki, for instance, he does not acknowledge that reliable Reiki
practitioners tell the people they are working with that Reiki is meant
as a complement to, not a replacement for, conventional medical
treatment. Reiki practitioners don't diagnose or cure. But, IME, Reiki
*does* help conventional treatment work better, if for no other reason
than that the patient is more relaxed, allowing conventional treatment
to be more effective. The same could be said for massage therapy or any
other relaxation therapy.
Mark Probert
>On Fri, 30 Mar 2001 14:05:57 GMT, Caitriona Mac Fhiodhbhuidhe
><kit...@whitepine.com> wrote:
>
>>Mark Probert wrote:
>>>
>>> On Fri, 30 Mar 2001 04:09:45 GMT, Caitriona Mac Fhiodhbhuidhe
>>> <kit...@whitepine.com> wrote:
>>>
>><snipped>
>>> >
>>> >You ever had any dealings with him? He's not quite as pushy as the
>>> >$cienos, but he's not much better.
>>>
>>> Yes, I have had dealings with him. I have been reading his HealthFraud
>>> listserv for over three years. I do not find him to be arrogant or
>>> pushy as you describe. Opinionated? Yes. Blunt? Yes. (But, those are
>>> my favorite personal qualities, too.)
>>>
>>
>>
>>I had the, uhm, "opportunity" to communicate with him at my last job,
>>although I'm sure he probably wouldn't remember me. Let's just say that
>>I wasn't impressed by his trying to bulldoze his way to what he wanted,
>>and he wasn't happy with me.
>
>OK, so he also has bad tatse.
>
>>> I do not like the topics as outlined by the letter you quoted, and
>>> have told him that I wish he would stop doing it because it lowers his
>>> site to the level of the quacks. He could list them under a heading of
>>> 'practices where you should thoroughly research the use and providerof
>>> the treatment' for the problem you want treated.
>>>
>>
>>
>>Aside from his attitude, this is my biggest concern with his site. When
>>he lowers himself to the level of quack, how can a person decipher which
>>information on his site is good and what is bogus?
>>
>>
>>> I also read the Reiki references. One of the problems that I see is a
>>> lot of the truly bogus practioners include it amongst their bogus
>>> treatments. Be mad at them because here there is guilt by association.
>>> It may be wrong, but anyone spouting five quack treatments makes one
>>> think that number six is bogus.
>>
>>
>>I wouldn't mind at all if he had something saying, "Here is what you
>>need to look for in a reliable practitioner of <name your favorite
>>modality>" But he doesn't. He gives the impression (intentionally,
>>IMO) that anything other than conventional med is fraudulant. IMO, this
>>is quackery on a level with the worst of the "quacks" he tries to
>>expose.
>
>I have read nearly all of the articles. He does support that
>treatments, some lherbal, some supplement, that have been shown tobe
>effective.
>
>>With Reiki, for instance, he does not acknowledge that reliable Reiki
>>practitioners tell the people they are working with that Reiki is meant
>>as a complement to, not a replacement for, conventional medical
>>treatment. Reiki practitioners don't diagnose or cure. But, IME, Reiki
>>*does* help conventional treatment work better, if for no other reason
>>than that the patient is more relaxed, allowing conventional treatment
>>to be more effective. The same could be said for massage therapy or any
>>other relaxation therapy.
>
>Obvioulsy, Barrent rubs you the wrong way. ;) Perhaps he needs a
>treatment?
>
mark_p...@hotmail.com
<kit...@whitepine.com> wrote:
>Mark Probert wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, 30 Mar 2001 04:09:45 GMT, Caitriona Mac Fhiodhbhuidhe
>> <kit...@whitepine.com> wrote:
>>
><snipped>
>> >
>> >You ever had any dealings with him? He's not quite as pushy as the
>> >$cienos, but he's not much better.
>>
>> Yes, I have had dealings with him. I have been reading his HealthFraud
>> listserv for over three years. I do not find him to be arrogant or
>> pushy as you describe. Opinionated? Yes. Blunt? Yes. (But, those are
>> my favorite personal qualities, too.)
>>
>
>
>I had the, uhm, "opportunity" to communicate with him at my last job,
>although I'm sure he probably wouldn't remember me. Let's just say that
>I wasn't impressed by his trying to bulldoze his way to what he wanted,
>and he wasn't happy with me.
OK, so he also has bad tatse.
>> I do not like the topics as outlined by the letter you quoted, and
>> have told him that I wish he would stop doing it because it lowers his
>> site to the level of the quacks. He could list them under a heading of
>> 'practices where you should thoroughly research the use and providerof
>> the treatment' for the problem you want treated.
>>
>
>
>Aside from his attitude, this is my biggest concern with his site. When
>he lowers himself to the level of quack, how can a person decipher which
>information on his site is good and what is bogus?
>
>
>> I also read the Reiki references. One of the problems that I see is a
>> lot of the truly bogus practioners include it amongst their bogus
>> treatments. Be mad at them because here there is guilt by association.
>> It may be wrong, but anyone spouting five quack treatments makes one
>> think that number six is bogus.
>
>
>I wouldn't mind at all if he had something saying, "Here is what you
>need to look for in a reliable practitioner of <name your favorite
>modality>" But he doesn't. He gives the impression (intentionally,
>IMO) that anything other than conventional med is fraudulant. IMO, this
>is quackery on a level with the worst of the "quacks" he tries to
>expose.
I have read nearly all of the articles. He does support that
treatments, some lherbal, some supplement, that have been shown tobe
effective.
>With Reiki, for instance, he does not acknowledge that reliable Reiki
>practitioners tell the people they are working with that Reiki is meant
>as a complement to, not a replacement for, conventional medical
>treatment. Reiki practitioners don't diagnose or cure. But, IME, Reiki
>*does* help conventional treatment work better, if for no other reason
>than that the patient is more relaxed, allowing conventional treatment
>to be more effective. The same could be said for massage therapy or any
>other relaxation therapy.
Obvioulsy, Barrent rubs you the wrong way. ;) Perhaps he needs a
treatment?
Caitriona Mac Fhiodhbhuidhe
>
> On Fri, 30 Mar 2001 14:05:57 GMT, Caitriona Mac Fhiodhbhuidhe
> <kit...@whitepine.com> wrote:
>
> >Mark Probert wrote:
> >>
> >> On Fri, 30 Mar 2001 04:09:45 GMT, Caitriona Mac Fhiodhbhuidhe
> >> <kit...@whitepine.com> wrote:
> >>
> ><snipped>
> >> >
> >> >You ever had any dealings with him? He's not quite as pushy as the
> >> >$cienos, but he's not much better.
