Ritalin Helps Beat Cancer Fatigue

Discussion in 'Health and medical' started by Marciosos6 Prob, Dec 17, 2003.

  1. Jake

    Jake Guest

    On Fri, 19 Dec 2003 19:59:11 -0600, "SumBuny"
    <[email protected]> wrote:

    >
    >"jake" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
    >> On Fri, 19 Dec 2003 19:10:32 -0500, nknisley <[email protected]> wrote:
    >>
    >> >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.
    >> >
    >> this is your straw man diversion
    >>
    >>
    >> all of the above ..with the exception of pain.. are biologically identifiable diseases..
    >>
    >> and pain can in many cases be traced to something concrete.
    >
    >Most cases it cannot,

    In some cases it cannot..I am not sure where the evidence is for suggesting in "most" cases
    it cannot..

    >yet the dcotor does not insist the patient is not in pain...what do you do when pain cannot be
    >"traced back to something concrete"?

    Iam not too sure in the USA where cash..lines of credit and insurance determine the type of
    treatment if any.. but in the UK..where treatment is provided on the basis of clinical need..a
    common procedure is to refer the patient to a Pain Clinic.
     


  2. "SumBuny" <[email protected]> wrote
    > You ask a diabetic, and asthmatic, a hypertensive, an allergic, a
    migraineur
    > to "just stop taking your meds", and when they say, "no," are you going to say that they are
    > addicts?

    There is a movement to redefine "addiction" so that you can only be addicted to something that is
    bad for you. That way, no prescribed drug could ever be addictive. (I don't think that such a change
    would be helpful.)

    > You *are* stating categorically that you have, and will, *refuse all medications*?

    No. I take something on rare occasions.
     
  3. "Roger Schlafly" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    > "Marciosos7 Probertiosos8" <[email protected]> wrote
    > > > > Now you have to recognize that the rapid uptake of injected or
    snorted
    > > > > ritalin, met, etc. is what makes it addictive, and that oral use at
    > the
    > > > > prescribed doses does not make it addictive.
    > > > Just show me the published scientific paper.
    > > ... You may not switch the burden of proof at this time.
    >
    > I am not. You made the claim above. I don't believe it. I cannot find it in any published
    > scientific paper.
    >
    > > Either provide documentation of a claim you made a gadzillion times, or admit that you are
    > > flatuating.
    >
    > I am not flatuating!

    Sorry, but you are wrong on two counts.

    First, your selective snipping removed that portion of my post wherrein I pointed out, quite
    corectly, that you have contiuously alleged that Ritalin, when taken as prescribed, is addictive.
    Thus, you have made a postivie statement, and bear the burden of proof.

    Furthermore, youhave been repeatedly asked to provide proof of your position, and you have
    steadfastly refused to do so. Thus, the burden remains on you on this issue.

    As for the second point where you are wrong...

    pew....
     
  4. Jon Quixote

    Jon Quixote Guest

    "Roger Schlafly" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    > "SumBuny" <[email protected]> wrote
    > > You ask a diabetic, and asthmatic, a hypertensive, an allergic, a
    > migraineur
    > > to "just stop taking your meds", and when they say, "no," are you going
    to
    > > say that they are addicts?
    >
    > There is a movement to redefine "addiction" so that you can only be addicted to something that is
    > bad for you. That way, no prescribed drug could ever be addictive. (I don't think that such a
    > change would be helpful.)

    There may be such a "movement" afoot, but I don't believe any of these respondents subscribe to it.

    Addiction, by its very nature, implies an abuse of drugs, whether legally prescribed or otherwise.
    The fundamental argument/debate in this thread is whether this particular drug is likely to cause
    such abuse when taken in prescribed dosages in the prescribed manner.

    Virtually everybody but yourself seems to feel/believe/know that it is NOT subject to abuse in
    virtually all cases where the person doesn't have addictive traits in the first place. They are
    constantly asking you to provide evidence that it is addictive within those parameters.

