Ritalin Helps Beat Cancer Fatigue



----- Original Message -----
From: "Roger Schlafly" <[email protected]>
Newsgroups:
alt.support.attn-deficit,misc.health.alternative,misc.kids.health
Sent: Sunday, December 21, 2003 3:12 AM
Subject: Re: Ritalin Helps Beat Cancer Fatigue

> "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.

"All things being equal"? WTF is that supposed to mean? If you require a drug to maintain your
health and require it for as long as you live, that's "dependency" by definition. Watch now as Roger
redefines "drug" into sub-categories that differentiate between to substances which he thinks have
the potential for use as euphorics (very bad), ones that have no psychoactive properties (good) and
ones that have effects that, while not dangerous, make the user ever cognizant of the message that
"drugs are bad for you" (very good). As long as there's zero possibility that it might be fun to
take, it's safe.

le moo
 
"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.
> > 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.

Hypothyroidism. Diabetes. Coronary Artery Disease. Hypertension.

All use long term medication, but you seem to not have a problem with these.
 
Happy Dog wrote:

> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Roger Schlafly" <[email protected]> Newsgroups: alt.support.attn-
> deficit,misc.health.alternative,misc.kids.health Sent: Sunday, December 21, 2003 3:12 AM Subject:
> Re: Ritalin Helps Beat Cancer Fatigue
>
>
>> "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.
>
> "All things being equal"? WTF is that supposed to mean? If you require a drug to maintain your
> health and require it for as long as you live, that's "dependency" by definition. Watch now as
> Roger redefines "drug" into sub-categories that differentiate between to substances which he
> thinks have the potential for use as euphorics (very bad), ones that have no psychoactive
> properties (good) and ones that have effects that, while not dangerous, make the user ever
> cognizant of the message that "drugs are bad for you" (very good). As long as there's zero
> possibility that it might be fun to take, it's safe.

yes, but the the real question is just how important is chocolate anyway ?

sammi
 
"jake" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> 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?

And, when i poin tout that so and so is in bed with the Sceinos, or something about Breggin or
Baughman, et al, you jump all over me. Strange set of standards you have there. They seem "Do as I
say, not as I do."
 
jake wrote:

> 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?

You presume wrongly. Again.

I am in favor of full disclosure of conflicts of interests. Actual conflicts, potential conflicts,
or anything that gives the "appearance of impropriety." I think such disclosures are appropriate
and in the public interest, and I am glad to see more journals publishing studies that provide
such disclose.

However, I do not feel that a study is tainted *merely* because the researchers have a tie to a
pharmaceutical company or because the study was funded in whole or part by a pharmaceutical company.
Those may be reasons to look more closely at the study results--as would any kind of
actual/potential conflict of interest--but, by themselves, are not enough to invalidate the study.

Nancy Unique, like everyone else
 
On Sun, 21 Dec 2003 16:07:48 GMT, "Marciosos7 Probertiosos8"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>
>"jake" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
>> 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?
>
>And, when i poin tout that so and so is in bed with the Sceinos, or something about Breggin or
>Baughman, et al, you jump all over me. Strange set of standards you have there. They seem "Do as I
>say, not as I do."

It is absurd to suggest that the scientologists criticisms of psychiatric policies is in any way
comparable with the influence weilded by multinational pharmaceutical companies that have wormed
their way into the White House itself to plunder the public purse..

when was the last time a president signed a bill giving them billions of dollars at a stroke..or
passed legislation that appeared anonymously in the Homeland Security Act that granted them immunity
from being sued?

It is no more comparable than ADHD and diabetes..

the accusations of scientolgy are a stale old trick.. pulled out of the hat to abuse people and
derail discussions when the issues cannot be addressed..
 
"jake" <[email protected]> wrote
> the accusations of scientolgy are a stale old trick.. pulled out of the hat to abuse people and
> derail discussions when the issues cannot be addressed..

That's right. Scientology is just a small fringe group compared to the drug industry.
 
On Sun, 21 Dec 2003 16:05:20 GMT, "Marciosos7 Probertiosos8"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>
>"jake" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
>> 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..
>
>Sorry you disagree with him.However, the facts about Block speak for themselves. She is in bed with
>the $cienos.

sorry you disagree with her. However the facts about Fumento speak for themselves.He is a paid
propagandist for Novartis and the pharmaceutical industry amongst other paymasters.

none of which has any bearing on the fact that ADHD is an entirely different category to
diabetes..and the analogy is inappropriate..

