CHRISTIAN SCIENCE MONITOR; New doubts about medicating kids

Discussion in 'Health and medical' started by Ilena, Feb 5, 2004.

  1. Ilena

    Ilena Guest

    ~~~ May God protect this brave Doctor for daring to speak out against the Drug Cartel & their PR
    flacks / Drug Pushers... so overly represented on Usenet and other Medium ~~~

    http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/0205/p14s01-stss.html

    EXCERPT: Diller and others are also concerned that scientific studies about the drugs have either
    been suppressed or misinterpreted.

    Diller says he spoke in his testimony about his "loss of faith in my academic colleagues to generate
    accurate information and opinions that I feel I can trust because of the extremely intimate link
    between researchers and the drug industry."

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    New doubts about medicating kids

    Pressure is mounting to ban or curtail the use of antidepressants on children. An FDA panel heard
    evidence this week.

    By Gregory M. Lamb | Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor

    Personal tragedies and scientific evidence are combining to call into question the use of powerful
    antidepressant drugs on children and teens. Pressure has been building for months to ban or curtail
    their use. Recent scientific studies have found a link between the use of these drugs and suicidal
    tendencies among children. In December, Britain banned the use of some antidepressants on patients
    under 18. The fallout from a hearing called by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) this week is
    ratcheting up the pressure for some kind of action on this side of the Atlantic.

    "Until I went to the conference, I felt I would be out of step with my colleagues not to" prescribe
    these drugs, said Lawrence Diller, a pediatrician from Walnut Creek, Calif., in a telephone
    interview after the hearing. Parents and even children themselves expect to be given a pill today,
    he says. But "I think pediatricians are going to be much more careful after hearing about this," by
    either writing fewer prescriptions or monitoring the children more closely.

    Dr. Diller - author of the book "Should I Medicate My Child?" - was one of several physicians and
    researchers who testified at the hearing outside Washington Monday. The advisory panel also
    heard from numerous grieving parents and relatives whose children had either killed or injured
    themselves or others while taking prescription antidepressant medications. Meanwhile, one
    presentation from researchers showed the drugs to have little or no more effectiveness than
    placebos - sugar pills.

    The FDA had been planning to issue a report on the drugs next summer. But the advisory panel urged
    the FDA to act now to warn doctors and parents. While the warning wouldn't place a ban on
    prescribing such drugs, it would caution both physicians and parents to watch for signs that the
    drugs might be having a harmful effect.

    "Our sense is that we would like, in the interim, the FDA to go ahead and issue stronger warning
    indications to clinicians regarding possible risks of these medicines," said Dr. Matthew Rudorfer, a
    scientist at the National Institute of Mental Health and the chairman of the FDA advisory committee.
    "We think such warnings are required to elevate the level of concern and attention that
    practitioners use in prescribing them.... We want to put a speed bump in the road."

    About 40 relatives of children who had taken antidepressant drugs testified at the hearing that they
    believed the prescribed drugs had had tragic consequences.

    Parent Sara Bostock, said that after two weeks of taking Paxil her daughter fatally stabbed herself
    with a kitchen knife. "To die in this violent and unusual fashion ... led me to believe Paxil must
    have put her over the edge," Ms. Bostock said.

    Another parent, Mark Miller of Kansas City, Mo., said his 13-year-old son, Matt, hanged himself
    after taking seven Zoloft pills. "You have an obligation today ... [to prevent] this tragic story
    from being repeated over and over again," he said.

    Two parents testified that they thought the drugs had helped their children and urged the FDA not
    to ban them.

    Diller and others are also concerned that scientific studies about the drugs have either been
    suppressed or misinterpreted.

    Diller says he spoke in his testimony about his "loss of faith in my academic colleagues to generate
    accurate information and opinions that I feel I can trust because of the extremely intimate link
    between researchers and the drug industry."

    After such revelations, he says, one might expect closer regulation of the medical profession. But
    "we don't have to worry about regulation of doctors because the government has been bought off and
    so has the public by the drug industry," he says. "The ads directed to consumers convince everyone
    that life is simply, you know, neurotransmitter bubbles going from one set of synapses to another.
    The lobbying of the drug industry is legendary - and this is a doctor speaking."

    Another testifier, David Antonuccio, a psychologist at the University of Nevada Medical School in
    Reno, was part of a team that analyzed 12 studies (published and unpublished) on antidepressants
    and children. "Our conclusions were that the advantages of the antidepressants in children were so
    small and so trivial as to be clinically insignificant," Dr. Antonuccio said by telephone after
    the hearing. They certainly do not "warrant any increased risk, let alone increased risk for
    suicidal behavior.

    "We don't think the benefits warrant [even] some of the [lesser] side effects, which are quite
    common, including agitation, insomnia, and gastrointestinal problems."

    His team's preliminary analysis of available studies shows that "placebos duplicate 90 percent of
    the drug response," which suggests that the drugs' benefit is primarily psychological. Less risky
    strategies such as "exercise, cognitive-behavior therapy, depression-management skills, sports, or
    just good parenting" should be considered first, he says, adding that, speaking as a father of a 5-year-
    old, "this is a really important issue when it comes to protecting our children."

    Britain cited health risks when it banned six brands of antidepressants for children under 18. In
    the United States, only Prozac has been deemed effective by the FDA in treating children for
    depression, but doctors are legally free to prescribe other antidepressants and have been doing so
    routinely.

    In October the FDA alerted doctors to reports of suicidal tendencies found among children
    participating in clinical tests of antidepressant drugs. Wyeth, the pharmaceutical company that
    makes the antidepressant Effexor, had warned doctors in August that its drug caused an increased
    risk of suicidal behavior in children.

    Antidepressants are heavily advertised by drug companies to the general public and are used to treat
    depression, obsessive-compulsive disorder, social phobias, and anxiety disorders.