> >>
> >> Yes, I have had dealings with him. I have been reading his HealthFraud
> >> listserv for over three years. I do not find him to be arrogant or
> >> pushy as you describe. Opinionated? Yes. Blunt? Yes. (But, those are
> >> my favorite personal qualities, too.)
> >>
> >
> >
> >I had the, uhm, "opportunity" to communicate with him at my last job,
> >although I'm sure he probably wouldn't remember me. Let's just say that
> >I wasn't impressed by his trying to bulldoze his way to what he wanted,
> >and he wasn't happy with me.
>
> OK, so he also has bad tatse.
hehehe.. thanks. The problem was that I refused to do what he wanted me
to do. Bulldozing just doesn't work with me.
>
> >> I do not like the topics as outlined by the letter you quoted, and
> >> have told him that I wish he would stop doing it because it lowers his
> >> site to the level of the quacks. He could list them under a heading of
> >> 'practices where you should thoroughly research the use and providerof
> >> the treatment' for the problem you want treated.
> >>
> >
> >
> >Aside from his attitude, this is my biggest concern with his site. When
> >he lowers himself to the level of quack, how can a person decipher which
> >information on his site is good and what is bogus?
> >
> >
> >> I also read the Reiki references. One of the problems that I see is a
> >> lot of the truly bogus practioners include it amongst their bogus
> >> treatments. Be mad at them because here there is guilt by association.
> >> It may be wrong, but anyone spouting five quack treatments makes one
> >> think that number six is bogus.
> >
> >
> >I wouldn't mind at all if he had something saying, "Here is what you
> >need to look for in a reliable practitioner of <name your favorite
> >modality>" But he doesn't. He gives the impression (intentionally,
> >IMO) that anything other than conventional med is fraudulant. IMO, this
> >is quackery on a level with the worst of the "quacks" he tries to
> >expose.
>
> I have read nearly all of the articles. He does support that
> treatments, some lherbal, some supplement, that have been shown tobe
> effective.
>
I've not read all of his site. Maybe I should one of these days, but
I've never seen a *positive* article on his site, and I tend to get a
little bored reading all negatives.
> >With Reiki, for instance, he does not acknowledge that reliable Reiki
> >practitioners tell the people they are working with that Reiki is meant
> >as a complement to, not a replacement for, conventional medical
> >treatment. Reiki practitioners don't diagnose or cure. But, IME, Reiki
> >*does* help conventional treatment work better, if for no other reason
> >than that the patient is more relaxed, allowing conventional treatment
> >to be more effective. The same could be said for massage therapy or any
> >other relaxation therapy.
>
> Obvioulsy, Barrent rubs you the wrong way. ;) Perhaps he needs a
> treatment?
LOL... If he'd ever consent to it, our church does free treatments for
anyone who signs up on the 1st and 3rd Mondays of the month. Used to be
every Monday, but we decided that the volunteers need a Monday to
themselves (yeah, right.. that one's GS Leaders' Mtg night) and a Monday
when it's practitioners only so *we* can each have a treatment.
Caitriona Mac Fhiodhbhuidhe
Uhm, Mark???
Subject: Re: Quackwatch Was: New to Group duaghter just diagnosed with
ADHD
Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2001 15:52:42 GMT
From: Mark_P...@hotmail.com (Mark Probert)
^^^^^^^
^^^^^^^
hehehe...
Mark Probert
<kit...@whitepine.com> wrote:
>
>Uhm, Mark???
>
>Subject: Re: Quackwatch Was: New to Group duaghter just diagnosed with
>ADHD
>Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2001 15:52:42 GMT
>From: Mark_P...@hotmail.com (Mark Probert)
> ^^^^^^^
> ^^^^^^^
>
>hehehe...
Tweaking a re-install.
Caitriona Mac Fhiodhbhuidhe
>
> On Fri, 30 Mar 2001 15:59:17 GMT, Caitriona Mac Fhiodhbhuidhe
> <kit...@whitepine.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >Uhm, Mark???
> >From: Mark_P...@hotmail.com (Mark Probert)
> > ^^^^^^^
> > ^^^^^^^
> >
> >hehehe...
>
> Tweaking a re-install.
Uh-huh... sure.
nknisley
>
> nknisley wrote:
> >
> > Caitriona Mac Fhiodhbhuidhe wrote:
> > >
> > > GOtterBMe wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Catherina said:
> > > >
> > > > "I've no respect for those guys. IMO, they're nearly as bad as the
> > > > $cienos and Breggin.
> > > > "
> > > >
> > > > Oh heavens no. They have a bias, but they acknowledge their bias, and they back
> > > > their claims up. There really IS a lot of quackery out there.
> > >
> > > Yes, there is quackery out there. But Barrett is, IMO, a pseudo-skeptic
> > > (unproven = disproven) rather than a true skeptic. And he's pushy and
> > > arrogant.
> >
> > How about an example of Barrett claiming something was disproved when,
> > in fact, it is only unproved?
I had a feeling that this would involve Barrett's opinions of Reiki. <g>
> Can you find a single thing in here that doesn't insinuate that Reiki is
> quackery?
I will say it's not a "balanced" article. IMO, it points out a lot of
highly questionable practices, that's for sure.
But you still haven't shown me where Barrett says something was
disproved when it is only unproved.
<snip>
> > As to pushy and arrogant: LOL! You don't have to marry the guy! <Someone
> > send the good Doctor some Arrogant Bastard!>
> >
>
> You ever had any dealings with him?
No. Haven't needed to.
> He's not quite as pushy as the $cienos, but he's not much better.
I come from a professional background with a goodly proportion of "pushy
and arrogant" people. <g> One thing I had to learn is to separate the
message from the messenger.
That said, I know it isn't easy to do. Many times I didn't want to hear
what someone said, or deal with someone, because I thought he was a
jerk.
And, information from someone I liked always seemed much more palatable,
and easier to accept, than from someone I didn't.
But as long as I didn't have to have a personal relationship with the
jerk, I could handle it.
Yeah, I would sometimes fume, I would fuss, I would get mad--at the
person. But that didn't neessarily negate what the person was saying.
And as for your comment in reply to Mark's post about Barrett's trying
to bulldoze you and that he wasn't happy with you:
I spent a lot of time in my career standing up to people trying to
bulldoze me (especially when I was younger) and when people couldn't get
their way, they were very unhappy with me indeed. (We had a saying in
the office: "You know you've finally arrived when someone sues you.")
