Ritalin Helps Beat Cancer Fatigue



Atlas <[email protected]> wrote:

>On Wed, 17 Dec 2003 22:37:08 GMT, "Roger Schlafly" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>It is common for addicts to deny that they are addicted. Note that every single one wanted to stay
>>on ritalin.
>
> Yep. Typical for a Ritalin addict.
>
>
>
>Atlas
 
In article <[email protected]>,
Roger Schlafly <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Angel Raich, who has an inoperable brain tumor, and Diane Monson, who suffers from severe back
>> pain, last year sued U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft. They sought an injunction against the
>> act, saying the 1970 federal Controlled Substances Act was unconstitutional.
>
>Yes, they got a kooky opinion from the same judge who tried to cancel the recent California
>governor's election.
>
>But note that they sued the feds to get their attention. They were not being prosecuted. They were
>free to grow marijuana for their own consumption anyway.

But not free from the concern that the Feds would prosecute them anyway.

-- 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)
 
In article <[email protected]>,
Roger Schlafly <[email protected]> wrote:
>"Marciosos6 Probertiosos6" <[email protected]> wrote
>> I am making the following assumptions, which, are reasonable to rational people: ...
>
>You are also assuming that the subjects were not addicted. Maybe they were and maybe they weren't.
>The study only says that they all failed to get off the drugs when given the opportunity.
>
>You tried to draw conclusions about ritalin not being addictive. The opposite conclusion is
>more likely.

As usual, you assert something is more likely without having any basis for assigning probabilities.

-- 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)
 
In article <[email protected]>,
Jon Quixote <[email protected]> wrote:
>"Roger Schlafly" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> "Marciosos6 Probertiosos6" <[email protected]> wrote
>> > I am making the following assumptions, which, are reasonable to rational people: ...
>>
>> You are also assuming that the subjects were not addicted. Maybe they were and maybe they
>> weren't. The study only says that they all failed to get off the drugs when given the
>> opportunity.
>
>No, the study says that they continued to avail themselves of the drugs when given the option.
>
>"After 7 days they had the option of stopping the medication or continuing for 3 more weeks. All
>the patients reported that the drug helped and all chose to continue taking it."

Can you even get addicted to a substance in 7 days? I recall reading that even heroin takes a
couple of weeks.

-- 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)
 
"Roger Schlafly" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:urbEb.4595$%[email protected]...
> "David Wright" <[email protected]> wrote
> > >It is common for addicts to deny that they are addicted. Note that every single one wanted to
> > >stay on ritalin.
> > As Mark pointed out, they were not on addictive doses ...
>
> That was Mark's speculation. The study did not say that, or test whether anyone was addicted.
> What we know is that all of the subjects, when given the opportunity to get off the drugs, stayed
> on them.

Roger, you are speculating, not me.

I am making the following assumptions, which, are reasonable to rational people:

1. The mediation is prescribed at the customary doseage
2. It is administered in the customary manner
3. It is well accepted amongst intelligent people that wrt to MPH, the means of ingestion does play
a major role in the addictiveness of the medication.
4. You cannot read a simple sentence or come to a rational opinion on the subject.
 
"Marciosos6 Probertiosos6" <[email protected]> wrote
> I am making the following assumptions, which, are reasonable to rational people: ...

You are also assuming that the subjects were not addicted. Maybe they were and maybe they weren't.
The study only says that they all failed to get off the drugs when given the opportunity.

You tried to draw conclusions about ritalin not being addictive. The opposite conclusion is
more likely.
 
"Roger Schlafly" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

> "Marciosos6 Probertiosos6" <[email protected]> wrote
> > I am making the following assumptions, which, are reasonable to
rational
> > people: ...

> You are also assuming that the subjects were not addicted. Maybe they were and maybe they weren't.
> The study only says that they all failed to get off the drugs when given the opportunity.

Yes. Effectiveness and addiction are separate issues. There's nothing in the report that allows
anyone to exclude the possibility that those given Ritalin became addicted (under any definition of
the word) to it.

