psych meds for kids: my concerns

[Ted Shoemaker]

Hello,

I need your advice and wisdom.

This post isn't intended to give the
impression that meds are
ALWAYS GOOD or ALWAYS BAD.
Let's start with the guess that meds are
somewhere in between: both good and bad, and
deserving of a critical examination.

Consider a child who is diagnosed with a
cluster of neurological and/or psychiatric
disorders, and the doctors wanted to give
him/her some meds. I don't know when it's a
good idea to treat with meds, and when to
refuse.

If the child were diagnosed with, say, a knee
problem or stomach problem, I wouldn't have
any delay in giving him the medicine. But
with meds for cognitive and emotional problems,
we're talking about tweaking the brain
chemistry.

For one thing, no one has made long-term studies
of many of these meds. We don't know what's
going to happen 30 years from now with someone
who takes certain meds.

The question is stickier when the patient is a
kid. I can decide for myself, and live with
the consequences. But I must also decide for
my kids -- and *they* live with the consequences.

Also, a child's brain is developing in a way
that an adult's brain isn't. Obviously, it
might be more susceptible to mis-tweaking.

Further: Some psych meds are known to have
sexual side effects. What does this mean for
someone who is in puberty while taking such
meds? Are we unwittingly causing some ugly
problems for the future?

I'm *NOT* arguing against the use of meds. I'm
saying that I want to be very cautious.

The best answer to this question I have found
so far is: You have to judge. Is the person
better off with the hazards of the meds, or
with the hazards of the disorders?
But that still leaves a lot of unknowns.

If any of you has some wisdom, I would gladly
read it.

Thank you very much,

Ted Shoemaker

[Roger Schlafly]

"Ted Shoemaker" > wrote
> Consider a child who is diagnosed with a
> cluster of neurological and/or psychiatric
> disorders, and the doctors wanted to give
> him/her some meds. I don't know when it's a
> good idea to treat with meds, and when to
> refuse.

I suggest first looking at the basis of the diagnosis, and try to
determine the accuracy of it for yourself. Usually those diagnoses
are completely subjective judgment calls based on reading a 2-page
list of guidelines and collecting some limited 2nd-hand info. You can
read those guidelines yourself, and you know your kid better than
anyone.

Second, look at the actual evidence that the meds are safe and
effective. Some of the drugs have never been tested on kids, and
most only appear to be only marginally effective in adults.

Third, you have to assess what isn't known. There you are on your
own, as someone else's guess may be no better than your own.

[[email protected]]

"Roger Schlafly" > alt.support.attn-deficit :

>"Ted Shoemaker" > wrote
>> Consider a child who is diagnosed with a
>> cluster of neurological and/or psychiatric
>> disorders, and the doctors wanted to give
>> him/her some meds. I don't know when it's a
>> good idea to treat with meds, and when to
>> refuse.
>
>I suggest first looking at the basis of the diagnosis, and try to
>determine the accuracy of it for yourself. Usually those diagnoses
>are completely subjective judgment calls based on reading a 2-page
>list of guidelines and collecting some limited 2nd-hand info. You can
>read those guidelines yourself, and you know your kid better than
>anyone.
>
>Second, look at the actual evidence that the meds are safe and
>effective. Some of the drugs have never been tested on kids, and
>most only appear to be only marginally effective in adults.
>
>Third, you have to assess what isn't known. There you are on your
>own, as someone else's guess may be no better than your own.
>


My dx at the age of 14 was so far off.. my problem was PLMD but I was dx with bipolar and given meds
that make plmd worse.

[Nessa]

On Thu, 18 Sep 2003 17:27:08 -0400, Ted Shoemaker wrote
(in message >):

>
> For one thing, no one has made long-term studies
> of many of these meds. We don't know what's
> going to happen 30 years from now with someone
> who takes certain meds.

hells bells i took ritalin and dexedrine back in 1969 what do you want to
know?



--
Nessa
http://www.nessa.info

No trumpets sound when the important decisions of our life are made. Destiny
is made known silently. -- Agnes DeMille

[Mark D Morin]

On 18 Sep 2003 14:27:08 -0700, (Ted Shoemaker)
wrote:

>Hello,
>
>I need your advice and wisdom.
>
>This post isn't intended to give the
>impression that meds are
>ALWAYS GOOD or ALWAYS BAD.
>Let's start with the guess that meds are
>somewhere in between: both good and bad, and
>deserving of a critical examination.
>
>Consider a child who is diagnosed with a
>cluster of neurological and/or psychiatric
>disorders,

That narrows it down a bit but not much.