<g> You learn to deal with it, or you leave the job.
Caitriona Mac Fhiodhbhuidhe
>
> Caitriona Mac Fhiodhbhuidhe wrote:
> >
> > nknisley wrote:
> > >
> > > Caitriona Mac Fhiodhbhuidhe wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Yes, there is quackery out there. But Barrett is, IMO, a pseudo-skeptic
> > > > (unproven = disproven) rather than a true skeptic. And he's pushy and
> > > > arrogant.
> > >
> > > How about an example of Barrett claiming something was disproved when,
> > > in fact, it is only unproved?
>
> I had a feeling that this would involve Barrett's opinions of Reiki. <g>
>
LOL... it's not just the Reiki. It's his focus on massage therapy and
other things as well. As for the Reiki, I'll be *really* happy when the
testing that's in the works is completed and replicated a couple of
times.
> > Can you find a single thing in here that doesn't insinuate that Reiki is
> > quackery?
>
> I will say it's not a "balanced" article. IMO, it points out a lot of
> highly questionable practices, that's for sure.
>
> But you still haven't shown me where Barrett says something was
> disproved when it is only unproved.
>
> <snip>
>
I've not gone through his entire site. Too much negativity gives me
headaches. :-) I'll try more later. My main exposure to his site has
been through other people using his articles to try to show things are
disproved. I'll do a bit more reading of the site, but it's going to be
slow going.
>
> And as for your comment in reply to Mark's post about Barrett's trying
> to bulldoze you and that he wasn't happy with you:
>
> I spent a lot of time in my career standing up to people trying to
> bulldoze me (especially when I was younger) and when people couldn't get
> their way, they were very unhappy with me indeed. (We had a saying in
> the office: "You know you've finally arrived when someone sues you.")
> <g> You learn to deal with it, or you leave the job.
>
I got used to it. But I do have to admit that I (and the rest of the
family as a result) am much calmer and happier now that I'm no longer
dealing with all that trash... although I *do* sometimes miss killing
trolls. Think maybe it's addictive?
GOtterBMe
"Aside from his attitude, this is my biggest concern with his site. When
he lowers himself to the level of quack, how can a person decipher which
information on his site is good and what is bogus? "
Not everyone would agree with you on that...
"I wouldn't mind at all if he had something saying, "Here is what you
need to look for in a reliable practitioner of <name your favorite
modality>" But he doesn't. He gives the impression (intentionally,
IMO) that anything other than conventional med is fraudulant. IMO, this
is quackery on a level with the worst of the "quacks" he tries to
expose."
Not if he supports what he says, which I have always seen.
As for Reiki -- might be great, but there's absolutely no evidence that it
actually treats ADHD, although I have seen the claim many times.
When we have ADHD, and something benefits us, that does not automatically mean
it's treating the ADHD. ADHD is just part of who we are.
Caitriona Mac Fhiodhbhuidhe
>
> Caitriona said:
>
> "Aside from his attitude, this is my biggest concern with his site. When
> he lowers himself to the level of quack, how can a person decipher which
> information on his site is good and what is bogus? "
>
> Not everyone would agree with you on that...
>
> "I wouldn't mind at all if he had something saying, "Here is what you
> need to look for in a reliable practitioner of <name your favorite
> modality>" But he doesn't. He gives the impression (intentionally,
> IMO) that anything other than conventional med is fraudulant. IMO, this
> is quackery on a level with the worst of the "quacks" he tries to
> expose."
>
> Not if he supports what he says, which I have always seen.
>
> As for Reiki -- might be great, but there's absolutely no evidence that it
> actually treats ADHD, although I have seen the claim many times.
Not, IMO, from any reputable practitioner. Reiki can *help* in all
areas of life. IME, Reiki helps to relax and refocus, which in turn
makes everything else work better.
>
> When we have ADHD, and something benefits us, that does not automatically mean
> it's treating the ADHD. ADHD is just part of who we are.
Yes, this I know. <g> I've had a disagreement or two on the Reiki NG
with a fellow whom I fairly well respect WRT ADHD. He's in the UK and
was of the opinion that ADHD was an American thing, not legitimate. But
then, we've never seen that in here, have we? :-?
Caitriona Mac Fhiodhbhuidhe
>
> Caitriona Mac Fhiodhbhuidhe wrote:
> >
> > nknisley wrote:
> > >
> > > Caitriona Mac Fhiodhbhuidhe wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Yes, there is quackery out there. But Barrett is, IMO, a pseudo-skeptic
> > > > (unproven = disproven) rather than a true skeptic. And he's pushy and
> > > > arrogant.
> > >
> > > How about an example of Barrett claiming something was disproved when,
> > > in fact, it is only unproved?
>
> I had a feeling that this would involve Barrett's opinions of Reiki. <g>
>
> > Can you find a single thing in here that doesn't insinuate that Reiki is
> > quackery?
>
> I will say it's not a "balanced" article. IMO, it points out a lot of
> highly questionable practices, that's for sure.
>
> But you still haven't shown me where Barrett says something was
> disproved when it is only unproved.
>
How about the "study" done by 9yo Emily Rosa that "disproved" Touch
Therapy (TT)? I myself know nothing of TT other than what I've read.
But it is not something that I will claim has been disproven based on
one study, especially when that study was conducted by a 9yo who is the
daughter of someone who believes that the technique does not work. It
seems to me that there are inherent flaws in the "study" that Barrett
says disproves the technique. This "disproof" seems just as flaky to me
as many "proofs" do.
http://www.canoe.ca/HealthAlternativeColumns/010316.html
"The practitioners correctly located Emily's hand only 122 (44%) out of
280 trials, which was no better than would be expected by guessing. I
edited and helped write the JAMA report, in which we concluded that TT
claims are groundless and that the use of TT by health professionals
should be stopped."
Caitriona Mac Fhiodhbhuidhe
>
> Caitriona said:
>
> "Aside from his attitude, this is my biggest concern with his site. When
> he lowers himself to the level of quack, how can a person decipher which
> information on his site is good and what is bogus? "
>
> Not everyone would agree with you on that...
>
I know that not everyone agrees with me WRT Barrett. Nothing new there.
Here's something interesting I found on his site:
http://www.quackwatch.com/00AboutQuackwatch/mission.html
We are organizing the following task forces.
