Alternative Viewpoints

Well, I just went to the FDA medwatch site to look for information on these 18 Ritalin Deaths mentioned in one of the links you provided. I couldn’t find that information, I did however find labeling changes for methylphenidate and Concerta over the past few years, one which is a labeling change for Concerta that notes that in studies Concerta showed a significant improvement in ADHD over placebo (sorry, don’t remember all the details). As I responded before. I am not going to spend hours researching this for you. I’ve done my research, I have found the studies that have proved a decrease in ADHD symptoms with stimulant therapy. I am eagerly awaiting a head to head Concerta vs. Strattera study that my dd’s physician told me about that is going to be conducted. I’ve read the genetic studies, as well as those that have documented consistent and statistically significant smaller areas of the brain in ADHDers.
Also, Personally, I have enough information with my own daughter. There is a huge difference in her academic performance medicated vs. non-medicated. It may be irrelevant and anecdotal to you, but it’s all I need. She can tell the difference, and despite wanting desparately not to require taking medication, she reports many postive benefits of taking medication vs. not. She likes being an active participant in her life instead of watching it from the sidelines. If you understood ADHD, you’d understand what that is like. The information is all there, and not hard to find. The National Library of Medicine is a great place to start. As I have said however, you will only get abstracts for most studies, some don’t even provide that much information. To get all the information takes a bit more work. I have found that most complete studies are not accessible through the internet. A while back another poster gave you some valuable cites. Did you look any of them up? Or simply disregard them?

You know very well that the study you are requesting doesn’t exist. However there is plenty of research that proves the existance of ADHD. I may be in the “mommy of a dd” world, and you can look on that however you like. I don’t need a study to prove to me that what my child has is not about a sensory issue, or bad behavior, or bad parenting. I know that I haven’t made it all up b/c of Munchausen’s- too many people have noted the same issues, whether or not they knew about the dx. But that doesn’t mean that I have only looked to anecdotal evidence either. As I have stated, I am pretty well read on ADHD, from all points of view. While I am to the point where I am much more selective about who I’ll read, who I favor as experts and researchers, I started out seeking any and all information on ADHD. As most parents- I wanted desparately to NOT place my dd on medication, and looked for anything that would support that decision AND offer viable means of still treating her ADHD. I did not find that. You can poo-poo my anecdotal evidence all you want, but that doesn’t make my or anyone elses experience less real.
Tell you what, why don’t you provide me with the link that proves that the 100’s of studies on ADHD are studying nothing at all? Show me the proof that what is widely accepted as ADHD is not a disorder at all. I don’t expect that link either since it does not exist. There are enough consistencies and variances of normals to know that ADHD does indeed exist. You don’t have to accept that, that is your choice. But it makes me wonder, what is your purpose here then? Why do you discuss something that is non-existent in your mind?

Roxie:

One of the other frequent LDOnline posters referred us to a fascinating site,
sciencedaily.com

This site has a huge number of abstracts of a variety of research studies and would provide you with all the scientific backup you need. If you really, really wanted to find out all the nitty-gritty on a particular study, you could also buy a reprint using this info.
Some of the recent studies are using brain imaging to investigate both dyslexia and ADHD and yes, there is hard proof that these conditions do exist and can be observed and measured.

Now, now of this will help with Brian. He is a classic passive-aggressive. Passive-aggressives just love the net because they can play out their nastibess with no risk of real-world correction. If you agree with him he will be sweet as sugar, and if you dare to disagree he will attack you. And he will turn every argument around so that you look always in the wrong, and he will try to manipulate you with guilt and shame. Since this is his sad little way of functioning and getting his jollies by making himself look important by putting other people down, there is little you can do except to refuse to play his games. After he has not gotten a rise out of anyone for a while he will go away and look for other people to pester.

http://www.kennedykrieger.org/kki_touch_article.jsp?pid=2335&bl=1

That article is pure deception becuaes it is the psych stims that cause that area of the brain to atrophy.

Let’s say for sake of argument that in 5% of children that part of the brain is less active without is first being damaged by psycho stims, isn’t it prett stoooopid to use a drug to cause compliancy when the real and humane solution is to with behavior techniques develop that area of the brain.

