Drug Enforcement Agency: Methylphenidate (Ritalin)



"OpusHugr" <[email protected]> wrote
> > Both cocaine and methylphenidate, the generic name for Ritalin, are
> > stimulants that target the dopamine system, which helps control the

brain's
> > functioning during pleasurable experiences. The two drugs block the

ability
> > of neurons to reabsorb dopamine, thus flooding the brain with a surplus

of
> > the joy-inducing neurotransmitter. According to animal studies, Ritalin

and
> > cocaine act so much alike that they even compete for the same binding

sites
> > on neurons.

> If you read far enough, you'll see this question:"But if
> methylphenidate works like cocaine, why aren't millions of US children
> getting high and becoming addicted?"


Maybe there are.

> The likely answer follows in the article.
> "...the two drugs differ in a significant way: methylphenidate takes
> about an hour to raise dopamine levels, whereas inhaled or injected
> cocaine hits the brain in seconds. 'It is the speed at which you
> increase dopamine that appears to be a key element of the addiction


Yes, there are those who claim that a slow-acting drug cannot
possibly be addicting. It depends on your definition of addiction.
There are different definitions in common use.
 
"Joe Parsons" <[email protected]> wrote
> >>Say, Bob--have you found that DEA paper I told you about? The one that

shows
> >>how they decided to place methylphenidate on Schedule II?

> >why not scan the summary and share the information?

> No, Bob. I think that information is important enough that you should get

the
> whole thing and read it yourself. Here's how to get it: go the the

website for
> for the U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency (hint: DEA is an agency of the U.S.
> Department of Justice). Get a contact phone number and address for them.

Call
> or write to DEA's Public Information Officer and request the document.


If it is so important, why don't you put it on your web site? He is
unlikely to go on some wild goose chase just to find some rationale
for a routine bureaucratic decision. Ritalin is similar to cocaine, and
cocaine is Schedule II, so why shouldn't ritalin be Schedule II?
 
"Roger Schlafly" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "OpusHugr" <[email protected]> wrote
> > > Both cocaine and methylphenidate, the generic name for Ritalin, are
> > > stimulants that target the dopamine system, which helps control the

> brain's
> > > functioning during pleasurable experiences. The two drugs block the

> ability
> > > of neurons to reabsorb dopamine, thus flooding the brain with a

surplus
> of
> > > the joy-inducing neurotransmitter. According to animal studies,

Ritalin
> and
> > > cocaine act so much alike that they even compete for the same binding

> sites
> > > on neurons.

> > If you read far enough, you'll see this question:"But if
> > methylphenidate works like cocaine, why aren't millions of US children
> > getting high and becoming addicted?"

>
> Maybe there are.
>
> > The likely answer follows in the article.
> > "...the two drugs differ in a significant way: methylphenidate takes
> > about an hour to raise dopamine levels, whereas inhaled or injected
> > cocaine hits the brain in seconds. 'It is the speed at which you
> > increase dopamine that appears to be a key element of the addiction

>
> Yes, there are those who claim that a slow-acting drug cannot
> possibly be addicting. It depends on your definition of addiction.
> There are different definitions in common use.


Roger, can you clarify this? Perhaps you can show us the studies that show
that Ritalin, when taken as directed, is addicting.

Jeff
 
"jake" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Sun, 21 Sep 2003 18:23:32 -0400, Mark D Morin
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >On Sun, 21 Sep 2003 21:01:45 +0100, jake <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >
> >>>This is true. However, what are the compliance rates?
> >>
> >>
> >>as the article makes fairly clear, little research has been done..
> >>and certainly no large scale epidemological studies that
> >>might shed light on the matter..

> >
> >In other words, Linda can not say with certainty that compliance rates
> >are low?

>
> IIRC in this monster thread up to 68% noncompliance was mentioned for
> psychiatric drugs in general...
>
> I note you clip the reason for the paucity of studies
> :>)


Maybe recalling that someone said there was 68% noncompliance does not cut
it as evidence.