> You tried to draw conclusions about ritalin not being addictive. The opposite conclusion is
> more likely.

I agree. There's *nothing* to indicate that the users weren't addicted, and, while the fact they
(all!) chose to continue taking it isn't proof of addiction, it, at least, can be used to support
that conclusion.
 
"Roger Schlafly" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Marciosos6 Probertiosos6" <[email protected]> wrote
> > I am making the following assumptions, which, are reasonable to rational people: ...
>
> You are also assuming that the subjects were not addicted. Maybe they were and maybe they weren't.
> The study only says that they all failed to get off the drugs when given the opportunity.

No, the study says that they continued to avail themselves of the drugs when given the option.

"After 7 days they had the option of stopping the medication or continuing for 3 more weeks. All the
patients reported that the drug helped and all chose to continue taking it."

Your sentence construction implies the patients were given the opportunity to try to "get off" of
the drugs and failed at the attempt. AFAIK, one cannot personally fail at something if one doesn't
attempt to try in the first place.

They were given two choices. They made their choice. Whether the choice was "coerced" by addiction
or for the reason(s) as stated is something that cannot be honestly determined without you
personally testing and interviewing the patients.

> You tried to draw conclusions about ritalin not being addictive. The opposite conclusion is
> more likely.

I disagree, obviously. There is insufficient data regarding YOUR assertion, but at least one
verifiable fact supporting those who disagree with your assertion. The study states the patients
*chose* to continue, and chose because of feeling that the drug "helped". You are adding speculation
that they in actuality had no choice due to addiction - but that IS all that it is: speculation, and
not fact (as reported in the study).

You may draw your own "likely" conclusion based on whatever outside facts or rationale you wish, but
this particular study doesn't bear out your conclusion.

Either you accept the study as factual and accurate in relaying their observations, in which case
you accept the patient's assertion that they made their choice as stated and not out of addiction,
or you reject the study as factual or complete - in which case, without sufficient facts you can
make no conclusions directly related to the study results, you can only "conclude" that the study
itself was flawed in your estimation. Or at best decide that the results are contradictory to
other studies.

Finally, note the phrasing of the patient's statements - the drug "helped". Not "caused a craving".
Not "made them feel great". It helped lessen the severity of the cancer treatment side effects.

The desire for cessation or alleviation of severely life-affecting symptoms and the use of
medication towards that end does not affirm nor deny the possibility of addiction in and of itself,
I agree - but if the observers AND the patients report only that the use of the drug appears
desirable because it helps alleviate other symptoms, then it's more likely they aren't addicted - as
the study is phrased.

--
Jon Quixote What is axiomatic frequently isn't.
 
"Roger Schlafly" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Marciosos6 Probertiosos6" <[email protected]> wrote
> > I am making the following assumptions, which, are reasonable to rational people: ...
>
> You are also assuming that the subjects were not addicted. Maybe they were and maybe they weren't.
> The study only says that they all failed to get off the drugs when given the opportunity.

Is that your definition of "addictive"? Does that mean that, oh, women on birth control pills
are addicted to them because they refuse to stop taking them "when given the opportunity"? That
those on antihistimines are addicted? (These are two examples that came to mind--there are many
more, I am sure).

<shaking head> Buny
 
"JG" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "PF Riley" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> > On Wed, 17 Dec 2003 04:52:32 GMT, "JG" <[email protected]> wrote:
> We seem to
> > give quite a bit of leniency towards cancer patients when it comes to giving them drugs.
>
> And well we should. How idiotic is it to tell someone with a terminal illness what the heck he
> can/can't put in his body?!?

<nodding> I would much rather my father be able to take the morphine needed to manage his pain than
to be in extreme pain for the last few weeks of his life. The morphine allowed him to be able to
enjoy the last few weeks of his life (in the hospital) and to be able to interact with those of us
family memebers and friends that were there with him to say goodbye. Because of the morphine, he was
not hallucinating or delerious with pain, but lucid and "him"...my last memories of my father are of
the man I had known my whole life, not a miserable suffering wreck...