Also an MRI is much to crude to tell much of anything as to how that part of the brain functions.

This kind of “data” is misleading at best and is probably funded by big Pharma.

Victoria being that you have diagnosed Brian1 with passive agressive disorder her is your dx: Victoria has diarhea of the mouth and constipation of the brain brought on by years of denial.

A “Guest” asked me to visit the Kennedy Krieger Institute link given in order that I might “learn something”. Always eager to learn something I did. This is what I found:

“It is estimated that five out of every 100 children have ADHD. While the prevalence of the condition is
high, its causes are still unknown.”

“Using a variety of research techniques, including neurobehavioral testing and innovations in magnetic
resonance imaging, Dr. Mostofsky has uncovered a major clue in the puzzle: The frontal lobes of the
brains of children with ADHD tend to be smaller than that of others. “While this is not an absolute
across all studies, most studies, including some from our laboratory, seem to suggest that there is a
decrease in frontal brain volumes in children with ADHD,” he says.”

The key words as to PROOF, or LACK OF PROOF, in the above are:

“A major clue…” A clue is only as good as what it uncovers. If during a burglary investigation, I find a fingerprint and say that it is a clue, then it turns out to be the fingerprint of the homeowner, was it ever a clue? Also, who has proven that this “clue” is major. That’s a subjective term supplied by either Dr. Mostofsky or the person who wrote the article. It doesn’t mean anything.

“Tend to be…” What does this mean? Are the frontal lobes of those diagnosed (itself a dubious subjective process) with “ADHD” smaller than a given “norm” for age/bodyweight/height/environmentalgrowing condition grouped children or are they not? “Tend to be” is scientific gobbldeygook for “I’m not allowed to say “They are”.

“While this is not an absolute across all studies…” So what is it’s worth scientifically speaking?

cont…

“most studies..” If your line of investigation found that “most studies” corroborated your theory wouldn’t you say what “most studies” amounted to. In research, 2 out of a total of 3 studies represents most studies as does 51 out of 100 studies or 10,001 studies out of a total of 20,000 studies. Unfortunately, in the latter case, 9,999 would have found to the contrary. What about those studies?

“including some from our laboratory…” Just “some” from your laboratory? How many is “some”. Why so coy when your work is so successful? After all, you DID find a major clue!

“seem to suggest…” Oh, here we go. The truth at last. This phrase means nothing. I seem to suggest here and often that “ADHD” doesn’t exist as a brain disorder. According to this researcher that makes me right.

So, basically a load of old rubbish designed to make Guest think there is something scientific going on. But there was an call to your emotions earlier in the article. It took the form of a wee story about a girl who wouldn’t sit still and wouldn’t attend to her lessons:

“The signs were adding up. Mrs.
Blitz always thought her daughter had
attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, but it
was Erin’s teacher who confirmed her
belief. “The teacher clued me in that Erin’s
behavior was different, but that was the way
she learned,” she says.”

More clues. This time from a schoolteacher.

The article goes on further with the good doctor’s “studies”:

“The theory that he is now studying
is that individuals with ADHD have differences in frontal circuits that result in difficulty focusing,
controlling their impulses and performing other executive functions, such as planning, reasoning,
judgment, memory and concentration. With a greater understanding of the neurological basis of
ADHD, scientists will be better able to define and subtype the condition and, therefore, improve
diagnosis and treatment interventions.”

That’s “THEORY”. I also have a theory. Bozo has a theory. We all may have as many theories as we want.

“With a greater understanding of the neurological basis of
ADHD…” It has been my contention on this forum that that “understanding” is ZERO, so, yes, you were saying, “with greater understanding…”?

cont….

Later an new expert enters scene left:

“According to Martha Bridge Denckla, M.D., a world-renowned expert on ADHD…”

The audience will of course titter at this point, remebering well the injunction given at the start of the article…”It is estimated that five out of every 100 children have ADHD. While the prevalence of the condition is high, its causes are still unknown.”

So, a world-renowned expert on something that nobody knows the cause of.

“Individuals with ADHD have a brain-based cognitive
circuit that is weak. This and other nearby motor and social control circuits in the brain do not function
up to age or grade expectations,” she explains.”