Anti-Biotechnology Quackery
Antifluoridation Quackery
Anti-Immunization Quackery
Book Evaluation
Cancer Quackery
Dental Quackery
Dietary Supplements
Multilevel Marketing
Mental Health Quackery
Mental Retardation Quackery
Physical Therapy Quackery
Quackwatch Publicity
My questions are:
1) Is he saying that there is nothing harmful in biotechnology?
2) Is he saying that there are no dietary supplements that should be
taken?
3) What does he feel is "mental health quackery"?
4) What does he feel is "physical therapy quackery"?
As for his stance on "dental quackery", I'm thinking the jury is still
out on that one. I'd like to see studies done to determine tissue
mercury levels in people who claim to have mercury toxicity due to
dental amalgams. If mercury vapors released by almalgams were being
absorbed by body tissue, then there may not be an increase in
blood/urine mercury levels.
I feel that it should be determined *scientifically* whether or not this
is a cause for worry. Perhaps the few people who *do* exhibit symptoms
of mercury toxicity and who have a reduction of symptoms after removal
of almalgams are more sensitive to mercury than most or have something
along the lines of allergic reaction.
However, he doesn't seem to feel that any studies are needed to
determine who is right WRT this issue:
http://www.quackwatch.com/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/mercury.html
"Mercury is a component of the amalgam used for "silver" fillings. The
other major ingredients are silver, tin, copper, and zinc. When mixed,
these elements bond to form a strong, stable substance. Very sensitive
instruments can detect billionths of a gram of mercury vapor in the
mouth of a person with amalgam fillings. However, the minuscule amount
of mercury the body absorbs from amalgams is far below the level that
exerts any adverse health effect [1-6]."
and
"An extensive review published in 1993 by the U.S. Department of Health
and Human Services concluded that "there is scant evidence that the
health of the vast majority of people with amalgam is compromised or
that removing fillings has a beneficial effect on health." [11] In
January 1998, the American Dental Association Council on Scientific
Affairs issued a report on dental amalgam safety, with emphasis on
studies that had been published since the 1993 review. The report
concluded:
"Millions of people have amalgam restorations in their mouths, and
millions more will receive amalgam
for restoring their carious [decayed] teeth. Over the years,
amalgam has been used for dental
restorations without evidence of major health problems. Newly
developed techniques have demonstrated
that minute levels of mercury are released from amalgam
restorations, but no health consequences from
exposure to such low levels of mercury released from amalgam
restorations have been demonstrated. Given
the available scientific information and considering the
demonstrated benefits of dental amalgams,
unless new scientific research dictates otherwise, there currently
appears to be no justification for
discontinuing the use of dental amalgam [12]."
I feel that there are a *lot* of questions out there and that his
approach is tatamount to maintaining status quo rather than to finding
reliable answers to the questions.
Mark Probert
If you assume that the numbers are correct, then the technique is no
better than placebo.
Mark Probert
No. there is a lot of quackery in the field, though. One of his
principle targets, is Hulda Clark, who claims that cancer is caused by
a parasite, and that her 'Zapper' can cure all cancers (said Zapper
being very similar to a $cientology e-meter).
There was a post about an cranio stimulation therapy.
>2) Is he saying that there are no dietary supplements that should be
>taken?
No. Just that the claims are extraordinary.
>3) What does he feel is "mental health quackery"?
I have been begging him for a section or two on the Breggins...
>4) What does he feel is "physical therapy quackery"?
Hyperbaric O2 therapy for cerebral palsy, for one. There are others.
>As for his stance on "dental quackery", I'm thinking the jury is still
>out on that one. I'd like to see studies done to determine tissue
>mercury levels in people who claim to have mercury toxicity due to
>dental amalgams. If mercury vapors released by almalgams were being
>absorbed by body tissue, then there may not be an increase in
>blood/urine mercury levels.
>I feel that it should be determined *scientifically* whether or not this
>is a cause for worry. Perhaps the few people who *do* exhibit symptoms
>of mercury toxicity and who have a reduction of symptoms after removal
>of almalgams are more sensitive to mercury than most or have something
>along the lines of allergic reaction.
It is not just toxicity, but the claims that Hg cause MS, etc.
>However, he doesn't seem to feel that any studies are needed to
>determine who is right WRT this issue:
I'll wait for the finished product.
Sounds like he has some strong backing on the Hg issue.
Caitriona Mac Fhiodhbhuidhe
>
> Caitriona Mac Fhiodhbhuidhe wrote:
> >
> > Can you find a single thing in here that doesn't insinuate that Reiki is
> > quackery?
>
> I will say it's not a "balanced" article. IMO, it points out a lot of
> highly questionable practices, that's for sure.
>
> But you still haven't shown me where Barrett says something was
> disproved when it is only unproved.
>
Here, he has not *stated* disproven, but in the last paragraph he states
his own feelings, which seem to be that prayer does nothing. This, even
though the studies are inconclusive, some with positive results and some
negative. He calls belief in prayer, "magical thinking". All in all,
his comments do not come across as skeptical nor as professional. His
site is *supposed* to provide evidence of quackery, is it not? Instead,
it seems to me that he uses it as a platform for his own personal
beliefs.
http://www.quackwatch.com/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/faith.html
Intercessory Prayer
In 1988, two investigators reported that their thorough search of the
scientific literature had located only three controlled examinations of
the effects of prayer by third parties on people who were unaware of the
prayers [5]. Of these, one (the Byrd study described below) claimed
benefit but was poorly designed, whereas the others found no benefit and
were well designed [6,7]. Surprised by the small number of published
studies, Witmer and Zimmerman asked 38 journal editors whether they had
ever received but rejected a manuscript on the subject of intercessory
prayer. They also asked the editors to ask their readers whether they
knew of any such study, published or unpublished. No editor or reader
responded affirmatively. Since that time four more studies have been
published, two showing no benefit and two claiming a positive result.
The Byrd study, involving patients in the coronary care unit at San
Francisco General Hospital, compared 192 patients who were prayed for by
Christians located outside the hospital with 201 patients who served as
controls [8]. The published report stated that the prayed-for group had
fewer complications. However, the author's tabulation was not valid
because he scored interrelated complications separately and therefore
gave them too much weight. The average length of hospital stay, which
was not subject to this type of scoring
error, was identical for the treatment and control groups [5,9].