I will note that the dosage was constantly monitored, so as to be high enough to relieve pain, but
not so high as to induce delerium...

Buny
 
In article <[email protected]>,
Roger Schlafly <[email protected]> wrote:
>"David Wright" <[email protected]> wrote
>> >But note that they sued the feds to get their attention. They were not being prosecuted. They
>> >were free to grow marijuana for their own consumption anyway.
>> But not free from the concern that the Feds would prosecute them anyway.
>
>Yes, they were. The feds do not prosecute medical marijuana patients who are growing for their own
>consumption. Never.

But they do prosecute people who are growing it for distribution to others (medical use, I mean, not
recreational). If you're going to try to convince me that Ashcroft would never start prosecuting
patients who are growing for their own use, I'm afraid you have a long hard slog ahead of you.

-- 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)
 
In article <[email protected]>,
Roger Schlafly <[email protected]> wrote:
>"JG" <[email protected]> wrote
>> I agree. There's *nothing* to indicate that the users weren't addicted, and, while the fact they
>> (all!) chose to continue taking it isn't proof of addiction, it, at least, can be used to support
>> that conclusion.
>
>Mark can read just about any ritalin study, and conclude that it shows that ritalin is not
>addictive. Well, it doesn't show that. All the studies are consistent with the notion that ritalin
>is addictive.

Oh, no they aren't -- not when it's taken orally, which is what was being done in the study under
discussion. Here are a couple of nice references for you:

Tidsskr Nor Laegeforen. 1999 Nov 10;119(27):4040-2. Related Articles, Links

[Central nervous system stimulants and their potential risk of abuse in hyperkinetic disorders]

[Article in Norwegian]

Aanonsen NO.

Avdeling for voksenhabilitering Ulleval sykehus, Oslo. [email protected]

The literature on the medical use of methylphenidate for hyperkinetic disorder/AD/HD does not
support that its use implies a substantial risk for substance abuse, serious complications or drug
dependence. Recent pharmacokinetic studies with PET throw light on the empirical findings of low
rate of abuse, as the euforigenic potential of methylphenidate taken orally appears to be very
modest. Methylphenidate should be the drug of choice in the treatment of adults with hyperkinetic
disorder/AD/HD. However, current substance abuse precludes use of the drug and former abuse
liability and social adjustment problems are relative contraindications. There is a lack of
scientific data on the use of dextroamphetamine in adults with hyperkinetic disorder/AD/HD. The
drug has a higher potential for abuse than methylphenidate and should be considered as a second
choice only after an individual consideration of compliance and if methylphenidate proves
ineffective. Rigid control of the prescription is necessary, and a medical history of substance
abuse should in our opinion preclude its use.

and

J Atten Disord. 2002;6 Suppl 1:S65-71. Related Articles, Links

Methylphenidate and substance abuse: a review of pharmacology, animal, and clinical studies.

Huss M, Lehmkuhl U.

Department of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, Charite Virchow-Hospital, Humboldt-University of
Berlin, Germany. [email protected]

This article reviews pharmacological, animal, and human evidence regarding the abuse liability of
methylphenidate (MPH). Findings are not always consistent, but evidence converges to suggest that
although intravenous methylphenidate has some abuse potential, there is very little potential for
oral MPH abuse. Furthermore, the available data suggests that children with Attention-
Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) who are treated with MPH are at lower risk for substance use
disorder later in life. More longitudinal, prospective studies are needed to assess the long term
effects of MPH treatment in ADHD.

-- 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)
 
"David Wright" <[email protected]> wrote
> >But note that they sued the feds to get their attention. They were not being prosecuted. They
> >were free to grow marijuana for their own consumption anyway.
> But not free from the concern that the Feds would prosecute them anyway.

