SumBuny wrote:
> "jake" <
[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
>>On Fri, 19 Dec 2003 14:06:00 GMT, "Marciosos7 Probertiosos8"
>><
[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"jake" <
[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>>>
>>>>On Thu, 18 Dec 2003 22:07:57 GMT, "Marciosos7 Probertiosos7" <
[email protected]>
>>>>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>"SumBuny" <
[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>>
news:hbnEb.4656$Fg.4562@lakeread01...
>>>>>
>>>>>>"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).
>>>>>
>>>>>How about that diabetic who is addicted to insulin, by Roger's
>
> standard?
>
>>>>--
>>>>"Let me clear this up right now. ADHD is not like diabetes and [the
>>>
>>>stimulant used for it] is not
>>>
>>>>like insulin. Diabetes is a real medical condition that can be
>>>
>>>objectively diagnosed. ADHD is an
>>>
>>>>invented label with no objective, valid means of identification.
>
> Insulin
>
>>>is a natural hormone
>>>
>>>>produced by the body and it is essential for life. [This stimulant] is
>
> a
>
>>>chemically derived
>>>
>>>>amphetamine-like drug that is not necessary for life. Diabetes is an
>>>
>>>insulin deficiency. Attention
>>>
>>>>and behavioral problems are not a [stimulant] deficiency."
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Dr. Mary Ann Block
>>>
>>>Jakey...I was referring to Roger's standards, which have nothing to do
>
> with
>
>>>the real world.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>pet peeve..
>>
>>the insulin /diabetes analogy is hackneyed ..inappropriate and worked to death..
>
>
> Perhaps...but Roger stated something about drugs that affect the brain, and insulin *does*
> that...he also defined "addiction" as a drug that someone could not stop taking "when given the
> opportunity"...insulin also fits that. It was used to point out that his "logic/definition" is
> specious at best...
Don't "perhaps" agree with jake about your use of the diabetes/insulin analogy, Buny!
It seems to me that jake's quote of Block saying that ADHD is not like diabetes because ADHD is an
"invented" disorder is a red herring when injected into the argument that is the focus of this
thread: whether cancer patients choosing to continue taking methylphenidate for relief of fatigue is
an indication that they were addicted to MPH.
Is anyone arguing that cancer-related fatigue is "invented"?
OTOH, your insulin/diabetes and antihistimines/allergies analogies were relevant to the argument,
since you were using those examples to show the weaknesses in Roger's reasoning when applied to
other medications that patients "choose" to continue taking.
And as far as Block's argument that Ritalin treatment for ADHD shouldn't be compared to
insulin treatment for diabetes: it's an example of "the false dilemma fallacy" AKA "the black-and-
white fallacy."
Blocks argument is basically:
1. Diabetes is a insulin deficiency, so it's appropriate to treat it with insulin.
2. There is no proof that ADHD is a stimulant deficiency, therefore treating it with stimulants is
inappropriate.
But, of course, it's not an either/or, black-and-white issue; there are appropriate reasons for
taking medication other than than to replace insufficient naturally occurring bodily chemicals,
which Block ignores in her argument.
To follow Block's black-and-white argument to, IMO, it's absurd conclusion, you'd have to say,
for example:
- Treating arthritis with anti-inflammatory drugs is inappropriate, because arthritis is not a anti-
inflammatory chemical deficiency.
- Treating infections with antibiotics is inappropriate, because infections aren't a antibiotic
deficiency.
- Treating high blood pressure with diuretics is inappropriate, since hypertension isn't caused by a
diuretic deficiency.
- Treating congestive heart failure with ACE inhibitors is inappropriate, since congestive heart
failure isn't caused by an ACE inhibitor deficiency.
- Treating pain with aspirin, acetaminophen or ibuprofen is inappropriate, since pain isn't caused
by a deficiency in the chemicals in any of those medications.
- Treating asthma with steroid inhalers isn't appropriate, since asthma is not a steroid deficiency.
And, to bring us back to Roger's argument:
- Treating cancer-related fatigue is methylphenidate is inappropriate because there's no proof that
a methylphenidate deficiency is involved.
Of course, it seems to me, using Roger's reasoning, all patients who choose to continue to use these
medications are addicted to them.
BTW, for those not familiar with Block, who claims to be an "international expert" on ADHD and its
treatment, as well as other behavioral problems:
Block's a doctor of Osteopathic Medicine who until fairly recently (2002?) was listed with the Texas
State Board of Medical Examiners as a specialist in "manipulative therapy," but is currently listed
as a specialist in "family practice."
Block reportedly won an award from the CCHR, a Scientology-connected group, and at least at one
time, was a member of the CCHR board of directors and paid CCHR consultant.
Nancy Unique, like everyone else