    I would be curious to see any such evidence myself. Because I feel my mother had hypochondriac
    tendencies, I myself have shied away from medication in general for fear of becoming reliant on
    unnecessary drugs.

    But that doesn't mean I'll turn them down if they seem efficacious - to me - and are
    recommended/prescribed by my medical professionals.

    > > You *are* stating categorically that you have, and will, *refuse all medications*?
    >
    > No. I take something on rare occasions.

    So then it's a matter of degree as to whether one is defined as "addicted"? Do you take different
    medications each and every time you feel the occasion to use them? Aspirin one time, acetameniphin
    the next? Tums one time, Rolaids the next? I'm willing to bet that you tend to take the same
    medicine, even the same brand, every time you DO feel the need for it, correct?

    Your concern seems overly-exaggerated to me. I am aware of no child who demanded the return to
    Ritalin when removed from it simply because they miss the rush. I see many posts here that say "if
    that doesn't work for you, try this, this or this instead".

    Unless you are defining addiction as "the desire (not chemically-compelled) to ingest a substance
    for a particular effect", I just don't see your concern.

    If you do use the definition as above, perhaps you are confusing "desire" with "apparent necessity".
    I think it safe to say that the majority of us would happily forego medication for medically-proven
    alternatives, up to and including surgery if neccessary. Few people want to live in a chemically-
    altered state on a permanent basis.

    But if that's what it takes for us, we'll do it - not because we want the drug, but because without
    it we are demonstrably sub-par in one or more of the three major life arenas, to our and other's
    detriment.

    We were that way BEFORE we began taking the drug, and removing ourselves from it causes no typical
    withdrawal symptoms (that I'm aware of).

    You are the only person I'm aware of who defines "being normal" as "addicted" because of the
    means used to achieve that normality. Most of our "rush" comes from sheer excitement that we ARE
    acting normally.

    And that wears off pretty quickly. We go on with our "new" lives, for the most part stable and well-
    adjusted (after likely co-morbid symptoms have been addressed), and think about our medication not
    at all until reminded to take them.

    If that's "addiction", I'll take it. It damned sure doesn't follow *my* definition of it, though!

    --
    Jon Quixote What is axiomatic frequently isn't.
     
  5. Jake

    Jake Guest

    On Sat, 20 Dec 2003 14:29:03 GMT, "Marciosos7 Probertiosos8"
    <[email protected]> wrote:

    >Edited for clarity
    >
    >
    >> > "jake" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    >> > news:[email protected]...
    >
    >>>Dr. Mary Ann Block
    >
    >BTW, in some recent readsing, I came accross this little gem....
    >
    >http://www.fumento.com/adhdblock.html
    >
    >Imagine if anyone who is pro med used an expert that was this tainted.....

    Agreed..

    Michael Fumento must be one of the most tainted authors on the planet..

    whilst his payed for attack on Mary Block might not be up there

    pesticides industry its pretty low..

    http://www.disinfopedia.org/wiki.phtml?title=Hudson_Institute

    Hudson Institute From Disinfopedia, the encyclopedia of propaganda.

    The Hudson Institute, based in Indiana, is a hard-right activist think tank that advocates the
    abolition of government-backed Social Security and an end to corporate income taxes.

    Funding Between 1987 and 2001, the Institute received $12,041,203 in 183 separate grants from only
    -- foundations:[1]

    Castle Rock Foundation Earhart Foundation JM Foundation Koch Family Foundations (David H. Koch
    Foundation) John M. Olin Foundation, Inc. Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation Scaife Foundations
    (Scaife Family, Sarah Mellon Scaife, Carthage) Smith Richardson Foundation

    The Hudson Institute's IRS Form 990 for the financial year ending on September 30, 2001 showed total
    income of $7,818,439, most of which came in large grants. Other known funders include:

    Ag Processing Inc American Cyanamid Archer Daniels Midland Cargill Ciba-Geigy ConAgra DowElanco
    DuPont Exxon Mobil HJ Heinz Lilly Endowment McDonalds Monsanto National Agricultural Chemical
    Association Novartis Proctor & Gamble Sunkist Growers United Agri Products

    Personnel

    Global Food Issues Michael Fumento, senior fellow

    Michael Fumento From Disinfopedia, the encyclopedia of propaganda.

