| Home | Community | Message Board |
|
You are not signed in. Sign In New Account | Forum Index Search Posts Trusted Vendors Highlights Galleries FAQ User List Chat Store Random Growery » |

This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.
|
| Shop: |
| |||||||
|
ACHOOOOOOOOO!!!!!111! Registered: 01/15/05 Posts: 15,427 Last seen: 6 years, 8 months |
| ||||||
|
This link below, is a very short question with a very short answer, please read, because it bothers the hell out of me.
http://www.mhsanctuary.com/therapist/849.htm The question doesnt really bother me nearly as much as the response does... Quote: gotta love medical doctors and crap shoots when it comes to giving your kids drugs!! Adderall is an amphetamine and has some really great side effects like : Potentially serious Adderall side effects include: - allergic reactions (closing of the throat; difficulty breathing; swelling of the lips, tongue, or face; hives) - hallucinations, abnormal or confused behavior - irregular heartbeat and/or very high blood pressure (accompanied by a severe headache and blurred vision) Less serious but possible Adderall Side Effects: Restlessness or tremor; anxiety or nervousness; insomnia; headache or dizziness; dryness of the mouth or an unpleasant taste in the mouth; impotence or changes in sex drive; diarrhea or constipation.* Quote: * http://www.prescriptions1.net/adderall/ ** http://www.drugtestspot.com/links/adderall-drug-test.html It is time to stop the passive all-to-common "i agree that some drugs are overprescribed" comment and realize that we are putting children on amphetamines. This isnt some joke. Seriously, sit back and say that outloud to yourself.. "we are allowing children to be prescribed amphetamines". Why is it that even obese children cannot be put on prescription weight-loss pills (also amphetamines) , yet can be put on Adderral?
| |||||||
|
Lucrative ![]() Registered: 06/12/03 Posts: 6,672 Loc: Midwest Last seen: 14 years, 19 days |
| ||||||
|
The blatant corruption in government that nobody seems to care about or even notice makes me sick. I hate that I was born in a society/time in which people value a completely worthless piece of paper, and the power and privlege that comes with it, over anything. The worst thing is that the only people that can really do anything about this pharmaceutical corruption are the ones that would be hurt most by any drastic changes in the system.
Edited by Twister351 (07/15/05 07:15 AM)
| |||||||
|
Carpal Tunnel Registered: 04/10/99 Posts: 11,394 Loc: Canada Last seen: 3 months, 5 days |
| ||||||
|
gotta love medical doctors and crap shoots when it comes to giving your kids drugs!! Well, if you take into consideration that all of our bodies and minds are different, then it seems quite normal that some things are more effective than others. As far as whether or not it is very effective, it is a bit of a crap shoot, this does not mean that it is very dangerous, though. It is time to stop the passive all-to-common "i agree that some drugs are overprescribed" comment and realize that we are putting children on amphetamines. This isnt some joke. Seriously, sit back and say that outloud to yourself.. "we are allowing children to be prescribed amphetamines". I think it's about time we put a stop to allowing people who are not doctors, and whose only medical knowledge comes from reactionary scare articles, determining what is and isn't safe to use. Yes, high doses of amphetamines can have some nasty side effects... of course, confusing potential side effects, with what is normally happening is easy to do when the only information you have is from organizations that are run by frightened housewives with no medical education. Are kids who are on Adderall experiencing hallucinations, heart attacks, and allergic reactions in high numbers? No! It's simply not happening. Just because a drug has the potential to cause problems doesn't mean that it is causing these problems left and right. We don't base our laws on what might happen, we base them on the reality, on what is actually happening. Yes, if we tie kids down and shove them full of high doses of amphetamines, they are at risk of psychotic episodes. If we give them small doses, then the risk is virtually non-existant except in the imaginations of reactionaries. It's easy to take the numbers that are out there, and to try and make them look like they are horrifying evidence of corrupt pharmaceutical companies when you have no inside knowledge. The only information you expose yourself to is from groups who are opposed to pharmaceuticals and will do anything they can to paint them in a negative light. Of course, simply looking at the numbers doesn't tell you how often an exchange like this occurs: "If you leave your condition untreated, you will almost certainly die within the month, you can go on this drug, which has risky side effects, but it can likely allow you to live much longer" Out of the 100,000 deaths from pharmaceutical drugs, how many of them are from Adderall or other stimulants? How many of them are from drugs that are risky because they are only used in extreme situations where the patient has a much higher chance of dying with out them? Did you even consider that? Did you bother to look into this possibility, or did you ignore it in favor of presenting the data to backup your anti-drug beliefs? What I find ridiculous is that people decide to attack drug companies based only on information that comes from fringe groups. They don't even consider that maybe you should speak to a physician and get the other side of the story. People want to see a conspiracy, so they go out looking for one, and ignore any information that opposes what they've have decided to be true. Now THAT is ridiculous. -------------------- "I have no valid complaint against hustlers. No rational bitch. But the act of selling is repulsive to me. I harbor a secret urge to whack a salesman in the face, crack his teeth and put red bumps around his eyes." -Hunter S Thompson http://phluck.is-after.us
| |||||||
|
The Minstrel in the Gallery Registered: 03/15/05 Posts: 95,368 Loc: underbelly |
| ||||||
|
You make some good points pluck. I can see both sides of this issue.
My own opinion is that if we were to address lifestyle issues in these children. That means emotional problems at home and school, how they eat and exercise, and socially interact. Maybe we wouldn't have so many kids in need of medications. What do you think?
-------------------- "Don't believe everything you think". -Anom. " All that lives was born to die"-Anom. With much wisdom comes much sorrow, The more knowledge, the more grief. Ecclesiastes circa 350 BC
| |||||||
|
Wanderer Registered: 06/21/05 Posts: 195 Last seen: 8 years, 2 months |
| ||||||
|
I wouldn't worry so much about death if I got adderall perscribed to my kid. What I'd worry about more is the paradox of getting some crazy kid who can't focus all tweaked out so he can focus on annoying the other kids in class - which is exactly what happened with all the kids I knew who were fucked up on ADD meds when I was in school.
Phluck, you're assuming that because its popular for doctors to prescribe such drugs that its ok just becuase they're doctors and hence the authority. But there are a few things to mention. First, pediatricians don't know a god damn motherfucking thing. I have two friends in med school right now, and both would agree that the only people you can trust to know a damn about anything are specialists. I disagree with the frenzy over the stated overt dangers of adderall, because as you said, these symptoms are not occurring. But that doesn't mean that doctors and parents are right in taking the easy way out and prescribing this shit to pretty much anyone who asks. "We don't base our laws on what might happen, we base them on the reality, on what is actually happening." Do you trust the government that much? It's not as if there are no irrational laws on the books, and I don't even need to go off on that one... Doctors can be wrong and medications can be overprescribed. You can find plenty of PhDs and MDs - who aren't fringe doctors - that see overprescription of ADD meds as a problem. Doctors are pushed to prescribe meds, and this is no secret - my cosin's friend works for Pfizer, and when I was on the job search she explained her job to me. It consisted of going to doctors and "informing" them about medications and then offering them free vacations this place and that - though it seems innocuous, it amounts to casually and legally bribing doctors to prescribe your meds. Before paxil hit the market, there were fewer than 1,000 cases of "social anxiety disorder" in the US. This figure skyrocketed with the release of Paxil, and though it could be the case that SAD existed but went undiagnosed, it's not entirely likely - Social Anxiety Disorder is by no means a discrete condition, and just aobut everyone experiences it at one time or another... and is it a bad thing, anyways? The demand and readiness to prescribe these meds will decline in time if serious long-term side effects become apparent, which might be kind of unlikely - I imagine the side-effects, if any, may be mild cognitive anomolies or emotional patterns, and it can be hard to determine what exactly these are. But one can stand in opposition to the common prescription of these drugs in any case without being labeled "fringe." Again: tweakers are annoying, tweaker kids are annoying, and parents perhaps shouldn't be so fucking lazy. ADD is an honest condition but it's incidence is probably much lower than its diagnosis, and somewhere or other we have to draw the line, though I don't think that this should be done via legislation. -------------------- \
| |||||||
|
Carpal Tunnel Registered: 04/10/99 Posts: 11,394 Loc: Canada Last seen: 3 months, 5 days |
| ||||||
|
My own opinion is that if we were to address lifestyle issues in these children. That means emotional problems at home and school, how they eat and exercise, and socially interact. Maybe we wouldn't have so many kids in need of medications. Well, this is true, and I do think that Ritalin and various ADHD drugs are overprescribed. However, overprescribed doesn't mean that every time it is prescribed it isn't needed. The issue isn't completely black and white. Intervening in the life of every child isn't really possible. There are lots of bad parents out there who are never going to raise their kids properly, and no matter how many programs we fund to educate people on excercise and nutrition (and the government does spend quite a bit trying to do this, as well as it being taught in schools) we'll never be able to completely change how everyone thinks. -------------------- "I have no valid complaint against hustlers. No rational bitch. But the act of selling is repulsive to me. I harbor a secret urge to whack a salesman in the face, crack his teeth and put red bumps around his eyes." -Hunter S Thompson http://phluck.is-after.us
| |||||||
|
Carpal Tunnel Registered: 04/10/99 Posts: 11,394 Loc: Canada Last seen: 3 months, 5 days |
| ||||||
|
What I'd worry about more is the paradox of getting some crazy kid who can't focus all tweaked out so he can focus on annoying the other kids in class - which is exactly what happened with all the kids I knew who were fucked up on ADD meds when I was in school.
Actually, the ADHD drugs tend to make kids focus and stop being hyper. Perhaps it was the fact that these kids were suffering from ADHD that made them hyper, and not the drugs themselves. Imagine what they would have been like WITHOUT ADHD drugs. Many people consider drugs like Ritalin to be a godsend because it means that their child is no longer so hyper that they can't control them. While it seems like its kind of a paradox that a stimulant would calm someone down, that's precisely how ADHD drugs work. The child may have more energy, but his attention gets focussed on one thing, instead of being extremely hyper. The ADHD kids you know may not have been having strong results from their drugs, because what you're describing is the exact opposite of what these drugs do when they are effective. Phluck, you're assuming that because its popular for doctors to prescribe such drugs that its ok just becuase they're doctors and hence the authority. But there are a few things to mention. First, pediatricians don't know a god damn motherfucking thing. I have two friends in med school right now, and both would agree that the only people you can trust to know a damn about anything are specialists. I never said that. I never said anything about pediatricians or specialists, and I am fully aware that it's often the case that doctors don't have much knowledge in specific areas. I have first hand experience with that. I don't think pediatricians usually prescribe ritalin or adderall anyways, that would usually be a psychiatrists that specializes in chilren. That's who briefly prescribed dexadrine to me when I was 12. I do agree completely that ADD and ADHD drugs are overprescribed. I've said so here, and in other threads in the past about this issue. You're assuming that I think doctors are infalliable, and I don't think I've said anything whatsoever to indicate this. I'm simply saying that people who study these things for a living are more likely to know what they're talking about than people who are simply reactionaries, angrily ranting about an entire industry they have no direct involvement with, and who only get information from sources that validate what they already believe instead of trying to seek out the entire story. -------------------- "I have no valid complaint against hustlers. No rational bitch. But the act of selling is repulsive to me. I harbor a secret urge to whack a salesman in the face, crack his teeth and put red bumps around his eyes." -Hunter S Thompson http://phluck.is-after.us
| |||||||
|
me Registered: 02/28/05 Posts: 9,189 |
| ||||||
|
Post deleted by roby000
Reason for deletion: .
| |||||||
|
Carpal Tunnel Registered: 04/10/99 Posts: 11,394 Loc: Canada Last seen: 3 months, 5 days |
| ||||||
|
Some people think ADD is a myth, but it simply isn't true. There are a select number of kids who are so hyperactive that nobody can control them. It's easy to say "Oh, I'll never give my kids drugs, I know how to control them..." when you aren't actually in the situation of having to deal with an ADHD kid. Lots of the kids who are prescribed these drugs don't really have ADHD, but when you meet one of these kids for real, you'll see what I'm talking about. They take it to a whole new level of insanity.