Pssst! Doc! They already know that nobody knows what causes it. We told them already. But enough of that, let’s move on to the very important brain scan information that Guest assures me I’ll learn something from:

“In the functional MRI (fMRI) portion of the study, which began in 2000, Dr. Mostofsky and his
colleagues have examined brain scans of 30 children, ranging in age from 8 through 12 years. Ten
children with ADHD and 20 children without the condition completed two days of testing… Differences in brain size, particularly in the frontal region, were detected with the MRI…The study’s findings provide evidence that the neurocircuitry in the brains of children with ADHD are different from that of others. “In addition, when children with ADHD perform the response inhibition task during fMRI, there appears to be differences in activation within particular frontal regions, including the supplementary motor area,” Dr. Mostofsky explains. ”

So a study involving so low a number of samples as to be staistically insignificant. An article that states, “differences in brain size were detected” without qualifying that statement as to between which individuals these differences were found. I suppose we all have differenbces in brain size. No explanation as to why, “The study’s findings provide evidence that the neurocircuitry in the brains of children with ADHD are different from that of others” and the old, unsure “appears to be” croping up again in the middle.

Lastly Mrs Blitz again pulls our heartstrings with:

““The study was very informative and beneficial. I found that we were right on target with our current
plan of treatment,” Mrs. Blitz says. “It’s a good way to learn something about your child, as well as to
give back to the community. I know we can make a difference for other people in doing a study like
this. And, it gave me peace of mind.”

I wonder what she found out and how she KNOWS all the rest?

Guest,

What we LEARNED here today is that one must not only read the articles but read them critically.

E minus. See me!

I have read that Ritalin is the cause of smaller and less active pre frontal lobes. Being that 6 out of 100 are being given psych stims then how can the researchers find “ADHD” brains that have not been exposed to long term stimulant use?

According to the article 5 in 100 have ADHD but here in the USA 6 in 100 are being medicated and in some area of the USA it is as many as 20 in 100.

1% is a big number. Given their own data they are making a huge mistake in diagnosis and treatment. They contend that if a child is not given ritalin that child is in for a disasterous outcome. What do they say about the 1% who are not in “need” of ritalin? Could the miracle drug be harmful to them?

A bit of topic, but if you type Ritalin into Google, off to the right side of the screen there are many places that will sell anyone Ritalin. I wonder why Novatris the maker of ritalin allows their flagship product to be obtained so easily by anyone with a computer and a credit card.

I understand your point but it’s an old given now that NONE of these pro-drug/ pro “ADHD” existence studies will ever state the number of participants who are diagnosed as having “ADHD” AND are being medicated and the number who suffer from that diagnosis but aren’t being medicated.

It should be obvious that a study conducted on a random (or undisclosed) number of both drugged and non-drugged children who have been lumped under the category “ADHD-diagnosed”, with a group of non-diagnosed individuals as a control MUST produce skewed results. It’s like doing research on the brain waves of black rats versus those of white rats and failing to disclose that some of the black rats had been consuming cocaine for years. OF course, the black rats would come up short as a group!

To be fair and scientific, all members of a given group in a study on humans, have to be as similar or as diverse as the subjects in the control group, i.e. you can’t compare old white guys to young black women and come up with a physiological fact about the human race as a whole.

Even parents of children who are being drugged for “ADHD” must see the sense in this.

[quote=”Brian1”]I understand your point but it’s an old given now that NONE of these pro-drug/ pro “ADHD” existence studies will ever state the number of participants who are diagnosed as having “ADHD” AND are being medicated and the number who suffer from that diagnosis but aren’t being medicated.”

I’m sorry, but this most certainly has occured. One study that comes to my mind is one done by the Mayo clinic a few years back. They identified all groups that you have noted, and the results of that particluar study indicated that ADHD is undermedicated.

“It should be obvious that a study conducted on a random (or undisclosed) number of both drugged and non-drugged children who have been lumped under the category “ADHD-diagnosed”, with a group of non-diagnosed individuals as a control MUST produce skewed results. It’s like doing research on the brain waves of black rats versus those of white rats and failing to disclose that some of the black rats had been consuming cocaine for years. OF course, the black rats would come up short as a group!”