Yes, they were. The feds do not prosecute medical marijuana patients who are growing for their own
consumption. Never.
 
"David Wright" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>, Jon Quixote
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> >"Roger Schlafly" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >news:[email protected]...
> >> "Marciosos6 Probertiosos6" <[email protected]> wrote
> >> > I am making the following assumptions, which, are reasonable to
rational
> >> > people: ...
> >>
> >> You are also assuming that the subjects were not addicted. Maybe they were and maybe they
> >> weren't. The study only says that they all failed to get off the drugs when given the
> >> opportunity.
> >
> >No, the study says that they continued to avail themselves of the drugs
when
> >given the option.
> >
> >"After 7 days they had the option of stopping the medication or
continuing
> >for 3 more weeks. All the patients reported that the drug helped and all chose to continue taking
it."
>
> Can you even get addicted to a substance in 7 days? I recall reading that even heroin takes a
> couple of weeks.

I believe that there are a few substances which can be so addictive that 7 days is way too long.

However, MPH has never been shown to be addictive when taken as prescribed. Research studies show
that the oral use of the medication does not have the same physiology response as when it is
snorted, or injected. The physiological response in those circumstances is the same for cocaine
and heroin.

Roger refuses to recognize this, and plays his childish wordgames whenever a study or article comes
along which shows a benefit for this medication.
 
[email protected] (David Wright) wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> In article <[email protected]>, Roger Schlafly
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> >"Marciosos6 Probertiosos6" <[email protected]> wrote
> >> I am making the following assumptions, which, are reasonable to rational people: ...
> >
> >You are also assuming that the subjects were not addicted. Maybe they were and maybe they
> >weren't. The study only says that they all failed to get off the drugs when given the
> >opportunity.
> >
> >You tried to draw conclusions about ritalin not being addictive. The opposite conclusion is more
> >likely.
>
> As usual, you assert something is more likely without having any basis for assigning
> probabilities.

When you consider that there is absolutely no evidence for addiction to Ritalin occurring at
prescribed doses (and considerable evidence that it is protective against experimentation with more
addictive substances) - yep - that is the only possible conclusion.

--
CBI, MD
 
"David Wright" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>, Jon Quixote
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> >"Roger Schlafly" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >news:[email protected]...
> >> "Marciosos6 Probertiosos6" <[email protected]> wrote
> >> > I am making the following assumptions, which, are reasonable to
rational
> >> > people: ...
> >>
> >> You are also assuming that the subjects were not addicted. Maybe they were and maybe they
> >> weren't. The study only says that they all failed to get off the drugs when given the
> >> opportunity.
> >
> >No, the study says that they continued to avail themselves of the drugs
when
> >given the option.
> >
> >"After 7 days they had the option of stopping the medication or
continuing
> >for 3 more weeks. All the patients reported that the drug helped and all chose to continue taking
it."
>
> Can you even get addicted to a substance in 7 days? I recall reading that even heroin takes a
> couple of weeks.

Would be the first I'd heard of such speedy addiction, anyway. Wasn't there supposedly a Cold
War attempt by either the Russians and/or the US to create instant addiction drugs as well as
experiments with the psychedelics? It'd be the near-ultimate coercion-and-control mechanism
if achieved.

Standard sci-fi fare, but in reality? Shrug.

--
Jon Quixote What is axiomatic frequently isn't.
 