Wearing them out isn't going to help, when they're tired, they're cranky and hyper, which is even worse. -------------------- "I have no valid complaint against hustlers. No rational bitch. But the act of selling is repulsive to me. I harbor a secret urge to whack a salesman in the face, crack his teeth and put red bumps around his eyes." -Hunter S Thompson http://phluck.is-after.us
| |||||||
|
blarrr Registered: 06/04/04 Posts: 5,952 |
| ||||||
|
It is amazing to me that drugs are prescribed before the issue of diet is addressed. In many of these cases the kids are gorging on a diet of sweets, candies, pastries, soda pop, ice cream, chips, fries, and sugared breakfast cereal.
Every cell in the body, including the brain, is built from food. If you build a house using shoddy construction materials it is any wonder that it becomes an unsavory place to live? Whenever doctors treat someone they should address any immediate concerns and the very next thing should be to query the patient on their diet. If the condition responds to dietary changes nothing else should be done! Especially giving powerful mind altering drugs to kids whose brains are still forming. Why is diet almost never addressed? There is no payoff for the medical profession if that kid gets well. They want him and his parent's money circulating in their system for life. They will offer a drug more often than not as a solution. Doctors are the biggest drug pushers in existence. And it's all legal. In the public mind legal= moral. Always remember everything Hitler did in Germany was legal. Good post, psilocyberin. -------------------- “The crisis takes a much longer time coming than you think, and then it happens much faster than you would have thought.” -- Rudiger Dornbusch
| |||||||
|
ACHOOOOOOOOO!!!!!111! Registered: 01/15/05 Posts: 15,427 Last seen: 6 years, 8 months |
| ||||||
|
look, ill even go back and strike the symptoms, and even the figure of deaths. That isnt my point. Nor was I attempting to say that 100,000 deaths every year are caused by Adderal.
ignore all that if you want to. but, amphetamines....given to kids... come on, how in the fuck can you possibly justify that in anyway? I cant even find a reference to an age limit that children can be put on Adderal. Amphetamines and methamphetamines are a shedule 2 drug in the US, this is in the same category as phenobarbital, opium, morphine, methadone, cocaine, PCP, nembutal, and a huge list of other ridiculously powerful drugs. It doesnt matter if you are giving a child a very low dosage. How many years would i be in jail for giving a 5th grader cocaine? there is very little chemical variation between the two. This isnt some fringe group digging up facts, and ignoring others. I would love to see some positive facts and statistics from similar credible sources that I have posted. Im not arguing that Adderal doesnt work for its intended purpose. Im sure it does just that, but at what cost? would you give your child cocaine every morning just so it could read a book? Dont you think that there are alternative ways of dealing with this? Do you think that we have exhausted all possible venues of dealing with this? No, not at all... most parents let the television babysit their kid as they gorge themselves on sugar and hardly any nutritional foods. Go read some of the "ask a therapist" websites where moms and fathers have written things like "is 4 years old too young to put my daughter on adderol?". Most parents are jumping at the chance to drug their children into submission, especially when it has the big american stamp of moral approval from the "doctors". Also, being a kid is all about learning your boundaries and being uncontrolable, that is what kids do, this is why they are kids, and not considered adults with jobs and bills. They are supposed to be carefree, wild, unabashed and inquisitive, not some drugged out chill bookworm. Being a kid is all about talking out of turn, interrupting people, asking embarrasing questions, and being an all around misfit. These parents are like people that got a puppy, and it was so cute, and fun to play with for a little while, until it started shitting in their closet, eating their shoes and barking; but that is what puppies do! but by that point, they want a well adjusted , fully trained and obediant adult dog. This is what people are doing to their children, drugging them into premature adulthood, taking away all their childness. It is a selfish and malicious thing to do, and I say "eat my ass with a spoon" to any parent who willingly puts their child on amphetamines.
| |||||||
|
Carpal Tunnel Registered: 04/10/99 Posts: 11,394 Loc: Canada Last seen: 3 months, 5 days |
| ||||||
|
It is amazing to me that drugs are prescribed before the issue of diet is addressed. In many of these cases the kids are gorging on a diet of sweets, candies, pastries, soda pop, ice cream, chips, fries, and sugared breakfast cereal. http://www.cnn.com/HEALTH/children/9911/22/diet.sugar.myth.kids.wmd/ http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/002426.htm Or what, did the doctors just make this up too so that they could sell their drugs? Every cell in the body, including the brain, is built from food. If you build a house using shoddy construction materials it is any wonder that it becomes an unsavory place to live? Well, it's strange how people think that a food that is unhealthy for one reason would cause completely unrelated problems. People discover that greasy fried foods can lead to various cardiovasclar problems... the general public is like "greasy foods are bad for you, it would take a bad thing to cause mental problems, therefore greasy foods cause mental problems". Foods that are unhealthy are unhealthy for specific reasons. They are not the cause of every single problem you can encounter. And as for diet never being addressed, I have no idea what you're talking about. When it comes to the things that diet is actually important about, it is constantly discussed. In school they makes efforts to teach kids to eat well, on childrens TV shows, magazine and newspaper articles are always talking about healthy eating, any doctor will recommend healthy eating, there are hundreds of books out there on nutrition. What else do you expect them to do, break into kids houses, strap them down, and shove carrots down their throats? Doctors don't try and push a drug for every single problem... I've been to doctors many, many times, for a wide variety of issues, and pretty pretty much the only times they've given me a drug to address the issue was antibiotics a couple times and some cream for a rash. -------------------- "I have no valid complaint against hustlers. No rational bitch. But the act of selling is repulsive to me. I harbor a secret urge to whack a salesman in the face, crack his teeth and put red bumps around his eyes." -Hunter S Thompson http://phluck.is-after.us
| |||||||
|
Carpal Tunnel Registered: 04/10/99 Posts: 11,394 Loc: Canada Last seen: 3 months, 5 days |
| ||||||
|
look, ill even go back and strike the symptoms, and even the figure of deaths. What symptoms? You listed off the potential side effects, but you didn't provide any evidence that they happen often enough to actually be an issue. Lots of drugs have potential side effects that might seem quite shocking, but many of these side effects occur so rarely that they aren't a real issue. If peanut butter were a drug, they'd probably list "swelling of the throat, death" amongst the side effects. but, amphetamines....given to kids... come on, how in the fuck can you possibly justify that in anyway? Because it's not really a problem. You have no data or anything to justify the idea that it's causing a huge problem. You're basing your objection on the idea that it SOUNDS bad, not that there are actually any problems. Your argument isn't "look at all of these problems that this is actually causing", you're just saying "C'MON! IT'S AMPHETAMINE! THAT MEANS IT'S BAD!" ... and why is it bad? Because it's ampetamine! How many years would i be in jail for giving a 5th grader cocaine? there is very little chemical variation between the two. Actually, they aren't really chemically similar at all. http://www.erowid.org/plants/coca/coca_chemistry.shtml http://www.erowid.org/chemicals/amphetamines/amphetamines_chemistry.shtml Im not arguing that Adderal doesnt work for its intended purpose. Im sure it does just that, but at what cost? Exactly. What cost? You tell me. Where is the evidence that Adderall is actually causing serious problems? Not evidence that it can cause problems in certain people if abused... evidence that it IS causing problems. -------------------- "I have no valid complaint against hustlers. No rational bitch. But the act of selling is repulsive to me. I harbor a secret urge to whack a salesman in the face, crack his teeth and put red bumps around his eyes." -Hunter S Thompson http://phluck.is-after.us
| |||||||
|
Jaded, yethopefu Registered: 01/28/05 Posts: 1,258 Loc: Appearing at a m Last seen: 18 years, 1 month |
| ||||||
|
Most doctors are not trained in the proper diagnoses of ADD or ADHD. A psychological professional (a psychiatrist or psychologist) knows more and is much better qualified to diagnose these conditions than the average MD.
Something else: The average MD is given very little training in nutrition and holistic approaches to health are given short shrift. An MD's training views the body as being comprised primarily of distinctive and functionally separate parts, it emphasizes treating disease symptoms through drugs and surgery. ODs (osteopaths - the only other kinds of Dr.s licensed to practice medicine) on the other hand are trained from a different perspective, they take a "whole person" approach emphasizing treatment of health and disease prevention as well as cure. -------------------- Money doesn't grow on trees, but deficits do grow under Bushes. You can accept, reject, or examine and test any new idea that comes to you. The wise man chooses the third way. - Tom Willhite Disclaimer: I reserve the right to change my opinions should I become aware of additional facts, the falsification of information or different perspectives. Articles written by others which I post may not necessarily reflect my opinions in part or in whole, my opinions may be in direct opposition, the topic may be one on which I have yet to formulate an opinion or have doubts about, an article may be posted solely with the intent to stimulate discussion or contemplation.
| |||||||
|
blarrr Registered: 06/04/04 Posts: 5,952 |
| ||||||
|
And as for diet never being addressed, I have no idea what you're talking about. When it comes to the things that diet is actually important about, it is constantly discussed. In school they makes efforts to teach kids..
