Judge Dismisses Suit Over Ritalin
Mark Probert
Thu Mar 7,12:37 PM ET
HACKENSACK, N.J. - A judge has dismissed a class-action lawsuit that
accused the makers of the drug Ritalin (news - web sites) and the
American Psychiatric Association of encouraging overdiagnosis of
behavioral disorders in children to boost sales of the drug.
Superior Court Judge Charles Walsh dismissed the suit against Novartis
Pharmaceutical Corp. and the American Psychiatric Association at the
plaintiffs' request. On Oct. 26, Walsh ruled their claim was
insufficient and gave them 90 days to revise it. The plaintiffs failed
to respond by the deadline and then requested the dismissal on Feb. 6,
lawyers for Novartis said.
The lawsuit alleged Novartis and the American Psychiatric Association
promoted the belief that a large number of children need to take
Ritalin for attention deficit disorder or attention deficit
hyperactivity disorder.
Similar suits against the East Hanover, N.J.-based maker of the drug
and the American Psychiatric Association were filed in California,
Texas, Florida and Puerto Rico.
Those suits have been dismissed, but the California case has been
appealed.
Michael Bohorfoush
parents that puch for it to make an active child a quiet one.
Roger Schlafly
> Good, I don't think i'ts the Docs anyway, It's the School teachers and
I think you are right. The courts will not solve this problem.
Mark Probert
Mark Probert
Totally wrong.
There is no problem, unless you consdier underdiagnosis and
undertreatment problems as I do.
However, courts should NOT get involved.
I would hope, though, that the Sceino/Breggin/Baughman whackos who
wasted the courts time are assessed attorney fees and penalties for
bringing a frivolous suit.
Roger Schlafly
> >> Good, I don't think i'ts the Docs anyway, It's the School teachers and
> >> parents that push for it to make an active child a quiet one.
> >I think you are right. The courts will not solve this problem.
Why do you say I am "totally wrong" if you partially agree with me?
Michael Bohorfoush
wrong kids are getting treated.
Wyle E. Coyote
"Roger Schlafly" <rog...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:I8Sh8.3264$Ex7.131...@twister2.starband.net...
I do not think any expected this to be solved by the courts.
Mark Probert
Habit.
Mark Probert
<MBOHO...@bham.rr.com> wrote:
Underdiagnosis is a big problem. Do a bit of research and you'll see.
Michael Bohorfoush
then how do you get a number of how many haven't been diagnosed? I know what
I see with my own eyes, such as here in Birmingham, AL where on average 60%
of male students aged 9-14 are taking the drug, and most had it recomended
first by a teacher not a doctor. IS the ADHD rate really that high? And if
so, how did we all manage before ritalin came along?
amp_spamfree
> UNDERdiagnosis is NOT the problem, Wrongful diagnosis is the problem. The
> wrong kids are getting treated.
Misdiagnosis is a problem across medicine - as well as auto repair.
In the case of ADHD the popular press suggests that it is an issue of
over-use, the medical establishment disagrees.
I prefer to leave it up to the parent, child, physician, and teacher
to make the choices - not the popular press.
amp
Wyle E. Coyote
All the best,
Wyle
"Michael Bohorfoush" <MBOHO...@bham.rr.com> wrote in message
news:bJZh8.74139$dj3.2...@typhoon.austin.rr.com...
Fay Shields
Isn't this just an excuse for bad behaviour? OK some kids are harder
to look after than others, but parents of AHDH children are perhaps
just looking for an excuse for their behavioural problems. Some of
these kids are dangerous and should not be allowed to be in main
stream school unless they have 24 hour supervision.
F
Mark Probert
<MBOHO...@bham.rr.com> wrote:
>You have to believe the research....
I most certainly do. That is why I know that the problem is
underdiagnosis.
>if children have not been diagnosed....
They are not getting treated. In the many years Ihave been involved in
helping my son, I have seen far more people claim that they could not
get help, or could not get adequate treatment.
>then how do you get a number of how many haven't been diagnosed?
Research gives a good idea of the underdiagnosis rate.
>I know what
>I see with my own eyes, such as here in Birmingham, AL where on average 60%
>of male students aged 9-14 are taking the drug,
Other than your utterly non-professional, unsupported, idle
speculation, care to delineate just how you ****know***** that figure?
Do you stand in the doctor's office, or school nurses office and take
a head count?
Or, do you do what the letter to the editor writer at Frobes Magainze
a few years ago did? That is, make up a convenient number? He chose a
smaller number just to maintain some evidence of credibility.
>and most had it recomended
>first by a teacher not a doctor. IS the ADHD rate really that high?
Probably not. However, is that rate really as high where you claim?
Probably not.
>And if
>so, how did we all manage before ritalin came along?
Learn some history.
Mark Probert
<kidsd...@hotmail.com> wrote:
There are several ways to do this. The best one would be to do a head
count in every school in Birmingham.
Mark Probert
Quite true. The odious cast of characters who brought these suits did
it merely for the publicity.
Remember, one of the attorneys involved in these suits was Coale, the
hubby of the newly made-over Greta Van Susteren, and a devoted
$cientologi$t.
The other co-conspirators include Breggin and Baughman.
Their websites are still up, and the anti-med know-nothings still
point to them.
I hope that the defendants push for penalties for bringing a frivolous
suit.
Wyle E. Coyote
"Fay Shields" <faysh...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:f94f9f23.02030...@posting.google.com...
It is not up to the courts to solve the problems with the kids. It is up to
pediatricians, schools, teachers and parents to always have the best
interest of the kids in mind and to what is best for the kids. This does not
include giving medications for ADHD without first have a proper evaluation
of the children for ADHD and other problems that look like ADHD as well as
making sure that all modalities are used to help these kids (here, I am
thinking of behavior interventions like working with children on
organizational skills, trying make sure their days are scheduled properly,
using appropriate rewards and punishments, and locating children with ADHD
in the classroom where there are least distracted (e.g., away from the
windows and doorways, near the teacher).
This court decision enables the decision about use of medications to be
where it belongs: with the parents.
Rathing than giving someone an excuse for bad behavior, a diagnosis of ADHD
helps one understand these children better and enables one to get help. A
diagnosis of ADHD is not an excuse. The child is ultimately going to have
the benefits of good treatment and will often have to live with ADHD all his
life.
All the best,
Wyle
Mark Probert
wrote:
>"Wyle E. Coyote" <kidsd...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<PtWh8.2103$Vx1.1...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net>...
>> "Roger Schlafly" <rog...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
>> news:I8Sh8.3264$Ex7.131...@twister2.starband.net...
>> > "Michael Bohorfoush" <MBOHO...@bham.rr.com> wrote
>> > > Good, I don't think i'ts the Docs anyway, It's the School teachers and
>> > > parents that push for it to make an active child a quiet one.
>> >
>> > I think you are right. The courts will not solve this problem.
>> >
>>
>> I do not think any expected this to be solved by the courts.
>
>Isn't this just an excuse for bad behaviour?
Nope. There are mountains of research which show it is far more than
that. Care to update your knowledge?
>OK some kids are harder
>to look after than others, but parents of AHDH children are perhaps
>just looking for an excuse for their behavioural problems.
Sure, blame the parents. What about those parents who work damn hard
tohelp their kids fit in?
>Some of
>these kids are dangerous and should not be allowed to be in main
>stream school unless they have 24 hour supervision.
They are not ADHDers.
BTW, I did not say under may breath that uninfromed morons like you
should not be allowed to be at a computer keyboard.
Michael Bohorfoush
talking to teaches and parents about this, and other education issues. 60%
is actually the low end of the statements I have gotten.
"Wyle E. Coyote" <kidsd...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:Fn2i8.2891$Vx1.2...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
Mark Probert
<MBOHO...@bham.rr.com> wrote:
Sure it is.
Teachers should not know waht emdications their students are taking,
if any. There is this little problem called confidentiality. Now, if
you want me to believe that there is widespread dissemination of
confidential information, just show me some proof.
I have heard yarns like this for years. So far, the yarn spinners have
never been able to back up their claims, and, then there was that
letter to the editor in Forbes...
Roger Schlafly
> >Isn't this just an excuse for bad behaviour?
> Nope. There are mountains of research which show it is far more than
> that. Care to update your knowledge?
Point to a study that shows it is more than bad behavior.
Mark Probert
Do your own homework, lazy.
Roger Schlafly
> >> >Isn't this just an excuse for bad behaviour?
> >> Nope. There are mountains of research which show it is far more than
> >> that. Care to update your knowledge?