1) What you recall is not that important.
2) Someone "mentioning" something is not really accurate.
3) These are kids who are taking a medication, either under school
supervision (a lot of kids get one dose of Ritalin from the school personal
and other doses at home) or under parental supervision. Compliance for this
is different for compliance for psychiatric meds in general.

Perhaps real evidence like a peer-reviewed article would help us take you
seriously.

Jeff
 
In article <[email protected]>,
jake <[email protected]> wrote:
>On Sun, 21 Sep 2003 01:48:33 GMT, [email protected] (David
>Wright) wrote:
>
>>Actually, I was capable of noticing that, thanks, but since I don't
>>read it regularly, I have no idea what the standard of discussion
>>is. Is it that we should all just be able to make assertions we can't
>>back up, or what? (I'm not referring to you, but since you're
>>objecting to my posting -- I think -- I'm asking.)

>
>Its not for me to object to anyone posting..
>I leave the control freakery to others.........
>there is a history on ASAD of intellectual bullying and brow
>beating...
>
>Its not a sci group..people should be free to express their opinions
>as per your wonderful sig


I have no objection to anyone expressing an opinion and I've never
tried to stop anyone from doing so. However, I am not obligated to
*respect* their opinions, especially if they appear to be based on
nothing other than hot air.

-- David Wright :: alphabeta at prodigy.net
These are my opinions only, but they're almost always correct.
"If I have not seen as far as others, it is because giants
were standing on my shoulders." (Hal Abelson, MIT)
 
On Mon, 22 Sep 2003 01:17:36 GMT, "Roger Schlafly"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>"Joe Parsons" <[email protected]> wrote
>> >>Say, Bob--have you found that DEA paper I told you about? The one that

>shows
>> >>how they decided to place methylphenidate on Schedule II?
>> >why not scan the summary and share the information?

>> No, Bob. I think that information is important enough that you should get

>the
>> whole thing and read it yourself. Here's how to get it: go the the

>website for
>> for the U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency (hint: DEA is an agency of the U.S.
>> Department of Justice). Get a contact phone number and address for them.

>Call
>> or write to DEA's Public Information Officer and request the document.

>
>If it is so important, why don't you put it on your web site?


not a good idea to post the government's copywrited material.

He is
>unlikely to go on some wild goose chase just to find some rationale
>for a routine bureaucratic decision. Ritalin is similar to cocaine, and
>cocaine is Schedule II, so why shouldn't ritalin be Schedule II?
>


You could also search the archives--the rationale has been summarized
previously

====================================================
The "anti" group on any subject can stall it forever
by asking an unlimited number of questions and feeding
an unlimited number of fears. And if we require that
something be absolutely safe and absolutely understood
before we use it, we'll never use anything,
because we'll never have absolute understanding.
David Wright 9/20/03

http://home.gwi.net/~mdmpsyd/index.htm
 
>Subject: Re: Drug Enforcement Agency: Methylphenidate (Ritalin)
>From: Mark D Morin [email protected]
>Date: 9/21/2003 6:34 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: <[email protected]>
>
>On Mon, 22 Sep 2003 01:17:36 GMT, "Roger Schlafly"
><[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>"Joe Parsons" <[email protected]> wrote
>>> >>Say, Bob--have you found that DEA paper I told you about? The one that

>>shows
>>> >>how they decided to place methylphenidate on Schedule II?
>>> >why not scan the summary and share the information?
>>> No, Bob. I think that information is important enough that you should get

>>the
>>> whole thing and read it yourself. Here's how to get it: go the the

>>website for
>>> for the U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency (hint: DEA is an agency of the U.S.
>>> Department of Justice). Get a contact phone number and address for them.

>>Call
>>> or write to DEA's Public Information Officer and request the document.

>>
>>If it is so important, why don't you put it on your web site?

>
>not a good idea to post the government's copywrited material.


Why is is copywrited, Does the public not have a right to know>

And are you covering for Joe Parsons.

If the aritcle proved his point, he would post it in a flash.

What's the big secret??