Where in my post did I refer to diet outside the context of doctors? Doctors don't give proper attention to the role of diet in medical conditions and if you're going to be honest you'll admit that. The typical doctor receives very little course work in nutrition during medical school and that is reflected in their scant knowledge of the subject and the impact diet has on their patients' health. In all my years of visits to doctors, the issue of nutrition has never been raised. Not once! And I don't think I'm alone in this. Incredible. When I was a child my dentist even offered me a lollipop before he went to work on my cavities! Well, it's strange how people think that a food that is unhealthy for one reason would cause completely unrelated problems. As Prosgeopax pointed out, it is easy to fall into the trap of thinking of the body as individual parts rather than an interelated system. We live in the age of specialization. Our knowledge of the human anatomy is so vast that no single person can be great in every area of medicine. Therefore we have specialists. Unfortunately, due largely to this training, they often fail to see how each part of the body is affected by every other part of the body. -------------------- “The crisis takes a much longer time coming than you think, and then it happens much faster than you would have thought.” -- Rudiger Dornbusch Edited by zorbman (07/16/05 08:17 PM)
| |||||||
|
ACHOOOOOOOOO!!!!!111! Registered: 01/15/05 Posts: 15,427 Last seen: 6 years, 8 months |
| ||||||
Quote: I have the same problem w/ being cold all the time. Everyone's always telling me if I gained weight I wouldn't be so cold (I'm on the skinny-side too, 5'6" 102lbs), but I highly doubt that's all there is to it. For some reason, I just don't have very good circulation & I've noticed this even more since I began taking Adderall (an amphetamine drug used to treat ADHD) a year ago. It constricts your blood vessels, which naturally slows down circulation. My mom has the same prob (w/ being cold). here is the link http://www.drugtalk.com/adderall Unfortunately, this sounds all too familiar to me I am 21/F, 5'6" and only 105 lbs. I am always FREEZING!!! I honestly think part of it does have to do with body fat (or a lack of in our case). But I also have kind of low blood pressure & I smoke (quitting January 1st) so obviously my circulation isn't what it could be. Do you know where your blood pressure normally hangs around? Because if it's low, it can definitely be causing you to feel cold. Feeling cold doesn't have to mean there's anything medically wrong with you though. All the women in my family are the same way, but are healthy otherwise. Do you smoke? Also, are you on any meds? That could also be a factor. I take Adderall (amphetamine) for ADHD and since I started the drug I've been feeling colder than normal. Well, good luck trying to stay warm and remember you are NOT ALONE!!![url=http://www.drugtalk.com/add I have been on Strattera for four weeks now. For the first week, they practically put me to sleep. My doctor kept me on the childrens dose for two weeks because of this. Those side effects did stop after about a week. However, the side effect that has not gone away is the constant pressure in my bladder. I constantly feel like I have to urinate, but cannot. As far as good effects. Nothing. I still have all my ADD related problems. I am scheduled to see my doc again in about a week. He already told me if I feel no better at that point, he will switch me to Adderall. His concern is that Adderrall and Ritalin cannot be taken for the rest of your life becuase they are amphetamines. However, you can safely take Stratterra, as far as we know, for the rest of your life. Give it a try. It does work for some people. Unfortunately, it doesn't seem like I am one of those people. http://www.drugtalk.com/adderall He basically asks me a couple of questions - all of which I answered "high" for and, best on what else I had told him, said well it sounds like ADHD and he prescribes Adderall 20MG. So I take it and the first day or two I felt good - really attentive and aware. But as the days have worn on, I feel more hyper than anything. And, ironically, I feel like I have more ADHD than ever before. I am figidy, scatterbrained - can't remember a thought or two out in work, find myself not finishing tasks I am assigned to. http://www.drugtalk.com/adderall I have been on Adderall for about 7 months and recently stopped. I know what you are experiencing and it know doubt sucks! My withdrawls seemed to last about a week. I had major, big time depression. I was sooo tired and had no motivation to do anything! I had some left over Ripped Fuel that I started to take just to pull me through, it definitely helped. It would have been better to taper off the Adderall instead of quiting cold turkey. Tapering helps with having real bad withdrawals. In my case I really didn't have a choice. I will never do that again. I plan to restart my meds in the next couple of weeks. Also, I am eating like crazy! I am not overweight but I hate putting on extra pounds.I have already gained about 4 pounds since I have been off Adderall. I am not tall, so 4lbs on a petite person feels like a lot. http://www.drugtalk.com/adderall Is that enough for you? I just got tired of copying and pasting the miltitude of people complaining about Adderall and its side effects on an ADD forum. This isnt some fringe group. This isnt some ploy or ruse, this is actual people with actual symptoms, and many of these people arent alone, they have very many other people who understand the symptoms they are having, because they have them as well. Quote: nope, no problems at all right? These arent new side effects, these arent something unique to Adderall, these are consistent problems and side effects of any amphetamine. You try to make it sound as if there is Adderall, and then there are amphetamines, when in reality, there is no difference. Phluck, you are a stout evoluntionist (i think) and a very scientific person; can i ask you what the evolutionary purpose would be of a 40% increase in ONE YEAR! IN 1996 of people who "need" anti-depressants? or the constant, and never once declining (i dare you to prove this wrong) rate of children who are "afflicted" with ADD/ADHD? Honestly answer this in your own opinion: does Adderall cure (not treat) ADD/ADHD? Quote: come on... it is amphetamines. This is what the german government, our government (and many others) give to their adult soldiers so that they can fight for days on end. Governments love to dispense amphetamines because it increases production. This is oine reason why marijuana is illegal, is because it decreases production. Cocaine used to be prescribed to people, xtc used to be prescribed to people..... all under the guidance and admission of psychiatrists. Think about all the drugs that are legal in the united states, and you will find the overwhelming majority of them are speed: caffeine, nicotine, and amphetamines. Beer is on this list as well, but remember that it was outlawed for a very long time, and is highly regulated and illegal for use outside of recreation, while these other speed drugs arent at all! Quote: please list some of the great things amphetamines have done for our society outside the usage of war. How many years would i be in jail for giving a 5th grader cocaine? there is very little chemical variation between the two. Actually, they aren't really chemically similar at all. http://www.erowid.org/plants/coc http://www.erowid.org/chemicals/ cocaine and adderall are amphetamines... which have both been prescribed by psychiatrists and MD's..... how many years would i get for giving a 16 year old amphetamines? Quote: ask and you shall receive... Canadian regulators have suspended sales of the once-daily version of Adderall, a popular drug used to treat attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). Health Canada said the drug carries a risk of sudden death in children. Later, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issued an advisory about the drug. "Health Canada has suspended the market authorization of the product due to safety information concerning the association of sudden deaths, heart-related deaths, and strokes in children and adults taking usual recommended doses of ADDERALL and ADDERALL XR," the agency said in a statement. Health Canada said its decision came as a result of a review of safety information provided by the manufacturer, which indicated there were 20 international reports of sudden death in patients taking either ADDERALL or ADDERALL XR. "These deaths were not associated with overdose, misuse or abuse. Fourteen deaths occurred in children, and six deaths in adults. There were 12 reports of stroke, two of which occurred in children. None of the reported deaths or strokes occurred in Canada," the agency said. http://www.consumeraffairs.com/n and to top it all off, i have a copious amount of links to read about sudden death, heart attacks in children and such caused by adderall..... http://www.drugintel.com/drugs/a http://pediatrics.about.com/b/a/ heart murmers for christs sake! FDA issued a Public Health Advisory to notify healthcare professionals that Health Canada, the Canadian drug regulatory agency, has suspended the sale of Adderall XR in the Canadian market. Adderall XR is a controlled release amphetamine used to treat patients with Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD). The Canadian action was based on U.S. post-marketing reports of sudden deaths in pediatric patients. FDA is continuing to evaluate these and other post-marketing reports of serious adverse events in children, adolescents, and adults being treated with Adderall and related products. Adderall XR is approved in the United States for the treatment of adults and pediatric patients 6-12 years old with ADHD, and Adderall, the immediate release formulation of the drug, is approved for pediatric patients with ADHD. http://www.jurdy.net/20050219154 6-12 year olds! please attempt to justify to me in any way possible, why it is ok to give 6 year olds (remember the legal age for coherence and morality is 7!) amphetamines? i would love to hear it... so i leave you with this tidbit of info.... In 1971, there were 31 amphetamine preparations being distributed by 15 pharmaceutical companies. Legal production was over 12 billion pills a year...... since 1971, i am willing to bet there has been atleast a 10% a year increase in the production of amphetamines disguised as remedies and the diagnosis of people with ADD/ADHD. Dont you get it? the government, FDA, and pharmy corps are preying on the greatest human flaw: the inability to take responsibility. I cant get enough of people trying to pawn their problems off on the scapegoat that is chemical imbalances. "oh, dear me, im a tard, but it isnt my fault! i have ADD!", "my child isnt stupid, it just has ADD". Everyone wants an excuse for their shortcomings and psychiatry (along with the FDA and pharmy companies) have given them just that. Do you think it is just a huge coincidence, and perfectly ok that 54% of the FDA advisory board which passes the OK on government regulated and prescribed drugs is financially connected with the very same companies it is regulating? do you not see any ethical discrepencies here? do you not see the potential for the abuse of societies trust? The pharmaceutical industry is the wealthiest, biggest lobbying, and most widespread industry in the world, beating out petroleum, and cosmetics. If the FDA were so great at making unbiased and solely scientifically supported decisions about drugs given to people, then why has vioxx, celebrex, Fen phen, phenylpropanolamine (which is foud in Acutrim?, Dexatrim?, Robitussin?), Naproxen, Ephedra, Baycol, Rezulin (which killed thousands of diabetics), Propulsid (an anti-heartburn medication which killed 70!) and lotronex (which killed as well, those who were afflicted with IBS, better known as irritable bowel syndrome)ALL BEEN PULLED AFTER THE OK OF THEIR USAGE AND SALES?. Also! (dontcha love the also?) you have to love the "fast track" in the FDA. If I am correct, I think it is supposed to take 7 years of research and clinical studies before a drug is even approved out of the FDA. with fast track, as long as you can show an immediate need for the use of the drug, it can be approved in a matter of months. Many of the above mentioned drugs were approved for "fast track" as well as most of the anti-depressants and such. While this measure was supposed to be used only for things like: cancer drugs, Aid/Hiv drugs, and other highly debilitating illnesses where a certain drug could save thousands of lives if approved in time, it has been abused by corporations like Able, Merck and Pfizer thanks to the help of some millinos of dollars given to the advisory panels of the FDA. Merck also has a very, very long history of marketing, lobbying, and profiting the sale of amphetamines dating as far back as manufacturing amphetamines for the Nazi's. They have always wanted to sell you amphetamines, and you have bought into it. They own America and will continue to do so until we start to wake up and realize that they are no better than any other drug cartel and are profiting from the mental and physical abuse of the WORLD. Edited by psilocyberin (07/16/05 04:30 AM)
| |||||||
|
blarrr Registered: 06/04/04 Posts: 5,952 |
| ||||||
|
The pharmaceutical industry is the wealthiest, biggest lobbying, and most widespread industry in the world..
Take a look at this information abou the pharmaceutical lobby: By KEVIN FREKING, Associated Press Writer Thu Jul 7, 1:07 AM ET WASHINGTON - The pharmaceutical industry's run of success on Capitol Hill has benefited from the more than $800 million spent since 1998 on lobbyists and political campaigns, a political watchdog group said Wednesday. In the past year, the industry hired nearly 1,300 lobbyists, including dozens of former lawmakers and hundreds of people who worked for congressional committees or regulatory agencies. "It is astonishing to learn that no other interest has spent more money to sway public policy in this time period," said Roberta Baskin, the executive director of the Center for Public Integrity. The nonpartisan research group investigated the pharmaceutical industry's spending. Baskin described the industry's motives for its spending as profit-driven. http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&am.../drugs_lobbying -------------------- “The crisis takes a much longer time coming than you think, and then it happens much faster than you would have thought.” -- Rudiger Dornbusch
| |||||||
|
The Minstrel in the Gallery Registered: 03/15/05 Posts: 95,368 Loc: underbelly |
| ||||||
|
Baskin described the industry's motives for its spending as profit-driven.