>and the doctors wanted to give
>him/her some meds. I don't know when it's a
>good idea to treat with meds, and when to
>refuse.
>
>If the child were diagnosed with, say, a knee
>problem or stomach problem, I wouldn't have
>any delay in giving him the medicine. But
>with meds for cognitive and emotional problems,
>we're talking about tweaking the brain
>chemistry.

You also included neuro problems. What type of neuro work up has been
done?

>
>For one thing, no one has made long-term studies
>of many of these meds. We don't know what's
>going to happen 30 years from now with someone
>who takes certain meds.

As a blanket statement, that's not true. Some meds have been
researched better than others.

>
>The question is stickier when the patient is a
>kid. I can decide for myself, and live with
>the consequences. But I must also decide for
>my kids -- and *they* live with the consequences.

One thing to factor in is the consequences of not taking the medicine.
I think that this is often a factor neglected in the process.

>
>Also, a child's brain is developing in a way
>that an adult's brain isn't. Obviously, it
>might be more susceptible to mis-tweaking.
>
>Further: Some psych meds are known to have
>sexual side effects. What does this mean for
>someone who is in puberty while taking such
>meds? Are we unwittingly causing some ugly
>problems for the future?

I've treated more than a few adolescents who have had sexual side
effects. For some reason, they don't like discussing it with their
physician. Switching meds usually eliminates those side effects.

>
>I'm *NOT* arguing against the use of meds. I'm
>saying that I want to be very cautious.
>
>The best answer to this question I have found
>so far is: You have to judge. Is the person
>better off with the hazards of the meds, or
>with the hazards of the disorders?
>But that still leaves a lot of unknowns.

aint that the truth?

>
>If any of you has some wisdom, I would gladly
>read it.
>
>Thank you very much,
>
>Ted Shoemaker

[Mark Probert]

Roger Schlafly uttered his usual blather:

> "Ted Shoemaker" > wrote
> > Consider a child who is diagnosed with a
> > cluster of neurological and/or psychiatric
> > disorders, and the doctors wanted to give
> > him/her some meds. I don't know when it's a
> > good idea to treat with meds, and when to
> > refuse.
>
> I suggest first looking at the basis of the diagnosis, and try to
> determine the accuracy of it for yourself. Usually those diagnoses
> are completely subjective judgment calls based on reading a 2-page
> list of guidelines and collecting some limited 2nd-hand info. You can
> read those guidelines yourself, and you know your kid better than
> anyone.

Of course, you are, as usual, idly speculating. At least try to get your
specualation into first gear.

Proper diagnosis is made by examining behavior in two or more settings. A
clinician would review the parents and school reports and watch the child in
their office to ascertain whether those reports jive with their own
observations.

> Second, look at the actual evidence that the meds are safe and
> effective. Some of the drugs have never been tested on kids, and
> most only appear to be only marginally effective in adults.

Again, more idle speculation and half-truths. Can you cite real evidence of
long term harmful effects of methylphenidate treatment? The recent articles
cearly show the long term harmful effects of non-treatment.

> Third, you have to assess what isn't known.

Nah, he can read your posts and find out what is not known.

There you are on your
> own, as someone else's guess may be no better than your own.

Wrong.

[Mark Probert]

"Ted Shoemaker" > wrote in message
om...
> Hello,
>
> I need your advice and wisdom.
>
> This post isn't intended to give the
> impression that meds are
> ALWAYS GOOD or ALWAYS BAD.
> Let's start with the guess that meds are
> somewhere in between: both good and bad, and
> deserving of a critical examination.

I disagree with your premise entirely. Medications are neither good or bad,
but useful or non-useful.

> Consider a child who is diagnosed with a
> cluster of neurological and/or psychiatric
> disorders, and the doctors wanted to give
> him/her some meds. I don't know when it's a
> good idea to treat with meds, and when to
> refuse.

If you went to a professional for diagnosis, why do you question their
recommendations. Forget about going in the first place.

> If the child were diagnosed with, say, a knee
> problem or stomach problem, I wouldn't have
> any delay in giving him the medicine. But
> with meds for cognitive and emotional problems,
> we're talking about tweaking the brain
> chemistry.

With ALL meds you are tweaking body chemistry.

> For one thing, no one has made long-term studies
> of many of these meds. We don't know what's
> going to happen 30 years from now with someone
> who takes certain meds.