> >Point to a study that shows it is more than bad behavior.
> Do your own homework, lazy.
I've done my homework. Many millions of dollars have been spent trying
to distinguish ADHD from bad behavior. No one has found a way yet.
Mark Probert
Of course, you are wrong.
Nothing new there.
Mark
Read the DSM-IV, stupid.
Mark, MD
Roger Schlafly
> > I've done my homework. Many millions of dollars have been spent trying
> > to distinguish ADHD from bad behavior. No one has found a way yet.
> Read the DSM-IV,
I have. The DSM-IV lists bad behaviors like:
Often fails to give close attention to details or makes
careless mistakes in schoolwork, work, or other activities
Is often easily distracted by extraneous stimuli
Is often forgetful in daily activities
Often talks excessively
http://lib-sh.lsumc.edu/fammed/intern/adhd.html
And, as someone likes to add, the bad behavior has to persist for 6 months.
CBI
> UNDERdiagnosis is NOT the problem, Wrongful diagnosis is the problem. The
> wrong kids are getting treated.
>
They both are the problem. Very few places have rates of ADD diagnosed that
compare well with the rates suggested in studies. It is underdiagnosed,
probably by a factor of 1:2. In addition, many teachers and parents seek the
diagnosis as an easy way out for behavioral problems. Obviously this make
the first problem even worse.
--
CBI, MD
CBI
> You have to believe the research.... if children have not been
diagnosed....
> then how do you get a number of how many haven't been diagnosed?
If numerous studies suggest that the prevalence of ADD, across cultures and
time, is twide the rate diagnosed in your community you have to suspect that
there are undiagnosed cases.
> I know what
> I see with my own eyes, such as here in Birmingham, AL where on average
60%
> of male students aged 9-14 are taking the drug, and most had it recomended
> first by a teacher not a doctor. IS the ADHD rate really that high? And if
> so, how did we all manage before ritalin came along?
>
60%! I think I will need to see a refernce please. No, it clearly is not
that high - 6% would be closer to the mark. I have no problem with a teacher
recommending an evaluation for problem behavior. It would be innappropriate
for them to suggest a specific treatment with no evaluation done (as it
would be for a doctor as well).
Prior to Ritalin we used coffee, blamed the parents, and blamed the kids for
being bad; or we just did nothing and let them do poorly in school and life.
--
CBI, MD
Wyle E. Coyote
Each of those things that you listed is not a "bad behavior." It is a
disorder involving cognitive dysfunction that is expressed by certain
behaviors. These behaviors have to be inappropriate for the developmental
level of the child, not be explained by another mental disorder, have to
begin before 7 years of age, be present in two or more areas of the child's
life, like school and home, & there must be clear evidence of clinically
significant impairment in social, academic, or occupational functioning,
meaning that the child is not just having temper tantrums or just being
defiant.
These problems go way beyond just being bad.
The DSM-IV for inattention:
<Begin quote>
1. Six or more of the following symptoms of inattention
have persisted for at least six months to a degree
that is maladaptive and inconsistent with developmental level:
a. Often fails to give close attention to details or makes
careless mistakes in schoolwork, work, or other activities
b. Often has difficulty sustaining attention in
tasks or play activities
c. Often does not seem to listen when spoken to directly
d. Often does not follow through on instructions and fails
to finish schoolwork, chores, or duties in the workplace
(not due to oppositional behavior or failure to understand
instructions)
e. Often has difficulty organizing tasks and activities
f. Often avoids, dislikes, or is reluctant to engage in tasks
that require sustained mental effort (such as homework)
g. Often loses things necessary for tasks or activities (toys,
school assignments, pencils, books, or tools)
h. Is often easily distracted by extraneous stimuli
i. Is often forgetful in daily activities
<end quote>
It is clear from that quote that this not just bad behavior, but rather
symptoms having to do with attention problems that are inappropriate for
that child's development.
There are requirements for the hyperactivity part:
<Begin quote>
2. Six or more of the following symptoms of hyperactivity-
impulsivity have persisted for at least six months to a
degree that is maladaplive and inconsistent with developmental level:
Hyperactivity
a. Often fidgets with hands or feet or squirms in seat
b. Often leaves seat in classroom or in other
situations in which remaining seated is expected
c. Often runs about or climbs excessively in situations in which it is
inappropriate (in adolescents or adults, may be limited to
subjective feelings of restlessness)
d. Often has difficulty playing or engaging in
leisure activities quietly
e. Is often "on the go" or often acts as if "driven by a motor"
f. Often talks excessively
Impulsivity
g. Often blurts out answers before questions have been completed
h. Often has difficulty awaiting turn
i. Often interrupts or intrudes on others (such
as butting into conversations or games)
<end quote>
And there are other crieteria that must be met:
<Begin quote>
B. Some hyperactive, impulsive, or inattentive symptoms that
caused impairment were present before age 7 years
C. Some impairment from the symptoms is present in two or more
settings (such as in school or work and at home)
D. There must be clear evidence of clinically significant
impairment in social, academic, or occupational functioning
E. The symptoms do not occur exclusively during the course
of a pervasive developmental disorder, schizophrenia, or another
psychotic disorder and are not better accounted for by another
mental disorder (such as a mood, anxiety, dissociative, or
personality disorder)
<End quote>
Finally, from http://www.psychologynet.org/add.html the following
differential diagnosis must be considered:
<Begin quote>
Some disorders have similar symptoms. The clinician, therefore, in his
diagnostic attempt has to differentiate against the following disorders
which need to be ruled out to establish a precise diagnosis.
Age-appropriate Behaviors in Active Children;
Mental Retardation;
Understimulating Environments;
Oppositional Behavior;
Another Mental Disorder;
Pervasive Developmental Disorder;
Psychotic Disorder;
Other Substance-Related Disorder Not Otherwise Specified.
<End quote>
All the best,
Wyle
Mark Probert
You may characterize them as 'bad behaviors' but intelligent poeple
use the term 'symptoms' as it is far more descriptive. Further, they
must be of a sufficient severity, which is the other part of the
diagnostics standards that you always seem to forget.
IOW, nothing new from Roger.
Mark Probert
<kidsd...@hotmail.com> wrote:
I'll try to tanslate the criteria for Roger and the other clueless
twit who called it 'bad behavior.'. Hope it helps (I am not holding my
breath).
>Each of those things that you listed is not a "bad behavior." It is a
>disorder involving cognitive dysfunction that is expressed by certain
>behaviors. These behaviors have to be inappropriate for the developmental
>level of the child, not be explained by another mental disorder, have to
>begin before 7 years of age, be present in two or more areas of the child's
>life, like school and home, & there must be clear evidence of clinically
>significant impairment in social, academic, or occupational functioning,
>meaning that the child is not just having temper tantrums or just being
>defiant.
>
>These problems go way beyond just being bad.
>
>The DSM-IV for inattention:
>
><Begin quote>
>
> 1. Six or more of the following symptoms of inattention
> have persisted for at least six months to a degree
> that is maladaptive and inconsistent with developmental level:
See the phrase "maladaptive and inconsistent with developmental
level"??? That means the the kid is not just "being a kid." Instread
of acting like a typical six year old, and showing a six year old
degree of control of behavior, the child is acting like a much younger
one.
> a. Often fails to give close attention to details or makes
> careless mistakes in schoolwork, work, or other activities
See the words 'other activities'? That means that is is not only
schoolwork, and it is not only the teacher that observes it.
> b. Often has difficulty sustaining attention in
> tasks or play activities
That means that the kid cannot sustain an activity that they like,
i.e., that they are not bored.
> c. Often does not seem to listen when spoken to directly
That means that the child cannot conform their bahaviors to expected
norms and respond appropriately to instructions.
> d. Often does not follow through on instructions and fails
> to finish schoolwork, chores, or duties in the workplace
> (not due to oppositional behavior or failure to understand
> instructions)
this means that the kid's attention is so limited that a tyoical task
assigned to a six year old, usually around fifteen minutes, is
impossible for them to do. this is because they cannot focus their
attention for that long.
> e. Often has difficulty organizing tasks and activities
See previous.
> f. Often avoids, dislikes, or is reluctant to engage in tasks
> that require sustained mental effort (such as homework)
ADHD kids cannot keep their mind on one topic for long. It is the
inability to focus attention.
> g. Often loses things necessary for tasks or activities (toys,
> school assignments, pencils, books, or tools)
The problem permeates their lives.
> h. Is often easily distracted by extraneous stimuli
Inability to focus attention.