________________________________________________________ WOW! what a surprise. But isn't that the purpose of most if not all lobbying? The medical profession is really big business. So business interests come first and you come after. -------------------- "Don't believe everything you think". -Anom. " All that lives was born to die"-Anom. With much wisdom comes much sorrow, The more knowledge, the more grief. Ecclesiastes circa 350 BC
| |||||||
|
blarrr Registered: 06/04/04 Posts: 5,952 |
| ||||||
|
Unfortunately you are correct, my friend. Modern medicine is almost completely under the sway of the pharmaceutical industry. Their goal is to have every medical activity funneled into just one thing- the "discovery" of new medical conditions and the pushing of corresponding legal drugs which ideally only alleviate the symptoms of those conditions rather than addressing their root causes.
Ironically, modern medicine is not unlike some of the parasites it professes to want to eliminate. Any parasite worth its salt will do what? It will seek to siphon energy from its host while keeping the host alive as long as possible. Modern medicine wants to keep you alive just long enough to completely drain your bank account. After that, you are discarded. Think I'm exaggerating? Take a look at any cancer ward and you will find expensive, toxic drugs being pumped into patients- drugs that are themselves cancer-causing! Even though the success rate for chemotherapy is pathetic, they continue to pressure patients to accept this "treatment" which in the vast majority of cases does not cure them or even extend their lives, but only serves to make their last days of life a living hell on earth. Once they have fired the last bullet in their chamber(cancer cells adapt to "treatment"), having failed to halt the cancer, they send the patient home to die. Of course, by that time the patient's immune system is totally depleted from the "treatment" and they are left at the complete mercy of the cancer. Only in the end does the patient finally understand that most of their options in regard to alternative remedies have been forgone. And by then they have little (if any money) remaining. Thanks a lot, guys. -------------------- “The crisis takes a much longer time coming than you think, and then it happens much faster than you would have thought.” -- Rudiger Dornbusch
| |||||||
|
Thrill Seeker Registered: 10/31/02 Posts: 8,127 Loc: The will to powe Last seen: 4 years, 6 months |
| ||||||
|
Phluck is a bit defensive when it comes to his drugs isn't he?
-------------------- -------------------- We're the lowest of the low, the scum of the fucking earth!
| |||||||
|
Carpal Tunnel Registered: 04/10/99 Posts: 11,394 Loc: Canada Last seen: 3 months, 5 days |
| ||||||
|
First off..
cocaine and adderall are amphetamines... which have both been prescribed by psychiatrists and MD's..... how many years would i get for giving a 16 year old amphetamines? What the hell are you talking about? Making things up is not a good debate tactic. Cocaine is not an amphetamine. The only thing it has in common with amphetamines is that it is a stimulant, like caffeine. I don't know why you'd claim that cocaine is an amphetamine when the resources are right in front of you (erowid.org) to look into these things. It's not even remotely correct. Is that enough for you? I just got tired of copying and pasting the miltitude of people complaining about Adderall and its side effects on an ADD forum. This isnt some fringe group. This isnt some ploy or ruse, this is actual people with actual symptoms, and many of these people arent alone, they have very many other people who understand the symptoms they are having, because they have them as well. A few anecdotes about discomfort still doesn't prove anything. What percentage of people experience these effects? Are these effects so serious that they can't simply stop? How do you even know that all of these effects are the direct results of Adderall? That's why they don't use anecdotes as scientific evidence. Placebo, mismatched cause and effect, and statistical probability are completely ignored in favor of a story. nope, no problems at all right? These arent new side effects, these arent something unique to Adderall, these are consistent problems and side effects of any amphetamine. You try to make it sound as if there is Adderall, and then there are amphetamines, when in reality, there is no difference. Uh, no, I'm not. I'm trying to make it sound like when you use the drugs safely, they are safe. You're acting like all the anti-drug propaganda against amphetamines, and all of the worst possible dangers that can be associated with it are the same as the dangers that come with using small, regulated doses. Phluck, you are a stout evoluntionist (i think) and a very scientific person; can i ask you what the evolutionary purpose would be of a 40% increase in ONE YEAR! IN 1996 of people who "need" anti-depressants? or the constant, and never once declining (i dare you to prove this wrong) rate of children who are "afflicted" with ADD/ADHD? Evolution doesn't have anything to do with purpose. If you understand the concept of natural selection, you'd know that evolution is about change and adaptation, not about improving. 40% more people need antidepressants? What the hell is that even supposed to mean? Are you implying that 40% more people were prescribed antidepressants in 1996 or something? Well, I don't think it has anything at all to do with evolution. The drugs probably are being overprescribed, but maybe not to the extent you think they are, who knows. Anyways, if someone takes a drug that makes them happier, is there something terribly wrong with that? People often say things like "well, society lived without antidepressants before, why can't people just be happy now?" Well, people were depressed in the past too, they commited suicide, hated their lives, the whole deal. Honestly answer this in your own opinion: does Adderall cure (not treat) ADD/ADHD? I never once said that Adderall was a cure for anything, it seems like phrasing your question this way is an attempt to make me look like I'm claiming things I'm not. It's not a very honest tactic. Anyways, if a treatment is effective, then what's wrong with it. Sure it doesn't help everyone, just as your hanful of quotes demonstrates, but that's not my point. The people who it doesn't help can stop using it, and the people that it does help can continue using it. Dont you get it? the government, FDA, and pharmy corps are preying on the greatest human flaw: the inability to take responsibility. I cant get enough of people trying to pawn their problems off on the scapegoat that is chemical imbalances. "oh, dear me, im a tard, but it isnt my fault! i have ADD!", "my child isnt stupid, it just has ADD". Everyone wants an excuse for their shortcomings and psychiatry (along with the FDA and pharmy companies) have given them just that. Everyone IS subject to the failings of their own mind. Stupid people aren't stupid people because they decided to be stupid. Some people are able to focus and change themselves... and good for them. Others aren't. There have always been, since the beginning of time, people who were unable to achieve, no matter what they had to motivate them. Some of these people have been able to use drugs that change their brain chemistry to a point that allows them to achieve. You want to deny them this tool. Why? Because you think it's being sold to them in the name of greed, and there is some truth to this, but that doesn't mean that it isn't a very useful tool. It's almost as though you see the world in black and white: Pharmaceutical companies are greedy and often push ethical boundaries: therefore every single drug they sell, every claim they make, every motivation they have is evil, and everyone who disagrees with you fully supports and believes in everything drug companies do. If a drug poses a rare risk to a small group of people, then it is too dangerous for anyone to use, and it isn't effective at all. I remember when health canada pulled Adderall, and I think that it was fairly silly. 20 deaths worldwide is a very small number. I can pull up way more deaths from peanut butter, bee stings, car accidents, playground accidents, etc.... If the FDA were so great at making unbiased and solely scientifically supported decisions about drugs given to people, then why has vioxx, celebrex, Fen phen, phenylpropanolamine (which is foud in Acutrim?, Dexatrim?, Robitussin?), Naproxen, Ephedra, Baycol, Rezulin (which killed thousands of diabetics), Propulsid (an anti-heartburn medication which killed 70!) and lotronex (which killed as well, those who were afflicted with IBS, better known as irritable bowel syndrome)ALL BEEN PULLED AFTER THE OK OF THEIR USAGE AND SALES?. 2 reasons: Being scientific and unbiased isn't the same as having magical powers of truth, and being infalliable. Doing as much research as possible doesn't mean that it isn't possible to overlook somethings. And the other reason, because some corruption has existed. Of course, by your logic, some corruption is the same thing as absolute corruption. It's easy to see things this way when you have no personal involvement with the industry. To an outsider, it just looks like one great big blob of people producing drugs and sucking in money. They fail to see that it is a wide collection of different labs, run by different people. Some labs are run from the inside, and some by outsiders who are truly unbiased. There are people who are willing to whore themselves out, and there are people who are willing to go to almost unfathomable lengths to make sure that things are done properly. Funny you should mention fast tracking drugs... this was something that patients lobbied for, as many of them were basically going to die anyways if they didn't get the chance to try certain drugs. You say that the fact that drug testing sometimes misses some potential dangers is a failing of psychiatry. This makes no sense whatsoever. If a drug is tested, shows little or no danger, and shows to be quite effective, and then after many years of use, a small number of people using it die, is it really that dangerous? It seems to me that more people that ride in cars die in car accidents than people who take Adderall die from that, but I don't see you railing against cars. Your accusations are really vague and weird like the industry ties within the FDA... okay, they exist (not like you'd bother to provide sources, but whatever), but do they actually mean anything? Could this perhaps be a piece of information that is easily manipulated to make it look like it means things it doesn't? You don't even have a specific crime you're accusing them of, you're just pointing out that they're associated, and that this must mean fishy things are going on. Because of the fact that you didn't feel the need to provide a source, I don't have the information on the nature of their connection, so I can't even really comment on it. And finally, do you even have a valid alternative? Should we all switch over to reiki and faith healers just because drug companies are occasionally corrupt? All big businesses are occasionally corrupt. -------------------- "I have no valid complaint against hustlers. No rational bitch. But the act of selling is repulsive to me. I harbor a secret urge to whack a salesman in the face, crack his teeth and put red bumps around his eyes." -Hunter S Thompson http://phluck.is-after.us Edited by Phluck (07/17/05 05:36 PM)
| |||||||
|
The Minstrel in the Gallery Registered: 03/15/05 Posts: 95,368 Loc: underbelly |
| ||||||
|
I've often seen things from the other side. But really Phluck, your points are good and well balanced. I'm impressed. I think I'm going to change my mind on some things here. Thanks.
-------------------- "Don't believe everything you think". -Anom. " All that lives was born to die"-Anom. With much wisdom comes much sorrow, The more knowledge, the more grief. Ecclesiastes circa 350 BC
| |||||||
|
Carpal Tunnel Registered: 04/10/99 Posts: 11,394 Loc: Canada Last seen: 3 months, 5 days |
| ||||||
|
Where in my post did I refer to diet outside the context of doctors? Doctors don't give proper attention to the role of diet in medical conditions and if you're going to be honest you'll admit that. The typical doctor receives very little course work in nutrition during medical school and that is reflected in their scant knowledge of the subject and the impact diet has on their patients' health. In all my years of visits to doctors, the issue of nutrition has never been raised. Not once! And I don't think I'm alone in this. Incredible. When I was a child my dentist even offered me a lollipop before he went to work on my cavities! Just out of curiosity, how well versed are you in what doctors are taught? How much time did you spend in medical school? Has it occurred to you that perhaps doctors don't discuss things about nutrition because nutrition doesn't have a direct impact on certain issues? -------------------- "I have no valid complaint against hustlers. No rational bitch. But the act of selling is repulsive to me. I harbor a secret urge to whack a salesman in the face, crack his teeth and put red bumps around his eyes." -Hunter S Thompson http://phluck.is-after.us
| |||||||
|
Carpal Tunnel Registered: 04/10/99 Posts: 11,394 Loc: Canada Last seen: 3 months, 5 days |
| ||||||
|
Phluck is a bit defensive when it comes to his drugs isn't he? My drugs? I'm just trying to be reasonable. People like to have big bad enemies they can blame everything bad about the world on, and they'll accuse them of pretty much anything, and treat absolutely everything they do as evil. That bothers me, so I try to get them to see things from the other side as well. -------------------- "I have no valid complaint against hustlers. No rational bitch. But the act of selling is repulsive to me. I harbor a secret urge to whack a salesman in the face, crack his teeth and put red bumps around his eyes." -Hunter S Thompson http://phluck.is-after.us
| |||||||
|
blarrr Registered: 06/04/04 Posts: 5,952 |
| ||||||
|
According to a 1992 study by the Association of American Medical Colleges, only one-fourth of the 172 medical schools in the United States require a course in nutrition.