>
>> 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..
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
 
On Sun, 21 Dec 2003 16:09:27 GMT, "Marciosos7 Probertiosos8"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>
>"Roger Schlafly" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> "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?)
>
>Block, of course, as that was the context which you snipped and did not mention.
>
>> I usually enjoy Fumento's column, but he is a little off-base here.
>
>Disagree. I would say "Grand slam." (pun intended)
>
>He tries
>> to smear Block with a scientology charge, when the connection is very tenuous at best.
>
>********. I looked at all of it, ans she is a fellow traveller, and in lock step.

"fellow traveller"??? thats a useful expresion..

IOW you are totally aware that the lady is NOT in fact a scientologist and its just another pathetic
attempt to smear using "guilt by association"
 
On Sun, 21 Dec 2003 18:53:16 GMT, "Roger Schlafly"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>"jake" <[email protected]> wrote
>> the accusations of scientolgy are a stale old trick.. pulled out of the hat to abuse people and
>> derail discussions when the issues cannot be addressed..
>
>That's right. Scientology is just a small fringe group compared to the drug industry.

a certain clique in these forums has spent literally years trying to build up their image to use as
a bogeyman..

raving about clams and space beings..to totally drown out rational discussion they would rather was
not taking place.. If you discuss issues and not personalities all of that drool is irrelevant.

That pharmaceutical companies doctor research..employ ghost writers ..bribe doctors..interfere with
editorial policy of socalled learned journals..and even try to set the syllabus in higher education
is highly relevant. just my 2c
 
"jake" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> 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..

Sorry you disagree with him. However, the facts about Block speak for themselves. She is in bed with
the $cienos.

> 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..
>
>
>
>
 
"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.

<nodding>...that is what I wanted to hear...whether or not your "definition" of addiction would hold
water...and you admit it does not.

Thanks, Buny
 
"Roger Schlafly" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "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?)

Block, of course, as that was the context which you snipped and did not mention.

> I usually enjoy Fumento's column, but he is a little off-base here.

Disagree. I would say "Grand slam." (pun intended)

He tries
> to smear Block with a scientology charge, when the connection is very tenuous at best.

********. I looked at all of it, ans she is a fellow traveller, and in lock step.

> 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.
 
"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.
> > 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.

Most of us do...but chronic conditions call for chronic treatments, no?

I would *love* to be able to throw away my asthma meds, to no longer need antihistimines or migraine
meds...to not have these problems...but that is what life gave me...as well as ADHD...and I have to
deal with it...if you do not have to deal with it, fine--but do not criticize others for their
medical conditions...that is "blaming the victim" at its worst...

Buny
 
On Sun, 21 Dec 2003 15:01:23 -0500, nknisley
<[email protected]> wrote:

>jake wrote:
>
>> 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?
>
>You presume wrongly. Again.
>
>I am in favor of full disclosure of conflicts of interests. Actual conflicts, potential conflicts,
>or anything that gives the "appearance of impropriety." I think such disclosures are appropriate
>and in the public interest, and I am glad to see more journals publishing studies that provide such
>disclose.
>

fair comment..

>However, I do not feel that a study is tainted *merely* because the researchers have a tie
>to a pharmaceutical company or because the study was funded in whole or part by a
>pharmaceutical company.

but cricisms of those studies are unquestionably tainted if the critic happened to speak at the
same conference as someone who once sat next to someone whose nephew has been known to read a
scientology book?

>Those may be reasons to look more closely at the study results--as would any kind of
>actual/potential conflict of interest--but, by themselves, are not enough to invalidate the study.

exactly..and that is precisely why Ms Blocks criticisms of the facile use of diabetes and insulin
are perfectly valid whatever may be dug up by the American Enterprise Institute or the Hudson
Institutes hired hacks or their spokespeople in these forums..

"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
 
"Happy Dog" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:OdiFb.251$d%[email protected]...
>
> "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

You know, speaking of caffiene, that more than anything has sent me towards tracking down my likely
ADHD. I drank anywhere from two to three TWO-LITERS of soda a day for over twenty years. Started
with the "Real Thing", then somehow became habituated to Diet Pepsi then Diet Dr. Pepper.

I was a running joke even to myself, for I kept a two-liter "going" all the time no matter where I
was, including out to dinner in public, etc.

