Ritalin Helps Beat Cancer Fatigue



"Marciosos7 Probertiosos8" <[email protected]> wrote
> >>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.....

They do. (Do you mean Block or Fumento?)

I usually enjoy Fumento's column, but he is a little off-base here. He tries to smear Block with a
scientology charge, when the connection is very tenuous at best. Fumento complains about a TV
show, saying:

Viewers are told that Dr. Block is part of a "vocal minority of doctors who oppose medication" for
ADHD treatment. ... But "48 Hours" doesn't tell the public that [various medical groups say] that
ADHD is a brain disorder that can be effectively treated with medication and behavior therapy.

ISTM that if the TV show said that Block was in a "vocal minority" that opposes medication, then
most viewers would fairly assume that the mainstream medicos favor medication (under appropriate
circumstances). So I don't see the proof that the show was biased.
 
On Sat, 20 Dec 2003 18:11:57 -0600, "SumBuny"
<[email protected]> wrote:

[snip]

>Another of the ingredients listed is "Choline." I looked to see what that was and found:
>http://community.healthgate.com/GetContent.asp?siteid=iHerb&docid=/tnp/pg000469 ""Choline has only
>recently been recognized as an essential nutrient. Choline is part of the neurotransmitter
>acetylcholine, which plays a major role in the brain; for this reason, many studies have been
>designed to look at choline's role in brain function.
>
>Choline functions as a part of a major biochemical process in the body called methylation; choline
>acts as a methyl donor.
>
>In higher dosages, minor but annoying side effects may occur, such as abdominal discomfort,
>diarrhea, and nausea. Maximum safe dosages for young children, pregnant or nursing women, or those
>with severe liver or kidney disease have not been determined.""
>
>
>
>Hmmmm...sounds like one of her ingredients is a drug that affects the brain, and affects
>methyl....and she complains about methylphenidate? Do I see a pot calling a kettle black? She is
>pushing a drug that affects the brain...while decrying medications that do the same????
>
>Not to mention that "max safe dosages for young children has not been determined..." This is what
>she is insisting is safer for our kids?
>
>She also lists many types of "friendly bacteria", the most widely known is acidophilus...however,
>this also does not have an established safe level for kids:
>http://my.webmd.com/content/drugs/1/4046_1398?src=Inktomi&condition=Drugs_and_Herbs_(New) ""There
>is no information available regarding the use of acidophilus by children. Do not give any herbal /
>health supplement to a child without first talking to the child's doctor.
>
>Although uncommon, allergic reactions to acidophilus have been reported. Stop taking acidophilus
>and seek emergency medical attention if you experience symptoms of a serious allergic reaction
>including difficulty breathing; closing of your throat; swelling of your lips, tongue, or face; or
>hives."""
>
>
>Wow...this woman insists that taking methylphenidate is dangerous, and then she offers something
>that I *know* causes hives topically, and other ingredients that have been known to produce
>anaphylactic shock?? Oh, yea, let me stop taking something that has proven useful and not
>dangerous, and give me hives and shock!!!

Yeah, but hers is all natural, Buny--it doesn't come from one of those nasty pharmaceutical
companies!

Besides--what could you have against the poor woman turning a profit?

Joe Parsons
 
On Sat, 20 Dec 2003 19:29:27 GMT, "CBI" <[email protected]> wrote:

>
>
>"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?

dodge??

what part of

"Q. what do you do when pain cannot be "traced back to something concrete?

A.a common procedure is to refer the patient to a Pain Clinic."

do you not understand?
 
"jake" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Fri, 19 Dec 2003 19:59:11 -0600, "SumBuny" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >
> >"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.
> >
> >Most cases it cannot,
>
> In some cases it cannot..I am not sure where the evidence is for suggesting in "most" cases it
> cannot..

Phantom pain from a missing limb, neuralgia (pain continuing despite the fact that the source of the
pain has been removed or healed), are just a couple of examples that come to mind....there is no
true cause for the pain. Add in the degree of pain felt (why do some people seem to have a "high
tolerance" for pain and others have very low)....these are are *subjectively measured* and cannot be
objectively proven....

You would suggest that all of these be refused medication because there is no objective
test/measurement for the amount of pain felt?