Jan
 
>Subject: Re: Drug Enforcement Agency: Methylphenidate (Ritalin)
>From: "Jeff" [email protected]
>Date: 9/21/2003 5:30 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: <[email protected]>
>
>
>"Roger Schlafly" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> "OpusHugr" <[email protected]> wrote
>> > > Both cocaine and methylphenidate, the generic name for Ritalin, are
>> > > stimulants that target the dopamine system, which helps control the

>> brain's
>> > > functioning during pleasurable experiences. The two drugs block the

>> ability
>> > > of neurons to reabsorb dopamine, thus flooding the brain with a

>surplus
>> of
>> > > the joy-inducing neurotransmitter. According to animal studies,

>Ritalin
>> and
>> > > cocaine act so much alike that they even compete for the same binding

>> sites
>> > > on neurons.
>> > If you read far enough, you'll see this question:"But if
>> > methylphenidate works like cocaine, why aren't millions of US children
>> > getting high and becoming addicted?"

>>
>> Maybe there are.
>>
>> > The likely answer follows in the article.
>> > "...the two drugs differ in a significant way: methylphenidate takes
>> > about an hour to raise dopamine levels, whereas inhaled or injected
>> > cocaine hits the brain in seconds. 'It is the speed at which you
>> > increase dopamine that appears to be a key element of the addiction

>>
>> Yes, there are those who claim that a slow-acting drug cannot
>> possibly be addicting. It depends on your definition of addiction.
>> There are different definitions in common use.

>
>Roger, can you clarify this? Perhaps you can show us the studies that show
>that Ritalin, when taken as directed, is addicting.
>
>Jeff


IT IS NOT BEING TAKEN AS DIRECTED, AND DOCS ARE GIVING IT TO THREE YEAR OLD
KIDS, WHICH IS NOT APPROVED.

So start with the docs to DIRECT IT PROPERLY!!!!!

Jan
 
"Jeff" <[email protected]> wrote
> > > The likely answer follows in the article.
> > > "...the two drugs differ in a significant way: methylphenidate takes
> > > about an hour to raise dopamine levels, whereas inhaled or injected
> > > cocaine hits the brain in seconds. 'It is the speed at which you
> > > increase dopamine that appears to be a key element of the addiction

> > Yes, there are those who claim that a slow-acting drug cannot
> > possibly be addicting. It depends on your definition of addiction.
> > There are different definitions in common use.

> Roger, can you clarify this? Perhaps you can show us the studies that show


You want the definitions in common use? Try a dictionary. And try
asking the source of the above quote for his definition.
 
"Mark D Morin" <[email protected]> wrote
> >Call
> >> or write to DEA's Public Information Officer and request the document.

> >If it is so important, why don't you put it on your web site?

> not a good idea to post the government's copywrited material.


DEA public info is not copyrighted.

> He is
> >unlikely to go on some wild goose chase just to find some rationale
> >for a routine bureaucratic decision. Ritalin is similar to cocaine, and
> >cocaine is Schedule II, so why shouldn't ritalin be Schedule II?

> You could also search the archives--the rationale has been summarized
> previously


Yes -- it's because ritalin meets the statutory criteria for Schedule II
drugs. If you have some sort of kooky conspiracy theory, go ahead
and post it.
 
On Mon, 22 Sep 2003 01:17:36 GMT, "Roger Schlafly"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>"Joe Parsons" <[email protected]> wrote
>> >>Say, Bob--have you found that DEA paper I told you about? The one that

>shows
>> >>how they decided to place methylphenidate on Schedule II?
>> >why not scan the summary and share the information?

>> No, Bob. I think that information is important enough that you should get

>the
>> whole thing and read it yourself. Here's how to get it: go the the

>website for
>> for the U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency (hint: DEA is an agency of the U.S.
>> Department of Justice). Get a contact phone number and address for them.

>Call
>> or write to DEA's Public Information Officer and request the document.