> i. Is often forgetful in daily activities
See above.
><end quote>
>
>It is clear from that quote that this not just bad behavior, but rather
>symptoms having to do with attention problems that are inappropriate for
>that child's development.
>
>There are requirements for the hyperactivity part:
>
><Begin quote>
>
>2. Six or more of the following symptoms of hyperactivity-
> impulsivity have persisted for at least six months to a
> degree that is maladaplive and inconsistent with developmental level:
See previous.
> Hyperactivity
> a. Often fidgets with hands or feet or squirms in seat
> b. Often leaves seat in classroom or in other
> situations in which remaining seated is expected
> c. Often runs about or climbs excessively in situations in which it is
> inappropriate (in adolescents or adults, may be limited to
> subjective feelings of restlessness)
> d. Often has difficulty playing or engaging in
> leisure activities quietly
> e. Is often "on the go" or often acts as if "driven by a motor"
> f. Often talks excessively
Note the word 'often'.
> Impulsivity
> g. Often blurts out answers before questions have been completed
Lack of inhibitory control.
> h. Often has difficulty awaiting turn
Same
> i. Often interrupts or intrudes on others (such
> as butting into conversations or games)
Same
><end quote>
>
>And there are other crieteria that must be met:
>
><Begin quote>
>
>B. Some hyperactive, impulsive, or inattentive symptoms that
> caused impairment were present before age 7 years
>C. Some impairment from the symptoms is present in two or more
> settings (such as in school or work and at home)
See, Roger? It cannot be just the teacher.
>D. There must be clear evidence of clinically significant
> impairment in social, academic, or occupational functioning
A track record of failure
>E. The symptoms do not occur exclusively during the course
> of a pervasive developmental disorder, schizophrenia, or another
> psychotic disorder and are not better accounted for by another
> mental disorder (such as a mood, anxiety, dissociative, or
> personality disorder)
IOW, a full evaluation must be made to rule out these other problems.
><End quote>
>
>Finally, from http://www.psychologynet.org/add.html the following
>differential diagnosis must be considered:
>
><Begin quote>
>
>Some disorders have similar symptoms. The clinician, therefore, in his
>diagnostic attempt has to differentiate against the following disorders
>which need to be ruled out to establish a precise diagnosis.
>Age-appropriate Behaviors in Active Children;
>Mental Retardation;
>Understimulating Environments;
>Oppositional Behavior;
>Another Mental Disorder;
>Pervasive Developmental Disorder;
>Psychotic Disorder;
>Other Substance-Related Disorder Not Otherwise Specified.
>
><End quote>
Nice try. It won't change a thing.
PF Riley
So then, by that token, can you distinguish paranoid schizophrenia
from "bad behavior," either? Your lack of skill in psychiatry doesn't
apply to everyone.
PF Riley
<MBOHO...@bham.rr.com> wrote:
>I work with the local Neighborood associations, and have spent a lot of time
>talking to teaches and parents about this, and other education issues. 60%
>is actually the low end of the statements I have gotten.
Aha, hearsay! Ask Roger what he thinks of your "evidence," please.
PF Riley
>
>Prior to Ritalin we used coffee, blamed the parents, and blamed the kids for
>being bad; or we just did nothing and let them do poorly in school and life.
And become drug addicts and criminals.
Roger Schlafly
news:3c8a405f....@News.CIS.DFN.DE...
> On Sat, 09 Mar 2002 14:59:59 GMT, "Wyle E. Coyote"
> <kidsd...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> I'll try to tanslate the criteria for Roger and the other clueless
> twit who called it 'bad behavior.'. Hope it helps (I am not holding my
> breath).
> >Each of those things that you listed is not a "bad behavior." It is a
> >disorder involving cognitive dysfunction that is expressed by certain
> >behaviors. These behaviors have to be inappropriate for the developmental
> >level of the child, not be explained by another mental disorder, have to
> >begin before 7 years of age, be present in two or more areas of the
child's
> >life, like school and home, & there must be clear evidence of clinically
> >significant impairment in social, academic, or occupational functioning,
> >meaning that the child is not just having temper tantrums or just being
> >defiant.
> >These problems go way beyond just being bad.
Yeah, bad enough for the parents to use drugs.
> >The DSM-IV for inattention:
> ><Begin quote>
> > 1. Six or more of the following symptoms of inattention
> > have persisted for at least six months to a degree
> > that is maladaptive and inconsistent with developmental level:
> See the phrase "maladaptive and inconsistent with developmental
> level"??? That means the the kid is not just "being a kid." Instread
> of acting like a typical six year old, and showing a six year old
> degree of control of behavior, the child is acting like a much younger
> one.
Next time my kid doesn't goto bed on time, I'll tell her that she is
"maladaptive" before I spank her. <g>
JG
[...]
>The DSM-IV for inattention:
>1. Six or more of the following symptoms of inattention
> have persisted for at least six months to a degree
> that is maladaptive and inconsistent with developmental level:
>a. Often fails to give close attention to details or makes
> careless mistakes in schoolwork, work, or other activities
> b. Often has difficulty sustaining attention in
> tasks or play activities
> c. Often does not seem to listen when spoken to directly
> d. Often does not follow through on instructions and fails
> to finish schoolwork, chores, or duties in the workplace
> (not due to oppositional behavior or failure to understand
> instructions)
> e. Often has difficulty organizing tasks and activities
> f. Often avoids, dislikes, or is reluctant to engage in tasks
> that require sustained mental effort (such as homework)
> g. Often loses things necessary for tasks or activities (toys,
> school assignments, pencils, books, or tools)
> h. Is often easily distracted by extraneous stimuli
> i. Is often forgetful in daily activities
hmmm... Sounds an awful like depression, and/or fatigue.
ADD is egregiously *overdiagnosed* in this country (US), and I think there are
far too many parents who actually *welcome* an ADD (or ADHD) diagnosis; after
all, it rather lets them off the hook, doesn't it? I mean, who wouldn't want
to be absolved of contributing, via his/her own actions (or lack thereof) and
behavior, to his/her child's problems? How much "nicer" to be able to place
the blame on "something"--genes, a chemical imbalance--out of one's control?
It's a total crock to assert that doctors (and school personnel) have simply
become "better" at diagnosing so-called ADD (or ADHD). I've observed,
firsthand, school-aged (elementary) children for 20+ years, and the number of
kids who exhibit many of, or even most of, the behaviors that compose ADD/ADHD
has skyrocketed over this period; there've been far too many for ADD/ADHD to be
a true genetic disorder. Funny, isn't it (not!), how the increase in ADD/ADHD
diagnoses has paralleled the increase in the number of kids--very *young kids*,
even--who don't get the one-on-one attention and nurturing (whether from mom or
another dedicated caregiver) that those of prior generations received? (Save
your "correlation doesn't mean causation" remarks, JPUtz, okay?)
Even more deplorable, IMO, are those parents (of kids diagnosed with ADD or
ADHD) who relentlessly aver that the disorder is actually *under*diagnosed:
"I'm (my kid's) a pepper (ADD), he's (his kid's) a pepper (ADD), ...wouldn't
you like (your kid) to be a pepper (ADD), too? Be a pepper..." (apologies to
Jake Holmes). Having more kids tagged with a (pseudo-?) disorder doesn't make
it--the disorder--more acceptable, let alone more "real."
Do you want to see a dramatic decline in the number of "ADD/ADHD" kids? Bring
back classroom discipline, i.e, empower teachers to deal with behavioral
problems as they see fit, up to and including the use of corporal punishment,
and elect school board members with backbones who will, in turn, install
no-nonsense administrators. (Easier said than done, of course...)
JG
What information consumes is rather obvious: It consumes the attention of its
recipients. Hence a wealth of information creates a poverty of attention.
--Herbert Simon
CBI
"JG" <g030...@aol.compostheap> wrote in message
news:20020310180148...@mb-bd.aol.com...<criteria snipped>
>
> hmmm... Sounds an awful like depression, and/or fatigue.
>
Depression is in the differential diagnosis and should be screened for prior
to deciding the kids has ADD. Thsi raises a good point. Depression is in the
spectrum of normal human experience and is diagnosed iin much the same way.
I see no way to discount ADD as real without also holding depression in the
same regard. Do you?
> ADD is egregiously *overdiagnosed* in this country (US), and I think there
are
> far too many parents who actually *welcome* an ADD (or ADHD) diagnosis;
after
> all, it rather lets them off the hook, doesn't it?