    The drugs are classed as SSRIs or selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors. Millions of prescriptions
    for them are written each year. The FDA says that more than 10 million children and teens 17 and
    under took antidepressants in 2002. The drugs under review by the FDA are known by the brand names
    Remeron, Serzone, Effexor, Wellbutrin, Celexa, Luvox, Paxil, Zoloft, and Prozac.

    The Pediatric Research Equity Act of 2003, signed into law last November by President Bush, provides
    the FDA with authority to require studies of the effects of pharmaceutical products specifically on
    children to ensure that they are both safe and effective.

    • Material from wire services was used in this report.
     
    Tags:


  2. Jan

    Jan Guest

    >Subject: CHRISTIAN SCIENCE MONITOR; New doubts about medicating kids
    >From: [email protected] (Ilena)
    >Date: 2/5/2004 7:49 AM Pacific Standard Time
    >Message-id: <[email protected]>
    >
    >~~~ May God protect this brave Doctor for daring to speak out against the Drug Cartel & their PR
    >flacks / Drug Pushers... so overly represented on Usenet and other Medium ~~~

    AMEN!!

    Jan

    >
    >http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/0205/p14s01-stss.html
    >
    >EXCERPT: Diller and others are also concerned that scientific studies about the drugs have either
    >been suppressed or misinterpreted.
    >
    >Diller says he spoke in his testimony about his "loss of faith in my academic colleagues to
    >generate accurate information and opinions that I feel I can trust because of the extremely
    >intimate link between researchers and the drug industry."
    >
    >~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    >
    >New doubts about medicating kids
    >
    >Pressure is mounting to ban or curtail the use of antidepressants on children. An FDA panel heard
    >evidence this week.
    >
    >By Gregory M. Lamb | Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor
    >
    >Personal tragedies and scientific evidence are combining to call into question the use of powerful
    >antidepressant drugs on children and teens. Pressure has been building for months to ban or curtail
    >their use. Recent scientific studies have found a link between the use of these drugs and suicidal
    >tendencies among children. In December, Britain banned the use of some antidepressants on patients
    >under 18. The fallout from a hearing called by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) this week is
    >ratcheting up the pressure for some kind of action on this side of the Atlantic.
    >
    >
    >
    >"Until I went to the conference, I felt I would be out of step with my colleagues not to" prescribe
    >these drugs, said Lawrence Diller, a pediatrician from Walnut Creek, Calif., in a telephone
    >interview after the hearing. Parents and even children themselves expect to be given a pill today,
    >he says. But "I think pediatricians are going to be much more careful after hearing about this," by
    >either writing fewer prescriptions or monitoring the children more closely.
    >
    >Dr. Diller - author of the book "Should I Medicate My Child?" - was one of several physicians and
    > researchers who testified at the hearing outside Washington Monday. The advisory panel also
    > heard from numerous grieving parents and relatives whose children had either killed or injured
    > themselves or others while taking prescription antidepressant medications. Meanwhile, one
    > presentation from researchers showed the drugs to have little or no more effectiveness than
    > placebos - sugar pills.
    >
    >The FDA had been planning to issue a report on the drugs next summer. But the advisory panel urged
    >the FDA to act now to warn doctors and parents. While the warning wouldn't place a ban on
    >prescribing such drugs, it would caution both physicians and parents to watch for signs that the
    >drugs might be having a harmful effect.
    >
    >"Our sense is that we would like, in the interim, the FDA to go ahead and issue stronger warning
    >indications to clinicians regarding possible risks of these medicines," said Dr. Matthew Rudorfer,
    >a scientist at the National Institute of Mental Health and the chairman of the FDA advisory
    >committee. "We think such warnings are required to elevate the level of concern and attention that
    >practitioners use in prescribing them.... We want to put a speed bump in the road."
    >
    >About 40 relatives of children who had taken antidepressant drugs testified at the hearing that
    >they believed the prescribed drugs had had tragic consequences.
    >
    >Parent Sara Bostock, said that after two weeks of taking Paxil her daughter fatally stabbed herself
    >with a kitchen knife. "To die in this violent and unusual fashion ... led me to believe Paxil must
    >have put her over the edge," Ms. Bostock said.
    >
    >Another parent, Mark Miller of Kansas City, Mo., said his 13-year-old son, Matt, hanged himself
    >after taking seven Zoloft pills. "You have an obligation today ... [to prevent] this tragic story
    >from being repeated over and over again," he said.
    >
    >Two parents testified that they thought the drugs had helped their children and urged the FDA not
    >to ban them.
    >
    >Diller and others are also concerned that scientific studies about the drugs have either been
    >suppressed or misinterpreted.
    >
    >Diller says he spoke in his testimony about his "loss of faith in my academic colleagues to
    >generate accurate information and opinions that I feel I can trust because of the extremely
    >intimate link between researchers and the drug industry."
    >
    >After such revelations, he says, one might expect closer regulation of the medical profession. But
    >"we don't have to worry about regulation of doctors because the government has been bought off and
    >so has the public by the drug industry," he says. "The ads directed to consumers convince everyone
    >that life is simply, you know, neurotransmitter bubbles going from one set of synapses to another.
    >The lobbying of the drug industry is legendary - and this is a doctor speaking."
    >
    >Another testifier, David Antonuccio, a psychologist at the University of Nevada Medical School in
    >Reno, was part of a team that analyzed 12 studies (published and unpublished) on antidepressants
    >and children. "Our conclusions were that the advantages of the antidepressants in children were so
    >small and so trivial as to be clinically insignificant," Dr. Antonuccio said by telephone after the
    >hearing. They certainly do not "warrant any increased risk, let alone increased risk for suicidal
    >behavior.
    >
    >"We don't think the benefits warrant [even] some of the [lesser] side effects, which are quite
    >common, including agitation, insomnia, and gastrointestinal problems."
    >
    >His team's preliminary analysis of available studies shows that "placebos duplicate 90 percent of
    >the drug response," which suggests that the drugs' benefit is primarily psychological. Less risky
    >strategies such as "exercise, cognitive-behavior therapy, depression-management skills, sports, or
    >just good parenting" should be considered first, he says, adding that, speaking as a father of a
    >5-year-old, "this is a really important issue when it comes to protecting our children."
    >
    >Britain cited health risks when it banned six brands of antidepressants for children under 18. In
    >the United States, only Prozac has been deemed effective by the FDA in treating children for
    >depression, but doctors are legally free to prescribe other antidepressants and have been doing so
    >routinely.
    >
    >In October the FDA alerted doctors to reports of suicidal tendencies found among children
    >participating in clinical tests of antidepressant drugs. Wyeth, the pharmaceutical company that
    >makes the antidepressant Effexor, had warned doctors in August that its drug caused an increased
    >risk of suicidal behavior in children.
    >
    >Antidepressants are heavily advertised by drug companies to the general public and are used to
    >treat depression, obsessive-compulsive disorder, social phobias, and anxiety disorders.
    >
    >The drugs are classed as SSRIs or selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors. Millions of
    >prescriptions for them are written each year. The FDA says that more than 10 million children and
    >teens 17 and under took antidepressants in 2002. The drugs under review by the FDA are known by the
    >brand names Remeron, Serzone, Effexor, Wellbutrin, Celexa, Luvox, Paxil, Zoloft, and Prozac.
    >
    >The Pediatric Research Equity Act of 2003, signed into law last November by President Bush,
    >provides the FDA with authority to require studies of the effects of pharmaceutical products
    >specifically on children to ensure that they are both safe and effective.
    >
    >• Material from wire services was used in this report.
    >
    >
    >
    >
     