Another study examined what happened to anxiety, depression, and
self-esteem in 406 patients who received intercessory prayer or no
prayer. The prayer was offered for 15 minutes daily for 12 weeks. The
researcher reported improvement in all of the subjects but found no
differences between the prayer and no-prayer groups [10]. A study of the
effects of intercessory prayer on 40 recovering alcoholics also found no
benefit [11]. A 6-month study of 40 advanced AIDS patients exposed to 10
weeks of "distant healing" reported fewer new
illnesses, physician visits, and hospitalizations in the "distant
healing" group [12].
In 1999, the American Medical Association's Archives of Internal
Medicine published a better-designed study of nearly a thousand
consecutive patients who were newly admitted to the coronary care unit
of a hospital in Kansas City. The researchers created a 35-item score
sheet that was used to measure what happened to the patients during a
28-day period in which 15 groups of 5 persons ("intercessors") prayed
individually for about half the patients. The intercessors were given
the patients' first names and were asked to pray daily for "a speedy
recovery with no complications." The prayed-for group had a 10-11%
reduction in total scores even though their average length of hospital
stay was similar to that of the "usual-care" group. The researchers also
noted that: (a) some patients had asked hospital clergy to pray for
them; (b) many, if not most patients in both groups were probably
receiving intercessory and/or direct prayer from family, friends and/or
clergy, so that the study was most likely measuring the effects of
"supplementary intercessory prayer"; (c) although the difference would
be expected to occur by chance alone only 1 in 25 times such an
experiment were conducted, chance still remains a possible explanation
of the results; and (d) using the scoring method of the San Francisco
study yielded no significant difference between the two groups [13].
The researchers concluded that "the result suggests that prayer may be
an effective adjunct to standard medical care" and that further studies
should be done [13]. I disagree. The "10-11% reduction in the score
sheet" may be statistically significant but is not clinically
significant and probably occurred by chance.
Intercessory prayer studies accomplish nothing. "Believers" won't change
their view if further studies are negative, and nonbelievers won't
change theirs if additional studies appear positive. Prayer may help
some people feel reassured when they are worried, but to me it makes
more sense to spend one's time and energy on more constructive
health-promoting activities. Although luck is still a significant
factor, I think it is more sensible to believe that health is more
likely to be influenced by prudent living than by magical thinking.
Also, if praying for people worked, would strangers praying against them
cause them to become sicker? Or, as one of my religious friends put it,
"Is God is so stupid that he or she would respond to popularity
contests?"
Caitriona Mac Fhiodhbhuidhe
I am making no assumptions as to whether or not the numbers are
correct. It seems to me that this is as flawed as many positive studies
that are thrown out. There is an initial bias on the part of those
conducting the study. This bias may have influenced the outcome.
Caitriona Mac Fhiodhbhuidhe
>
> On Fri, 30 Mar 2001 18:21:03 GMT, Caitriona Mac Fhiodhbhuidhe
> <kit...@whitepine.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >My questions are:
> >
> >1) Is he saying that there is nothing harmful in biotechnology?
>
> No. there is a lot of quackery in the field, though. One of his
> principle targets, is Hulda Clark, who claims that cancer is caused by
> a parasite, and that her 'Zapper' can cure all cancers (said Zapper
> being very similar to a $cientology e-meter).
>
> There was a post about an cranio stimulation therapy.
>
My understanding of biotechnology is that it is that to do with
bio-engineering - plants, animals, etc. Sorry, but animal genes don't
belong in vegetable cells. Monsanto has developed some extremely
agressive plant strains.
> >2) Is he saying that there are no dietary supplements that should be
> >taken?
>
> No. Just that the claims are extraordinary.
>
Yes, there are some extraordinary claims. But then there are also times
when there is a medical need for supplementation. I can definitely tell
when my body is getting too low on iron.
> >3) What does he feel is "mental health quackery"?
>
> I have been begging him for a section or two on the Breggins...
>
Breggin and $cienos, great. But what if he decides that Breggin's camp
(or some other off-based group) actually have it right and everyone else
has it wrong?
> >4) What does he feel is "physical therapy quackery"?
>
> Hyperbaric O2 therapy for cerebral palsy, for one. There are others.
>
I'm unfamiliar with the therapy you mention here.
<snipped>
>
> >I feel that it should be determined *scientifically* whether or not this
> >is a cause for worry. Perhaps the few people who *do* exhibit symptoms
> >of mercury toxicity and who have a reduction of symptoms after removal
> >of almalgams are more sensitive to mercury than most or have something
> >along the lines of allergic reaction.
>
> It is not just toxicity, but the claims that Hg cause MS, etc.
>
I know someone who was dx'd with severe CFS. Her doctor couldn't find a
cause, it wasn't getting any better. She did a bit of research online,
found some info on mercury toxicity and amalgams. She asked her doctor
about it. Her doctor determined that many of her symptoms could also
fit the dx of mercury toxicity and gave the authorization for removal of
her amalgams. I gave her Jan's email address (so sue me :-p ) and they
corresponded back and forth for a while, with me cc'd. She slowly began
to get better after the amalgam removal.
IMO, there *may* be some portion of the population that is more
sensitive or may have some sort of allergic reaction to amalgams. We
have evidence that some people suffer adverse effects from
methylphenidate. Why do we not have anything similar WRT amalgams?
> >However, he doesn't seem to feel that any studies are needed to
> >determine who is right WRT this issue:
>
> I'll wait for the finished product.
>
I think we need as much info as we can get.
<snipped>
> >
> >I feel that there are a *lot* of questions out there and that his
> >approach is tatamount to maintaining status quo rather than to finding
> >reliable answers to the questions.
>
> Sounds like he has some strong backing on the Hg issue.
Yes, he has backing on this issue. But there have been other times when
there has been backing for a medical view, then later it has been found
that the view is wrong or needs some adjustments. Nothing wrong with
getting good, non-biased info one way or the other, IMO.
Emma Anne
> > We are looking for ways to deal with this without
> > putting her on medication. My husband and I really do not want to
> > medicate her, but we do want our sanity back.
>
> That was our feeling a couple of years ago. We eventually tried
> medication for our son and now we believe there is no other
> solution.
As far as I can tell, that is the feeling of *every* parent, and for
that matter *every* adult ADDer. No one likes the idea of medications
going in.
GOtterBMe
"
1) Is he saying that there is nothing harmful in biotechnology?"
That is not what he said. He focuses on quackery, which is ONE issue of many.
He doesn't claim to cover every possible facet, so I see nothing dishonest
here.
2) Is he saying that there are no dietary supplements that should be
taken?
That isn't what I read.
3) What does he feel is "mental health quackery"?