"David Wright" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>, Roger Schlafly
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> >"JG" <[email protected]> wrote
> >> I agree. There's *nothing* to indicate that the users weren't
addicted,
> >> and, while the fact they (all!) chose to continue taking it isn't proof of addiction, it, at
> >> least, can be used to support that conclusion.
> >
> >Mark can read just about any ritalin study, and conclude that it shows that ritalin is not
> >addictive. Well, it doesn't show that. All the studies are consistent with the notion that
> >ritalin is addictive.
>
> Oh, no they aren't -- not when it's taken orally, which is what was being done in the study under
> discussion. Here are a couple of nice references for you:
>
>
>
>
> Tidsskr Nor Laegeforen. 1999 Nov 10;119(27):4040-2. Related Articles,
Links
>
> [Central nervous system stimulants and their potential risk of abuse in hyperkinetic disorders]
>
> [Article in Norwegian]
>
> Aanonsen NO.
>
> Avdeling for voksenhabilitering Ulleval sykehus, Oslo. [email protected]
>
> The literature on the medical use of methylphenidate for hyperkinetic disorder/AD/HD does not
> support that its use implies a substantial risk for substance abuse, serious complications or
> drug dependence. Recent pharmacokinetic studies with PET throw light on the empirical findings
> of low rate of abuse, as the euforigenic potential of methylphenidate taken orally appears to be
> very modest. Methylphenidate should be the drug of choice in the treatment of adults with
> hyperkinetic disorder/AD/HD. However, current substance abuse precludes use of the drug and
> former abuse liability and social adjustment problems are relative contraindications. There is a
> lack of scientific data on the use of dextroamphetamine in adults with hyperkinetic
> disorder/AD/HD. The drug has a higher potential for abuse than methylphenidate and should be
> considered as a second choice only after an individual consideration of compliance and if
> methylphenidate proves ineffective. Rigid control of the prescription is necessary, and a
> medical history of substance abuse should in our opinion preclude its use.
>
>
> and
>
> J Atten Disord. 2002;6 Suppl 1:S65-71. Related Articles, Links
>
> Methylphenidate and substance abuse: a review of pharmacology, animal, and clinical studies.
>
> Huss M, Lehmkuhl U.
>
> Department of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, Charite Virchow-Hospital, Humboldt-University of
> Berlin, Germany. [email protected]
>
> This article reviews pharmacological, animal, and human evidence regarding the abuse liability
> of methylphenidate (MPH). Findings are not always consistent, but evidence converges to suggest
> that although intravenous methylphenidate has some abuse potential, there is very little
> potential for oral MPH abuse. Furthermore, the available data suggests that children with Attention-
> Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) who are treated with MPH are at lower risk for substance
> use disorder later in life. More longitudinal, prospective studies are needed to assess the long
> term effects of MPH treatment in ADHD.

David, I showed Roger the studies done by Volkow, et al, at Brookhaven National Labs of the
physiology of addiction and why oral MPH is not addictive.

He just does not want to get it.
 
"David Wright" <[email protected]> wrote
> >Yes, they were. The feds do not prosecute medical marijuana patients who are growing for their
> >own consumption. Never.
> But they do prosecute people who are growing it for distribution to others (medical use, I mean,
> not recreational).

Yes. Ever since the creation of the FDA in the 1930s, it has been agreed that the feds have the
authority to regulate commerce in medicinal drugs.

> If you're going to try to convince me that Ashcroft would never start prosecuting patients who
> are growing for their own use, I'm afraid you have a long hard slog ahead of you.

I don't know why you'd think Ashcroft would be so interested in your pot plants, but go ahead and
save your seeds for the Howard Dean administration, if you wish.
 
"Roger Schlafly" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "David Wright" <[email protected]> wrote
> > >But note that they sued the feds to get their attention. They were not being prosecuted. They
> > >were free to grow marijuana for their own consumption anyway.
> > But not free from the concern that the Feds would prosecute them anyway.
>
> Yes, they were. The feds do not prosecute medical marijuana patients who are growing for their own
> consumption. Never.

Wait for Bush's second term.
 
"Marciosos7 Probertiosos7" <[email protected]> wrote
> Research studies show that the oral use of the medication does not have
the
> same physiology response as when it is snorted, or injected. The physiological response in those
> circumstances is the same for cocaine and heroin. Roger refuses to recognize this, and ...

I am happy to recognize the research. Yes, the physiological response when ritalin or cocaine is
snorted or injected is much faster. It can reach the brain within 5 minutes or so that way. Pills
act much more slowly. No question about it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom Back