I think this is often the case. it also lets the teacher transfer the blame
for not being able to handle the kid to the pediatrician. I love the little
notes I get from them telling me that Johnny is acting up again and will **I
** please address it. I sometimes send back notes telling the teacher how I
am addressing it, that the parent is addressing it at home, and that they
should be addressing it in school.
I do doubt that in aggregate that ADD is overdiagnosed. All the studies I
have seen suggest that in most places the diagnosed rate does not meet the
rate that studies tell us are probably present. If you have seen some
studies that I have missed I would like to take a look at them. I have no
doubt that there are a few places where more kids than are expected are
diagnosed but these are not the norm.
>
> It's a total crock to assert that doctors (and school personnel) have
simply
> become "better" at diagnosing so-called ADD (or ADHD).
Why do you say that? There is no doubt that the disorder has changed from
little known among physicians to commonly recognized in a few decades. You
cannot tell me that a 1960's pediatrician who had never really learned much
about the disorder (under whatever name is in vogue at the time) is not
worse at the diagnosis than a modern doc who diagnoses and treats it all the
time.
> I've observed,
> firsthand, school-aged (elementary) children for 20+ years, and the number
of
> kids who exhibit many of, or even most of, the behaviors that compose
ADD/ADHD
> has skyrocketed over this period; there've been far too many for ADD/ADHD
to be
> a true genetic disorder.
No, bad behavior in school is not ADD. There is a large body of evidence
that suggests that the prevalence has been constant.
> Funny, isn't it (not!), how the increase in ADD/ADHD
> diagnoses has paralleled the increase in the number of kids--very *young
kids*,
> even--who don't get the one-on-one attention and nurturing (whether from
mom or
> another dedicated caregiver) that those of prior generations received?
(Save
> your "correlation doesn't mean causation" remarks, JPUtz, okay?)
>
The remarks would be appropriate and should be made. I'm sure we can all
name at least ten other things that have increased during the same time
frame. The truth is that while the incidence of clinically diagnosed ADD has
gone up, the incidence as found in case finding studies, has not. it is the
diagnosis (right, wrong, or both) that has increase, not the true
prevalence.
>
> Do you want to see a dramatic decline in the number of "ADD/ADHD" kids?
Bring
> back classroom discipline, i.e, empower teachers to deal with behavioral
> problems as they see fit, up to and including the use of corporal
punishment,
> and elect school board members with backbones who will, in turn, install
> no-nonsense administrators. (Easier said than done, of course...)
>
That was disproved decades ago. I do agree that it would help with many of
the other, non-ADD, bahavioral problems.
--
CBI, MD
Wyle E. Coyote
"JG" <g030...@aol.compostheap> wrote in message
news:20020310180148...@mb-bd.aol.com...
ADHD is misdaignosed, but not over diagnosed. And a diagnosis does not take
responsibility for the child's behavior away from the child or the parents.
> It's a total crock to assert that doctors (and school personnel) have
simply
> become "better" at diagnosing so-called ADD (or ADHD).
School personal are not qualified to diagnose ADHD. Medical science has
learned more about ADHD, especially the biology behind it. The tools for
doctors to diagnoses ADHD have been improved too.
> I've observed,
> firsthand, school-aged (elementary) children for 20+ years, and the number
of
> kids who exhibit many of, or even most of, the behaviors that compose
ADD/ADHD
> has skyrocketed over this period; there've been far too many for ADD/ADHD
to be
> a true genetic disorder.
No one has said that ADHD is a genetic disorder. There is a genetic
component to it, however.
> Funny, isn't it (not!), how the increase in ADD/ADHD
> diagnoses has paralleled the increase in the number of kids--very *young
kids*,
> even--who don't get the one-on-one attention and nurturing (whether from
mom or
> another dedicated caregiver) that those of prior generations received?
(Save
> your "correlation doesn't mean causation" remarks, JPUtz, okay?)
>
I won't offer correlation doesn't mean causation remark, for you have not
shown a correlation between the lack of one-on-one attention and ADHD. Are
today's kids without one-on-one attention more likely to be diagnosed with
ADHD as those who don't get one-on-one attention?
> Even more deplorable, IMO, are those parents (of kids diagnosed with ADD
or
> ADHD) who relentlessly aver that the disorder is actually
*under*diagnosed:
> "I'm (my kid's) a pepper (ADD), he's (his kid's) a pepper (ADD),
...wouldn't
> you like (your kid) to be a pepper (ADD), too? Be a pepper..." (apologies
to
> Jake Holmes). Having more kids tagged with a (pseudo-?) disorder doesn't
make
> it--the disorder--more acceptable, let alone more "real."
>
I have not observed this behavior. I have observed parents of kids with a
particular disorder want to improve diagnosis for other kids and make sure
all the kids iwth the disorder are identified, so that they can benefit from
help.
> Do you want to see a dramatic decline in the number of "ADD/ADHD" kids?
Bring
> back classroom discipline, i.e, empower teachers to deal with behavioral
> problems as they see fit, up to and including the use of corporal
punishment,
> and elect school board members with backbones who will, in turn, install
> no-nonsense administrators. (Easier said than done, of course...)
>
Your suggestions will not change the biology of the kids. ADHD is a
biological condition. I detest the idea of people who are supposed to be
teachers hitting anyone, let alone their students.
All the best,
Wyle
Roger Schlafly
> > ...
> > f. Often avoids, dislikes, or is reluctant to engage in tasks
> > that require sustained mental effort (such as homework)
> > g. Often loses things necessary for tasks or activities (toys,
> > school assignments, pencils, books, or tools)
> > h. Is often easily distracted by extraneous stimuli
> > i. Is often forgetful in daily activities
> hmmm... Sounds an awful like depression, and/or fatigue.
> ADD is egregiously *overdiagnosed* in this country (US), and I think there
are
Not me. I think ADD/ADHD (as defined by the above DSM-IV)
is *underdiagnosed*. As many as 80% of kids might have those symptoms.
> far too many parents who actually *welcome* an ADD (or ADHD) diagnosis;
after
> all, it rather lets them off the hook, doesn't it? I mean, who wouldn't
want
> to be absolved of contributing, via his/her own actions (or lack thereof)
and
> behavior, to his/her child's problems? How much "nicer" to be able to
place
> the blame on "something"--genes, a chemical imbalance--out of one's
control?
Yes, it can be a way of passing the blame for bad behavior.
PF Riley
>
>ADD is egregiously *overdiagnosed* in this country (US), and I think there are
>far too many parents who actually *welcome* an ADD (or ADHD) diagnosis; after
>all, it rather lets them off the hook, doesn't it? I mean, who wouldn't want
>to be absolved of contributing, via his/her own actions (or lack thereof) and
>behavior, to his/her child's problems? How much "nicer" to be able to place
>the blame on "something"--genes, a chemical imbalance--out of one's control?
Out of curiosity, have you read Thomas Szasz?
PF Riley
<rog...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>"JG" <g030...@aol.compostheap> wrote
>> ADD is egregiously *overdiagnosed* in this country (US), and I think there
>are
>
>Not me. I think ADD/ADHD (as defined by the above DSM-IV)
>is *underdiagnosed*. As many as 80% of kids might have those symptoms.
You just like to demonstrate to everyone how poorly you understand the
diagnostic criteria, don't you?
CBI
> "JG" <g030...@aol.compostheap> wrote
> > > ...
> > > f. Often avoids, dislikes, or is reluctant to engage in tasks
> > > that require sustained mental effort (such as homework)
> > > g. Often loses things necessary for tasks or activities (toys,
> > > school assignments, pencils, books, or tools)
> > > h. Is often easily distracted by extraneous stimuli
> > > i. Is often forgetful in daily activities
> > hmmm... Sounds an awful like depression, and/or fatigue.
> > ADD is egregiously *overdiagnosed* in this country (US), and I think
there
> are
>
> Not me. I think ADD/ADHD (as defined by the above DSM-IV)
> is *underdiagnosed*. As many as 80% of kids might have those symptoms.
>
Actually, 100% MIGHT have them. About 3-9%, mor elikely 5-6%, do have them.
Most areas do not have a 5% diagnosis rate and some of those are wrong.
Therefore it is underdiagnosed.
--
CBI, MD
Roger Schlafly
> > > > f. Often avoids, dislikes, or is reluctant to engage in tasks
> > > > that require sustained mental effort (such as homework)
> > > > g. Often loses things necessary for tasks or activities (toys,
> > > > school assignments, pencils, books, or tools)
> > > > h. Is often easily distracted by extraneous stimuli
> > > > i. Is often forgetful in daily activities
> > is *underdiagnosed*. As many as 80% of kids might have those symptoms.