What study are you talking about? I have not ever read a study that hasn’t sorted and identified all groups. If the study is looking at medicated and non-medicated individuals, they will most certainly identify those two groups. I won’t go on about other rather strange notions you have made about research. It’s apparent that you are not familiar with how research in conducted.

I would bet Brian is very well versed on how research is conducted.

Take a look at the PDR or the insert that comes with your kid’s Ritalin and read about how that was tested.

It will or should shock you.

What about the effects that Strattera and Adderall have on kids?

[quote=”Anonymous”]I would bet Brian is very well versed on how research is conducted.

Take a look at the PDR or the insert that comes with your kid’s Ritalin and read about how that was tested.

It will or should shock you.[/quote]

Well, I’m not very sure of that at all based on some of the remarks Brian has made.

What makes you think that I am not familiar with the PDR? Honestly, it doesn’t shock me. I understand what the PDR limits and inteded use is. I never stop at one source for my information. That’s a basic standard in high school research classes, I think it certainly applies to obtaining information about my child’s disorder. By the way my child does not take Ritalin. Making assumptions leads to a lot of false “knowledge”.

Actually, Brian and all your alter egos (how many computer do you have access to anyway?), you’ve got it exactly backwards. A 10 year study by NIMH showed that stimulants do not cause frontal lobe shrinkage. In fact, there was some data collected that suggests stimulant treatment may actually increase frontal lobe size in a beneficial way. The researchers did not draw any conclusions on that latter point because the study was not designed to determine whether stimulants had curative properties.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2002/10/021009080635.htm
http://www.sciencenews.org/20021012/fob1.asp
http://www-bmu.psychiatry.cam.ac.uk/PUBLICATION_STORE/overmeyer01dis.pdf
http://www.nimh.nih.gov/events/pradhdmri.cfm?LS=14

Here are Martha Denckla’s:

http://www.kennedykrieger.org/kki_staff.jsp?pid=1040

[quote=”A Concerned Mom”][quote=”Anonymous”]I would bet Brian is very well versed on how research is conducted.

Take a look at the PDR or the insert that comes with your kid’s Ritalin and read about how that was tested.

It will or should shock you.[/quote]

Well, I’m not very sure of that at all based on some of the remarks Brian has made.

What makes you think that I am not familiar with the PDR? Honestly, it doesn’t shock me. I understand what the PDR limits and inteded use is. I never stop at one source for my information. That’s a basic standard in high school research classes, I think it certainly applies to obtaining information about my child’s disorder. By the way my child does not take Ritalin. Making assumptions leads to a lot of false “knowledge”.[/quote]

I refer to the statement that the safety and efficacy has not been determined for children. I also refer to sample size of the study. I wonder how much that tiny study cost the Ritalin sellers to justify the price they now charge?

I refer to the statement that the safety and efficacy has not been determined for children. I also refer to sample size of the study. I wonder how much that tiny study cost the Ritalin sellers to justify the price they now charge?[/quote]

As I said, I am not shocked by the PDR, what did you expect to see that you are? Have you limited your research on insert information put out by the pharm company? That would be very short sighted. Guest gave you several cites on further research, just click on them and a whole new world will be opened to you.
As far as for price, that’s an entirely different issue.

[quote=”A Concerned Mom”]I refer to the statement that the safety and efficacy has not been determined for children. I also refer to sample size of the study. I wonder how much that tiny study cost the Ritalin sellers to justify the price they now charge?[/quote]

As I said, I am not shocked by the PDR, what did you expect to see that you are? Have you limited your research on insert information put out by the pharm company? That would be very short sighted. Guest gave you several cites on further research, just click on them and a whole new world will be opened to you.
As far as for price, that’s an entirely different issue.[/quote]

If you can’t rely on the product labling that was written by the manufacturer and if doctors can’t rely on the info in the PDR we are in serious trouble.

The price of Ritalin is determined by greed.

“That’s a basic standard in high school research classes”

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA…high school research classes? Been published yet in a peer-reviewed journal?

Sorry. Some things are just too funny, even on a Monday morning.

High school research indeed.