  3. "Jan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    > >Subject: CHRISTIAN SCIENCE MONITOR; New doubts about medicating kids From: [email protected]
    > >(Ilena) Date: 2/5/2004 7:49 AM Pacific Standard Time Message-id:
    > ><[email protected]>
    > >
    > >~~~ May God protect this brave Doctor for daring to speak out against the Drug Cartel & their PR
    > >flacks / Drug Pushers... so overly represented on Usenet and other Medium ~~~
    >
    > AMEN!!

    Did you know that Lawrence Diller, MD, actually prescribes methylphendiate to his patients?

    I know a patient of his who told me.
     
  4. "Ilena" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    > ~~~ May God protect this brave Doctor for daring to speak out against the Drug Cartel & their PR
    > flacks / Drug Pushers... so overly represented on Usenet and other Medium ~~~
    >
    >
    > http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/0205/p14s01-stss.html
    >
    > EXCERPT: Diller and others are also concerned that scientific studies about the drugs have either
    > been suppressed or misinterpreted.
    >
    > Diller says he spoke in his testimony about his "loss of faith in my academic colleagues to
    > generate accurate information and opinions that I feel I can trust because of the extremely
    > intimate link between researchers and the drug industry."
    >
    > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    Hey, Ilena, did you pay the $40. copyright/reprint fee to post this in its entirety?
     
  5. Ilena

    Ilena Guest

    "Nanaweedkiller" <[email protected]>

    Hey Loser Barrett's Parrott ... Ted Nidiffer

    Saw that you infiltrated a support group for women harmed by breast implants to post their
    quackwatch.com & "Ilena is a Crack |Addict" advertisements for them ...

    You represent them so well ...

    The more they lose to me ... the more desperate you shills are

    www.humanticsfoundation.com/quacklibelsuit.htm
     
  6. Morally bankrupt Ilena Rosenthal <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    > "Nanaweedkiller" <[email protected]>
    >
    >
    > Hey Loser Barrett's Parrott ... [innocent party]> Saw that you infiltrated a support group for
    > women harmed by breast implants to post their quackwatch.com & "Ilena is a Crack |Addict"
    > advertisements for them ...

    Which support group do you mean? If I'm going to be accused of infiltrating a support group , you
    could at the least tell the name of the group. For those interested, Ilena falsely accused many of
    calling her a cocaine addicted pandering whore, so this website was created in her honor. http://ilena.rose.wasarrested.com/S-
    CR/San+Jose/prostitute

    Oh, you forgot to answer the question, Pandering. Did you or did you not pay the $40
    copyright/reprint fee for posting the article in its entirety? Don't forget to answer, Dahling.
     
  7. Jeff

    Jeff Guest

    "Nana Weedkiller" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...

    (...)

    > For those interested, Ilena falsely accused many of calling her a cocaine addicted pandering
    > whore, so this website was created in her honor.

    (...)

    Please. Ilena is not worth your time. Please do not go down to her level.

    Remember the golden rule: Treat others as you would want to be treated yourself. In other words,
    take the high road, not the sewer.

    Jeff
     
  8. Ilena

    Ilena Guest

    "Jeff" <[email protected]>

    > Please. Ilena is not worth your time. Please do not go down to her level.
    >
    > Remember the golden rule: Treat others as you would want to be treated yourself. In other words,
    > take the high road, not the sewer.
    >
    > Jeff

    You are calling Ted Nidiffer ... one of Barretts Pubicists, a "she" ??

    You must have failed Biology 101 too.
     
  9. Coleah

    Coleah Guest

    "Ilena" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    > "Jeff" <[email protected]>
    >
    > > Please. Ilena is not worth your time. Please do not go down to her
    level.
    > >
    > > Remember the golden rule: Treat others as you would want to be treated yourself. In other words,
    > > take the high road, not the sewer.
    > >
    > > Jeff
    >
    >
    > You are calling Ted Nidiffer ... one of Barretts Pubicists, a "she" ??
    >
    > You must have failed Biology 101 too.