> Actually, 100% MIGHT have them. About 3-9%, mor elikely 5-6%, do have
them.
> Most areas do not have a 5% diagnosis rate and some of those are wrong.
> Therefore it is underdiagnosed.
Show me the study that says how many kids are "often forgetful in
daily activities". Or that are "often easily distracted by extraneous
stimuli".
When you say it is underdiagnosed, you are only expressing an opinion
that more kids with bad behavior should be drugged with ritalin. The drug
industry has decided that it would like to get 5% of kids on ritalin.
Mark Probert
You do not understand the conceopt of maladaptive. Let me suggest that
you reflect on your behavior on th einternet for a few years, and,
with the proper guidance, and deep introspection, you will finally see
how maladaptive you are.
Wyle E. Coyote
Mind-reading again? I do not recall anyone here saying a kid with ADHD
should be drugged. While treating someone with a stimulant is an option in
ADHD, it just an option. THere are other things that you can do, like
improving the predictabiltiy of a patient's day, using rewards and educating
the patient and his/her family about ADHD.
Drugging someone implies that one is doing something that somehow dulls
another person. However, this is not what Ritalin and other drugs used to
treat ADHD do. Rather, the reverse. They enable the child or adult to be
more organized and to concentrate better. I do not think the word "drugged"
is appropriate here.
You state that the drug industry wants 5% of kids on Ritalin. Show us the
evidence that this is the case. Were there memos between drug makers saying
they want 5% of the kids treated? Or other evidence? Or is this just
something you made up?
All the best,
Wyle
>
>
>
CBI
The problem here is your ignorant insistance on equating "bad behavior" with
ADD. "Bad behavior" is neither neccessary nor sufficient for the diagnosis
and the two are not synonymous. Discussing this with you is like it would be
for you to try to expain your work to a person who understands neither
bubbles nor computers and insists that neither exists. Doubting the validity
of ADD fits your "doctors are bad" world view and so you cling to it despite
all evidence being to the contrary.
> The drug
> industry has decided that it would like to get 5% of kids on ritalin.
I'm sure they would love more than that. So what?
--
CBI, MD
Mark Probert
The $ceino led scum who brought the five dismissed suits could not
come up with sufficient facts to support their allegations, which
mirror your utter lack of knowledge.
Mark Probert
wrote:
Szasz is the darling of Breggin and Baughman.
Roger Schlafly
> > > f. Often avoids, dislikes, or is reluctant to engage in tasks
> > > > that require sustained mental effort (such as homework)
> > > > g. Often loses things necessary for tasks or activities
(toys,
> > > > school assignments, pencils, books, or tools)
> > > > h. Is often easily distracted by extraneous stimuli
> > > > i. Is often forgetful in daily activities
> and the two are not synonymous.
I equate an ADD diagnosis with the bad behaviors listed in the DSM-IV,
and excerpted above. Here are a few more, and a link to the complete
list.
Often fails to give close attention to details or makes
careless mistakes in schoolwork, work, or other activities
Is often easily distracted by extraneous stimuli
Is often forgetful in daily activities
Often talks excessively
http://lib-sh.lsumc.edu/fammed/intern/adhd.html
Sometimes ADD is diagnosed using even more wacky criteria, but
these are the officially recommended criteria.
Ilena Rose
Mark_Prob...@hotmail.com (Mark Probert) wrote:
**The $ceino led scum who brought the five dismissed suits could not
**come up with sufficient facts to support their allegations, which
**mirror your utter lack of knowledge.
Someone who feels about Probert similarly as I do has informed me that
Probert is a de-licensed attorney ... is that accurate?
Some NY discinplinary actions were mentioned.
From his ridiculous comments comparing the SLAPP suits I've been involved
with ... his legal knowledge appears to be just more Pharmaceutical Cartel
Propaganda.
JG
>"JG" <g030...@aol.compostheap> wrote
>> > ...
>> > f. Often avoids, dislikes, or is reluctant to engage in tasks
>> > that require sustained mental effort (such as homework)
>> > g. Often loses things necessary for tasks or activities (toys,
>> > school assignments, pencils, books, or tools)
>> > h. Is often easily distracted by extraneous stimuli
>> > i. Is often forgetful in daily activities
>> hmmm... Sounds an awful like depression, and/or fatigue.
>> ADD is egregiously *overdiagnosed* in this country (US), and I think there
>are
>Not me. I think ADD/ADHD (as defined by the above DSM-IV)
>is *underdiagnosed*.
Hehe. By golly, maybe you're right <g>. I still say ADD/ADHD is
overdiagnosed; being "normal," however, is apparently ridiculously
underdiagnosed.
>As many as 80% of kids might have those symptoms.
...plus who knows how many *adults* (she says, raising her hand). I think I'll
forgo the Ritalin and stick with my Tanzanian Peaberry, though...
JG
...it is always from a minority acting in ways different from what the majority
would prescribe that the majority in the end learns to do better.
--F.A. Hayek
JG
Yes, quite a lot, actually, mostly his essays in "Ideas on Liberty"
(http://www.fee.org/vnews.php?sec=iolmisc ); the only book of his I've read
(many, many years ago ;o)) is _The Myth of Mental Illness_. He's something of
a icon to Libertarians, as you probably know (or can imagine). I concur with
virtually all his views on mental disorders and psychiatry. He addressed the
use of psychotropics in (on?) children in his essay "Chemical Straitjackets for
Children"; I don't think it's available on the Foundation for Economic
Freedom/"Ideas on Liberty" site, but it is on the Thomas S. Szasz, M.D.
Cybercenter for Liberty and Responsibility site (go to http://www.szasz.com ,
click on "Szasz Materials," and scroll down).
So, PF, what do *you* think of views? Is he "crazy"? <g>
JG
Whenever masses of people, especially educated people, know something--and when
what they know is something they greatly fear because they believe it affects
virtually everything they do or want to do--then most likely we stand in the
presence of a vast falsehood.
--Thomas Szasz
JG
>Depression is in the differential diagnosis and should be screened for prior
>to deciding the kids has ADD. Thsi raises a good point. Depression is in the
>spectrum of normal human experience and is diagnosed iin much the same way.
>I see no way to discount ADD as real without also holding depression in the
>same regard. Do you?
One is as real--or unreal--as the other. (Read some of Thomas Szasz's books
and/or essays.)
>> ADD is egregiously *overdiagnosed* in this country (US), and I think there
>are
>> far too many parents who actually *welcome* an ADD (or ADHD) diagnosis;
>after
>> all, it rather lets them off the hook, doesn't it?
>I think this is often the case.
Stop the presses! <g>
>it also lets the teacher transfer the blame
>for not being able to handle the kid to the pediatrician. I love the little
>notes I get from them telling me that Johnny is acting up again and will **I
>** please address it.
Hehe. Ah feel yo' pain.
>I sometimes send back notes telling the teacher how I
>am addressing it, that the parent is addressing it at home, and that they
>should be addressing it in school.
"They" (as far as I can tell) *are* addressing it (albeit
incompetently/ineffectively); the amount of time (=$$$) spent on "disruptive"
(I won't use the term "bad") kids, thanks, in large part, to the IDEA, is
utterly outrageous. What a great example of gubmnt screwing things up even
worse as it tries to fix problems it created in the first place...
>I do doubt that in aggregate that ADD is overdiagnosed. All the studies I
>have seen suggest that in most places the diagnosed rate does not meet the
>rate that studies tell us are probably present. If you have seen some
>studies that I have missed I would like to take a look at them. I have no
>doubt that there are a few places where more kids than are expected are
>diagnosed
...northern VA, for one, IIRC...
> but these are not the norm.
>> It's a total crock to assert that doctors (and school personnel) have
>simply
>> become "better" at diagnosing so-called ADD (or ADHD).
>Why do you say that? There is no doubt that the disorder has changed from
>little known among physicians to commonly recognized in a few decades. You
>cannot tell me that a 1960's pediatrician who had never really learned much
>about the disorder (under whatever name is in vogue at the time) is not
>worse at the diagnosis than a modern doc who diagnoses and treats it all the
>time.
..."It" doesn't exist. Smoke and mirrors... Show me (describe) the organic
condition "ADD."
>No, bad behavior in school is not ADD. There is a large body of evidence
>that suggests that the prevalence has been constant.