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0675/is_n2_v12/ai_15168091 According to the 1996-1997 American Medical Association Liaison Committee on Medical Education survey, 32 medical schools (26%) currently require a nutrition course. Physicians have little practical knowledge of nutrition or physical activity counseling and under use nutrition professionals such as dietitians. The American Medical Student Association state[s], "Next to smoking, diet and nutrition-related factors are among the greatest contributors to preventable, premature illness and death in the industrialized world as well as in less-developed countries." People like to have big bad enemies they can blame everything bad about the world on, and they'll accuse them of pretty much anything, and treat absolutely everything they do as evil. That's quite an overstatement. No one here is saying doctors are evil. On an individual level they are well intentioned people. Unfortunately, the system they work in has become corrupted and lost focus on patient's health and is too often driven by profit. By making this observation I am not singling out the medical profession- the love of money is a major problem in society at large. http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/full/72/3/890S http://www.med-ed-online.org/res00091.htm -------------------- “The crisis takes a much longer time coming than you think, and then it happens much faster than you would have thought.” -- Rudiger Dornbusch
| |||||||
|
The Minstrel in the Gallery Registered: 03/15/05 Posts: 95,368 Loc: underbelly |
| ||||||
|
That's quite an overstatement. No one here is saying doctors are evil. On an individual level they are well intentioned people. Unfortunately, the system they work in has become corrupted and lost focus on patient's health and is too often driven by profit. By making this observation I am not singling out the medical profession- the love of money is a major problem in society at large.
________________________________ -------------------- "Don't believe everything you think". -Anom. " All that lives was born to die"-Anom. With much wisdom comes much sorrow, The more knowledge, the more grief. Ecclesiastes circa 350 BC
| |||||||
|
ACHOOOOOOOOO!!!!!111! Registered: 01/15/05 Posts: 15,427 Last seen: 6 years, 8 months |
| ||||||
Quote: I apologize for this. Cocaine isnt an amphetamine, but it is pretty much the same thing. Both are appetite suppressants, stimulants, and schedule 2 drugs. Quote: Well, they do have side-effects, and I showed those to you, from a scientific standpoint, but you dismissed them. These were the side-effects that the tests you describe above have found to be prevalent. Quote: Didnt you read the article? these 20 deaths caused by Adderall were the recommended and prescribed dosage, there was no abuse of it outside of its prescripted dosage. Some of these people that died, were children, and Ill go back and check my sources, but im pretty sure their deaths came about by heart attacks or strokes. Little children dont have heart attacks and strokes for no reason usually. Quote: So, the constantly rising rate of people inflicted with ADD/ADHD would have absolutly no bearing in the realm of evolution? either ADD/ADHD would be some way of evolving to adapt to something, or it would be a hinderance to people, and work itself out of the gene pool. Quote: So now Adderall makes kids happier? i thought it was so they could focus on schoolwork. Dont you think there would be better and less expensive and harmful ways of going about trying to increase happiness in society without giving children drugs? Quote: Im willing to bet that suicide rates of today are exponentially higher than the suicide rates of 1905. One of the warnings the FDA issued about Ritalin involving withdrawl was that it could make people suicidal. Id like to see anything anywhere about how Adderall has anything to do with the prevention of suicide. Quote: http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/prweb/20050715/bs_prweb/prweb262261_3 Quote: Most kids arent given a choice as to whether or not they are using amphetamines. Most kids arent even told Adderall and Ritalin are amphetamines, or what an amphetamine is. Nor are they told all the side effects, or possibility of heart failure. Like I said before, sure it can hide the problem for a while, but at what cost? Quote: not to rehash an old topic, but...werent these the very same things I was saying about Scientology?... What kind of existence is it to wake up everyday and drastically alter your brain chemistry? You make it sound as if these people had no other alternative whatsoever, as if their were just dealt the stupid card and it isnt their fault at all, so here, you get the consolation prize of taking drugs everyday so you can be more like us. Quote: Im not even talking about a rare risk. Im talkign about the organizations that abuse american trust and on multiple cases have hidden test results! why would you hide test results? i dont know, maybe because some company wanted billions of dollars and didnt care about the expense of human life and well-being. Quote: Allergic reactions are bound to happen, and so are accidents. Are you saying that these 20 deaths from adderall were accidents? no, these were 20 deaths that could have been avoided if drug companies told the truth and werent financially entertwined with regulation and legalization. Its not like, "oops, i slipped on an adderall pill and died", this is "oh shit, im dying and all i took was my recommended dose of adderal". These deaths were malicious. these people were murdered by their doctors. If someone were prescribed adderall, and they ran out, but "needed" it, and I gave them their dosage, and they died, i would be put in jail. why arent these corporations and doctors held responsible for this? guess they can get away with just saying "oops, sorry, but it didnt happen to ALL of my patients". Quote: right, cancer patients and AIDS patients. not kids and parents with ADD. It was a noble action, but it has been abused. No one is going to die if they dont get amphetamines in time. Quote: People have a choice to use cars, even when the facts about car accidents are easy to find. Children dont have this choice usually. Quote: http://www.newstarget.com/005766.html http://www.newstarget.com/005414.html http://www.newstarget.com/005413.html Quote: I dont have an alternative, but i bet if we spent a quarter of the money spent on drug research, lobbying and advertising on finding a balanced alternative, we could. But some suggestions would be like: less tv, more reading, less sugars and sweets, more outside activity and no drugs.
| |||||||
|
Carpal Tunnel Registered: 04/10/99 Posts: 11,394 Loc: Canada Last seen: 3 months, 5 days |
| ||||||
|
These were the side-effects that the tests you describe above have found to be prevalent.
Prevelant? Where did you show me any information about frequency? They were not shown to be prevelent, they were shown to be possible. Didnt you read the article? these 20 deaths caused by Adderall were the recommended and prescribed dosage, there was no abuse of it outside of its prescripted dosage. Some of these people that died, were children, and Ill go back and check my sources, but im pretty sure their deaths came about by heart attacks or strokes. Little children dont have heart attacks and strokes for no reason usually. No, little children don't usually have heart attacks for no reason, but little children on Adderall also don't usually have heart attacks for no reason. 20 deaths is a pretty small number when you consider the number of people overall on Adderall. Like I said, the dangers involved with everyday activities like riding in a car are greater than the dangers of taking Adderall. So, the constantly rising rate of people inflicted with ADD/ADHD would have absolutly no bearing in the realm of evolution? either ADD/ADHD would be some way of evolving to adapt to something, or it would be a hinderance to people, and work itself out of the gene pool. I'm not entirely sure that your grasp of evolution is quite correct. New traits do not come into existance because they help people adapt. The traits that evolve are the cause of mutation, which is damaged or incorrectly reproduced genes. They are essentially random. When they help something survive, the genes are passed on to further generations. If they don't help at all, but the being carrying the genes still reproduces, the genes are still passed on. If the carrier of the genes dies off, the genes die off with it. If something is a hinderance, but the carrier of the genes still reproduces, the genes are still passed on. Natural selection is not a process of our genes magically knowing that say, fingers would be useful, and creating fingers. That said, the increased rate of ADD just means increased diagnosis. Like I've said many times already, it probably is overdiagnosed. However, a lot of people do benefit from the drugs they are prescribed. You can say "well they didn't have those drugs in the past, and people were okay", of course, in the past, many intelligent people could have ended up being total failures in their lives because they were unable to benefit from certain drugs. So now Adderall makes kids happier? i thought it was so they could focus on schoolwork. Dont you think there would be better and less expensive and harmful ways of going about trying to increase happiness in society without giving children drugs? I was talking about anti-depressants, because you brought up happiness. You were talking about people being diagnosed with depression, but if you have better ways that actually work, please, tell them to me. Im willing to bet that suicide rates of today are exponentially higher than the suicide rates of 1905. One of the warnings the FDA issued about Ritalin involving withdrawl was that it could make people suicidal. Id like to see anything anywhere about how Adderall has anything to do with the prevention of suicide. "I'm willing to bet..." Since when was this a valid source for any kind of information. First off, do you have ANY data to back this up? The article you linked to quoted a rich Scientologist who claimed that chemical imbalances are pretty much made up, and uses a pretty dishonest distortion of the facts to justify this belief. He has no authority whatsoever, what are his qualifications, anyways? First off, nobody knows what causes ADHD, people don't even really claim that it is a chemical imbalance, although that is a possibility. Things like depression, however, have been demonstrated to be linked with different chemical levels in the brain. http://www.anxiety-and-depression-solutions.com/articles/chemicalimbalance.htm Quote: What, do you think this stuff is just made up? Quote: Well, you can scratch the idea that less sugars will reduce hyperactivity. That's an urban legend. As for less TV, more reading and excercise, sure that's all great, but it's not going to help the kids that are SERIOUSLY afflicted ADHD. I feel like I'm being forced into arguing things that have nothing to do with my opinion here, if you look at my initial posts you'll see that I do agree that there are issues with overprescription of certain drugs, and that the FDA isn't completely free of corruption. -------------------- "I have no valid complaint against hustlers. No rational bitch. But the act of selling is repulsive to me. I harbor a secret urge to whack a salesman in the face, crack his teeth and put red bumps around his eyes." -Hunter S Thompson http://phluck.is-after.us
| |||||||
|
Carpal Tunnel Registered: 04/10/99 Posts: 11,394 Loc: Canada Last seen: 3 months, 5 days |
| ||||||
|
"Back in my day, if a kid was stupid, we just called them stupid, they didn't have a 'learning disability' or 'ADHD', we knew what the problem was, they were dumb."