    Ah....Jeff wrote about 'SHE' (Ilena) not being worth the time and advised 'do not go down to HER
    (Ilena's) level.

    Where did Ilena get something about Ted Nidiffer being referred to as a 'she'? Duh?
     
  10. "Ilena" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    > "Jeff" <[email protected]>
    >
    > > Please. Ilena is not worth your time. Please do not go down to her
    level.
    > >
    > > Remember the golden rule: Treat others as you would want to be treated yourself. In other words,
    > > take the high road, not the sewer.
    > >
    > > Jeff
    >
    >
    > You are calling Ted Nidiffer ... one of Barretts Pubicists, a "she" ??
    >
    > You must have failed Biology 101 too.

    Poor, Ilena. Get some help for that brain fog. And please, please, stop fantasizing about
    Ted's genitals!
     
  11. Ilena

    Ilena Guest

    ~~~ May God protect this brave Doctor for daring to speak out against the Drug Cartel & their PR
    flacks / Drug Pushers... so overly represented on Usenet and other Medium. ~~~

    http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/0205/p14s01-stss.html

    EXCERPT: Diller and others are also concerned that scientific studies about the drugs have either
    been suppressed or misinterpreted.

    Diller says he spoke in his testimony about his "loss of faith in my academic colleagues to generate
    accurate information and opinions that I feel I can trust because of the extremely intimate link
    between researchers and the drug industry."

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    New doubts about medicating kids

    Pressure is mounting to ban or curtail the use of antidepressants on children. An FDA panel heard
    evidence this week.

    By Gregory M. Lamb | Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor

    Personal tragedies and scientific evidence are combining to call into question the use of powerful
    antidepressant drugs on children and teens. Pressure has been building for months to ban or curtail
    their use. Recent scientific studies have found a link between the use of these drugs and suicidal
    tendencies among children. In December, Britain banned the use of some antidepressants on patients
    under 18. The fallout from a hearing called by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) this week is
    ratcheting up the pressure for some kind of action on this side of the Atlantic.

    "Until I went to the conference, I felt I would be out of step with my colleagues not to" prescribe
    these drugs, said Lawrence Diller, a pediatrician from Walnut Creek, Calif., in a telephone
    interview after the hearing. Parents and even children themselves expect to be given a pill today,
    he says. But "I think pediatricians are going to be much more careful after hearing about this," by
    either writing fewer prescriptions or monitoring the children more closely.

    Dr. Diller - author of the book "Should I Medicate My Child?" - was one of several physicians and
    researchers who testified at the hearing outside Washington Monday. The advisory panel also
    heard from numerous grieving parents and relatives whose children had either killed or injured
    themselves or others while taking prescription antidepressant medications. Meanwhile, one
    presentation from researchers showed the drugs to have little or no more effectiveness than
    placebos - sugar pills.

    The FDA had been planning to issue a report on the drugs next summer. But the advisory panel urged
    the FDA to act now to warn doctors and parents. While the warning wouldn't place a ban on
    prescribing such drugs, it would caution both physicians and parents to watch for signs that the
    drugs might be having a harmful effect.

    "Our sense is that we would like, in the interim, the FDA to go ahead and issue stronger warning
    indications to clinicians regarding possible risks of these medicines," said Dr. Matthew Rudorfer, a
    scientist at the National Institute of Mental Health and the chairman of the FDA advisory committee.
    "We think such warnings are required to elevate the level of concern and attention that
    practitioners use in prescribing them.... We want to put a speed bump in the road."

    About 40 relatives of children who had taken antidepressant drugs testified at the hearing that they
    believed the prescribed drugs had had tragic consequences.

    Parent Sara Bostock, said that after two weeks of taking Paxil her daughter fatally stabbed herself
    with a kitchen knife. "To die in this violent and unusual fashion ... led me to believe Paxil must
    have put her over the edge," Ms. Bostock said.

    Another parent, Mark Miller of Kansas City, Mo., said his 13-year-old son, Matt, hanged himself
    after taking seven Zoloft pills. "You have an obligation today ... [to prevent] this tragic story
    from being repeated over and over again," he said.

    Two parents testified that they thought the drugs had helped their children and urged the FDA not
    to ban them.

    Diller and others are also concerned that scientific studies about the drugs have either been
    suppressed or misinterpreted.

    Diller says he spoke in his testimony about his "loss of faith in my academic colleagues to generate
    accurate information and opinions that I feel I can trust because of the extremely intimate link
    between researchers and the drug industry."

    After such revelations, he says, one might expect closer regulation of the medical profession. But
    "we don't have to worry about regulation of doctors because the government has been bought off and
    so has the public by the drug industry," he says. "The ads directed to consumers convince everyone
    that life is simply, you know, neurotransmitter bubbles going from one set of synapses to another.
    The lobbying of the drug industry is legendary - and this is a doctor speaking."

    Another testifier, David Antonuccio, a psychologist at the University of Nevada Medical School in
    Reno, was part of a team that analyzed 12 studies (published and unpublished) on antidepressants
    and children. "Our conclusions were that the advantages of the antidepressants in children were so
    small and so trivial as to be clinically insignificant," Dr. Antonuccio said by telephone after
    the hearing. They certainly do not "warrant any increased risk, let alone increased risk for
    suicidal behavior.

    "We don't think the benefits warrant [even] some of the [lesser] side effects, which are quite
    common, including agitation, insomnia, and gastrointestinal problems."

    His team's preliminary analysis of available studies shows that "placebos duplicate 90 percent of
    the drug response," which suggests that the drugs' benefit is primarily psychological. Less risky
    strategies such as "exercise, cognitive-behavior therapy, depression-management skills, sports, or
    just good parenting" should be considered first, he says, adding that, speaking as a father of a 5-year-
    old, "this is a really important issue when it comes to protecting our children."