No diabetes, no sugar craving, just drank it all the time and thought it was mostly because I
disliked the local water (and refused to pay for the stuff).

A bit less than a year ago, I had to prioritize my soda "habit" against my smoking due to income (or
lack of same). I quit soda cold turkey - and never had a bit of problem doing so. No headaches, no
craving, no shakes or crabbiness.

What I DID have was sleepiness even more in excess than "normal" (I've have problems with apnea
among other things, being tested for that on the 17th, yay), but other than that, I just thought
that water was boring.

I've had about a dozen caffeinated drinks since then, for the hell of it more than anything, and I
still don't miss it. I believe I was self-medicating like crazy - but according to Roger I would
have been addicted.

I was... addicted to keeping focused. That is the reason I used it, I'm certain. It was my "pause
that refreshes ("concentrates", that is,) at the times I couldn't be smoking.

Sorry, just an aside.

--
Jon Quixote What is axiomatic frequently isn't.
 
"Jon Quixote" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:z%[email protected]...
>
> I was... addicted to keeping focused. That is the reason I used it, I'm certain. It was my "pause
> that refreshes ("concentrates", that is,) at the times I couldn't be smoking.

You do realise that nicotine (in cigarettes) is also a central nervous *stimulant*?

Buny
 
On Mon, 22 Dec 2003 01:18:08 GMT, "Roger Schlafly"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>"Jon Quixote" <[email protected]> wrote
>> You know, speaking of caffiene, that more than anything has sent me
>towards
>> tracking down my likely ADHD. I drank anywhere from two to three
>TWO-LITERS
>> of soda a day for over twenty years. Started with the "Real Thing", then somehow became
>> habituated to Diet Pepsi then Diet Dr. Pepper. I was a running joke even to myself, for I kept a
>> two-liter "going" all
>the
>> time no matter where I was, including out to dinner in public, etc. No diabetes, no sugar
>> craving, just drank it all the time and thought it
>was
>
>And you weren't addicted? Ok, maybe not, but most people who tell stories like that were addicts.

with

> I was a running joke even to myself, for I kept a two-liter "going" all the
>> time no matter where I was, including out to dinner in public, etc. No diabetes, no sugar
>> craving, just drank it all the time

he will sure as hell do as an addict untill areal addict comes along its not that hard to switch
from one addiction to another...

__

Trolls don't destroy groups, people who are either too stupid or too stubborn to use killfiles
destroy their own group.

They're like people who ***** about getting wet but insist on going out in the rain without an
umbrella, then they complain to the weatherman and expect him to do something about it.
 
"Jon Quixote" <[email protected]> wrote
> You know, speaking of caffiene, that more than anything has sent me
towards
> tracking down my likely ADHD. I drank anywhere from two to three
TWO-LITERS
> of soda a day for over twenty years. Started with the "Real Thing", then somehow became habituated
> to Diet Pepsi then Diet Dr. Pepper. I was a running joke even to myself, for I kept a two-liter
> "going" all
the
> time no matter where I was, including out to dinner in public, etc. No diabetes, no sugar craving,
> just drank it all the time and thought it
was

And you weren't addicted? Ok, maybe not, but most people who tell stories like that were addicts.
 
"SumBuny" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:9uqFb.8021$Fg.5496@lakeread01...
>
> "Jon Quixote" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:z%[email protected]...
> >
> > I was... addicted to keeping focused. That is the reason I used it, I'm certain. It was my
> > "pause that refreshes ("concentrates", that is,) at
the
> > times I couldn't be smoking.
>
>
> You do realise that nicotine (in cigarettes) is also a central nervous *stimulant*?
>
> Buny

Yepper. Note the phrasing: "...at the times I couldn't be smoking." It never really struck me
as strange that I didn't particularly want/need soda when I was smoking or vice-versa - now I
know why. :)

It also explains more neatly why I didn't/don't have any particular smoking pattern. I'll *average*
perhaps a pack a day, but there are times it'll shoot up to three packs(!) and others where I may
only smoke half a pack or less. There's the stress-reduction element, certainly, but in hindsight
(and monitoring myself now) I see that I tend to smoke (or drink soda in the past) the most
intensely when I'm hyperfocusing.

I recall/notice distinctly that I tend to smoke/drink when I want to "gather my thoughts" or take
a break from whatever I'm hyperfocusing on... apparently I'm boostin' the ol' brain cells
attention rate. ;)

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