My son is half-way there. Let's see...he is in a prestigious school of art
and desgn on full scholarship and doing well, works part time as a junior
project manager for a well known publisher (after starting as a gopher just
three years ago) earns a respectable salary even though he is part-time,
gets several very responsible assignments a month, pays his own way when he
travels, etc., ...hmmm...in another 15 years he may want to retire...and be
able to do so....

> The question is stickier when the patient is a
> kid. I can decide for myself, and live with
> the consequences. But I must also decide for
> my kids -- and *they* live with the consequences.

Yes, they live with the consequences. That is why proper treatment is so
important. Recent studues show that proper treatment for ADHD, for example,
reduces the threat of drug abuse by a 6:1 factor. Not bad in my book.

> Also, a child's brain is developing in a way
> that an adult's brain isn't. Obviously, it
> might be more susceptible to mis-tweaking.

Not necessarily. Ask and expert for the correct answer.

> Further: Some psych meds are known to have
> sexual side effects. What does this mean for
> someone who is in puberty while taking such
> meds? Are we unwittingly causing some ugly
> problems for the future?

Or prevent such problems for the future.

> I'm *NOT* arguing against the use of meds. I'm
> saying that I want to be very cautious.

Caution is good. Over-caution my not be.

> The best answer to this question I have found
> so far is: You have to judge. Is the person
> better off with the hazards of the meds, or
> with the hazards of the disorders?
> But that still leaves a lot of unknowns.

First, determine if the "hazards of the meds" are real hazards. Many are
urban legends.

> If any of you has some wisdom, I would gladly
> read it.

You ask for wisdom, and Roger answered. Chuckle.

[PF Riley]

On Thu, 18 Sep 2003 22:12:54 GMT, "Roger Schlafly"
> wrote:

>"Ted Shoemaker" > wrote
>> Consider a child who is diagnosed with a
>> cluster of neurological and/or psychiatric
>> disorders, and the doctors wanted to give
>> him/her some meds. I don't know when it's a
>> good idea to treat with meds, and when to
>> refuse.
>
>I suggest first looking at the basis of the diagnosis, and try to
>determine the accuracy of it for yourself. Usually those diagnoses
>are completely subjective judgment calls based on reading a 2-page
>list of guidelines and collecting some limited 2nd-hand info. You can
>read those guidelines yourself, and you know your kid better than
>anyone.

Roger is a complete moron who claims to be a mathematician yet
demonstrates a laughably poor grasp of simple concepts of basic logic.
He has no experience whatsoever in the diagnosis and treatment of
neuropsychiatric disorders in children. He is simply a parrot for his
mother, a loudmouth know-it-all, yet at least his mother can give you
an arrogant grin and reply to challenges to her bizarre ideas with a
vacuous explanation that sounds, on the surface, reasonable, whereas
Roger simply "answers" such challenges on the Usenet by either subtly
changing what he said, saying things by inference only so he can deny
he meant what you conclude he meant, or by disappearing from the
thread entirely.

>Second, look at the actual evidence that the meds are safe and
>effective. Some of the drugs have never been tested on kids, and
>most only appear to be only marginally effective in adults.

Most? Give some examples of drugs that are only marginally effective
in adults, with citations. It should be easy, if, as you say, most
psychoactive drugs fall into this category.

PF

[jake]

On Sat, 20 Sep 2003 05:03:42 GMT, (PF Riley)
wrote:

complete moron


laughably

simply a parrot

a loudmouth

know-it-all,

arrogant grin

bizarre ideas


vacuous explanation


hmmm

[Roger Schlafly]

"PF Riley" > wrote
> [usual ad hominem attack snipped]
> >Second, look at the actual evidence that the meds are safe and
> >effective. Some of the drugs have never been tested on kids, and
> >most only appear to be only marginally effective in adults.
> Most? Give some examples of drugs that are only marginally effective
> in adults, with citations. ...