Hogwash. We've always had "bad behavior," yes, but it *has* increased (for
myriad reasons that I won't get into here). ADD is but one (supposed) "cause,"
and it's a fictitious one.
JG
Men are born ignorant, not stupid; they are made stupid by education.
--Bertrand Russell
JG
>The problem here is your ignorant insistance on equating "bad behavior" with
>ADD. "Bad behavior" is neither neccessary nor sufficient for the diagnosis
>and the two are not synonymous.
Pure semantics...
bad (bàd) adjective
1. Not achieving an adequate standard; poor: a bad recital.
2. Evil; sinful.
3. Disobedient or naughty: bad children.
4. Disagreeable, unpleasant, or disturbing: a bad piece of news.
5. Unfavorable: bad reviews for the play.
6. Not fresh; rotten or spoiled: bad meat.
7. Injurious in effect; detrimental: bad habits.
8. Not working properly; defective: a bad telephone connection.
9. Full of or exhibiting faults or errors: bad grammar.
10. Having no validity; void: passed bad checks.
11. Severe; intense: a bad cold.
12. a. Being in poor health or in pain: I feel bad today. b. Being in poor
condition; diseased: bad lungs.
13. Sorry; regretful: She feels bad about how she treated you.
The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Third Edition;
Copyright © 1992 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Okay, so throw out definitions 2, 6, and 8-10, 12, and 13 (you're free, of
course, to disagree) and you're left with apt descriptions of the behavior of
most kids diagnosed with ADHD, at least from a teacher's/school's perspective.
A child's unchecked hyperactivity is usually extremely disruptive to an entire
classroom; the behavior of those with ADD (i.e., kids with a deficit of
attention but no hyperactivity) is also a problem, though often only to the
child and the teacher.
"Not achieving an adequate standard"? Yes.
"Disobedient"? Yep.
"Disagreeable, unpleasant, or disturbing"? You betcha.
"Unfavorable"? Oh, yeah.
"Injurious in effect; detrimental"? Uh-huh.
"Severe, intense"? Often.
JG
The proverb warns that "You should not bite the hand that feeds you." But maybe
you should if it prevents you from feeding yourself.
--Thomas Szasz
Mark Probert
I have never been an attorney, have never claimed to be one, and do
not play one on the internet.
Wyle E. Coyote
Being easily distracted and often forgetful are not behaviors nor are they
"bad" in the sense of doing something wrong. Forgetfulness and
distractability are two symptoms of ADHD. Excessive talking can be a symptom
of ADHD, part of poor impulse control.
These are not "bad behaviors," rather symptoms that kids with ADHD may have.
> Sometimes ADD is diagnosed using even more wacky criteria, but
> these are the officially recommended criteria.
>
By whom? What criteria are they? Do you have references for this or this
just your opinion?
All the best,
Wyle
Wyle E. Coyote
"Ilena Rose" <il...@san.rr.com> wrote in message
news:ilena-11030...@dt011n65.san.rr.com...
> In article <3c8cba9...@News.CIS.DFN.DE>,
> Mark_Prob...@hotmail.com (Mark Probert) wrote:
>
>
> **The $ceino led scum who brought the five dismissed suits could not
> **come up with sufficient facts to support their allegations, which
> **mirror your utter lack of knowledge.
>
>
>
> Someone who feels about Probert similarly as I do has informed me that
> Probert is a de-licensed attorney ... is that accurate?
>
Look for yourself: http://www.op.nysed.gov/rasearch.htm
> Some NY discinplinary actions were mentioned.
>
So what?
> From his ridiculous comments comparing the SLAPP suits I've been involved
> with ... his legal knowledge appears to be just more Pharmaceutical Cartel
> Propaganda.
>
Think what you want. Your statements go against your cause.
Instead of trying to understand what people are saying, you dismiss people's
comments without showing why they are wrong.
All the best,
Wyle
Ilena Rose
Mark_Prob...@hotmail.com (Mark Probert) wrote:
**On Mon, 11 Mar 2002 22:26:02 GMT, il...@san.rr.com (Ilena Rose) wrote:
**
**>In article <3c8cba9...@News.CIS.DFN.DE>,
**>Mark_Prob...@hotmail.com (Mark Probert) wrote:
**>
**>
**>**The $ceino led scum who brought the five dismissed suits could not
**>**come up with sufficient facts to support their allegations, which
**>**mirror your utter lack of knowledge.
**>
**>
**>
**>Someone who feels about Probert similarly as I do has informed me that
**>Probert is a de-licensed attorney ... is that accurate?
**>
**>Some NY discinplinary actions were mentioned.
**>
**>From his ridiculous comments comparing the SLAPP suits I've been involved
**>with ... his legal knowledge appears to be just more Pharmaceutical Cartel
**>Propaganda.
**
**I have never been an attorney, have never claimed to be one, and do
**not play one on the internet.
There is another Mark S. Probert in Judicial District 10 includes houses
Merrick, NY?
Ilena Rose
**In article <3c8d5bcb....@News.CIS.DFN.DE>,
**Mark_Prob...@hotmail.com (Mark Probert) wrote:
******>In article <3c8cba9...@News.CIS.DFN.DE>,
****>Mark_Prob...@hotmail.com (Mark Probert) wrote:
****>
****>
****>**The $ceino led scum who brought the five dismissed suits could not
****>**come up with sufficient facts to support their allegations, which
****>**mirror your utter lack of knowledge.
****>
****>
****>
****>Someone who feels about Probert similarly as I do has informed me that
****>Probert is a de-licensed attorney ... is that accurate?
****>
****>Some NY discinplinary actions were mentioned.
****>
****>From his ridiculous comments comparing the SLAPP suits I've been involved
****>with ... his legal knowledge appears to be just more Pharmaceutical Cartel
****>Propaganda.
****
****I have never been an attorney, have never claimed to be one, and do
****not play one on the internet.
CORRECTION:
**There is another Mark S. Probert in Judicial District 10 which includes
**Merrick, NY?
Roger Schlafly
> Okay, so throw out definitions 2, 6, and 8-10, 12, and 13 (you're free, of
> course, to disagree) and you're left with apt descriptions of the behavior
of
> most kids diagnosed with ADHD, at least from a teacher's/school's
perspective.
> A child's unchecked hyperactivity is usually extremely disruptive to an
entire
> classroom; the behavior of those with ADD (i.e., kids with a deficit of
> attention but no hyperactivity) is also a problem, though often only to
the
> child and the teacher.
> "Not achieving an adequate standard"? Yes.
> "Disobedient"? Yep.
> "Disagreeable, unpleasant, or disturbing"? You betcha.
> "Unfavorable"? Oh, yeah.
> "Injurious in effect; detrimental"? Uh-huh.
> "Severe, intense"? Often.
It is amazing how the ritalin apologists don't want to admit that ADD/ADHD
kids have bad behavior.
Roger Schlafly
They are widely endorsed by shrinks, peds, and others. I realize that
they seem wacky, unscientific, subjective, goofy, and subject to abuse
by meddlesome do-gooders, but they are straight out of the book.
Post your own favorite criteria if you wish.
"Wyle E. Coyote" <kidsd...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:Jfdj8.13330$Vx1.1...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
Wyle E. Coyote
> Just click on the reference I provided. The criteria are from the DSM-IV.
> They are widely endorsed by shrinks, peds, and others. I realize that
> they seem wacky, unscientific, subjective, goofy, and subject to abuse
> by meddlesome do-gooders, but they are straight out of the book.
> Post your own favorite criteria if you wish.
>
I am well aware of the criteria. Too bad you did not answer the question.
You claimed that people use other whacky criteria, but you failed to say
who, what criteria or if these criteria are published.
You attack the criteria in the DSM-IV, however, the full criteria, which
include that the behaviors have to be inappropriate for a child of his/her
level of development, specific groups of symptoms, and impairment in at
least two major areas of function (e.g., school and home) seem quiet
sensible to me.
What criteria would you suggest?
All the best,
Wyle
CBI
"JG" <g030...@aol.compostheap> wrote in message
> "CBI" 00...@mindspring.com wrote:
>
> >The problem here is your ignorant insistance on equating "bad behavior"
with
> >ADD. "Bad behavior" is neither neccessary nor sufficient for the
diagnosis
> >and the two are not synonymous.
>
> Pure semantics...
>
> bad (bàd) adjective
>
>
> Okay, so throw out definitions 2, 6, and 8-10, 12, and 13 (you're free, of
> course, to disagree) and you're left with apt descriptions of the behavior
of
> most kids diagnosed with ADHD, at least from a teacher's/school's
perspective.