John

[quote=”Anonymous”]Actually, Brian and all your alter egos (how many computer do you have access to anyway?), you’ve got it exactly backwards. A 10 year study by NIMH showed that stimulants do not cause frontal lobe shrinkage. In fact, there was some data collected that suggests stimulant treatment may actually increase frontal lobe size in a beneficial way. The researchers did not draw any conclusions on that latter point because the study was not designed to determine whether stimulants had curative properties.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2002/10/021009080635.htm
http://www.sciencenews.org/20021012/fob1.asp
http://www-bmu.psychiatry.cam.ac.uk/PUBLICATION_STORE/overmeyer01dis.pdf
http://www.nimh.nih.gov/events/pradhdmri.cfm?LS=14[/quote]

I see your biased research and trump it with this.

http://www.edelsoncenter.com/Diseases_Treatment/ritalin_problems_children.htm

An opinion piece by with Peter Bregging as the source will never trump a good piece of research. Talk about bias. And I won’t be defending my position this time. Plenty has already been said about his credentials.

[quote=”Roxie”]An opinion piece by with Peter Bregging as the source will never trump a good piece of research. Talk about bias. And I won’t be defending my position this time. Plenty has already been said about his credentials.[/quote]

Stop lying. Breggin did not write it. Even though Breggin is 10000% correct.

[quote=”Anonymous”][quote=”Roxie”]An opinion piece by with Peter Bregging as the source will never trump a good piece of research. Talk about bias. And I won’t be defending my position this time. Plenty has already been said about his credentials.[/quote]

Stop lying. Breggin did not write it. Even though Breggin is 10000% correct.[/quote]

I didn’t lie. Peter Breggin was listed as a source. That it what I said. You may believe him if you wish, that is your choice.

Some outfit’s web page listing the author’s opinion and citing as a resource only Peter Breggin does not in any way constitute research. If you want to talk bias, the reference provided by “D Wellington” (good alias, by the way. Will we be hearing from “B. Franklin soon?) is a prime example. The source of this so-called research is a company that sells vitamins and supplements it claims will effectively treat ADHD . See http://65.108.253.183/Merchant2/merchant.mv

As for credentials, I don’t remember being asked for my credentials when signing up here. Also, since I’m not the person making the claim to be a world-renowned expert on something that hasn’t been proven to exist as a physiological condition, I see no need to present them at this point either.

The good doctor may HAVE credentials, it’s what she is doing with those credentials that is important. But not to worry, I’m quite sure that when the TRUTH finally comes out she will be able to blame the intelligence that she was given by her aides

[quote=”Brian1”]
Come on CM, stick with us here. I’m talking about the “study” cited in the article referred to in this thread. The good doctor told us that he compared 10 children who “had” ADHD to 20 children who didn’t. There was no mention of whether any or all of the “hads” had been on medication for years prior to testing.

I would appear obvious, at least to me, that the non-incorporation of that data into your research would produce skewed results.

My black/white rat analogy obviously didn’t get through but the gist is that psychotropic drugs alter brain function (and, for all I know, size.) Forming a test group using a diagnosis of un unproven medical condition as a criterion is unscientific, especially where vital factors like prior drugging with schedule II controlled substances is taken as irrelevant.[/quote]

Honestly, Brian. You need to engage your brain before posting. Anyone who looks at the links about the MRI study can see that you are misrepresenting facts. Here’s a quote, with a link to the full articel at NIMH:

http://www.nimh.nih.gov/events/pradhdmri.cfm?LS=14[/quote]

“There is no evidence that medication harms the brain,” said Castellanos, who conducted the study at NIMH before joining New York
University. “It’s possible that medication may promote brain maturation.”

Launched in l991, the study used MRI to scan 89 male and 63 female patients ages 5-18, with ADHD, and 139 age- and
gender-matched controls, children and adolescents without ADHD. Most patients were scanned at least twice, and some up to four
times over the decade.

As a group, ADHD patients showed 3-4 percent smaller brain volumes, in all regions. The more severe a patient’s ADHD symptoms -
as rated by parents and clinicians - the smaller were their frontal lobes, temporal gray matter, caudate nucleus and cerebellum.

While medicated patients’ white matter volume did not differ from that of controls, white matter volume was abnormally small in 49
never medicated patients scanned. These results held up even after the researchers controlled for the fact that the unmedicated
children tended to be younger. “