Oh there are all sorts possible. Did you read the website?
4) What does he feel is "physical therapy quackery"?
Did you read the website?
As for his stance on "dental quackery", I'm thinking the jury is still
out on that one.
Perhaps, but the research doesn't support your view.
Personally I'm glad he's out there. I believe I am capable of looking at all
sides of an issue, and I appreciate his help in getting to that place.
Caitriona Mac Fhiodhbhuidhe
>
<snipped>
>
> Did you read the website?
>
As I said earlier, I look at it a bit, then leave.
Since I no longer get paid to investigate negative things, I don't do it
very often. It gives me headaches. And his site is full of negatives,
although not the same kind I was getting paid to look at. So going
through his writing is slow-going for me.
I'd much rather be thinking about what the heck I'm going to wear to my
SIL's wedding next week. I've yet to meet her.
GOtterBMe
"Since I no longer get paid to investigate negative things, I don't do it
very often. It gives me headaches. "
Then -- is it truly fair of you to be this negative about the site and its
information?
I can understand disliking the person behind it -- people are people -- but
it's not like you to critize when you haven't read.
If you don't like his Reiki criticisms, that makes sense as you have likely
read that. But it doesn't make sense to me to then go after the entire site
with speculative questions.
nknisley
>
> Here's something interesting I found on his site:
>
> http://www.quackwatch.com/00AboutQuackwatch/mission.html
>
> We are organizing the following task forces.
>
> Anti-Biotechnology Quackery
> Antifluoridation Quackery
> Anti-Immunization Quackery
> Book Evaluation
> Cancer Quackery
> Dental Quackery
> Dietary Supplements
> Multilevel Marketing
> Mental Health Quackery
> Mental Retardation Quackery
> Physical Therapy Quackery
> Quackwatch Publicity
>
> My questions are:
>
> 1) Is he saying that there is nothing harmful in biotechnology?
> 2) Is he saying that there are no dietary supplements that should be
> taken?
> 3) What does he feel is "mental health quackery"?
> 4) What does he feel is "physical therapy quackery"?
So, let me get this straight. You're upset because you don't know what
Barrett's position is on these subjects?
Or are you upset because you assume (without knowing) that Barrett's
positions on these subjects are (or will be) unreasonable and
unsupported?
I'm beginning to get the impression that you don't like Barrett or his
web site much. Of course, I could be wrong. <g>
nknisley
>
> Mark Probert wrote:
<snip>
> > >2) Is he saying that there are no dietary supplements that should be
> > >taken?
> >
> > No. Just that the claims are extraordinary.
>
> Yes, there are some extraordinary claims. But then there are also times
> when there is a medical need for supplementation. I can definitely tell
> when my body is getting too low on iron.
And does Barrett claim that dietary supplements have no medical value or
that they are never needed?
Does he ever say that people should never take nutritional substances
for any reason because they have no legitimate medical use?
> > >3) What does he feel is "mental health quackery"?
> >
> > I have been begging him for a section or two on the Breggins...
> >
>
> Breggin and $cienos, great. But what if he decides that Breggin's camp
> (or some other off-based group) actually have it right and everyone else
> has it wrong?
So, you are upset not because of what Barrett said (or didn't say) but
because of what he *might* say?!
And what you gives you any indication at all that he *might* say this?
If you can't point to something which would lead you to feel he *might*
say this, why are you so concerned?
<snip>
I am rather amused (and somewhat bemused) by the reasons you give for
being upset about Barrett. Really don't like Barrett, huh? <g>
nknisley
>
> nknisley wrote:
> >
> > Caitriona Mac Fhiodhbhuidhe wrote:
> > >
> > > nknisley wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Caitriona Mac Fhiodhbhuidhe wrote:
> > > > >
> <snipped>
> > > > >
> > > > > Yes, there is quackery out there. But Barrett is, IMO, a pseudo-skeptic
> > > > > (unproven = disproven) rather than a true skeptic. And he's pushy and
> > > > > arrogant.
> > > >
> > > > How about an example of Barrett claiming something was disproved when,
> > > > in fact, it is only unproved?
<snip>
> > But you still haven't shown me where Barrett says something was
> > disproved when it is only unproved.
> >
> > <snip>
> I've not gone through his entire site. Too much negativity gives me
> headaches. :-) I'll try more later. My main exposure to his site has
> been through other people using his articles to try to show things are
> disproved.
So you aren't upset because *Barrett* equates unproved with disproved
but because "other people" used his articles to equate unproved with
disproved.
I see....
GOtterBMe
"I'm beginning to get the impression that you don't like Barrett or his
web site much. Of course, I could be wrong. <g>"
Ya know, Nancy -- there's that "understatement" thing again.
It's one thing to win the award. We all think that's great.
But you really should stop rubbing our noses in it (grin).
nknisley
I'm not trying to make you all feel bad. But I'm the type of person who
likes to build on my successes. And to be good, one has to practice,
practice, practice.
I hope to be good enough to make the cut for nominees for the 2002
award. <g>
Dave Knapp
<kit...@whitepine.com> wrote:
>How about the "study" done by 9yo Emily Rosa that "disproved" Touch
>Therapy (TT)? I myself know nothing of TT other than what I've read.
>But it is not something that I will claim has been disproven based on
>one study, especially when that study was conducted by a 9yo who is the
>daughter of someone who believes that the technique does not work.
Kitten:
There are various degrees of claims that require different amounts
of proof. I know nothing of Reiki, so I won't make any comments about
that. However, so-called "touch therapy" made some quite startling
claims, among which was the claim that those receiving it could "feel"
the presence of the practitioner's hands when they were several inches
from the subject's body.
Since that claim directly contradicts pretty much every established
theory of perception and even some of physics, some extremely
substantial evidence would be required to make scientists believe it
was worthwhile to pursue. Since the very simple experiment by a 9
year old found substantial evidence against the claims, a statement
that the therapy has been "disproven" is entirely appropriate.
In general, the standards for evidence get tougher the more changes
the existing theory a claim requires. Thus, a claim that the sun is
going to rise in the west tomorrow would require a great deal more
evidence than a claim that the sun will rise in the east.
Many "alternative medicine" claims have several strikes against
them from the very start:
1.) They make broad claims for helping many diseases and conditions.
2.) They frequently require some sort of psychic "connection"
between the practitioner and the patient, or they invoke the
manipulations of some kind of "life force," for which no physical
evidence has ever been found.
3.) They directly contradict scientific evidence about the causes of
specific disorders.