> A child's unchecked hyperactivity is usually extremely disruptive to an
entire
> classroom; the behavior of those with ADD (i.e., kids with a deficit of
> attention but no hyperactivity) is also a problem, though often only to
the
> child and the teacher.
>
That may well be but children who do not meet these definition of "bad" also
have ADD and not all kids who act this way have ADD. My statement stands.
--
CBI, MD
CBI
>
> It is amazing how the ritalin apologists don't want to admit that ADD/ADHD
> kids have bad behavior.
>
Some do, some don't.
--
CBI, MD
Wyle E. Coyote
Some kids with ADHD have "bad" behavior. However, a lot of them behave
perfectly fine, but have problems with concentration, poor school grades,
difficulty paying attention and other problems, despite the fact that their
behavior is very good.
All the best,
Wyle
amp_spamfree
> Just click on the reference I provided. The criteria are from the DSM-IV.
and you've provided the "abbreviated" selective set of presumptive
behaviors indicative of a r/o diagnosis of ADHD/ADD - these are not
the confirmatory criteria, in case you didn't realize it. Perhaps you
should go to the DSM IV-TR (2000) directly as opposed to relying on an
abstraction. Certainly if I were a parent, faced with this diagnosis,
I would want the most accurate information in the appropriate context,
not an opinion or others interpretation.
I did find a diagnosis for you though, Roger - DSM IV 315.1
> They are widely endorsed by shrinks, peds, and others. I realize that
> they seem wacky, unscientific, subjective, goofy, and subject to abuse
> by meddlesome do-gooders, but they are straight out of the book.
Again, the symptom pattern may appear to you to be "goofy" but not to
physicians trained in the area of psychiatry or with learned expertise
in the identification and treatment of patients with ADHD.
Here are some critical aspects that the source document provides:
Criterion A: Persistent pattern...more severe than is typically
observed...
This is the symptom list you like to use as the definitive diagnostic.
There are a series of behaviour patterns described - to much greater
detail and with much better examples than your abstracted list. In
addition, the criteria are then further diffentiated (A1 and A2) based
on the type of activity - be it inattention (A1a-A1i), hyperactivity
(A2a-A2f), and impulsivity (A2g-A2i).
But then there are three more:
Criterion B: impairment must have been present before age 7 years
Criterion C: some impairment from the symptoms must be present in at
least two settings
Criterion D: There must be clear evidence of interference with
developmentally appropriate social, academic, or occupational
functioning
and of course, the r/o of other disorders is Criterion E.
Rather than rely on the "checklist", it makes a lot more sense,
particularly to a proclaimed non-expert, to read the actual document
to get a sense and appreciation for the complexity of the diagnosis
and the context in which this diagnosis is made.
> Post your own favorite criteria if you wish.
I like Criterion A and B and C and D and even E as a composite, as
opposed to 6 checks in a box. You?
Roger Schlafly
> > They are widely endorsed by shrinks, peds, and others. I realize that
> > they seem wacky, unscientific, subjective, goofy, and subject to abuse
> > by meddlesome do-gooders, but they are straight out of the book.
> Again, the symptom pattern may appear to you to be "goofy" but not to
> physicians trained in the area of psychiatry or with learned expertise
> in the identification and treatment of patients with ADHD.
No kidding. There doesn't seem to be any limit to the goofy and
unscientific theories that the psychiatrists believe in. You'll find similar
things with chiropractors, acupuncturists, and other fringe medicine
practitioners.
Wyle E. Coyote
Really? There are tons and tons of studies that show that specific
treatments (behavioral and medical). And there is a ton of evidence that
ADHD is a biologically based disorder involving the neuromodulators
norpepinephrine, serotonin & dopamine and specific parts of the brain.
Can you make the same claim about the theories of chiropractic?
All the best,
Wyle
amp_spamfree
> "amp_spamfree" <amp_sp...@yahoo.com> wrote
> > > They are widely endorsed by shrinks, peds, and others. I realize that
> > > they seem wacky, unscientific, subjective, goofy, and subject to abuse
> > > by meddlesome do-gooders, but they are straight out of the book.
> > Again, the symptom pattern may appear to you to be "goofy" but not to
> > physicians trained in the area of psychiatry or with learned expertise
> > in the identification and treatment of patients with ADHD.
>
> No kidding. There doesn't seem to be any limit to the goofy and
> unscientific theories that the psychiatrists believe in.
Roger - we are talking about mainstream US psychiatry as represented
by the APA. If you want to argue fringe groups, I can provide you
with some pretty goofy mathematics theories which you might have a
difficult time supporting.
The issue is - your representation of the A1 level symptom patterns as
a definitive diagnostic and the inference that normal kids exhibit
these patterns of behaviour routinely resulting in many false-positive
ADHD diagnoses requires clarification and correction.
>You'll find similar
> things with chiropractors, acupuncturists, and other fringe medicine
> practitioners.
The key word is fringe.
thanks for playing
amp
Roger Schlafly
> > > > They are widely endorsed by shrinks, peds, and others. I realize
that
> > > > they seem wacky, unscientific, subjective, goofy, and subject to
abuse
> > > > by meddlesome do-gooders, but they are straight out of the book.
> > > Again, the symptom pattern may appear to you to be "goofy" but not to
> > > physicians trained in the area of psychiatry or with learned expertise
> > > in the identification and treatment of patients with ADHD.
> > No kidding. There doesn't seem to be any limit to the goofy and
> > unscientific theories that the psychiatrists believe in.
> Roger - we are talking about mainstream US psychiatry as represented
Yes, and they support a lot of wacky and unscientific theories.
Mark
>
> I did find a diagnosis for you though, Roger - DSM IV 315.1
>
Brilliant!
But I think 301.81 might be more accurate.
Mark, MD
Wyle E. Coyote
What whacky and unscientific theories? Please tell us and suggest better
ones.
All the best,
Wyle
JG
>The criteria are from the DSM-IV.
>They are widely endorsed by shrinks, peds, and others. I realize that
>they seem wacky, unscientific, subjective, goofy, and subject to abuse
>by meddlesome do-gooders, but they are straight out of the book.
>Post your own favorite criteria if you wish.
While some (not I) would/will dispute your assertion that DSM criteria are
"wacky" and/or "goofy," who could rationally argue that they aren't
unscientific, subjective, and subject to abuse? Indeed, these are some of
Thomas Szasz's primary points in support of his contention that "mental
illness" is a myth. As a Libertarian, it scares the bejesus out of me just
thinking about the power that psychiatrists have--power that is fostered by the
gubmnt. (Szasz writes extensively about the "therapeutic state" into which our
society has devolved.) Talk about capriciousness! Why, (ethics aside) if a
psychiatrist doesn't like someone's views, theoretically he/she could have that
person committed, against his or her will, for being "delusional." Just think,
if an individual has cancer, heart disease, Parkinson's disease, diabetes,
MS--any true *disease*--he or she can, of course, refuse treatment. The same
can't always be said for those "plagued" with certain "mental" illnesses,
though; these people are often, I'm sure, locked up (and medicated) against
their will. (And to think, too, that such incarceration can occur based solely
on the testimony of others, e.g., family members who might have reasons/motives
other than their relative's best interests at heart.) How long will it be, do
you think, before such things as "homophobia," "racism," "Satanism," and
"sexism" are declared mental aberrations and those evincing these
"unacceptable" beliefs are subjected to, what,
confinement/medication/"reprogramming"? <shudder>
All of this isn't to say, of course, that some individuals, on some occasions,
don't have trouble coping with other people and with various situations in
which they find themselves. "Treatment" is available; they can talk to someone
(e.g., a psychologist) who might be able to give them suggestions (strategies)
as to how they might go about dealing with their problem(s), or they can take
any number of substances to make themselves feel better. (I am opposed, as is
Szasz, to the very idea of "prescription" medications, i.e., to having to
obtain pharmaceuticals from a gubmnt-licensed physician. People should be able
to compare, firsthand, these drugs' effectiveness to that of various "illegal"
drugs. ...Are you reading this, John Walters? <g>)
I've rambled on enough. :o)
JG
Newspapers are unable, seemingly, to discriminate between a bicycle accident
and the collapse of civilisation.
--G. B. Shaw
amp_spamfree
Love it! Spot on.
Comorbidity?
amp
Wyle E. Coyote
"JG" <g030...@aol.compostheap> wrote in message
> "Roger Schlafly" rog...@mindspring.com wrote:
>
> >The criteria are from the DSM-IV.