And of course the kids were treated like they were dumb, they failed, and ended up being janitors, if they were lucky enough not to turn out to be criminals. Nowadays, by looking into the root causes of learning problems, we are able to find ways of treating them. ADHD is actually fairly rare. I can say for sure I have met two kids with it. It is not simply a mild issue of not being able to pay attention, it is a very extreme behavioral disability. The problem with these kids certainly isn't too much TV, they don't pay attention to the TV. They constantly ask questions, but don't even wait for the answer before asking a completely unrelated one. They run around from activity to activity, and they have an extremely difficult time making friends because they irritate all the other kids. The thing is, when they're given an ADHD drug, they almost magically change. They become completely different children. Parents talk to one another and often hear about how little Jimmy is doing so much better in school now that he's on Ritalin, so they take their kids to a psychiatrist, and beg him to do something for their kids. I think this is a bigger factor in the overprescription of these drugs than the FDA is. Some people recognize that these drugs aren't working very well, if at all on certain children, and question whether or not these children have ADHD, which is a very valid concern. Of course, others take this questioning even further and will claim that ADHD doesn't exist at all, and that these drugs are completely unnecessary. This is an insult to those kids who actually need these drugs, and greatly benefit from them. Many people have been able to succeed because of these drugs. The issue with corruption in the FDA is very real, but claiming that doctors and scientists are all helpless to follow the whims of the corruption is nonsense. Medical journals are not run by the FDA, no matter what lies people will tell you to the contrary. In fact, it is the medical journals which are the biggest force working against corruption in the drug industry. It is the medical journals that banded together to make the decision to only publish studies that were not funded by drug companies. http://www.progress.org/archive/medic03.htm Those people pushing the idea that mainstream medicine is corrupt usually have an agenda of their own. More often than not, they have some treatment that they feel isn't getting the respect it deserves. Often it is something with little or no scientific credibility. They will claim that the only reason it doesn't have credibility is because mainstream science refuses to study it, or because the studies related to it showed it to be ineffective, and they refuse to believe that they could possibly be wrong. Zorbman claims that there is no medical research done unless it is directly related to a drug, which is simply false. Research related to a drug may be more likely to receive funding and interest from drug companies, but other forms of research receive funding from government grants (not just the United States government, governments around the world provide funding into medical research) or from private charitable organizations. Zorbman's claim that chemotherapy is ineffective is also false, and stems from a fundamental misunderstanding about the nature of cancer and how it is treated. At any given time, thousands of cells in our bodies are mutating in strange ways. Occasionally, one of these mutations will cause the cells to continuously replicate. This happens quite often, actually. Our bodies are filled with tiny cysts; clumps of mutant cells. Sometimes they mutate in such a way that they not only continue to grow, but they spread throughout the body. We end up with something that is not an infection or parasite, but part of our own flesh, growing throughout our bodies. Because cancer is part of ourselves, it is very difficult to treat. We use chemotherapy to little poison ourselves in small doses because it attacks the tumor, and hopefully kills it off. It is quite easy to say "Hey! Poisoning ourselves isn't good, we should do it a better way than that!", but actually coming up with a more effective method is another story altogether. There are people out there who claim that they have found cures for cancer involving nutrition or all kinds of things, and almost all of these people claim that their method is better than radiation or chemotherapy, and most of them believe it wholeheartedly. They haven't studied cancer in depth, but they may have opened a few books and picked up some terms. Their intentions are good, but they simply don't understand how sophisticated the techniques for testing various methods are. While many of them feel that it is okay to swear up and down that their methods are effective and that the reasons for the lack of evidence are due to drug company interference, real researchers know that it is NEVER okay to claim that something works perfectly until it has been thoughouly tested. These people simply don't realize how misleading anecdotal evidence can be. The reason practices like bloodletting or sacrifice lived on in the past were due to anecdotal evidence. -------------------- "I have no valid complaint against hustlers. No rational bitch. But the act of selling is repulsive to me. I harbor a secret urge to whack a salesman in the face, crack his teeth and put red bumps around his eyes." -Hunter S Thompson http://phluck.is-after.us
| |||||||
|
blarrr Registered: 06/04/04 Posts: 5,952 |
| ||||||
|
In fact, it is the medical journals which are the biggest force working against corruption in the drug industry.
You must be joking.Anyone who has ever read a medical journal can see that the majority of the advertisements in these journals are paid for by the drug companies. Any fair-minded person knows that is a serious conflict of interest. Want to know what's really going on here, folks? Follow the money trail. Filthy lucre. Although prestigious, venerable medical journals put on a veneer of being objective, scientific and incorruptible, the reality is that they face the same type of accountability every mainstream magazine also faces: don't piss off your advertisers! Want to see something funny? Take a look at the McDonald's ads which have often appeared in the prestigous Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA). Then keep in mind that this is the same publication that for nearly 50 years ran cigarette ads endorsing the health benefits of tobacco. What a joke. Are you beginning to see whose interests are being served here? It is the medical journals that banded together to make the decision to only publish studies that were not funded by drug companies. So the fox has offered to guard the hen house, eh? This is a nice gesture, but based upon past experience I doubt anything will come of it. It is one thing to enact a rule, it is quite another to enforce it. This appears to be their latest tactic to relieve growing public pressure long enough to get back to business as usual. Think I'm exagerating? There have been formal requirements in the past for all medical journals to disclose any financial ties between an author and a product manufacturer in the article. Good in theory, but in practice it almost never happens. A study done in 1997 of 142 medical journals did not find even one such disclosure. (Wall St. Journal, 2/2/99 ). A 1998 study from the New England Journal of Medicine found that 96% of peer reviewed articles had financial ties to the drug they were studying. Big shock, huh? Any disclosures? Yeah, right. So much for "the biggest force working against corruption in the drug industry.". Now on to the rest of your post: Zorbman claims that there is no medical research done unless it is directly related to a drug That is false; I never stated that. However, I certainly believe far too much research is profit driven and I stand behind that claim; I am not alone in this belief. Zorbman's claim that chemotherapy is ineffective is also false Wrong again. Statistics on chemotherapy successes are notoriously hard to come by (for some strange reason the drug companies don't advertise their supposed success rate )The success rate is extremely poor. And yet how many times have we heard the media trumpeting, "We are winning the War on cancer." "Breakthroughs are just around the corner."? (New and expensive "breakthrough" drugs of course. Just a tip- Whenever you want to market a new drug, be sure to include the word "breakthrough" in your press releases.)Dr. Ulrich Abel was a German epidemiologist and biostatistician who contacted 350 medical centers around the world requesting them to supply him with anything they had published on the subject of cancer. By the time he published his report and subsequent book (Chemotherapy of Advanced Epithelial Cancer) he probably knew more about chemotherapy than any person alive. His report, in the publication Lancet, August of 1991, described chemotherapy as a failure that neither physician nor patient were willing to give up on although there is no scientific evidence that it works. "Success of most chemotherapies is appalling?There is no scientific evidence for its ability to extend in any appreciable way the lives of patients suffering from the most common organic cancer? Chemotherapy for malignancies too advanced for surgery, which accounts for 80% of all cancers, is a scientific wasteland." ~Dr Uhlrich Abel, Stuttgart. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entr Another person very knowlegable about the numbers behind orthodox cancer treatment is John Gofman, a medical doctor with a Ph.D. degree in nuclear and physical chemistry. He is professor emeritus of molecular and cell biology at University of California, Berkeley and has compiled large volumes of statistics on health care in America in numerous books and publications. Dr. Gofman has demonstrated that cancer death rates rise in proportion with increasing density of physicians in a given census district. Linus Pauling, PhD was the only person in history to win two solo Nobel Prizes, Chemistry in 1954 and for Peace in 1962. Pauling had this to say about orthodox cancer research: "Everyone should know that most cancer research is largely a fraud and that the major cancer research organisations are derelict in their duties to the people who support them." Chemotherapy is much like radiation in the sense that both "treatments" themselves cause new cancers. Think about the insanity of that. Dr. Gofman's research also led him to write a 400-page book in which he states that "three-quarters of the current annual incidence of breast cancer in the United States is being caused by earlier ionizing radiation, primarily from medical sources." Incredibly, this isn't even news. "[M]edical science," Gofman continues, "has known for 20 years that ionizing radiation is a prominent and proven cause of breast-cancer". So there you have it, folks. Orthodox medicine offers no proof that its brutal cancer treatments are any more effective than doing nothing, and many of them are actually carcinogenic. If that represents success, I'd sure as hell hate to see failure. Edited by zorbman (07/19/05 12:19 AM)
| |||||||
|
Third prize is you're fired Registered: 10/01/02 Posts: 4,263 Loc: Denver, Colorado Last seen: 4 years, 6 months |
| ||||||
Quote: but...that would take a WHOLE VILLAGE to do. its easier to drug em and put em in front of their Playstation 2's. -------------------- If it weren't for the bloody corpses, I wouldn't have any corpses at all. There are two ways to get to the top of an oak tree: start climbing or sit on an acorn. Are you a carrot, an egg, or a coffee bean?
| |||||||
|
Mmmm... pizza Registered: 07/03/04 Posts: 14,299 Loc: |
| ||||||
|
I have to agree that some drugs are overprescribed.
What I have learned from my experience is that [most] doctors can't be trusted. The last time I got HELP from a nondental doctor for anything was when I broke my leg about 4+ years ago. There was no medicine involved whatsoever, and I'm back with only trivial permanent damage. Since then, I have gotten NOTHING but incorrect diagnosis, permanently damaging or worthless prescriptions, and doctors who make ridiculous mistakes. There's nothing we can do. We should just drop this debate. -------------------- Delicious Pizza
| |||||||
|
The Minstrel in the Gallery Registered: 03/15/05 Posts: 95,368 Loc: underbelly |
| ||||||
|
I have had much the same experience with doctors. You will find if you bother to get second and third opinions that they may all be different.
These people are scary. I have found a couple of good ones in my day also. Not enough though.
-------------------- "Don't believe everything you think". -Anom. " All that lives was born to die"-Anom. With much wisdom comes much sorrow, The more knowledge, the more grief. Ecclesiastes circa 350 BC
| |||||||
|
I guess I'm cool ![]() Registered: 05/12/05 Posts: 136 Last seen: 16 years, 9 months |
| ||||||
|
I wanted to throw my two cents into this discussion....