Buny
 
"Joe Parsons" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Yeah, but hers is all natural, Buny--it doesn't come from one of those
nasty
> pharmaceutical companies!

<G> So is belladonna, but I don't plan on drinking any of that!

"The famous words of Socrates...'I drank what????' " --from the movie "Real Genius"

>
> Besides--what could you have against the poor woman turning a profit?

<H> How many poor women work for the pharmaceutical companies are also needing income that she is
decrying? Buny
 
"nknisley" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> SumBuny wrote:
>
> > "jake" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> >>
> >>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 )

Looking up the ingredients, I am stunned to see PABA to be *ingested*! That stuff makes me break out
in hives topically (it is a common ingredient in sunscreen, which is common in allergies--so much so
you see "PABA Free" on lables)...and she expects me to ingest it?!?!

Another of the ingredients listed is "Choline." I looked to see what that was and found:
http://community.healthgate.com/GetContent.asp?siteid=iHerb&docid=/tnp/pg000469 ""Choline has only
recently been recognized as an essential nutrient. Choline is part of the neurotransmitter
acetylcholine, which plays a major role in the brain; for this reason, many studies have been
designed to look at choline's role in brain function.

Choline functions as a part of a major biochemical process in the body called methylation; choline
acts as a methyl donor.

In higher dosages, minor but annoying side effects may occur, such as abdominal discomfort,
diarrhea, and nausea. Maximum safe dosages for young children, pregnant or nursing women, or those
with severe liver or kidney disease have not been determined.""

Hmmmm...sounds like one of her ingredients is a drug that affects the brain, and affects
methyl....and she complains about methylphenidate? Do I see a pot calling a kettle black? She is
pushing a drug that affects the brain...while decrying medications that do the same????

Not to mention that "max safe dosages for young children has not been determined..." This is what
she is insisting is safer for our kids?

She also lists many types of "friendly bacteria", the most widely known is acidophilus...however,
this also does not have an established safe level for kids:
http://my.webmd.com/content/drugs/1/4046_1398?src=Inktomi&condition=Drugs_and_Herbs_(New) ""There is
no information available regarding the use of acidophilus by children. Do not give any herbal /
health supplement to a child without first talking to the child's doctor.

Although uncommon, allergic reactions to acidophilus have been reported. Stop taking acidophilus and
seek emergency medical attention if you experience symptoms of a serious allergic reaction including
difficulty breathing; closing of your throat; swelling of your lips, tongue, or face; or hives."""

Wow...this woman insists that taking methylphenidate is dangerous, and then she offers something
that I *know* causes hives topically, and other ingredients that have been known to produce
anaphylactic shock?? Oh, yea, let me stop taking something that has proven useful and not dangerous,
and give me hives and shock!!!

Buny
 
"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.)

I have not stated that beneficial medications can be addicting--*when* abused....I was questioning
your overly broad and ambiguous definition of the term.

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

OK, so you would refuse to take medications for any chronic condition?

Buny
 
"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 *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.

<nodding> Considering how many times we *forget* to take our medications...rather odd for something
we are suppsoedly "addicted" to, no?

Buny
 
On Sat, 20 Dec 2003 16:13:02 -0500, nknisley
<[email protected]> wrote:

>David Wright wrote:
>
>> In article <[email protected]>, jake <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>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..
>>
>>
>> Ah, the usual "attack the messenger." Don't attempt to refute the message, which you can't
>> anyway, unless you're going to start claiming that Block is an MD or something.
>>
>>
>>>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.
>>
>>
>> Reporting facts about Block is now a smear tactic. Will wonders never cease?
>
>Especially coming from jake--who often attempts discredit peer reviewed published studies of
>medications merely by pointing out that the researchers have links to pharmaceutical companies.

you ..presumeably..would wish readers to remain in ignorance of the fact that these "objective
scientific" studies are commissioned and paid for by the producers of the drug from their billions
of dollars PR budget?

"There's a greater and greater attempt by the pharmaceutical companies to define normal behaviours
as signs of illness and therefore as something that can be treated by their products,"

Professor Allan Horwitz
 
"jake" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Sat, 20 Dec 2003 19:29:27 GMT, "CBI" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >"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?
>
> dodge??
>
> what part of
>
> "Q. what do you do when pain cannot be "traced back to something concrete?
>
> A.a common procedure is to refer the patient to a Pain Clinic."
>
> do you not understand?