4.) The explanations for how they work are couched in either
language that has no semantic content or in scientific-sounding
explanations that do not rest on any physical evidence.
The vast majority of medical interventions derived from
non-scientific sources have proven worthless. That does not by any
means indicate that all such interventions are worthless; many
traditional herbal remedies are quite effective, for example. But for
every one of those, there have been thousands of ineffective remedies
for which miraculous results have been claimed.
Using a Bayesian framework for decision theory, one is forced to
doubt the claims of alternative practitioners unless they can provide
compelling scientific evidence to support specific claims.
I hope that helps give some prespective.
-- Dave
Cher
GOtterBMe <gott...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20010329155946...@ng-cr1.aol.com...
> Cheryl said:
>
> " learning disabilities have skyrocketed."
No Gotter....I don't believe I said the above statement...You've got me
mixed up with someone else...
>
> The increased incidence of learning disabilities correlates EXACTLY with
...
> the coining of the word for the first time in 1963 by a fellow by the name
of
> Kirk.
>
> It started out slowly. When I started in special education in 1972, it was
a
> fairly uncommon diagnosis. However, as expertise in diagnosing it
increased,
> the number of diagnoses when up.
>
> There's no mystery there. The students we would call "LD" now have always
been
> there.
>
>
Joe Parsons
>
>GOtterBMe <gott...@aol.com> wrote in message
>news:20010329155946...@ng-cr1.aol.com...
>> Cheryl said:
>>
>> " learning disabilities have skyrocketed."
>
>No Gotter....I don't believe I said the above statement...You've got me
>mixed up with someone else...
Actually, you did. You pasted in a quote from a PBS site:
On Thu, 29 Mar 2001 11:51:24 -0600, "Cher" <crge...@i-55.com> wrote:
> PBS has the transcripts from Moyers report "Trade Secrets" at:
>> http://www.pbs.org/tradesecrets/transcript.html
[snip]
> Surely it is no coincidence that breast cancer rates have tripled
>since 1940, brain cancer
> among children is up 26 percent, testicular cancer among adolescent
>men has doubled,
> learning disabilities have skyrocketed.
Joe Parsons
>
>
>>
>> The increased incidence of learning disabilities correlates EXACTLY with
>...
>> the coining of the word for the first time in 1963 by a fellow by the name
>of
>> Kirk.
>>
>> It started out slowly. When I started in special education in 1972, it was
>a
>> fairly uncommon diagnosis. However, as expertise in diagnosing it
>increased,
>> the number of diagnoses when up.
>>
>> There's no mystery there. The students we would call "LD" now have always
>been
>> there.
>>
>>
>
----------------------------------------------------------------
Streaming Multimedia production and delivery--served with a SMILe
http://www.yankeemedia.net
Caitriona Mac Fhiodhbhuidhe
It's not just his Reiki criticisms. Everything that I've read on his
site has been full of negativity. No, I've not gone through the entire
site yet. But thus far, there has been nothing saying, "This is what
you need to look out for when looking for a <insert modality here>."
There has been nothing to say, "An ethical practitioner of <insert
modality here> will <insert criteria>. If the practitioner you speak
with does not follow these ethical guidelines, go elsewhere."
He doesn't give a full, well-balanced story on anything I've seen thus
far. IMO, it is equivalent to Breggin saying that because *some* people
dx'd ADHD are misdx'd, ADHD is flagrantly overdx'd.
Again, no, I've not read the entire site yet. But then, I don't have to
read every single work published by Breggin to know that *he* isn't
credible, either.
Caitriona Mac Fhiodhbhuidhe
>
<snipped>
>
> I'm beginning to get the impression that you don't like Barrett or his
> web site much. Of course, I could be wrong. <g>
>
You're right. IMO, he's a flaming ass who can't be bothered to write a
well-balanced article on any topic upon which he touches.
Caitriona Mac Fhiodhbhuidhe
>
> On Fri, 30 Mar 2001 18:07:50 GMT, Caitriona Mac Fhiodhbhuidhe
> <kit...@whitepine.com> wrote:
>
> >How about the "study" done by 9yo Emily Rosa that "disproved" Touch
> >Therapy (TT)? I myself know nothing of TT other than what I've read.
> >But it is not something that I will claim has been disproven based on
> >one study, especially when that study was conducted by a 9yo who is the
> >daughter of someone who believes that the technique does not work.
>
>
> Using a Bayesian framework for decision theory, one is forced to
> doubt the claims of alternative practitioners unless they can provide
> compelling scientific evidence to support specific claims.
>
> I hope that helps give some prespective.
>
Dave,
Believe it or not, I've been through all this before.
If such a study as that done by Emily Rosa had been performed by the
child of a proponent of a TT practitioner and had been positive, you
know as well as I do that it would have been thrown out because of flaws
with the study. How then can it be used as an acceptable study, simply
because the results are negative?
*That* is my problem with this particular study. If it would be viewed
as a flawed study had had the results been positive, it is *still* a
flawed study with the negative results.
Chris Leithiser
>
> Believe it or not, I've been through all this before.
>
> If such a study as that done by Emily Rosa had been performed by the
> child of a proponent of a TT practitioner and had been positive, you
> know as well as I do that it would have been thrown out because of flaws
> with the study. How then can it be used as an acceptable study, simply
> because the results are negative?
> *That* is my problem with this particular study. If it would be viewed
> as a flawed study had had the results been positive, it is *still* a
> flawed study with the negative results.
If it is a flawed study, it should be possible to point out the flaws.
(The obvious one--and the one most commonly cited by failed psychics,
etc. is that Emily herself may have caused the failure by not "believing
in" TT.) Any others? Keep in mind that Emily only tested one aspect
of the claims, although it was a key aspect.
Actually, had her study found that the TT practitioners _could_ perceive
"energy fields," it would have been good science as well--for a
fourth-grade science fair experiment, which it was.
I was tickled by the experiment because it reminded me strongly of one
performed earlier that debunked the foundations of a similar therapeutic
practice known as "animal magnetism." That, too, was based on a
hypothesis that energy or something resembling it flowed from person to
person and that it was related to physical health. A similar experiment
showed it wasn't so, performed by a world-reknowned scientist.* He and
his colleagues knocked the theory out from under the practice.
Yet people got better from "animal magnetism," known today as hypnosis.
I've no doubt that TT also helps people. So does sitting on the
hospital bed and talking to them, or _real_ massage, or just about any
procedure that makes the patient feel he's being cared for and about.