>
>If it is so important, why don't you put it on your web site? He is
>unlikely to go on some wild goose chase just to find some rationale
>for a routine bureaucratic decision. Ritalin is similar to cocaine, and
>cocaine is Schedule II, so why shouldn't ritalin be Schedule II?


Ciba-Geigy/CHADD seem to have wished to have it reclassified

Is this still the case?

DEA Warns of Ritalin® Abuse;

http://www.ndsn.org/march96/prescrp.html

Drug Manufacturer's Contributions to Advocacy Group Investigated

PRESCRIPTION DRUGS
March 1996

The Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) is warning that teenagers
are abusing Ritalin®, a drug used to treat Attention Deficit Disorder
(ADD) in children (Laura Sessions Stepp, "A Wonder Drug's Worst Side
Effect," Washington Post, February 5,1996, p. A1; Laura Sessions
Stepp, "Ritalin: 'In the Wrong Hands, A Dangerous Medication,'"
Washington Post, February 5, 1996, p. C5).

Washington Post reports say students obtain pills for $1 to $5 per
pill from other teens who have prescriptions for the drug. They then
ingest the pills or crush them into a powder that they snort. Called
"Vitamin R," "R-ball," or "the smart drug," use of the drug by
children and teenagers without ADD causes short, intense periods of
high energy. In large doses, Ritalin® can cause seizures, psychosis,
or stroke. The DEA attributed several deaths to abuse of the drug.

"We have always had some problems with [methylphenidate] abuse and
traffic. But it has never been pervasive because there never was much
available. ... That situation [has begun] to change radically," said
Gene Haislip, head of the Drug Enforcement Administration's drug
diversion unit.

Ritalin®, the brand name of the drug methylphenidate, is prescribed to
about 2.4 million children diagnosed with attention deficit disorders
to help them concentrate. The drug is manufactured by the Ciba-Geigy
Corporation.

According to the University of Michigan Monitoring the Future survey,
non-prescription use of methylphenidate doubled among high school
seniors between 1993 and 1994. The DEA said there were 1,171 emergency
room admissions attributed to use of methylphenidate in 1994, a slight
increase from 1993.

Todd Forte, a spokesperson for Ciba-Geigy, said news accounts have
overstated the problem. "The reports ... appearing in the media [are]
isolated events. The abuse speaks more to society's problems than to
the medication."

News about abuse of Ritalin® comes at a time when the relationship
between Ciba-Geigy and an advocacy group for people with ADD is under
investigation (Karen Thomas, "Ritalin® Maker's Ties to Advocates
Probed," USA Today, November 16, 1995, p. 14D).

The United Nations and DEA say Ciba-Geigy has contributed almost $1
million to Children and Adults with Attention Deficit Disorder (CHADD)
between 1991 and 1994, possibly compromising CHADD's ability to help
those with ADD. In a document resulting from the year-long probe into
CHADD's finances, DEA warned that the contributions are "not
well-known by the public, including CHADD members that have relied
upon CHADD for guidance."

"A lot of people don't know Ritalin® is like cocaine," DEA diversion
control head Gene Haislip said. "That doesn't mean don't use it. ...
It can be very dangerous and must be treated with respect. Obviously,
it was not under surveillance." He called the relationship between
Ciba-Geigy and CHADD an "unhealthy co-mingling of medical and
commercial interests."

Both Ciba-Geigy and CHADD argue there is nothing wrong or unusual
about the contributions. "We see it as an ethical responsibility to
give back to the community," said Todd Forte, a spokesperson for
Ciba-Geigy.

CHADD says it does not promote use of Ritalin®, but does mention it in
the context of treatment options for those with ADD. "In our
literature, you will not find that CHADD markets methylphenidate or
Ritalin® other than in the context of overall treatment programs for
children with ADD," said Harvey Parker, one of the founders of the
organization.