Prozac, Paxil, Zoloft. Even under studies that were cooked to favor
the drugs, they only performed marginally better than placebos.
Eg, see this study from last year.
http://www.journals.apa.org/prevention/volume5/pre0050023a.html

[PF Riley]

On Sat, 20 Sep 2003 08:22:51 GMT, "Roger Schlafly"
> wrote:

>"PF Riley" > wrote
>> [usual ad hominem attack snipped]
>> >Second, look at the actual evidence that the meds are safe and
>> >effective. Some of the drugs have never been tested on kids, and
>> >most only appear to be only marginally effective in adults.
>> Most? Give some examples of drugs that are only marginally effective
>> in adults, with citations. ...
>
>Prozac, Paxil, Zoloft. Even under studies that were cooked to favor
>the drugs, they only performed marginally better than placebos.
>Eg, see this study from last year.
>http://www.journals.apa.org/prevention/volume5/pre0050023a.html

OK, I read it. This is from the discussion:

>If antidepressant drug effects and antidepressant placebo effects are
>not additive, the ameliorating effects of antidepressants might be
>obtained even if patients did not know the drug was being
>administered. If that is the case, then antidepressant drugs have
>substantial pharmacologic effects that are duplicated or masked by
>placebo. In this case, conventional clinical trials are inappropriate
>for testing the effects of these drugs, as they may result in the
>rejection of effective medications. Conversely, if drug and placebo
>effects of antidepressant medication are additive, then the data
>clearly show that those effects are small, at best, and of
>questionable clinical efficacy. Finally, it is conceivable that the
>effects are partially additive, with the true drug effect being
>somewhere in between these extremes. The problem is that we do not
>know which of these models is most accurate because the assumption of
>additivity has never been tested with antidepressant mediation.

In other words, all he has proved is that the studies aren't very well
designed. From this you conclude that "most" psychoactive drugs in
adults are only "marginally" effective? Have you ever given a Haldol
shot to a raving psychotic?

PF

[jake]

On Sat, 20 Sep 2003 09:15:05 GMT, (PF Riley)
wrote:

>On Sat, 20 Sep 2003 08:22:51 GMT, "Roger Schlafly"
> wrote:
>
>>"PF Riley" > wrote
>>> [usual ad hominem attack snipped]
>>> >Second, look at the actual evidence that the meds are safe and
>>> >effective. Some of the drugs have never been tested on kids, and
>>> >most only appear to be only marginally effective in adults.
>>> Most? Give some examples of drugs that are only marginally effective
>>> in adults, with citations. ...
>>
>>Prozac, Paxil, Zoloft. Even under studies that were cooked to favor
>>the drugs, they only performed marginally better than placebos.
>>Eg, see this study from last year.
>>http://www.journals.apa.org/prevention/volume5/pre0050023a.html
>
>OK, I read it. This is from the discussion:
>
>>If antidepressant drug effects and antidepressant placebo effects are
>>not additive, the ameliorating effects of antidepressants might be
>>obtained even if patients did not know the drug was being
>>administered. If that is the case, then antidepressant drugs have
>>substantial pharmacologic effects that are duplicated or masked by
>>placebo. In this case, conventional clinical trials are inappropriate
>>for testing the effects of these drugs, as they may result in the
>>rejection of effective medications. Conversely, if drug and placebo
>>effects of antidepressant medication are additive, then the data
>>clearly show that those effects are small, at best, and of
>>questionable clinical efficacy. Finally, it is conceivable that the
>>effects are partially additive, with the true drug effect being
>>somewhere in between these extremes. The problem is that we do not
>>know which of these models is most accurate because the assumption of
>>additivity has never been tested with antidepressant mediation.
>
>In other words, all he has proved is that the studies aren't very well
>designed. From this you conclude that "most" psychoactive drugs in
>adults are only "marginally" effective? Have you ever given a Haldol
>shot to a raving psychotic?

how pathetic ..is that the best you can do?
conflate SSRIs with neuroleptics?

I wish I was a dab hand at grafix, however I'll try to
paint a picture with words.

The old antipsychotics worked by blocking dopamine
receptors, the new ones do the same but also do some
stuff to the seretonin sites too.

First off lets talk about a neurone simplified it consists
of a big roundish blob called the cell body and a long stalk
called an axon. On the cell bodies surface are tree like
structures called dendrites these are in addition to the axon.

Now, lets talk about 2 of these neurons (nerve cells)
the axon from one nerve cell ALMOST connects
to the dendrites of the next nerve cell. I say almost
because theres a tiny gap called a synapse.

The synapse is where the chemical messengers
such as dopomine pass a signal from the end of
the axon to the tip(s) of a dendrite.

Now different synapses around the brain have
different chemical messengers, this is because
the brain is awash with all sorts of hormones and
"neurotransmitters"(chemical messangers) and
the dendrite needs to know that the message it gets
comes from the right place.

When the second cell gets enough dopamine
it "fires" sends an electical impulse down the
axon which makes it release neurotransmitters
down to the next cell on the network.