> >They are widely endorsed by shrinks, peds, and others. I realize that
> >they seem wacky, unscientific, subjective, goofy, and subject to abuse
> >by meddlesome do-gooders, but they are straight out of the book.
> >Post your own favorite criteria if you wish.
>
> While some (not I) would/will dispute your assertion that DSM criteria are
> "wacky" and/or "goofy," who could rationally argue that they aren't
> unscientific, subjective, and subject to abuse? Indeed, these are some of
> Thomas Szasz's primary points in support of his contention that "mental
> illness" is a myth. As a Libertarian, it scares the bejesus out of me
just
> thinking about the power that psychiatrists have--power that is fostered
by the
> gubmnt.
What is this gubmnt thing? Is it like the govenor on a car?
In any organization, there are checks and balances. The alternative is to
have psychotic people out on the streets for a while, until they die (the
annual death rate for homeless is around 10% compared with about 1.2% for
the sheltered).
> (Szasz writes extensively about the "therapeutic state" into which our
> society has devolved.) Talk about capriciousness! Why, (ethics aside) if
a
> psychiatrist doesn't like someone's views, theoretically he/she could have
that
> person committed, against his or her will, for being "delusional." Just
think,
> if an individual has cancer, heart disease, Parkinson's disease, diabetes,
> MS--any true *disease*--he or she can, of course, refuse treatment. The
same
> can't always be said for those "plagued" with certain "mental" illnesses,
> though; these people are often, I'm sure, locked up (and medicated)
against
> their will.
The same is true for young kids with cancer, cystic fibrosis, and mental
illness. The difference is that these young people have legal guardians
(parents). The alternative is that mentally ill adults get little treatment
and live horrible lives. The rights of the mentally ill to refuse treatment
have to be balanced against the responsibility of the society to take care
of its members you are least able to take care of themselves. Unfortunately,
there are no easy decisions here.
That is why for a psychiatrist to treat any patient against his/her will,
the decision must come up before a judge (of course, if there is immediate
danger to someone, the patient or others, the patient may be treated
immediately, but it still has to go before a judge).
>(And to think, too, that such incarceration can occur based solely
> on the testimony of others, e.g., family members who might have
reasons/motives
> other than their relative's best interests at heart.) How long will it
be, do
> you think, before such things as "homophobia," "racism," "Satanism," and
> "sexism" are declared mental aberrations and those evincing these
> "unacceptable" beliefs are subjected to, what,
> confinement/medication/"reprogramming"? <shudder>
>
I don't think these people will ever be subjected to confinement, etc.
Racism is not accepted in the US, but the KKK still has the right to march
down Main Street. I think you are putting the cart before the horse here.
> All of this isn't to say, of course, that some individuals, on some
occasions,
> don't have trouble coping with other people and with various situations in
> which they find themselves. "Treatment" is available; they can talk to
someone
> (e.g., a psychologist) who might be able to give them suggestions
(strategies)
> as to how they might go about dealing with their problem(s), or they can
take
> any number of substances to make themselves feel better. (I am opposed,
as is
> Szasz, to the very idea of "prescription" medications, i.e., to having to
> obtain pharmaceuticals from a gubmnt-licensed physician. People should be
able
> to compare, firsthand, these drugs' effectiveness to that of various
"illegal"
> drugs. ...Are you reading this, John Walters? <g>)
>
I disagree with you about docs have to write prescriptions. Prescription
meds can be deadly. Antibiotic overuse has been shown to cause antibiotic
resistance. And those some anitbiotics can cause death if a person has an
allergic reaction. In addition, allow potentially deadly medications to be
sold without supervision is extremely dangerous.
> I've rambled on enough. :o)
>
True.
All the best,
Wyle
Roger Schlafly
> >The criteria are from the DSM-IV.
> >They are widely endorsed by shrinks, peds, and others. I realize that
> >they seem wacky, unscientific, subjective, goofy, and subject to abuse
> >by meddlesome do-gooders, but they are straight out of the book.
> >Post your own favorite criteria if you wish.
> While some (not I) would/will dispute your assertion that DSM criteria are
> "wacky" and/or "goofy," who could rationally argue that they aren't
> unscientific, subjective, and subject to abuse?
Just look at the DSM-IV. It about like a textbook on astrology or magnet
therapy.
> Indeed, these are some of
> Thomas Szasz's primary points in support of his contention that "mental
> illness" is a myth. As a Libertarian, it scares the bejesus out of me
just
> thinking about the power that psychiatrists have--power that is fostered
by the
> gubmnt. ...
Here is a recent example. There is a dentist in St. Louis who is charged
with
overbilling Medicaid for xrays, and faces a maximum sentence of about 3
years
in federal prison. But he also has expressed some goofy gubmnt conspiracy
theories, and gubmnt psychiatrists have given him a DSM-IV diagnosis of
delusional disorder, persecutory type. So far he has been imprisoned for
4 years awaiting trial. The judge has ordered that he be forcibly drugged
for the
trial, and the appeals court just upheld the order by a 2-1 vote. Read more
here:
http://www.aapsonline.org/press/nrsell.htm
Ilya Kuriyakin
Ah...the problem with providing a link is that some people actually do
bother to use them...
At this link we learn that there was an amicus brief filed by none
other than Andy Schlafly who says:
"It's a shocking, inhumane decision. Now, all the government needs are
allegations and a cooperative psychiatrist to forcibly drug any
citizen," said Andrew Schlafly, General Counsel for the Association of
American Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS). That group filed an amicus
brief opposing the government drugging.
Portraying the charges against Dr. Sell solely as Medicaid fraud is a
bit disingenuous. From the AAPS (never known to be a bastion of truth)
website, we can link to the 8th Circuit decision which list some of
the other charges that are pending:
"attempted murder, conspiracy, and solicitation to commit violence."
Mr. Schlafly, can you explain why you and your brother neglected to
point this out?
Roger Schlafly
> Portraying the charges against Dr. Sell solely as Medicaid fraud is a
> bit disingenuous. From the AAPS (never known to be a bastion of truth)
> website, we can link to the 8th Circuit decision which list some of
> the other charges that are pending:
> "attempted murder, conspiracy, and solicitation to commit violence."
> Mr. Schlafly, can you explain why you and your brother neglected to
> point this out?
Because he and I were commenting on what the 8th Circuit actually
decided, and we provided links to the entire decision. It said:
"Although Sell is also charged with conspiring to murder an FBI officer
and a
witness, we base our reasoning solely on the seriousness of the fraud
charges."
http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/02/03/011862P.pdf
To most people, a murder charge would be much more serious than
a medicaid fraud charge. But in this case, the feds apparently realize
that the murder charge is bogus. It is the medicaid fraud charge that
was used to justify the forced drugging.
Wyle E. Coyote
> "JG" <g030...@aol.compostheap> wrote
> > >The criteria are from the DSM-IV.
> > >They are widely endorsed by shrinks, peds, and others. I realize that
> > >they seem wacky, unscientific, subjective, goofy, and subject to abuse
> > >by meddlesome do-gooders, but they are straight out of the book.
> > >Post your own favorite criteria if you wish.
> > While some (not I) would/will dispute your assertion that DSM criteria
are
> > "wacky" and/or "goofy," who could rationally argue that they aren't
> > unscientific, subjective, and subject to abuse?
>
> Just look at the DSM-IV. It about like a textbook on astrology or magnet
> therapy.
>
Really? I find the book very well organized and based on fact, not fiction.
I think your comment is way off the mark.
> > Indeed, these are some of
> > Thomas Szasz's primary points in support of his contention that "mental
> > illness" is a myth. As a Libertarian, it scares the bejesus out of me
> just
> > thinking about the power that psychiatrists have--power that is fostered
> by the
> > gubmnt. ...
>
> Here is a recent example. There is a dentist in St. Louis who is charged
> with
> overbilling Medicaid for xrays, and faces a maximum sentence of about 3
> years
> in federal prison. But he also has expressed some goofy gubmnt conspiracy
> theories, and gubmnt psychiatrists have given him a DSM-IV diagnosis of
> delusional disorder, persecutory type. So far he has been imprisoned for
> 4 years awaiting trial. The judge has ordered that he be forcibly drugged
> for the
> trial, and the appeals court just upheld the order by a 2-1 vote. Read
more
> here:
> http://www.aapsonline.org/press/nrsell.htm
>
I beg to differ. This is the decision of the courts, not the psychiatrists.
Sorry.
All the best,
Wyle
>
>