If I ran the hospital, we'd have masseurs on staff, but they'd have to
be qualified masseurs. No TT practitioners need apply.
The Emily Rosa experiment may not have been computerized or perfectly
controlled, but it remains the number-one investigation of TT. (James
Randi did a similar one with one subject only.) Why is that? My local
college teaches an outreach course in TT, and it hasn't been objectively
tested by anyone but a fourth-grader?
*Benjamin Franklin, of all people!
Caitriona Mac Fhiodhbhuidhe
Most TT practitioners I've heard about are nurses.
>
> The Emily Rosa experiment may not have been computerized or perfectly
> controlled, but it remains the number-one investigation of TT. (James
> Randi did a similar one with one subject only.) Why is that? My local
> college teaches an outreach course in TT, and it hasn't been objectively
> tested by anyone but a fourth-grader?
>
Exactly. There are no tests out there that show that it works or that
it doesn't. I'm not going to say that something doesn't work if there
is nothing to show that it doesn't work. Opinion is far different from
fact.
> *Benjamin Franklin, of all people!
GOtterBMe
"You're right. IMO, he's a flaming ass who can't be bothered to write a
well-balanced article on any topic upon which he touches. "
WHY should anyone have to write a "well-balanced" article on quackery? That
wouldn't even make sense. It would be a lie.
His bias is obvious. To object that his articles match the topic doesn't make
sense to me.
GOtterBMe
"It's not just his Reiki criticisms. Everything that I've read on his
site has been full of negativity. "
What would you expect him to say about medical quacks? The museum of medical
quackery is full of such "negativity" also.
"Don't talk to strangers" is negative advice we give to children all the time.
He has the right to have a 'whistle-blowing' kind of website if he wants to. It
serves a real services.
Caitriona Mac Fhiodhbhuidhe
No, it would serve a *real service* if he told what to watch out for in
ethical vs unethical practitioners. It would serve a real service if he
were trying to be CONstructive rather than DEstructive. A
whistle-blower does so to fix things, not merely to destroy things.
You left out the portion of my post that included what I would *like* to
see on Barrett's site or any site that *truly* wants to bring about
change for the good:
[ No, I've not gone through the entire site yet. But thus far, there
has been nothing saying, "This is what
you need to look out for when looking for a <insert modality here>."
There has been nothing to say, "An ethical practitioner of <insert
modality here> will <insert criteria>. If the practitioner you speak
with does not follow these ethical guidelines, go elsewhere." ]
Caitriona Mac Fhiodhbhuidhe
He does not keep himself to reporting "quackery". He colors all
practitioners of any modality he dislikes with the same brush. Remember
the example from his site about massage therapy? He tells *only* the
bad, does *not* tell the good that can be done with massage therapy nor
how to find a reputable, ethical massage therapist. He makes it look
like the entire profession is quackery.
GOtterBMe
\"If such a study as that done by Emily Rosa had been performed by the
child of a proponent of a TT practitioner and had been positive, you
know as well as I do that it would have been thrown out because of flaws
with the study. How then can it be used as an acceptable study, simply
because the results are negative? "
The problem isn't that someone reported this outcome (which made national news)
-- it's the expectation that anything we find on line will reflect what we
might find in a rigorous journal. That's completely unrealistic.
It's a web site. If he wants to quote a science fair project, that's his right.
People who rely on the internet for accurate, factual information get what they
deserve. :)
GOtterBMe
"Exactly. There are no tests out there that show that it works or that
it doesn't. I'm not going to say that something doesn't work if there
is nothing to show that it doesn't work. Opinion is far different from
fact."
You're of course entitled to that view, but serious researchers look for
"surface validity." That is, a cursory examination should not suggest that the
theory has to be science fiction.
I can't imagine a serious researcher trying to validate TT. There are far more
credible theories to explore. It's not QUACKWATCH's fault that no professional
researcher will touch this question with a ten-foot pole, but comments like
"The child didn't 'believe in it' is a design flaw" demonstrate why.
This is truly silly. QUACKWATCH is no good because there's no professional TT
research? So he can't look at what TT claims and say "Wait a minute -- the
Emperor has no clothes here" -- ?
Of course he can. There are websites claiming far more on markedly less
foundation.
GOtterBMe
"It would serve a real service if he
were trying to be CONstructive rather than DEstructive. A
whistle-blower does so to fix things, not merely to destroy things."
I see his site as EXTREMELY constructive. He's not destroying things. He does
not have that power. If you want a website that says what you want, then you
should put it up. :)
GOtterBMe
"> He has the right to have a 'whistle-blowing' kind of website if he wants to.
It
> serves a real services.
No, it would serve a *real service* if he told what to watch out for in
ethical vs unethical practitioners. "
But that's not what he wants to do, and it's his website. That might be what
*you* want, but QUACKWATCH performs a real service for me and other people who
like his site and ... truly ... have enough wit to take it for what it is,
gather other information elsewhere, and process it all ... ourselves.
I really don't need this site owner or anyone else to spoon-feed me all the
information I want. I take what I want (after evaluating its legitimacy, a real
issue on the 'net) and sail on.
I used to write for magazines. Without bias in a magazine article -- you don't
have an article. The first thing the editor asks you about a proposed story is
"What's your slant?"
That's one reason popular magazines are a poor place to do research. By
definition -- they're biased.
And -- they have that right. That's how the editors make sure that their
magazine has something that makes it stand out from the rest. REDBOOK will have
one slant; PSYCHOLOGY TODAY another.
GOtterBMe
"> WHY should anyone have to write a "well-balanced" article on quackery? That
> wouldn't even make sense. It would be a lie.
>
> His bias is obvious. To object that his articles match the topic doesn't make
> sense to me.
He does not keep himself to reporting "quackery". He colors all
practitioners of any modality he dislikes with the same brush. Remember
the example from his site about massage therapy? He tells *only* the
bad, does *not* tell the good that can be done with massage therapy "
Good. All the practitioners and proponents of massage therapy tell the good
only and not the bad. When THEY have to tell the whole story (when YOU are
calling for them to do that) -- then YOU have a lot more sensible reason to
demand that this website ALSO tell "the whole story."
But the fact is that if you do a search on any of the questionable practices
QUACKWATCH reports on, the GREAT majority will be at least as biased as QW is.
You may not see that as bias. That's your right, but that's what balance would
be.
Why don't ALL websites have to present both sides?
Caitriona Mac Fhiodhbhuidhe
JAMA is the internet?