CHADD has petitioned DEA to reschedule Ritalin® from schedule II to
schedule III in order to make it less expensive and more available.
Parker said that when that petition was filed, CHADD had not been
aware of abuse of Ritalin®. Recently, CHADD established a project to
examine the problem of abuse by children and adults. DEA sent their
report about Ciba-Geigy's contributions to CHADD to the Department of
Health and Human Services and is waiting for a response before
reclassification decisions are made





>
 
On Mon, 22 Sep 2003 03:45:11 GMT, "Roger Schlafly"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>"Jeff" <[email protected]> wrote
>> > > The likely answer follows in the article.
>> > > "...the two drugs differ in a significant way: methylphenidate takes
>> > > about an hour to raise dopamine levels, whereas inhaled or injected
>> > > cocaine hits the brain in seconds. 'It is the speed at which you
>> > > increase dopamine that appears to be a key element of the addiction
>> > Yes, there are those who claim that a slow-acting drug cannot
>> > possibly be addicting. It depends on your definition of addiction.
>> > There are different definitions in common use.

>> Roger, can you clarify this? Perhaps you can show us the studies that show

>
>You want the definitions in common use? Try a dictionary. And try
>asking the source of the above quote for his definition.


absolutely..

Its like the weaseling the drug companies do about dependence on
SSRIs..Those trying to quit Paxil..for example can be plunged into a
hideous nightmare where death is preferable.

After initially vainly trying to deny it.... they now talk of
"discontinuation syndrome"




>


__

"In its recent infatuation with symptomatic, push-button remedies,
psychiatry has lost its way not only intellectually but spiritually
and morally. Even when it is not actually doing damage to the people
it is supposed to help,…it is encouraging among doctors and patients
alike the fraudulent and dangerous fantasy that life's every passing
'symptom' can be clinically diagnosed and, once diagnosed, alleviated
if not eliminated by pharmacological intervention."

Paul R. McHugh
Professor of Psychiatry,
Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine
 
On Sun, 21 Sep 2003 21:34:32 -0400, "Jeff" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>
>"jake" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> On Sun, 21 Sep 2003 18:23:32 -0400, Mark D Morin
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> >On Sun, 21 Sep 2003 21:01:45 +0100, jake <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> >>>This is true. However, what are the compliance rates?
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>as the article makes fairly clear, little research has been done..
>> >>and certainly no large scale epidemological studies that
>> >>might shed light on the matter..
>> >
>> >In other words, Linda can not say with certainty that compliance rates
>> >are low?

>>
>> IIRC in this monster thread up to 68% noncompliance was mentioned for
>> psychiatric drugs in general...
>>
>> I note you clip the reason for the paucity of studies
>> :>)

>
>Maybe recalling that someone said there was 68% noncompliance does not cut
>it as evidence.


have you lost the plot?
who on earth suggested that it did?


>1) What you recall is not that important.
>2) Someone "mentioning" something is not really accurate.


you are another disingenious creature posting in bad faith.
Do you routinely traduce other posters or am I priviledged?

I >3) These are kids who are taking a medication, either under school
>supervision (a lot of kids get one dose of Ritalin from the school personal
>and other doses at home) or under parental supervision.
>Compliance for this is different for compliance for psychiatric meds in general.


Indeed it is..

As previously cited ..the fact they are children in this situation
makes compliance less likely

>Perhaps real evidence like a peer-reviewed article would help us take you
>seriously.


again ..have you lost the plot..?

I am unaware of any peer reviewed articles making the point that
another poster has cited 68% in a monster thread of approaching 250
posts..

Ah well ..dont bother answering..a cursory scan of the archives shows
that you have not lost the plot but have ..in fact..routinely
traduced and abused other posters for years ... as part of a well
practiced tag team..



http://www.ratbags.com/ranters/ilena011204.htm

"Already, I had posted 474 mentions of Dr. Zuckerman's work ... all
made available to JPUTZ ... suddenly he's enlightened ...

He'll figure out the WTC is no longer standing in about 2020 I imagine
and that smoking is harmful by 2007.

Quacks or Junk Scientists like this one play the "no evidence" game
until they can no longer cover up the dangers ...

then they want accolades for FINALLY seeing what others have known for
years ...