Yes - you are apparently trying to maintain that ADHD is not real since there is no objective test
yet pain is real despite the lack of an objective test. He asked you a question regarding this. Your
answer is, in essence, "go ask someone else. "

You made the claim. Now you answer the questions. How do you evaluate pain with no obvious cause?
Specifically, how do you establish that it is real? How does this differ from the diagnosis of ADHD
(i.e why is one valid but the other isn't?)?

--
CBI, MD
 
On Sun, 21 Dec 2003 03:28:35 GMT, "CBI" <[email protected]> wrote:

>
>
>"jake" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
>> On Sat, 20 Dec 2003 19:29:27 GMT, "CBI" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >
>> >"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?
>>
>> dodge??
>>
>> what part of
>>
>> "Q. what do you do when pain cannot be "traced back to something concrete?
>>
>> A.a common procedure is to refer the patient to a Pain Clinic."
>>
>> do you not understand?
>
>Yes - you are apparently trying to maintain that ADHD is not real since there is no objective test

My point is that a syndrome inferred from observations is in an entirely different category from an
objective verifiable disease with tests and biological markers. attempts to conflate the two are
disingenious..

>yet pain is real despite the lack of an objective test. He asked you a question regarding this.
>Your answer is, in essence, "go ask someone else. "

nonsense.. bracketing the fact that the issue of pain was a red herring thrown in to divert from the
inappropriatness of the insulin analogy... the correct procedure is referral to paim management
clinic.. what do you recommend instead? self-diagnosis and handfuls of OTC painkillers?

>
>You made the claim. Now you answer the questions.

I made no claims.. I merely pointed out that the claim that ADHD was like diabetes was nonsense..

>How do you evaluate pain with no obvious cause?

unlike some in this forum who feel quite free to diagnose unmet strangers with ADHD and prescribe
drugs for them I would not have the hubris to even attempt to..

Nor would I coach people on things to say to their doctors to obtain Oxycontin or morphine
..for example ..in the same way that some coach unmet strangers on ways to obtain amphetamines
and ritalin..

>Specifically, how do you establish that it is real?

I do not..that is a matter for a neurologist..

The case of RSD alone shows how fraught with difficulties such a judgement is

Chronic Pain: Reflex Sympathetic Dystrophy Prevention and Management

http://www.rsdrx.com/Differential%20Diagnosis.htm

DISEASES MISTAKEN FOR RSD

1. Scleroderma. Thermography helps differentiate it from RSD. Thermography shows clearly the
delineated line of demarkation between cold fingers and warm palm of the hand in scleroderma.
This is in contrast to the glove type of cold extremity in RSD, a selective nerve involvement in
nerve root injures.
2. Occlusive peripheral arterial disease. Doppler ultrasound studies as well as absence of
peripheral pulse are helpful in differentiating this condition from RSD.
3. Spinal cord tumors, syringomelia, and contusion of spinal cord are almost invariably associated
with RSD. In so-called idiopathic RSD, the above conditions need to be ruled out.
4. Raynaud's syndrome (Raynaud, 1862) is vascular dysfunction of the extremities, which is usually
benign. This prognostic feature separates it from more severe forms of RSD.

The condition is a good example of the central origin of sympathetic dysfunction. The local
vasoconstrictor reflex that is absent in peripheral nerve damages such as diabetic neuropathy stays
intact in Raynaud's phenomenon. On the other hand,vasoconstrictive responses to sitting or standing
are increased in Raynaud's phenomenon.

In our experience with 26 consecutive cases of Raynaud's phenomenon, migraine headache was a
concomitant complication in 17 patients. This high incidence of migraine headaches also suggest a
central origin of the vascular dysfunction.

RSD MISTAKEN FOR OTHER DISEASES

One aspect of efferent dysfunction of RSD is spasm in the shoulder girdle muscles, pectoralis
muscles, and scalenus muscles. The latter group of muscles undergoing spasm cause the clinical
picture of thoracic outlet syndrome.