    Fumento, Michael ([email protected])

    Member of the Hudson Institute

    Author of :

    "City slickers off target in pesticide report" - an article published (15 December 1998) in the
    Idaho Statesman which criticises "...the environmentalists' never-ending campaign against
    pesticides" and suggests that if pesticides were banned that "...we'll all be forced to eat
    expensive, ugly, shriveled-looking organic produce...".

    According to a brief biographical profile supplied to the National Journalism Center Fumento
    attended a course in fall 1985 and has subsequently been "National Issues reporter, Investor’s
    Business Daily, legal writer, Washington Times, editorial writer, Rocky Mountain News (CO), U.S.
    correspondent, A3 Umwelt (Austria), senior fellow, Hudson Institute, fellow, American Enterprise
    Institute, science advisor, Atlantic Legal Institute, Warren Brookes fellow, Competitive Enterprise
    Institute, author, Science Under Siege, author, The Fat of The Land, author, Polluted Science,
    author, The Myth of

    -----

    dealing with the issue of diabetes being qualitatively distinct from a construct such as ADHD..is a
    far better idea than using smear tactics against those with the temerity to mention it.

    It is also far less of an insult to those suffering real diseases..
     
  6. Cbi

    Cbi Guest

    "Marciosos7 Probertiosos8" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    >
    > "Roger Schlafly" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > news:[email protected]...
    > > "Marciosos7 Probertiosos8" <[email protected]> wrote
    > > > > I am happy to recognize the research. Yes, the physiological
    response
    > > > > when ritalin or cocaine is snorted or injected is much faster. It
    can
    > > > Now youhave to recognize that the rapid uptake of injected or snorted ritalin, met, etc. is
    > > > what makes it addictive, and that oral use at
    the
    > > > prescribed doses does not make it addictive.
    > >
    > > Just show me the published scientific paper.
    > >
    > > Rush Limbaugh claims that he got addicted to prescribed pills. Are you saying that is
    > > impossible?
    >
    > Well. Rush Limboob, the hypocrite, has his own thery. Did he mention that
    he
    > was abusing them prior to becoming addicted? I define abusing as not
    taking
    > them as prescribed.

    Exactly - he didn't take them as prescribed.

    > > If it has been shown to be impossible, then there must be a recognized paper saying so.
    >
    > Sorry, Roger, but you have been asked a gadzillion times to prove that methylphendiate is
    > addictive when taken as prescribed. You may not switch the burden of proof at this time.

    It is especially funny when you consider that he has been shown that the use of Ritalin reduces the
    incidence of drug abuse man times.

    > Either provide documentation of a claim you made a gadzillion times, or admit that you are
    > flatuating.

    Yeah, I'm still waiting on that too.

    --
    CBI
     
  7. Ilena

    Ilena Guest

    > There is a movement to redefine "addiction" so that you can only be addicted to something that is
    > bad for you. That way, no prescribed drug could ever be addictive. (I don't think that such a
    > change would be helpful.)

    I think U2 had the best definition ...

    " ... when you can't get enough of what you don't really need ..."

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

    www.BreastImplantAwareness.org
     
  8. Cbi

    Cbi Guest

    "jake" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    >
    > a lot of this is word games..
    >
    > addicted/dependent/withdrawal sydromes/discontinuity syndrome "addicted" has negative
    > connotations..summoning up pictures of addicts shooting up in alleys...
    >
    > If after becoming habituated people find they can no longer function without a continuous input of
    > a drug..thats addiction as far as most people are concerned..

    1) Then most people do not understand the word.

    2) I think they would be shocked to think about the things they are "addicted" to.