I work at a mental hospital with pediatrics and every one of them is on some form of medication. What I've noticed is that the use of drugs is a matter of cost/time verse effectiveness. I beileve that most matters that kids are given drugs for is done for the sole reason that it is not possible/too hard to address the problems so they must address the symptoms. Sometimes its to enable work on the problems, unfortantely not always. I also think that the unatural state of our society is the cause of most of the demand as well. Peace and Love - Justin
| |||||||
|
Carpal Tunnel Registered: 04/10/99 Posts: 11,394 Loc: Canada Last seen: 3 months, 5 days |
| ||||||
|
Anyone who has ever read a medical journal can see that the majority of the advertisements in these journals are paid for by the drug companies. Any fair-minded person knows that is a serious conflict of interest. Um... actually I've got scientific journals lying around my house, most of the ads are from companies selling lab equipment, drug ads aren't that common. Are we talking about the same magazines? There have been formal requirements in the past for all medical journals to disclose any financial ties between an author and a product manufacturer in the article. Good in theory, but in practice it almost never happens. A study done in 1997 of 142 medical journals did not find even one such disclosure. (Wall St. Journal, 2/2/99 ). Why is it up to the journals to disclose this information? A 1998 study from the New England Journal of Medicine found that 96% of peer reviewed articles had financial ties to the drug they were studying. Exactly my point... the medical journals are the ones investigating the issue and trying to deal with it. http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/pauling.html Dr. Gofman's research also led him to write a 400-page book in which he states that "three-quarters of the current annual incidence of breast cancer in the United States is being caused by earlier ionizing radiation, primarily from medical sources." Incredibly, this isn't even news. "[M]edical science," Gofman continues, "has known for 20 years that ionizing radiation is a prominent and proven cause of breast-cancer". So there you have it, folks. Orthodox medicine offers no proof that its brutal cancer treatments are any more effective than doing nothing, and many of them are actually carcinogenic. If that represents success, I'd sure as hell hate to see failure. What was his proof? Am I to believe that because his book was an impressive 400 pages, his logic and evidence was impeccable? Another person very knowlegable about the numbers behind orthodox cancer treatment is John Gofman, a medical doctor with a Ph.D. degree in nuclear and physical chemistry. He is professor emeritus of molecular and cell biology at University of California, Berkeley and has compiled large volumes of statistics on health care in America in numerous books and publications. Dr. Gofman has demonstrated that cancer death rates rise in proportion with increasing density of physicians in a given census district. That's one hell of a goofy correlation to make. Any area with an increased density of physicians is going to be subject to all kinds of other factors. More doctors likely means higher population density, which likely means more pollution, etc... That sounds like an example of how you can use statistics to prove anything you want than evidence for anything. If you search pubmed for the name of any chemotherapy drug, you'll find a list of studies demonstrating their effectivenss. Of course, you have a convenient excuse for not believing any scientific studies. Chemotherapy has long proven itself to be the most effective method of treating cancer. Not vitmins, vegetable shakes, magic potions or healing crystals. There are hundreds of people with books to sell tauting naturopathic methods of curing cancer, but none of them have any evidence to back them up other than anecdotes, which can be easily misused. When someone stops chemo and starts eating well, they will always start to feel healthier and have increased energy, even if the cancer is growing back and destroying them. The cancer is a part of themselves, things that normally nourish your body and keep it healthy also feed the cancer. Attacking cancer is literally attacking part of yourself. You've read the accounts of a small handful of doctors who disagree with the use of chemotherapy (none of them are oncologists, of course, they're all speaking outside of their field of expertise), but have you spoken to, or read the works of those who are in favor of its use? If you'd like, I can put you in contact with my father, who is a scientist, and the director of research at a cancer research institute. Since the vast majority of his funding comes through government grants, and he does not directly study the use of drugs, only the genetic origins of cancer, perhaps you'll find his word more credible than the scientists you seem to think make up the majority of cancer research. -------------------- "I have no valid complaint against hustlers. No rational bitch. But the act of selling is repulsive to me. I harbor a secret urge to whack a salesman in the face, crack his teeth and put red bumps around his eyes." -Hunter S Thompson http://phluck.is-after.us
| |||||||
|
Mad Scientist Registered: 03/02/05 Posts: 13,372 |
| ||||||
|
Just to expand a bit on what phluck said:
Anyone who has ever read a medical journal can see that the majority of the advertisements in these journals are paid for by the drug companies. Any fair-minded person knows that is a serious conflict of interest. Also realize that nowadays, research is done almost entirely through database searches (e.g. pubmed and Ovid). This gives you a direct link to your article or "hit". The days of flipping through a full medical journal are ending rapidly, if not gone forever. Also, I would think an advertiser has little incentive to place their content in a medical journal. I say this due to the above reason and also because mainstream consumers don't read medical journals. At least, to my knowledge I've never seen one on a public newstand, have you? In any event this doesn't effect the peer review process. An article is submitted, and then reviewed by independent reviews which usually rotate frequently. I've been involved in the peer review process for some articles and can assure I have no ties to big pharma. There have been formal requirements in the past for all medical journals to disclose any financial ties between an author and a product manufacturer in the article. Good in theory, but in practice it almost never happens. A study done in 1997 of 142 medical journals did not find even one such disclosure. (Wall St. Journal, 2/2/99 ). Every piece of original research ends with an "acknowledgements" section which includes the ever-so-famous phrase: "This work was sponsored by....". I'd be curious to see the Wall St. Journal article though, the link didn't work for me. A 1998 study from the New England Journal of Medicine found that 96% of peer reviewed articles had financial ties to the drug they were studying. Due to the enormous costs, drug companies fund their own studies. However, there are contract clauses concerning publication, who gets to review data before publication etc. While this is a conflict of interest there are contractual safegaurds (the effectiveness of these however, is debateable). Even with this conflict of interest, intial clinical trails are always done "double blind" to demonstrate superiority to placebo. "Success of most chemotherapies is appalling http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query...p;dopt=Abstract While I'm not overly knowledgeable about cancer, in the first sentence of the abstract gofman is referring only to "epithelial cancer". While I think this a broad classification I'm not sure if his statement can be extended to all types of cancer. Dr. Gofman has demonstrated that cancer death rates rise in proportion with increasing density of physicians in a given census district. This is probably because life expectancy increases as well. The longer you live, the greater your chances of developing cancer. Linus Pauling, PhD was the only person in history to win two solo Nobel Prizes, Chemistry in 1954 and for Peace in 1962. Pauling had this to say about orthodox cancer research: "Everyone should know that most cancer research is largely a fraud and that the major cancer research organisations are derelict in their duties to the people who support them." While a respectable quote, we've made many advances in the last 50 or so years; especially with regards to medicine. -------------------- ...the whole experience is (and is as) a profound piece of knowledge. It is an indellible experience; it is forever known. I have known myself in a way I doubt I would have ever occurred except as it did. Smith, P. Bull. Menninger Clinic (1959) 23:20-27; p. 27. ...most subjects find the experience valuable, some find it frightening, and many say that is it uniquely lovely. Osmond, H. Annals, NY Acad Science (1957) 66:418-434; p.436 Edited by badchad (07/20/05 10:12 AM)
| |||||||
|
ACHOOOOOOOOO!!!!!111! Registered: 01/15/05 Posts: 15,427 Last seen: 6 years, 8 months |
| ||||||
|
Does anyone have any supporting figures which are pro-psychopharmacology? Id like to see some, maybe even experiments where the term chemical imbalances are proven and such. Or maybe statistics that show since adderal use is constantly increasing, the amount of (X) crime has gone down or whatever.
| |||||||
|
Carpal Tunnel Registered: 04/10/99 Posts: 11,394 Loc: Canada Last seen: 3 months, 5 days |
| ||||||
|
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query...&query_hl=1
"CONCLUSIONS: In children with ADHD, once-daily 10 mg-30 mg MAS XR was well tolerated and significant behavioral improvements were consistently maintained during 24 months of treatment." http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query...&query_hl=1 "CONCLUSIONS: This study suggests that twice-daily dosing of Adderall may be an effective strategy for afternoon control of attention and deportment for children with ADHD." http://www.mental-health-matters.com/articles/article.php?artID=160 "As research in neurotransmitters continued, studies between neurotransmitters and mental conditions revealed a strong connection between amounts of certain neurotransmitters in the brain and the presence of specific psychiatric conditions." http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query...&query_hl=7 "Whole-blood 5-HT concentrations therefore appear to predict mood in healthy males." You can search through pubmed for hundreds of studies regarding neurotransmitter levels and mood. If you want evidence for a drop in violent crime, here you go: http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2002-09-09-crime_x.htm But there are so many thousands of factors for crime rates that saying this has anything to do with Adderall would be kind of weird. -------------------- "I have no valid complaint against hustlers. No rational bitch. But the act of selling is repulsive to me. I harbor a secret urge to whack a salesman in the face, crack his teeth and put red bumps around his eyes." -Hunter S Thompson http://phluck.is-after.us
| |||||||
|
Mad Scientist Registered: 03/02/05 Posts: 13,372 |
| ||||||
Quote: Well, for a medication to be approved it has to be shown to be significantly better than placebo. Here's a link showing the effectiveness of adderrall in a group of 28 preschoolers. and another adderrall study These two (of 33 total results)are relatively small, probably because adderall is in the same "class" of medications already used to treat ADHD. You can find all sorts of stuf on pubmed, but you can specifically select "clinical trials" to get human studies. -------------------- ...the whole experience is (and is as) a profound piece of knowledge. It is an indellible experience; it is forever known. I have known myself in a way I doubt I would have ever occurred except as it did. Smith, P. Bull. Menninger Clinic (1959) 23:20-27; p. 27. ...most subjects find the experience valuable, some find it frightening, and many say that is it uniquely lovely. Osmond, H. Annals, NY Acad Science (1957) 66:418-434; p.436
| |||||||
|
ACHOOOOOOOOO!!!!!111! Registered: 01/15/05 Posts: 15,427 Last seen: 6 years, 8 months |
| ||||||
Quote: None of these even have any statistics. It is just a research group saying "yeah, well we put 12 kids on amphetamines and they did better at math". I have already stated that giving amphetamines to kids can make them more focused, nothing you posted links to addressed anything out side of that. And the report about neurotransmitters was highly cloudy and vague and didnt really say anything exact....summary:"we just know that there are chemicals in the brain, and all these chemicals affect us in some way"... You know, sitting down one-on-one with a kid and helping them with math also has shown to improve math scores. It is pure laziness on parents and teachers parts to allow the distribution of schedule 2 drugs to 6 year olds to fix a problem. These are children, and they act like children, they dont need to be on stimulants and speed. Adderall is quickly becoming a very popular and abused drug, especially in colleges. Why is it that my college friends can get a high similar to cocaine, with a similar dose they prescribe to even children? Oh, its not a big deal... we are only giving them a LITTLE heroin, just enough to make them draw better, since my child has ACD (abstract conceptualization disorder)... now my child can play like miles davis! thank you heroin!
| |||||||
|
Mad Scientist Registered: 03/02/05 Posts: 13,372 |
| ||||||
Quote: Actually, all the original research papers DO have statistics. (these are the references beginning with www.ncbi....etc.). If we found the peer-reviewed article for the statistics on crime (the last link) I'd be willing to bet it had statistics as well. Quote: This link by "Dr. Carver" does however, need to be referenced (as you stated). But keep in mind the paper was written for non-professionals in attempt to convey information they would actually understand. Quote: I'll assume you have no evidence for this? If you've ever tried teaching or tutoring you'll realize that some kids/individuals simply "don't get it" no matter how much time you spend with them. Quote: Perhaps you should volunteer your time to help then? FOr those that have never attempted teaching before it's obviously "laziness". In general I agree with you on this point, but it's idealistic. The fact of the matter is that there is a lack of adequate teachers available. You cannot expect a teacher to be able to give individual attention to a group of 20-30 children. Throw in the awesome incentive of a 30K per year salary and the result is not enough teachers and not enough trained professionals to deal with the problem. Quote: Because the drug acts differently on different individuals. Presumably because you're friends don't have ADHD and have a different brain chemistry which causes them to react differently. Quote: I'll assume you realize heroin and adderall have different mechanisms of action. Apples to oranges. -------------------- ...the whole experience is (and is as) a profound piece of knowledge. It is an indellible experience; it is forever known. I have known myself in a way I doubt I would have ever occurred except as it did. Smith, P. Bull. Menninger Clinic (1959) 23:20-27; p. 27. ...most subjects find the experience valuable, some find it frightening, and many say that is it uniquely lovely. Osmond, H. Annals, NY Acad Science (1957) 66:418-434; p.436
| |||||||
|
ACHOOOOOOOOO!!!!!111! Registered: 01/15/05 Posts: 15,427 Last seen: 6 years, 8 months |
| ||||||
|
I have tutored people before. It is frustrating as hell. But what kind of a teacher are you that says, "oh, i give up, go take some amphetamines!". There is no one in this world with the ability to communicate that cannot be taught to grasp things.