5. Thoracic outlet syndrome. As is the case with cervical disc herniation, cervical nerve roots
contusion, cervical spondylosis, and soft tissue injuries to the cervical spine region, RSD
patients are quite frequently diagnosed with thoracic outlet syndrome. Unnecessary surgery for
such patients is frought with disastrous results. Usually facial injury causes referred pain to
the C3 and C4 substantia gelatinosa gray matter of the spinal cord. This in turn causes spasm
over deltoid and scalenus muscles. The end result is not only TMJ disease, but shoulder-hand
syndrome and thoracic outlet syndrome.. the combination of any two of the above three conditions
produce disastrous results.
6. Entrapment neuropathies such as carpal tunnel syndrome and tardy ulnar palsy are frequently
mistaken diagnoses for RSD. Surgery in such cases is apt to aggravate the RSD, which has gone
undiagnosed.
7. Rotator cuff injury or tear of the shoulder. It is not unusual to see a patient suffering from
advanced RSD who has undergone multiple surgical procedures from the hand all the way to the
shoulder with mistaken diagnoses of carpal tunnel syndrome, tardy ulnar palsy, and rotator cuff
injury. Each one of the above surgical procedures cumulatively aggravates the RSD.
8. Knee injuries. It is not uncommon for the patient to sustain a blunt injury to the anterolateral
aspect of the knee. This can cause RSD with afferent (pain) and efferent (limitation of motion of
knee) complications. The arthroscopy done on such knee injury is "the straw that breaks the
camel's back" and causes severe aggravation of RSD.

>How does this differ from the diagnosis of ADHD (i.e why is one valid but the other isn't?)?

one is a medical problem..the other is not a medical problem but the medicalization of
social issues..
 
On Sun, 21 Dec 2003 04:13:22 GMT, "CBI" <[email protected]> wrote:

>
>
>"jake" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
>>
>> >How do you evaluate pain with no obvious cause?
>>
>> unlike some in this forum who feel quite free to diagnose unmet strangers with ADHD and prescribe
>> drugs for them I would not have the hubris to even attempt to..
>
>No - You have the hubris to claim that ADHD is not a real entity.

No matter how much you go on about it ..the fact reamains there is no objective test for ADHD and no
biological markers to support the contention it is some sort of disease like diabetes..Diabetes is
discovered..the diagnosis comes after the discovery is confirmed by evidence..

ADHD is inferred and there is no means of objective verification..

>You say that pain is a real entity worthy of treatment but when asked how the diagnosis/reality of
>the two differ you just say to ask a pain specialist. If that is your answer for pain then why is
>not your solution for ADHD to just refer the kid to a qualified specialist?

there are no objective referents for ADHD that a "ADHD specialist" no matter how qualified ..can
discover..

none.

>
>
>>
>> >Specifically, how do you establish that it is real?
>>
>> I do not..that is a matter for a neurologist..
>
>Then how do you establish that ADHD is not real without also having to discount pain?

the onus is on the person wishing to put an infant on a lifetime of amphetamines to establish the
reality of their construct..

the existence of referred pain in no way justifies this..

>> >How does this differ from the diagnosis of ADHD (i.e why is one valid but the other isn't?)?
>>
>> one is a medical problem..the other is not a medical problem but the medicalization of social
>> issues..
>
>How can you accept pain with no obvious cause (like RSD) as a medical problem but not ADHD?

The one is a universal medical problem acknowledged and accepted by medicine world wide..

the other is an epidemic that seemingly exists only in the USA and the UK and in places where the
empire building "ADHD specialists " you speak of are given credibility..

Chronic pain is a far diffent kettle of fish to kids wriggling in their seats in a schoolroom..or
not paying sufficient attention to thr pearls of wisdom dispensed by the teacher..

It is a gross insult to diabetics and those with authenticated medical problems to suggest
otherwise..


What criterion are you using other than just starting
>with your own presumptions?
 
"jake" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> >How do you evaluate pain with no obvious cause?
>
> unlike some in this forum who feel quite free to diagnose unmet strangers with ADHD and prescribe
> drugs for them I would not have the hubris to even attempt to..

No - You have the hubris to claim that ADHD is not a real entity. You say that pain is a real entity
worthy of treatment but when asked how the diagnosis/reality of the two differ you just say to ask a
pain specialist. If that is your answer for pain then why is not your solution for ADHD to just
refer the kid to a qualified specialist?

>
> >Specifically, how do you establish that it is real?
>
> I do not..that is a matter for a neurologist..