These boards are filled with them ... interrogating others while
hiding like Moles ... infiltrating lists and groups with their
distraction and garbage ... launching personal attacks and then
whining like two year olds ..."
 
On Mon, 22 Sep 2003 03:55:15 GMT, "Roger Schlafly"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>"Mark D Morin" <[email protected]> wrote
>> >Call
>> >> or write to DEA's Public Information Officer and request the document.
>> >If it is so important, why don't you put it on your web site?

>> not a good idea to post the government's copywrited material.

>
>DEA public info is not copyrighted.
>
>> He is
>> >unlikely to go on some wild goose chase just to find some rationale
>> >for a routine bureaucratic decision. Ritalin is similar to cocaine, and
>> >cocaine is Schedule II, so why shouldn't ritalin be Schedule II?

>> You could also search the archives--the rationale has been summarized
>> previously

>
>Yes -- it's because ritalin meets the statutory criteria for Schedule II
>drugs. If you have some sort of kooky conspiracy theory, go ahead
>and post it.
>


The question is, "what are those statutory criteria?" You pretend to
know Roger, why don't you tell us. Hint: the criteria are not as you
have been presenting.

====================================================
The "anti" group on any subject can stall it forever
by asking an unlimited number of questions and feeding
an unlimited number of fears. And if we require that
something be absolutely safe and absolutely understood
before we use it, we'll never use anything,
because we'll never have absolute understanding.
David Wright 9/20/03

http://home.gwi.net/~mdmpsyd/index.htm
 
On Mon, 22 Sep 2003 10:43:48 +0100, jake <nospamhere@all> wrote:


>>Maybe recalling that someone said there was 68% noncompliance does not cut
>>it as evidence.

>
>have you lost the plot?
>who on earth suggested that it did?


You mean, besides linda? She seems to think that her assertions count
as evidence.


====================================================
The "anti" group on any subject can stall it forever
by asking an unlimited number of questions and feeding
an unlimited number of fears. And if we require that
something be absolutely safe and absolutely understood
before we use it, we'll never use anything,
because we'll never have absolute understanding.
David Wright 9/20/03

http://home.gwi.net/~mdmpsyd/index.htm
 
"jake" <nospamhere@all> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Mon, 22 Sep 2003 01:17:36 GMT, "Roger Schlafly"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >"Joe Parsons" <[email protected]> wrote
> >> >>Say, Bob--have you found that DEA paper I told you about? The one

that
> >shows
> >> >>how they decided to place methylphenidate on Schedule II?
> >> >why not scan the summary and share the information?
> >> No, Bob. I think that information is important enough that you should

get
> >the
> >> whole thing and read it yourself. Here's how to get it: go the the

> >website for
> >> for the U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency (hint: DEA is an agency of the

U.S.
> >> Department of Justice). Get a contact phone number and address for

them.
> >Call
> >> or write to DEA's Public Information Officer and request the document.

> >
> >If it is so important, why don't you put it on your web site? He is
> >unlikely to go on some wild goose chase just to find some rationale
> >for a routine bureaucratic decision. Ritalin is similar to cocaine, and
> >cocaine is Schedule II, so why shouldn't ritalin be Schedule II?

>
> Ciba-Geigy/CHADD seem to have wished to have it reclassified
>
> Is this still the case?


CHADD did want to have it recalssified. However, sinnce then, other
medicaitons have beenintroduced which do not need a monthly prescription and
a visit to the doctor.
 
"Roger Schlafly" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "OpusHugr" <[email protected]> wrote
> > > Both cocaine and methylphenidate, the generic name for Ritalin, are
> > > stimulants that target the dopamine system, which helps control the

> brain's
> > > functioning during pleasurable experiences. The two drugs block the

> ability
> > > of neurons to reabsorb dopamine, thus flooding the brain with a

surplus
> of
> > > the joy-inducing neurotransmitter. According to animal studies,

Ritalin
> and
> > > cocaine act so much alike that they even compete for the same binding

> sites
> > > on neurons.