    Britain cited health risks when it banned six brands of antidepressants for children under 18. In
    the United States, only Prozac has been deemed effective by the FDA in treating children for
    depression, but doctors are legally free to prescribe other antidepressants and have been doing so
    routinely.

    In October the FDA alerted doctors to reports of suicidal tendencies found among children
    participating in clinical tests of antidepressant drugs. Wyeth, the pharmaceutical company that
    makes the antidepressant Effexor, had warned doctors in August that its drug caused an increased
    risk of suicidal behavior in children.

    Antidepressants are heavily advertised by drug companies to the general public and are used to treat
    depression, obsessive-compulsive disorder, social phobias, and anxiety disorders.

    The drugs are classed as SSRIs or selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors. Millions of prescriptions
    for them are written each year. The FDA says that more than 10 million children and teens 17 and
    under took antidepressants in 2002. The drugs under review by the FDA are known by the brand names
    Remeron, Serzone, Effexor, Wellbutrin, Celexa, Luvox, Paxil, Zoloft, and Prozac.

    The Pediatric Research Equity Act of 2003, signed into law last November by President Bush, provides
    the FDA with authority to require studies of the effects of pharmaceutical products specifically on
    children to ensure that they are both safe and effective.

    • Material from wire services was used in this report.
     
  12. Jeff

    Jeff Guest

    "Brian Sandle" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...

    (...)

    > And everyone knows that managing environment/stress helps for many disablities.
    >
    > The helpful rhythms & related success of some educational/societal environments are not so present
    > these days. So we modify the child chemically as an easy expedient?

    No, as part of the overall treatment of a condition. This treatment includes counseling and behaviorial-
    based therapy.

    > Next we may be into eugenics.

    That's a leap in logic.

    > Got to take care of the long term effects of expedients, as we do not know why
    evolution
    > has retained this genetics for so long.

    And ADHD meds do not affect genetics.

    Jeff
     
  13. Brian Sandle

    Brian Sandle Guest

    In sci.environment Jeff <[email protected]> wrote:

    > "Brian Sandle" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > news:[email protected]...

    > (...)

    >> And everyone knows that managing environment/stress helps for many disablities.
    >>
    >> The helpful rhythms & related success of some educational/societal environments are not so
    >> present these days. So we modify the child chemically as an easy expedient?

    > No, as part of the overall treatment of a condition. This treatment includes counseling and behaviorial-
    > based therapy.

    Counseling the school system/teachers?

    >> Next we may be into eugenics.

    > That's a leap in logic.

    Hopefully it is a leap in *practice*. But it seems eugenics *could be* a logical followup in some
    people's minds. They think The child is a *problem*, therefore drug it, eliminate the problem, breed
    different pliable types, rather than adapting the school system to new needs of children.

    How did we get on before?

    >> Got to take care of the long term effects of expedients, as we do not know why
    > evolution
    >> has retained this genetics for so long.

    > And ADHD meds do not affect genetics.

    What percetnage do you think could be taking them now, the grwoth rate and the future rate?

    -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =----- http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1
    Newsgroup Service in the World! -----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
     
  14. Jeff

    Jeff Guest

    "Brian Sandle" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    > In sci.environment Jeff <[email protected]> wrote:
    >
    > > "Brian Sandle" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > > news:[email protected]...
    >
    > > (...)
    >
    > >> And everyone knows that managing environment/stress helps for many disablities.
    > >>
    > >> The helpful rhythms & related success of some educational/societal environments are not so
    > >> present these days. So we modify the child chemically as an easy expedient?
    >
    > > No, as part of the overall treatment of a condition. This treatment
    includes
    > > counseling and behaviorial-based therapy.
    >
    > Counseling the school system/teachers?

    If necessary. And the parents and kids and family members, too.

    > >> Next we may be into eugenics.
    >
    > > That's a leap in logic.
    >
    > Hopefully it is a leap in *practice*. But it seems eugenics *could be* a logical followup in some
    > people's minds. They think The child is a
    *problem*,
    > therefore drug it, eliminate the problem, breed different pliable types, rather than adapting the
    > school system to new needs of children.

    Maybe some people think this way. I can't read minds.

    I think the child is an assest, and that we should do whatever is in the child's best interest to
    help him/her develop into a healthy and happy adult. If that includes medication that helps him/her
    do schoolwork, participate more fully in the family and enjoy his/her friends and recreation time,
    then so be it.

    I haven't seen much to back up your claim about "breeding different pliable types."

    > How did we get on before?

    By doing the best we can with the resources avialable.

    Jeff

    > >> Got to take care of the long term effects of expedients, as we do not know why
    > > evolution
    > >> has retained this genetics for so long.
    >
    > > And ADHD meds do not affect genetics.
    >
    > What percetnage do you think could be taking them now, the grwoth rate and the future rate?
    >
    >
    > -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =----- http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1
    > Newsgroup Service in the World! -----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
     
  15. "Brian Sandle" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    > In sci.environment Jeff <[email protected]> wrote:
    >
    > > "Brian Sandle" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > > news:[email protected]...
    >
    > > (...)
    >
    > >> Do you know a kid or their family who has been helped by ritalin or something? But how do you
    > >> know it was not just the contact with another adult, one to one, for a span? With dads out of
    > >> the family, or mums,
    too,
    > >> more these days, there may not be the chance for kids to share quality
    > > time
    > >> with adults.
    >
    > > I mentor two kids. Neither of whom gets enough quality time. And neither
    of
    > > whom show ADHD symptoms. In addition, none of the kids at the centers I
    go
    > > to show ADHD symptoms.
    >
    > > While there are definite social and psychological problems that can
    manifest
    > > themselves with symptoms similar to those seen in ADHD (depression,
    family
    > > and school difficulties, e.g.), I doubt very much that ADHD is caused by
    not
    > > enough adult interaction. However, during any evaluation of kids (or
    adults)
    > > for ADHD, the social circumstances must be taken into account, including factors like the family
    > > life and stressors in the family. Not having
    enough
    > > adult role models would be one of those.
    >
    > > If a child has problems related to social or psychological difficulties
    that
    > > manifest themselves with inattention or hyperactivity, then these
    symptoms
    > > are not from ADHD. And these difficulties must be accounted for when
    making
    > > an ADHD diagnosis.
    >
    > > The evidence that ADHD is overwhelming ADHD is a distinct group of neruological conditions
    > > resulting in certain behaviors and attention difficulties.
    >
    > And everyone knows that managing environment/stress helps for many disablities.