    3) The study that is being discussed never said the people couldn't functuion without the drugs or
    that they were habituated to them. No reasonable definition indicators of addiction was given.

    --
    CBI
     
  9. Cbi

    Cbi Guest

    "jake" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    >
    > all of the above ..with the exception of pain.. are biologically identifiable diseases..
    >
    > and pain can in many cases be traced to something concrete.
    >
    > ADHD is not a biological disease and unlike the other genuine medical problems you list there are
    > no objective biological markers used to confirm its existence..

    I would love to see you expound on the difference between diagnosing pain and ADD.

    --
    CBI, MD
     
  10. Cbi

    Cbi Guest

    "jake" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    >
    > >yet the dcotor does not insist the patient is not in pain...what do you do when pain cannot be
    > >"traced back to something concrete"?
    >
    > Iam not too sure in the USA where cash..lines of credit and insurance determine the type of
    > treatment if any.. but in the UK..where treatment is provided on the basis of clinical need..a
    > common procedure is to refer the patient to a Pain Clinic.

    Nice dodge. How about answering the question?

    --
    CBI, MD
     
  11. Nknisley

    Nknisley Guest

    SumBuny wrote:

    > "jake" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
    >
    >>On Fri, 19 Dec 2003 19:10:32 -0500, nknisley <[email protected]> wrote:
    >>
    >>
    >>>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.
    >>>
    >>
    >>this is your straw man diversion
    >>
    >>
    >>all of the above ..with the exception of pain.. are biologically identifiable diseases..
    >>
    >>and pain can in many cases be traced to something concrete.
    >
    >
    > Most cases it cannot, yet the dcotor does not insist the patient is not in pain...what do you do
    > when pain cannot be "traced back to something concrete"?

    WRT Block's insistence that ADHD is an "invented label": Block herself treats "inattention" and does
    (did?) so with her own brand of nutritional supplement: "Concentration for Your Kids," which
    according to the prominent wording on the label, "Enhances Attention." I guess it's OK to treat
    ADHD, as long as you don't use that "invented label," ADHD, and if you treat it with a product other
    than FDA approved medication.

    I didn't see any mention of this supplement on Block's current website, but IIANM, until as recently
    as early this year, it was marketed as part of "The Block System."

    Block's product may now be marketed under a new name: "Dr. Block's DMAE," although I couldn't find
    any mention of that product on her site either.

    Here's what Block's ad for her product used to say:

    http://web.archive.org/web/20020802141416/http://www.theblocksystem.com/products.html

    (If that link doesn't wrap right, use: http://makeashorterlink.com/?V2AD32CD6 )

    On her web site, Block makes the old, tired, unproven and discredited claims that what mainstream
    psychiatrists, psychologists, pediatricians, call ADHD can be traced to: "undiagnosed allergies and
    food sensitivities, nutritional deficiencies, low blood sugar, learning differences,
    gastrointestinal problems, thyroid problems and other chronic health problems."

    I'd like to see the peer reviewed studies that back up those claims. OTOH, I am aware of published
    studies that have found "no correlation" between some of those problems and ADHD.

    Nancy Unique, like everyone else
     
  12. Nknisley

    Nknisley Guest

    SumBuny wrote:

