jake cited:
Quoted message said:Methylphenidate is an amphetamine-like addictive drug that mimics the
biochemical properties of cocaine.
So? I hate this argument -- it's simply a scare tactic. It's neither
addictive nor dangerous at prescribed dosages.
Quoted message said:This expansion of prescribing is linked directly to incentives and
inducements include: direct funding by drug companies for specific
trials to be completed, funding drug prescribers to attend overseas
conferences, free product distribution in the clinic and funding
so-called `parent support' groups to distribute product
publicity that postulates the supposed biological basis of ADHD.
So, in other words, the big, bad corporations are *advertising* their
products? Who knew?
Quoted message said:There is no evidence to support the biological basis for ADD/ADHD.
Therefore MPH prescription cannot be justified, especially when the
dangers of addiction for amphetamine-like substances have been
highlighted in DSM-IV.
Is their any specific biological evidence for borderline personality
syndrome? OCD? No -- it's a set of symptoms, just like any other
psychological disorder. The fact that we don't understand it down to a
molecular level (yet) doesn't mean it doesn't exist. We don't really
know the details of manic depression, either, but MAOI's and SSRI's work.
Quoted message said:DSM can be seen as a system of social control, used to define people
as `socially abnormal' via labelling of their behaviour
as `deviant''. There is scant scientific evidence, however,
to support the diagnosis of conditions such as ADHD/ADD. Recent
studies confirm that the diagnosis is unreliable (Anderson & Baldwin,
in press b) and probably reflects practitioner exceptions, not
evidence-based clinical practice.
There are no quantitative tests for most psychological conditions, so, of
course, there won't be any black-and-white way of determining every
case. It is, however, a major psychological disorder, characterized by a
specific set of symptoms. Just because there's no clear-cut line between
what might be a milder form of ADD and what might just be laziness is not
a rationale to dispose of the disorder, altogether.
Quoted message said:The tensions between individual health autonomy and the needs of the
state to intervene for the common good have been explored elsewhere
(Labonte,1998). The pharmaceutical industry has created a masterful
illusion of a drug that `acts selectively' to promote individual
behaviour change in individuals diagnosed with ADHD/ADD.
Unsurprisingly, however, people who do not have the condition report
the same drug effects after talking MPH.
Well, yeah -- no [censored]. It's a stimulant. Nobody ever said the drug
works specifically on ADD patients -- the only reason someone might be
obliged to think that would be because they're ignorant.
Quoted message said:This illusion about selective effects is perpetrated by MPH cultists,
who disregard the scientific conclusions of the highest
authority pronouncement that ADHD is neither a biological brain
dysfunction, nor a condition ameliorated by drug treatment (NIH,
1998).
I never knew there was a Ritalin cult. I also have never seen these
"scientific conclusions" from this "highest authority" proving ADHD is
not a "biological brain dysfunction" -- this is silly -- of course it
is. It's biological and goes on in the brain. Oh, and it *is*
ameliorated by drug treatment with stimulants, however on a short-term
basis.
Quoted message said:Many social agents such as teachers, psychologists and
medical practitioners support this evident cult of methylphenidate.
As MPH advocates parade their stereotypes about non-existent
conditions and mythical `biochemical imbalance, three-year olds
are subjected to forced drugging with addictive mind-altering
substances that cause irreversible physiological damage in the
still-developing central nervous system (CNS).
I'd like to see someone prove that ADD has nothing to do with a
biochemical imbalance. Just because it's hard to quantify doesn't
disprove its existence. I think anyone giving Ritalin to a three-year
old is sick.
Quoted message said:There are no scientific clinical outcome data to support the
continued prescription of MPH to minors.
Yes, there is -- the fact that it works.
-- Eric