Then how do you establish that ADHD is not real without also having to discount pain?

> >How does this differ from the diagnosis of ADHD (i.e why is one valid but the other isn't?)?
>
> one is a medical problem..the other is not a medical problem but the medicalization of social
> issues..

How can you accept pain with no obvious cause (like RSD) as a medical problem but not ADHD? What
criterion are you using other than just starting with your own presumptions?

--
CBI, MD
 
"SumBuny" <[email protected]> wrote
> Hmm...what about those who ingest antihistimines for their stimulating effects? They are abusing
> the OTC meds, but according to this line,
cannot
> be addicting....

Sorry, I just don't know if they are addicting or not.

> Are you just as vocal in decrying all stimulants taken solely for the
effect
> on the brain? I expect to see identical articles posted by you demanding that all caffeinated
> products, all chocolate (has the same chemical as marijuana), all alcohol products be treated in
> the same manner that you demand medically prescribed ADHD meds treated...

I do know parents who let their kids eat chocolate on a nearly daily basis. I also know people who
routinely give chocolate to other people's kids, without checking with the parents. I don't really
agree with them. However, I don't have any research articles one way or the other. If anyone does,
I'd be interested to see them.
 
"SumBuny" <[email protected]> wrote
> > > You *are* stating categorically that you have, and will, *refuse all medications*?
> > No. I take something on rare occasions.
> OK, so you would refuse to take medications for any chronic condition?

No. But all things being equal, I'd much rather avoid a long-term drug dependency.
 
jake wrote:

> No matter how much you go on about it ..the fact reamains there is no objective test for ADHD and
> no biological markers to support the contention it is some sort of disease like diabetes..Diabetes
> is discovered..the diagnosis comes after the discovery is confirmed by evidence..
>
> ADHD is inferred and there is no means of objective verification..

that is true of many conditions including autism. your point is moot.

sammi
 
"Roger Schlafly" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "SumBuny" <[email protected]> wrote
> > Hmm...what about those who ingest antihistimines for their stimulating effects? They are abusing
> > the OTC meds, but according to this line,
> cannot
> > be addicting....
>
> Sorry, I just don't know if they are addicting or not.
>
> > Are you just as vocal in decrying all stimulants taken solely for the
> effect
> > on the brain? I expect to see identical articles posted by you
demanding
> > that all caffeinated products, all chocolate (has the same chemical as marijuana), all alcohol
> > products be treated in the same manner that you demand medically prescribed ADHD meds treated...
>
> I do know parents who let their kids eat chocolate on a nearly daily basis. I also know people who
> routinely give chocolate to other people's kids, without checking with the parents. I don't really
> agree with them. However, I don't have any research articles one way or the other. If anyone does,
> I'd be interested to see them.

Alcohol, Roger. The poster mentioned alcohol. Well? And caffeine? How typical of you to focus on
chocolate and ignore what anyone with a functional brain would refer to as "obvious". Some things
never change.

Bernstein GA, Carroll ME, Thuras PD, Cosgrove KP, Roth ME.

Division of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, University of Minnesota Medical School, F256/2B West,
2450 Riverside Avenue, Minneapolis, MN 55454, USA. [email protected]

This study identifies and characterizes symptoms of caffeine dependence in adolescents. Thirty-six
adolescents who consumed caffeine daily and had some features of caffeine dependence on telephone
screen were scheduled for outpatient evaluation. Evaluation included the Diagnostic Interview
Schedule for Children-IV-Youth Version (DISC-IV) and modified DISC-IV questions that assessed
caffeine dependence based on DSM-IV substance dependence criteria. Of 36 subjects, 41.7% (n=15)
reported tolerance to caffeine, 77.8% (n=28) described withdrawal symptoms after cessation or
reduction of caffeine intake, 38.9% (n=14) reported desire or unsuccessful attempts to control use,
and 16.7% (n=6) endorsed use despite knowledge of physical or psychological problems associated with
caffeine. There was no significant difference in the amount of caffeine consumed daily by caffeine
dependent versus non-dependent teenagers. These findings are important due to the vast number of
adolescents who drink caffeinated beverages.