    > "jake" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
    >
    >>On Fri, 19 Dec 2003 13:11:48 -0600, "SumBuny" <[email protected]> wrote:
    >>
    >>
    >>>"jake" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
    >>>
    >>>>On Fri, 19 Dec 2003 11:03:28 -0600, "SumBuny" <[email protected]> wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>>>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...
    >>>
    >>>>a lot of this is word games..
    >>>>
    >>>>addicted/dependent/withdrawal sydromes/discontinuity syndrome "addicted" has negative
    >>>>connotations..summoning up pictures of addicts shooting up in alleys...
    >>>>
    >>>>If after becoming habituated people find they can no longer function without a continuous input
    >>>>of a drug..thats addiction as far as most people are concerned..
    >>>>
    >>>>I suspect most diabetics have come to terms with the fact they are dependent on insulin..
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>It may seem semantics to you, but I find it rather insulting/annoying/hate-filled for many who
    >>>post here insinuating the negative that I am addicted to antihistimines/asthma
    >>>meds/ADHDmeds/birth control pills/whatever...insinuating that I am the same as those who
    >
    > abuse
    >
    >>>illegal drugs on the street..
    >>
    >>yeah,..thats what I meant by negative connotations and conjuring up up images of junkies shooting
    >>up in alleys
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>>.and then, when I call them on it, *I* am the one who is "not playing fair".....this gets old
    >>>rather quickly....
    >>>
    >>>The "either/or" attitude is what truly sucks...you either take no medications, or you are
    >>>addicted to drugs....what happened to the most typical patient, the one in the middle area?
    >>
    >>well..whilst there certainly are individual differences and personality factors involved..the
    >>addiction is a function of the drug..hence the precieved need to control them..
    >>
    >>obviously its an even more sensitive area where children are concerned..
    >
    >
    > Exactly...especially when strangers demand that they have the right to tell me how to raise my
    > children, and how to care for them, and if I do anything other than meet their demands, I am
    > "abusing" my children...whom they have never even met...

    So what jake is implying is that individuals should stop taking these beneficial medications for
    ADHD because of incorrect negative public perceptions about them? If you don't want people to think
    you're a "junkie," stop taking stimulants????

    IMO, education the public/media about ADHD and the real benefits and effects of these medications is
    a much better solution to combat those "negative connotations."

    Nancy Unique, like everyone else
     
  13. Cbi

    Cbi Guest

    "Roger Schlafly" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    > "SumBuny" <[email protected]> wrote
    > > The "either/or" attitude is what truly sucks...you either take no medications, or you are
    > > addicted to drugs....what happened to the most typical patient, the one in the middle area?
    >
    > Not all meds are addicting. Lots of people take vitamins every day, but I doubt that anyone is
    > addicted to vitamins.

    Even the ones who pass up opportunities to stop them?

    --
    CBI
     
  14. Nknisley

    Nknisley Guest

    Roger Schlafly wrote:

    > "nknisley" <[email protected]> wrote
    >
    >>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.
    >
    >
    > Not my argument. Cancer patients often take all sorts of weird drugs that have no relation to any
    > deficiency they might have. No objection from me. To be specific, it may very well be appropriate
    > for a cancer patient to take methylphenidate.

    I'm sorry, Roger. I apologize. I knew that wasn't your argument, but I was sloppy in how I worded
    that sentence in my post and wrote something I didn't intend to write.

    Let me try again. What I intended to say, but didn't, was:

    "And, to bring us back to the issue of treating cancer-related fatigue with methylphenidate, [using
    Block's reasoning]:

    - Treating cancer-related fatigue with methylphenidate is inappropriate because there's no proof
    that a methylphenidate deficiency is involved.

    Nancy Unique, like everyone else
     
  15. Cbi

    Cbi Guest

    "L" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    >
    > A drug is addictive owing to it's chemical properties.

    I guess you are totally unfamiliar with the adage that the dose defines the poison.

    --
    CBI, MD
     
  16. Cbi

    Cbi Guest

    "Jon Quixote" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    > "Roger Schlafly" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > news:[email protected]...
    > > "SumBuny" <[email protected]> wrote
    > > > You ask a diabetic, and asthmatic, a hypertensive, an allergic, a
    > > migraineur
    > > > to "just stop taking your meds", and when they say, "no," are you
    going
    > to
    > > > say that they are addicts?
    > >
    > > There is a movement to redefine "addiction" so that you can only be addicted to something that
    > > is bad for you. That way, no prescribed drug could ever be addictive. (I don't think that such a
    > > change would be helpful.)
    >
    > There may be such a "movement" afoot, but I don't believe any of these respondents
    > subscribe to it.

    Actually, it is not a new movement. Part of the standard definition of addiction is that it must
    involve maladaptive behavior.