    That depends on the disability and how it affects the person's interaction withtheir environment.

    > The helpful rhythms & related success of some educational/societal environments are not so present
    > these days. So we modify the child chemically as an easy expedient?

    Yawn. No. Forst, we see excatly what the problem is by following a thorough diagnostic protocol.
    (Did you know that there is one for AD/HD?) Then we use the proper treatment protocol (did you know
    that there is one?)

    Next we may be into eugenics. Got to take
    > care of the long term effects of expedients, as we do not know why
    evolution
    > has retained this genetics for so long.

    These genetics were handled 100 years ago by the availability of the frontier and having a totally
    different social structure than we have now.
     
  16. "Brian Sandle" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    > In sci.environment Mark ProbertFebruary 8, 2004
    <[email protected]> wrote:
    >
    > > "Brian Sandle" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > > news:[email protected]...>>
    > >> Do you know a kid or their family who has been helped by ritalin or something? But how do you
    > >> know it was not just the contact with another adult, one to one, for a span?
    > > As a matter of fact, yes, I know of *at least* one kid and family, that
    has
    > > beenhelped by the use of methylphenidate.
    >
    > > My son.
    >
    > > He is 20, attends a prestigious school of art and design (although the anti-med liars keep
    > > claiming that MPH destroys creativity) on full scholarship, works 25 hours /wk as a graphic
    > > artist and designer for a large, well known, publisher, and has become a junior project mamager,
    earns
    > > enough to be financially independent at the age of 20, and is one heck
    of a
    > > all-around good kid.
    >
    > Will he need medication permanently, then?

    Sorry, but my crystal ball is broken. He may, or may not.

    > What was he like on different diets, maybe off gluten, colourings, and having pure water? I know
    > that takes a bit to manage.

    Since AD/HD is not caused by diet, why do you ask?

    > > In addition to him, I know of many other kids whose parents made the difficult choice to use
    > > medications and have turne dout wodnerful. Strangely, or, rather, not-so-strangely, I know of no
    > > family who has regretted the choice.
    >
    > You say it is a difficult choice. Did they all have to really soul search about the docs' line?
    > Maybe it is going down too easily for some?

    No, it never goes down too easily for the people I know. And, no one likes giving their kid meds of
    any type. I will presume that you have no children.

    > >> With dads out of the family, or mums, too, more these days, there may not be the chance for
    > >> kids to share quality
    > > time
    > >> with adults.
    >
    > > And, that line of bullshit was old ten years ago. If anything, kids with AD/HD get excessive
    > > parental attention. Russell Barkley has written on
    this,
    > > and I suggest that you go find the article.
    >
    > Children who have music lessons, and that is often one to one, seem to do better in other school
    > achievement. Maybe they get lessons because they
    are
    > cleverer or is it that?

    AD/HD kids may do better in a 1:1 environment. However, a 1:1 environment is not real life.

    > Isn't it natural for a child to like contact with an adult outside the family, one perhaps they
    > are not so emotionally-geneticaly bound to?

    So what? My son enjoys contact with his family. Although he is a busy guy, he still makes certain
    that he is at home for Friday night and Sunday night dinner, which are family traditions. We enjoy
    many of the same activities and spend a lot of our free time together.

    >
    >
    > -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =----- http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1
    > Newsgroup Service in the World! -----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
     
  17. "Brian Sandle" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    > In sci.environment Jeff <[email protected]> wrote:
    >
    > > "Brian Sandle" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > > news:[email protected]...
    >
    > > (...)
    >
    > >> And everyone knows that managing environment/stress helps for many disablities.
    > >>
    > >> The helpful rhythms & related success of some educational/societal environments are not so
    > >> present these days. So we modify the child chemically as an easy expedient?
    >
    > > No, as part of the overall treatment of a condition. This treatment
    includes
    > > counseling and behaviorial-based therapy.
    >
    > Counseling the school system/teachers?

    Counseling and training teachers, parents and care givers how to work with someone who cannot focus
    their attention.

    > >> Next we may be into eugenics.
    >
    > > That's a leap in logic.
    >
    > Hopefully it is a leap in *practice*. But it seems eugenics *could be* a logical followup in some
    > people's minds.

    In over 15 years, you are the first to suggest that.

    They think The child is a *problem*,
    > therefore drug it, eliminate the problem, breed different pliable types, rather than adapting the
    > school system to new needs of children.

    Even with adaptation, many AD/HD kids still cannot focus their attention in the same manner as
    others. Thus, they need help in doing so.