PMID: 11850129 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

le moo
 
Happy Oyster <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> On Tue, 16 Dec 2003 21:59:51 GMT, "Marciosos6 Probertiosos6"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >(Please repost for jan to read. She MUST know this!)
> >
> >Ritalin Helps Beat Cancer Fatigue Mon Dec 15, 7:00 PM ET
> >
> >http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=1434&ncid=1434&e=2&u=/acs/20031216/hl_acs/ritali-
> >n_helps_beat_cancer_fatigue
> >
> >The drug methylphenidate -- more commonly known as Ritalin (news - web sites), Concerta,
> >Metadate, or Methylin -- can help cancer patients fight off fatigue, according to researchers
> >from M.D. Anderson Cancer Center in Houston. The best effect comes from taking small doses
> >throughout the day, they report in the Journal of Clinical Oncology (Vol. 21, No. 23: 4439-4443).
> >
> >Most patients with advanced cancer will experience fatigue, a symptom that can destroy quality of
> >life. Although the fatigue sometimes stems from anemia and improves with increases in blood
> >counts, most often there is no specific cause and no ready treatment.
> >
> >Methylphenidate is typically prescribed for ADHD, or attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder,
> >but it has been used, with some success, to treat cancer fatigue. In this study, the researchers
> >wanted to better document this success by measuring symptom improvement through the use of
> >specially designed questionnaires.
> >
> >Patients Felt Better Physically and Emotionally
> >
> >The researchers enrolled 30 patients with advanced cancer and fatigue; the participants were
> >given a one-week supply of 5-mg methylphenidate tablets and told to take them as needed for
> >fatigue. 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.
> >
> >
> >The researchers also found other evidence that the drug was helping. At the beginning of the
> >study, the patients rated their fatigue on a 0-10 scale, with 10 being the worst. The average was
> >7.2. After 28 days of methylphenidate, their fatigue level had dropped to 4.4.
> >
> >
> >The patients also reported less depression and greater physical and emotional well-being. When
> >the researchers measured patient fatigue during the day, they noted a drop from morning to
> >evening as the effects of that day's treatment took hold.
> >
> >Side Effects Minor
> >
> >Side effects weren't a big problem. Two patients reported restlessness. Two others reported a
> >loss of appetite, although most actually found their appetites improved.
> >
> >
> >The authors acknowledge that bigger studies are needed to understand why methylphenidate works,
> >how long it remains effective, and how long it can safely be taken. But they were encouraged by
> >the clear-cut benefit of the drug in improving both the fatigue and the quality of life of these
> >patients.
> >
>
> Repost.
>
> Regards,
>
> Aribert Deckers

==========

These test results sound "iffy".

The improvement could be due to many things. Getting some attention from others. People's getting
some medication (any medication), & trying to force it to work, force to help. Trying to have hope
that something, anything, will help.

Ritalin (& other such drugs) had bad sides effects for me, & made me feel super-sick. So I have no
faith in this study.

Susan, Su_Texas my opinions

PS It would be a really good thing, if the doctors would focus on the causes of
diseases/disorders/etc., instead of focusing on just treating the symptoms, ... as things get
worse & worse for the patients, & as we're suffering to death horribly, because of medical
indifference & incompetence, & because of govt & corporate (such as the PHARMA lobby's)
sick/sleazy needs & greeds.

I'd rather have better bloodwork, testing & diagnosis, & a real chance to fight back & get into
better health, ... than be handed another prescription for the expensive & cr*p-type drugs like
Ritalin, antidepressants, & such.

What is M D Anderson working on now, that isn't PHARMA controlled, & that might actually help
cancer patients?
 