> > If you read far enough, you'll see this question:"But if
> > methylphenidate works like cocaine, why aren't millions of US children
> > getting high and becoming addicted?"

>
> Maybe there are.
>
> > The likely answer follows in the article.
> > "...the two drugs differ in a significant way: methylphenidate takes
> > about an hour to raise dopamine levels, whereas inhaled or injected
> > cocaine hits the brain in seconds. 'It is the speed at which you
> > increase dopamine that appears to be a key element of the addiction

>
> Yes, there are those who claim that a slow-acting drug cannot
> possibly be addicting. It depends on your definition of addiction.
> There are different definitions in common use.



In the case of Dr. Volkow, she has the right to make such definitions and
distinctions. She was appointed to head the national Institute of Drug
Addiction byt Bush II.

I have heard her speak and briefly met her. She has a very interesting
personal history, and is a superb researcher.

I wish Bush could find people of equal quality for his other appointments.
 
In article <[email protected]>,
jake <nospamhere@all> wrote:

<big snip>


>Ah well ..dont bother answering..a cursory scan of the archives shows
>that you have not lost the plot but have ..in fact..routinely
>traduced and abused other posters for years ... as part of a well
>practiced tag team..
>
>http://www.ratbags.com/ranters/ilena011204.htm


Jake, if you're going to start quoting Ilena, beware the old adage
"lie down with dogs, get up with fleas."

-- David Wright :: alphabeta at prodigy.net
These are my opinions only, but they're almost always correct.
"If I have not seen as far as others, it is because giants
were standing on my shoulders." (Hal Abelson, MIT)
 
On Sun, 21 Sep 2003 00:04:44 GMT, Peter Bowditch <[email protected]>
wrote:

>[email protected] (Jan) wrote:
>
>>A recent study reveals that the drug being prescribed to tens of millions of
>>school-age children for a scientifically unproved mental disorder is more
>>potent than cocaine.

>
>First it was 4 to 5 million kids (an amount of Ritalin which far
>exceeds world production) and now it's "tens of millions".
>
>I am running a book on how soon it becomes billions.
>
>By the way - the "4 to 5 million" is actually the number of
>prescriptions written. As a new one is required each month this means
>about 400,000 users. But what do facts have to do with anything?


Peter, the people who post these often absurd statistics seem more than willing
to skim over and post some article on the web that (they believe) will buttress
their positions--but the problem is that they often don't even read--and
understand--the article. In many cases, the posted articles actually
*contradict* their assertions.

And you are substantially correct with respect to the amount of methylphenidate
prescriptions. The current figure we're seeing floated out is "4-5 million
children" taking Ritalin. Methylphenidate, as a Schedule II Controlled
Substance, is subject to Aggregate Production Quotas (APQs) each year, imposed
by the Drug Enforcement Agency. Reviewing these numbers is illuminating--but
you'll never see the people like "jake" or Jan Drew talking about them.

Last year, the APQ for methylphenidate was sufficient to supply somewhere
between 900,000 and 1.4 million people, IIRC--and it's important to keep in mind
that a great many adults have been diagnosed with the condition and receive
medication. That makes these outlandish claims about "nn millions of children
on Ritalin" even more preposterous.

But those facts will be completely lost on those net.kooks, True Believers and
the like.

Joe Parsons
 
F Troop wrote:
>
> "jake" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > On 20 Sep 2003 05:11:44 GMT, [email protected] (Jan) wrote:
> >
> > >>From: [email protected] (PF
> > >
> > >Now that you are done calling people idiots. Take a look at this.
> > >
> > >http://www.drug-rehabs.org/faqs/FAQ-ritalin.php
> > >

> >
> > prhaps this should be incorporated in Joe Parson's "FAQ" ???

>
> Here's another
>
> http://www.addictionwithdrawal.com/ritalin.htm
>


Both $cientology sites, of course, two of about a hundred domains
$cientology has squatted upon. Thanks for showing, once again, just how
deeply-rooted the "anti-med" wackos are in $cientology's delusion.