Our school system and design of society are not all encompassing, they dont make it available to suit everyones individual learning needs. But drugging them into conformity is so robotic. If we spent a quarter of the money spent on psychopharmaceutical advertising, or a quarter of the psychopharmaceutical lobbying on teachers, i am willing to bet our test scores (since isnt that what REALLY matters /cynicism) would increase. Im not saying I have the answers, and I ultimatly know that this drugging will continue, as well as underpaid, apathetic teachers, because modern psychiatry and psychology is so ingrained into our culture and is taught as and based off as an infallible and completly accurate explanation for the function of the brain, when in fact it is simply a theory. There is no irrefutable proof so far that chamical imbalances cause ADD/ADHD. Even the president of the APA was quoted as saying this. I started this thread out with a psychiatrist saying "mental health is a bit of a crap shoot. I am willing to bet that parents arent even told that adderall is an amphetamine. Im willing to bet that a majority of parents dont know that adderall is an amphetamine. If we replaced the word Adderall with amphetamine, you would see a drastic fall in sales. It is all about the dollar with the pharmaceutical companies. Do you really think they are carrying out science and study in the name of advancement of culture, society and well being/health? People like speed, or any stimulants, it is part of our culture to be hopped up on some stimulant. Companies are just finding ways to subvert the law and morality of society to make a big buck.
| |||||||
|
blarrr Registered: 06/04/04 Posts: 5,952 |
| ||||||
|
What was his proof? Am I to believe that because his book was an impressive 400 pages, his logic and evidence was impeccable?
Please provide any evidence you have to dispute Dr. Gofman's findings. Thank you. 1998 study from the New England Journal of Medicine found that 96% of peer reviewed articles had financial ties to the drug they were studying. Exactly my point... the medical journals are the ones investigating the issue and trying to deal with it. That was back in 1998- the proposed changes you mentioned are more recent. But past history can be instructive in light of current proposals. Keep in mind that NEJM represented only one medical journal owning up to the truth TO its colleagues in its OWN publication, not to the public at large. I had never heard of this conflict of interest until I dug it up recently. What difference does a disclosure make if hardly anyone is aware of it? Do you not find the fact that 96% of peer reviewed articles had financial ties to the drug they were studying troubling? The current proposed change sounds good in theory, but I seriously doubt it will happen in practice. A common tactic in any beauracracy is to form committees and "investigate" to death until the public heat is off, then return to business as usual. Some seem to have faith it this process; I don't in light of past history as I have clearly laid out. They didn't follow their self-proposed guidelines before, what makes you think they will now? Five of the most futile words in the English language are, "This time will be different." So far you have failed to provide any statistical evidence to support your opinion that chemotherapy is effective. The greatest authority I'm aware of on the numbers behind chemotherapy is biostatistician, Dr Uhlrich Abel who I mentioned in my previous post. He said the following after an exhaustive study of this subject, "Success of most chemotherapies is appalling. There is no scientific evidence for its ability to extend in any appreciable way the lives of patients suffering from the most common organic cancer. Chemotherapy for malignancies too advanced for surgery, which accounts for 80% of all cancers, is a scientific wasteland." Dr. Alan C Nixon, former president of the American Chemical Society had this to say about the effectiveness of chemotherapy, "As a chemist trained to interpret data, it is incomprehensible to me that physicians can ignore the clear evidence that chemotherapy does much, much more harm than good." There you have it- chemotherapy has done nothing for 80% of all cancers and 80% of chemotherapy administered was completely worthless. You've read the accounts of a small handful of doctors who disagree with the use of chemotherapy (none of them are oncologists, of course, they're all speaking outside of their field of expertise) The raw data of chemotherapy statistics are available and trained biostaticians can and have analyze(d) them. Is it really surprising that few oncologists have spoken out? It would cost them their jobs. Want to hear what an insider has to say on this subject? John Bailer served for twenty years on the staff of the National Cancer Institute and as editor of its journal. In July 1990 he received the prestigious MacArthur Fellowship. He had this to say about orthodox cancer treatment, "My overall assessment is that the national cancer programme must be judged a qualified failure." "We have poured vast amounts of money into the search for cancer cures over a very long period of time. We've brought some of the world's best research minds to bear on these problems. We've given it our best shot. It's time to admit it hasn't worked and start down another track." http://www.users.muohio.edu/baileraj/ When someone stops chemo and starts eating well, they will always start to feel healthier and have increased energy, even if the cancer is growing back and destroying them. The cancer is a part of themselves, things that normally nourish your body and keep it healthy also feed the cancer. Attacking cancer is literally attacking part of yourself. Your characterization of cancer is largely correct, but take a close look at the last two sentences. That is only true if you are only attacking the cancer with chemotherapy. Chemotherapy doesn't discriminate; It kills both cancer cells and healthy cells. There are some things that nourish the body and attack the cancer without damaging normal cells. For instance, The American Cancer Society even admits this is their new book, "The American Cancer Society's Guide to Complementary and Alternative Cancer Methods". It states on page 316 that Ellagic Acid [found in certain berries] has been proven to cause apoptosis (natural cell death) in cancer cells without harming healthy cells as chemotherapy does. This has not been widely reported in the media. Note that there is no potential drug tie-in here since berries are readily available to the public in forests, people's backyards, and some grocery stores. That is just one example I found after a short search on the internet. Imagine how many more natural, non-toxic treatments are out there. http://www.cancer.org/docroot/CRI/CRI_3_1.asp Chemotherapy has long proven itself to be the most effective method of treating cancer. Not vitmins, vegetable shakes, magic potions or healing crystals. There are hundreds of people with books to sell tauting naturopathic methods of curing cancer, but none of them have any evidence to back them up other than anecdotes And there probably won't be much scientific evidence forthcoming on substances that treat cancer naturally since there is little profit potential in this area. You can't patent a natural substance. No patent, no check. No check, no boat cruise to Cancun. There are certainly disreputable individuals selling quack cures and books. There are also many people recommending natural treatments that don't stand to make a dime off their advice. Their only motivation is to help people. Compare someone dispensing free advice or even selling a $30 book to the money involved in the cancer industry. When you walk in their door you are worth probably $300,000 to them. Which group is more driven by profit and does all that money affect the way they view and treat cancer? If you'd like, I can put you in contact with my father, who is a scientist, and the director of research at a cancer research institute. Since the vast majority of his funding comes through government grants, and he does not directly study the use of drugs, only the genetic origins of cancer, perhaps you'll find his word more credible than the scientists you seem to think make up the majority of cancer research. I may indeed have some questions for your father- he sounds like an honorable man. But I will do so in a separate topic since I've already been complicit in taking this one astray of it's original goal, and I apologize to psilocyberin for my part in that. Since you mentioned your father, I should probably mention that my own father is suffering from cancer. He was diagnosed earlier this year. My only interest is seeing that man return to health. To that end I will research any book, challenge any health care practitioner, and move heaven and earth to ensure his recovery. The main thing to me is not what credentials someone has, but "Does it work?". I follow the maxim, "Let truth be your authority, not authority your truth." I hope that orthodox medicine will start putting more effort and money into researching non-toxic methods of cancer treatment for the good of all those suffering from cancer. They should follow the truth where it leads them rather than the money. -------------------- “The crisis takes a much longer time coming than you think, and then it happens much faster than you would have thought.” -- Rudiger Dornbusch
| |||||||
|
blarrr Registered: 06/04/04 Posts: 5,952 |
| ||||||
|
There is no irrefutable proof so far that chamical imbalances cause ADD/ADHD.
That does seem to be the case. ADD/ADHD may be associated with a chemical imbalance in the brain, but it doesn't automatically follow that the imbalance caused the condition. I would be interested in seeing any studies demonstrating a causative effect. Perhaps the condition could be a result of someone thinking a certain way over time and their brain responding by developing those parts of the brain that correspond with those thoughts/behaviors and attenuating those that do not. It has, for instance, been shown that if someone spends a lot of time focusing on music, the parts of the brain associated with music will develop. Maybe it is the same way with ADD/ADHD. Perhaps more money should be spent on looking into non-drug angles of this condition. The pharms would lose a lot of money, but if they really care about public health rather than profit they shouldn't have a problem with it, right? -------------------- “The crisis takes a much longer time coming than you think, and then it happens much faster than you would have thought.” -- Rudiger Dornbusch
| |||||||
|
ACHOOOOOOOOO!!!!!111! Registered: 01/15/05 Posts: 15,427 Last seen: 6 years, 8 months |
| ||||||
![]() a standing ovation!
| |||||||
| |||||||
| Shop: |
|
| Similar Threads | Poster | Views | Replies | Last post | ||
![]() |
Health statistic? HELP | 617 | 3 | 05/15/08 03:57 PM by johnm214 | ||
![]() |
Yup, chemotherapy sure doesn't work | 643 | 5 | 11/06/12 03:55 PM by LiquidSmoke | ||
![]() |
Ridiculously Scrawny/Weak | 2,131 | 16 | 02/05/04 03:56 PM by TODAY | ||
![]() |
. | 769 | 7 | 01/30/08 04:23 PM by Andy21 | ||
![]() |
Cure for Cancer & Other Diseases through Simple Food & Vitamins ( |
10,885 | 58 | 10/21/13 01:42 AM by Icelander | ||
![]() |
Big Pharma companies ARE in control! ( |
17,807 | 368 | 06/13/13 08:27 PM by akira_akuma | ||
![]() |
. | 1,001 | 17 | 08/06/09 09:45 PM by fazdazzle | ||
![]() |
Germany's Merck halts supply of cancer drug to Greek hospitals ( |
2,644 | 30 | 11/04/12 10:12 PM by LiquidSmoke |
| Extra information | ||
| You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled Moderator: CherryBom, Rose, mndfreeze, yogabunny, feevers, CookieCrumbs, Northerner 6,310 topic views. 0 members, 1 guests and 1 web crawlers are browsing this forum. [ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ] | ||


I am 21/F, 5'6" and only 105 lbs. I am always FREEZING!!! I honestly think part of it does have to do with body fat (or a lack of in our case). But I also have kind of low blood pressure & I smoke (quitting January 1st) so obviously my circulation isn't what it could be. Do you know where your blood pressure normally hangs around? Because if it's low, it can definitely be causing you to feel cold. Feeling cold doesn't have to mean there's anything medically wrong with you though. All the women in my family are the same way, but are healthy otherwise. Do you smoke? Also, are you on any meds? That could also be a factor. I take Adderall (amphetamine) for ADHD and since I started the drug I've been feeling colder than normal. Well, good luck trying to stay warm and remember you are NOT ALONE!!!
You must be joking.
)The success rate is extremely poor. And yet how many times have we heard the media trumpeting, "We are winning the War on cancer." "Breakthroughs are just around the corner."? (New and expensive "breakthrough" drugs of course. Just a tip- Whenever you want to market a new drug, be sure to include the word "breakthrough" in your press releases.)
These people are scary. I have found a couple of good ones in my day also. Not enough though. 