    > How did we get on before?
    >
    > >> Got to take care of the long term effects of expedients, as we do not know why
    > > evolution
    > >> has retained this genetics for so long.
    >
    > > And ADHD meds do not affect genetics.
    >
    > What percetnage do you think could be taking them now, the grwoth rate and the future rate?
    >
    >
    > -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =----- http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1
    > Newsgroup Service in the World! -----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
     
  18. Brian Sandle

    Brian Sandle Guest

    In sci.environment Mark ProbertFebruary 10, 2004 <[email protected]> wrote:

    > "Brian Sandle" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > news:[email protected]...
    >> In sci.environment Jeff <[email protected]> wrote:
    >>
    >> > "Brian Sandle" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    >> > news:[email protected]...
    >>
    >> > (...)
    >>
    >> >> Do you know a kid or their family who has been helped by ritalin or something? But how do you
    >> >> know it was not just the contact with another adult, one to one, for a span? With dads out of
    >> >> the family, or mums,
    > too,
    >> >> more these days, there may not be the chance for kids to share quality
    >> > time
    >> >> with adults.
    >>
    >> > I mentor two kids. Neither of whom gets enough quality time. And neither
    > of
    >> > whom show ADHD symptoms. In addition, none of the kids at the centers I
    > go
    >> > to show ADHD symptoms.
    >>
    >> > While there are definite social and psychological problems that can
    > manifest
    >> > themselves with symptoms similar to those seen in ADHD (depression,
    > family
    >> > and school difficulties, e.g.), I doubt very much that ADHD is caused by
    > not
    >> > enough adult interaction. However, during any evaluation of kids (or
    > adults)
    >> > for ADHD, the social circumstances must be taken into account, including factors like the
    >> > family life and stressors in the family. Not having
    > enough
    >> > adult role models would be one of those.
    >>
    >> > If a child has problems related to social or psychological difficulties
    > that
    >> > manifest themselves with inattention or hyperactivity, then these
    > symptoms
    >> > are not from ADHD. And these difficulties must be accounted for when
    > making
    >> > an ADHD diagnosis.
    >>
    >> > The evidence that ADHD is overwhelming ADHD is a distinct group of neruological conditions
    >> > resulting in certain behaviors and attention difficulties.
    >>
    >> And everyone knows that managing environment/stress helps for many disablities.

    > That depends on the disability and how it affects the person's interaction withtheir environment.

    >> The helpful rhythms & related success of some educational/societal environments are not so
    >> present these days. So we modify the child chemically as an easy expedient?

    > Yawn. No. Forst, we see excatly what the problem is by following a thorough diagnostic protocol.
    > (Did you know that there is one for AD/HD?)

    Do you mean a protocol that diagnoses that the child has AD/HD, or a protocol which diagnoses what
    type of AHDH the particular child has?

    Then we use
    > the proper treatment protocol (did you know that there is one?)

    Finding out how the child reacts to the various ADHD treatments by trial and error, or
    something better?

    > Next we may be into eugenics. Got to take
    >> care of the long term effects of expedients, as we do not know why
    > evolution
    >> has retained this genetics for so long.

    > These genetics were handled 100 years ago by the availability of the frontier and having a totally
    > different social structure than we have now.

    Should we be looking ahead to more illnesses and cures with future societal developments?

    Would you call the desire to find the birth or donor parent unhealthy and

    and we might suspect increased children in these partnerships. I think law is coming in to give
    legal right to children to know their genetic parents.

    Pure methamphetamine is becoming a widely used drug. What happens to offspring of parents using
    such? I have read Ritalin to be of possible assistance to the brain damaged by methamphetamine.

    But the article Ilena showed us was more about other drugs. Some success with Ritalin for some
    people who can tolerate it is what I suspected the irate reply to Ilena might be based on. Now let
    us start thinking about the other drugs. How good/risky are they and how do you praise them? Are
    they being used anything like antidepressants may be used for people when they really may need an
    antibiotic?

    -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =----- http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1
    Newsgroup Service in the World! -----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
     
  19. Brian Sandle

    Brian Sandle Guest

    In sci.environment Mark ProbertFebruary 10, 2004 <[email protected]> wrote:

    > "Brian Sandle" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > news:[email protected]...
    >> In sci.environment Mark ProbertFebruary 8, 2004
    > <[email protected]> wrote:
    >>
    >> > "Brian Sandle" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    >> > news:[email protected]...>>
    >> >> Do you know a kid or their family who has been helped by ritalin or something? But how do you
    >> >> know it was not just the contact with another adult, one to one, for a span?
    >> > As a matter of fact, yes, I know of *at least* one kid and family, that
    > has
    >> > beenhelped by the use of methylphenidate.
    >>
    >> > My son.
    >>
    >> > He is 20, attends a prestigious school of art and design (although the anti-med liars keep
    >> > claiming that MPH destroys creativity) on full scholarship, works 25 hours /wk as a graphic
    >> > artist and designer for a large, well known, publisher, and has become a junior project
    >> > mamager,
    > earns
    >> > enough to be financially independent at the age of 20, and is one heck
    > of a
    >> > all-around good kid.
    >>
    >> Will he need medication permanently, then?

    > Sorry, but my crystal ball is broken. He may, or may not.

    >> What was he like on different diets, maybe off gluten, colourings, and having pure water? I know
    >> that takes a bit to manage.

    > Since AD/HD is not caused by diet, why do you ask?

    You sound as if your mind is really firmly set on concrete on that matter. Or are you playing
    with words?

    Diabetes may be caused by something other than sugar, but it still helps to regulate sugar intake
    once you have it.

    From my reading avoiding salicylates may help a small subet. But is it expedient not to worry about
    small subsets. Then the present state of investgation of omega3/omega6 fatty acids calls for
    controlled investigation. It is not decided.

    >> > In addition to him, I know of many other kids whose parents made the difficult choice to use
    >> > medications and have turne dout wodnerful. Strangely, or, rather, not-so-strangely, I know of
    >> > no family who has regretted the choice.
    >>
    >> You say it is a difficult choice. Did they all have to really soul search about the docs' line?
    >> Maybe it is going down too easily for some?

    > No, it never goes down too easily for the people I know. And, no one likes giving their kid meds
    > of any type. I will presume that you have no children.