"su-texas, susan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Happy Oyster <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:<[email protected]>...
> > On Tue, 16 Dec 2003 21:59:51 GMT, "Marciosos6 Probertiosos6" <[email protected]>
> > wrote:
> >
> > >(Please repost for jan to read. She MUST know this!)
> > >
> > >Ritalin Helps Beat Cancer Fatigue Mon Dec 15, 7:00 PM ET
> > >
> >
>http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=1434&ncid=1434&e=2&u=/acs/2
0031216/hl_acs/ritalin_helps_beat_cancer_fatigue
> > >
> > >The drug methylphenidate -- more commonly known as Ritalin (news - web sites), Concerta,
> > >Metadate, or Methylin -- can help cancer patients
fight
> > >off fatigue, according to researchers from M.D. Anderson Cancer Center
in
> > >Houston. The best effect comes from taking small doses throughout the
day,
> > >they report in the Journal of Clinical Oncology (Vol. 21, No. 23: 4439-4443).
> > >
> > >Most patients with advanced cancer will experience fatigue, a symptom
that
> > >can destroy quality of life. Although the fatigue sometimes stems from anemia and improves with
> > >increases in blood counts, most often there is
no
> > >specific cause and no ready treatment.
> > >
> > >Methylphenidate is typically prescribed for ADHD, or attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder,
> > >but it has been used, with some
success, to
> > >treat cancer fatigue. In this study, the researchers wanted to better document this success by
> > >measuring symptom improvement through the use
of
> > >specially designed questionnaires.
> > >
> > >Patients Felt Better Physically and Emotionally
> > >
> > >The researchers enrolled 30 patients with advanced cancer and fatigue;
the
> > >participants were given a one-week supply of 5-mg methylphenidate
tablets
> > >and told to take them as needed for fatigue. 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.
> > >
> > >
> > >The researchers also found other evidence that the drug was helping. At
the
> > >beginning of the study, the patients rated their fatigue on a 0-10
scale,
> > >with 10 being the worst. The average was 7.2. After 28 days of methylphenidate, their fatigue
> > >level had dropped to 4.4.
> > >
> > >
> > >The patients also reported less depression and greater physical and emotional well-being. When
> > >the researchers measured patient fatigue
during
> > >the day, they noted a drop from morning to evening as the effects of
that
> > >day's treatment took hold.
> > >
> > >Side Effects Minor
> > >
> > >Side effects weren't a big problem. Two patients reported restlessness.
Two
> > >others reported a loss of appetite, although most actually found their appetites improved.
> > >
> > >
> > >The authors acknowledge that bigger studies are needed to understand
why
> > >methylphenidate works, how long it remains effective, and how long it
can
> > >safely be taken. But they were encouraged by the clear-cut benefit of
the
> > >drug in improving both the fatigue and the quality of life of these patients.

> ==========
>
> These test results sound "iffy".

I did a follow-up medline search, and they confirm other studies testing the same thing. They are
quite crediuble to anyone with an open mind.

> The improvement could be due to many things. Getting some attention from others. People's getting
> some medication (any medication), & trying to force it to work, force to help. Trying to have hope
> that something, anything, will help.

The level of consistency among the variouys studies says that this is not the case.

> Ritalin (& other such drugs) had bad sides effects for me, & made me feel super-sick. So I have no
> faith in this study.

Sorry you had problems. Howevr, what you seem to fail to take into consideration is that these
people were extremely ill, and taking chemo. I sure hope that you are never in a position where the
study becomes personally relevant.

> Susan, Su_Texas my opinions
>
> PS It would be a really good thing, if the doctors would focus on the causes of
> diseases/disorders/etc., instead of focusing on just treating the symptoms, ... as things get
> worse & worse for the patients, & as we're suffering to death horribly, because of medical
> indifference & incompetence, & because of govt & corporate (such as the PHARMA lobby's)
> sick/sleazy needs & greeds.

I see. So you admit that you are uninformed. Medical science is looking into causes of many
diseases, disroders, etc. I suggest that you get up to speed on it, and stop seeing conspiracies
everywhere you go.

> I'd rather have better bloodwork, testing & diagnosis, & a real chance to fight back & get into
> better health, ... than be handed another prescription for the expensive & cr*p-type drugs like
> Ritalin, antidepressants, & such.

Your agenda is showing. You should blush.

> What is M D Anderson working on now, that isn't PHARMA controlled, & that might actually help
> cancer patients?

Look it up and get an education. Merely asking loaded questions is ********.

Have a nice day.
 
"Roger Schlafly" <[email protected]> wrote in message news
> "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.

For someone who's spent so much time debating this, this suggests wilful blindness or blatant
intellectual dishonesty. Both of which you're famous for. What you are furiously dancing up a storm
around (and for which you have been repeatedly metaphorically spanked) is the fact that although
numerous substances are addictive under certain conditions, you exclude them from your demonizing,
logic-abusing attacks. If you just came out with your political agenda, it would be so much simpler
to get like-thinkers (I use the term "thinkers" very loosely) to understand what you really mean and
line up behind you.

le moo