    --
    CBI, MD
     
  17. "Marciosos7 Probertiosos8" <[email protected]> wrote
    > > > > > Now you have to recognize that the rapid uptake of injected or
    > snorted
    > > > > > ritalin, met, etc. is what makes it addictive, and that oral use
    at
    > > > > > the prescribed doses does not make it addictive.
    > > > > Just show me the published scientific paper.
    > First, your selective snipping removed that portion of my post wherrein I pointed out, quite
    > corectly, that you have contiuously alleged that
    Ritalin,
    > when taken as prescribed, is addictive. Thus, you have made a postivie statement, and bear the
    > burden of proof.

    You made the statement above, as if it is a recognized fact that I should accept. You cannot
    support it.

    If you want to change the subject, and attack some statement that I made in another context, then
    you should at least quote it.
     
  18. Nknisley

    Nknisley Guest

    nknisley wrote:

    >
    > WRT Block's insistence that ADHD is an "invented label": Block herself treats "inattention" and
    > does (did?) so with her own brand of nutritional supplement: "Concentration for Your Kids," which
    > according to the prominent wording on the label, "Enhances Attention." I guess it's OK to treat
    > ADHD, as long as you don't use that "invented label," ADHD, and if you treat it with a product
    > other than FDA approved medication.
    >
    > I didn't see any mention of this supplement on Block's current website, but IIANM, until as
    > recently as early this year, it was marketed as part of "The Block System."
    >
    > Block's product may now be marketed under a new name: "Dr. Block's DMAE," although I couldn't find
    > any mention of that product on her site either.
    >
    > Here's what Block's ad for her product used to say:
    >
    > http://web.archive.org/web/20020802141416/http://www.theblocksystem.com/products.html
    >
    >
    > (If that link doesn't wrap right, use: http://makeashorterlink.com/?V2AD32CD6 )
    >
    > On her web site, Block makes the old, tired, unproven and discredited claims that what mainstream
    > psychiatrists, psychologists, pediatricians, call ADHD can be traced to: "undiagnosed allergies
    > and food sensitivities, nutritional deficiencies, low blood sugar, learning differences,
    > gastrointestinal problems, thyroid problems and other chronic health problems."
    >
    > I'd like to see the peer reviewed studies that back up those claims. OTOH, I am aware of published
    > studies that have found "no correlation" between some of those problems and ADHD.

    I forgot to say that there is one exception to my last sentence: there are studies that have found a
    strong correlation between LDs and ADHD. The rate of comorbidity is high.

    But those studies have found that ADHD and LDs occur simultaneously in many children, not that their
    ADHD can be "traced" to the LD.

    The CDC published a national survey on ADHD and LDs, "Attention Deficit Disorder and Learning
    Disability: United States, 1997-98, which contains a lot of statistical info on the two
    disorders, including the fact that more children have been diagnosed with both ADHD and a LD than
    with ADHD alone.

    http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/series/sr_10/sr10_206.pdf

    Nancy Unique, like everyone else
     
  19. Cbi

    Cbi Guest

    "Roger Schlafly" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    > "Marciosos7 Probertiosos8" <[email protected]> wrote
    > > > > > > Now you have to recognize that the rapid uptake of injected or
    > > snorted
    > > > > > > ritalin, met, etc. is what makes it addictive, and that oral use
    > at
    > > > > > > the prescribed doses does not make it addictive.
    > > > > > Just show me the published scientific paper.
    > > First, your selective snipping removed that portion of my post wherrein
    I
    > > pointed out, quite corectly, that you have contiuously alleged that
    > Ritalin,
    > > when taken as prescribed, is addictive. Thus, you have made a postivie statement, and bear the
    > > burden of proof.
    >
    > You made the statement above, as if it is a recognized fact that I should accept. You cannot
    > support it.
    >
    > If you want to change the subject, and attack some statement that I made in another context, then
    > you should at least quote it.

    Weasel weasel weasel
     
Loading...