    I don't but what sort of fight do you put up against the doc/dentist whom you are supposed to trust?

    >> >> With dads out of the family, or mums, too, more these days, there may not be the chance for
    >> >> kids to share quality
    >> > time
    >> >> with adults.
    >>
    >> > And, that line of bullshit was old ten years ago. If anything, kids with AD/HD get excessive
    >> > parental attention. Russell Barkley has written on
    > this,
    >> > and I suggest that you go find the article.
    >>
    >> Children who have music lessons, and that is often one to one, seem to do better in other school
    >> achievement. Maybe they get lessons because they
    > are
    >> cleverer or is it that?

    > AD/HD kids may do better in a 1:1 environment. However, a 1:1 environment is not real life.

    Exactly my point: modify the kids for `real life'?

    Changes are going on in society. It is increasingly ruled by the dollar in USA. Then we have more
    unemployed persons losing their self respect. It is up to us to nominate and vote in politicians who
    go for change which acknowledges individual differences and needs. People can be trained to look
    after the perplexed alzheimic and ADHD people.

    Demanding more interpersonal contact as ADHD people on the increase do may even be evolutionary, do
    we know for sure?

    >> Isn't it natural for a child to like contact with an adult outside the family, one perhaps they
    >> are not so emotionally-geneticaly bound to?

    > So what? My son enjoys contact with his family. Although he is a busy guy, he still makes certain
    > that he is at home for Friday night and Sunday night dinner, which are family traditions. We enjoy
    > many of the same activities and spend a lot of our free time together.

    And some younger ones are so fortunate but could do with more indivual non-family adult contact as
    well as peer contact. Actually ordinary children often used to make friends with adults in the
    neighbourhood. Why not do a controlled test for it as a treamtent? Note that when diet is deficient
    in vitamin C scurvy develops. Then the treatment is vitamin C tablets, is it? How far are you
    prepared to sanction a deprived diet treated by pills because poorer and poorer diet is another
    facet of your `real life'?

    -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =----- http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1
    Newsgroup Service in the World! -----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
     
  20. "Brian Sandle" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    > In sci.environment Mark ProbertFebruary 10, 2004
    <[email protected]> wrote:
    >
    > > "Brian Sandle" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > > news:[email protected]...
    > >> In sci.environment Jeff <[email protected]> wrote:
    > >>
    > >> > "Brian Sandle" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > >> > news:[email protected]...
    > >>
    > >> > (...)
    > >>
    > >> >> Do you know a kid or their family who has been helped by ritalin or something? But how do
    > >> >> you know it was not just the contact with
    another
    > >> >> adult, one to one, for a span? With dads out of the family, or mums,
    > > too,
    > >> >> more these days, there may not be the chance for kids to share
    quality
    > >> > time
    > >> >> with adults.
    > >>
    > >> > I mentor two kids. Neither of whom gets enough quality time. And
    neither
    > > of
    > >> > whom show ADHD symptoms. In addition, none of the kids at the centers
    I
    > > go
    > >> > to show ADHD symptoms.
    > >>
    > >> > While there are definite social and psychological problems that can
    > > manifest
    > >> > themselves with symptoms similar to those seen in ADHD (depression,
    > > family
    > >> > and school difficulties, e.g.), I doubt very much that ADHD is caused
    by
    > > not
    > >> > enough adult interaction. However, during any evaluation of kids (or
    > > adults)
    > >> > for ADHD, the social circumstances must be taken into account,
    including
    > >> > factors like the family life and stressors in the family. Not having
    > > enough
    > >> > adult role models would be one of those.
    > >>
    > >> > If a child has problems related to social or psychological
    difficulties
    > > that
    > >> > manifest themselves with inattention or hyperactivity, then these
    > > symptoms
    > >> > are not from ADHD. And these difficulties must be accounted for when
    > > making
    > >> > an ADHD diagnosis.
    > >>
    > >> > The evidence that ADHD is overwhelming ADHD is a distinct group of neruological conditions
    > >> > resulting in certain behaviors and attention difficulties.
    > >>
    > >> And everyone knows that managing environment/stress helps for many disablities.
    >
    > > That depends on the disability and how it affects the person's
    interaction
    > > withtheir environment.
    >
    > >> The helpful rhythms & related success of some educational/societal environments are not so
    > >> present these days. So we modify the child chemically as an easy expedient?
    >
    > > Yawn. No. Forst, we see excatly what the problem is by following a
    thorough
    > > diagnostic protocol. (Did you know that there is one for AD/HD?)
    >
    >
    > Do you mean a protocol that diagnoses that the child has AD/HD, or a
    protocol
    > which diagnoses what type of AHDH the particular child has?

    A dignsotic protocol to determine if the patient has AD/HD. Are you aware that AD/HD is a diagnosis
    of exclusion?

    > Then we use
    > > the proper treatment protocol (did you know that there is one?)
    >
    > Finding out how the child reacts to the various ADHD treatments by trial
    and
    > error, or something better?

    For the most part, 70% or so, the best medication is methylphenidate. With the various options for
    administering it that are avaialbe these days, the patient is forst tried on small does, and
    gradually increased until they can function better. Then, admisintering methodology comes in, and
    the doc sees if the long acting, or time release version work better.

    That is not uncommon in medicine. Many conditions are treated by trial and error.

    > > Next we may be into eugenics. Got to take
    > >> care of the long term effects of expedients, as we do not know why
    > > evolution
    > >> has retained this genetics for so long.
    >
    > > These genetics were handled 100 years ago by the availability of the frontier and having a
    > > totally different social structure than we have
    now.
    >
    > Should we be looking ahead to more illnesses and cures with future
    societal
    > developments?

    We should be looking ahead to more information on how the human brain works.

    snip of rest
     
Loading...