Now lets take a look at the dendrites.

If you taks APs (anti Psychotics) they are chemicals that fit into
the receptors on the dendrites and stop it
receiving. This effectively shuts down all
downstream communications on the network.

However the brain is a clever old thing
and says hang on a sec ~I havent heard
from charlie lately, so a tiny reverse
synaptic transfer occurs from cell 3
in this sequence that tells cell 2
hey mat cant you grow some more dendrites
you seem to be getting a bit deaf.

Cell 2 says oh yeah, I've been oversleeping
a bit wheres my mate cell 1 he usaully has a chat
hasent been in touch for ages.

So cell 2 grows more dendrites to make
up for the fact that most of them are clogged
up with AP ****.

So you need more and more APs
to clog up more and more receptors.

THats why you shouldn't give APs to
normaloes cause it'll send them mad,
by cuasing them to become hypersensitive
to dopamine.

It's also why theres no cure cause
the treatment makes you worse in
the long run.

But we're schizos, so it dosent matter ****,
if we get madder 'cause they can just up
thier AP crap as often as they like until
they shoot your liver, or your brain
gives out completely and you get
tardith dementia.

By which time your mum and dad are
dead and they can get one more
****head in a body bag and
stop them sucking off the state.

On their way home they laugh
away in thier mercedes
"Fooled them suckers,
silly buggers don't realise
I'm cuasing all the symptoms.
My, this is the gavy train,
I think I'll put this weeks xs
in elly lilly."

--
WARNING!
When trying to withdraw from many psychiatric drugs, patients can
develop serious and even
life-threatening emotional and physical reactions. In short, it is
dangerous not only to
start taking psychiatric drugs but also can be hazardous to stop
taking them. Therefore,
withdrawal from psychiatric drugs should be done under clinical
supervision. Principles of
drug withdrawal are discussed in Your Drug May Be Your Problem: How
and Why to Stop Taking
Psychiatric Medications.
information on Prozac and Prozac-like drugs can be found in Talking
Back to Prozac by
Peter R. Breggin, M.D. and Ginger Ross Breggin.

DSM IV is the fabrication upon which
psychiatry seeks acceptance by medicine
in general. Insiders know it is more
a political than scientific document.
To its credit it says so

--Loren R. Mosher, M.D.


>
>PF

[Kevin D. Quitt]

Ritalin has been in use for fifty years. In all that time, the only apparent
side effect was growth-related. It turns out that's a symptom related to AD/HD,
not to Ritalin.


--
_
Kevin D. Quitt 91387-4454
96.37% of all statistics are made up

[Fern5827]

It has just recently come to light that both Paxil and Effexor may have serious
and adverse side effects when given to youngsters under the age of 18.

[Theta]

(Ted Shoemaker) wrote in message >...
> Hello,
>
> I need your advice and wisdom.
>
> This post isn't intended to give the
> impression that meds are
> ALWAYS GOOD or ALWAYS BAD.
> Let's start with the guess that meds are
> somewhere in between: both good and bad, and
> deserving of a critical examination.
>
> Consider a child who is diagnosed with a
> cluster of neurological and/or psychiatric
> disorders, and the doctors wanted to give
> him/her some meds. I don't know when it's a
> good idea to treat with meds, and when to
> refuse.
>


Hi Ted. It is good that you are cautious and are willing to
investigate this subject. My first question to you is what
"neurological/psychiatric disorders" has this child been labelled
with? No psychiatric "disorder" or "mental illness" has any scientific
validity whatsoever. Diagnoses for any such "ill" is based on
subjective conjecture, with reference to the vague descriptions used
within the DSM IV (the Diagnostic & Statistics Manual), the
psychiatric "bible" of all mental "disorders".

Because of this, one must ask what a drug, or worse - a drug
"cocktail", is being proposed for? They are not "correcting" anything.
They have the same effects on people with or without these
"illnesses". They "work" in the same way pot "works" for a dude who
wants to "chill out". If there is a "desirable" effect then
wooohooooooo! Here's the prescription! Well, cocaine has a "desirable
effect" too, as does any 'recreational drug'. But most people know
that such drugs are harmful and can damage the brain and body through
repeated use. Fortunately, people are finally learning the same with
regards to psychiatric "medication". Did you know Effexor's just been
banned for under-18s in the UK? That's 2 down. About time too.

My advice. Quit agreeing with psychiatric terminology. Quit using it.
If someone tells you that your kid has a "mental illness" or a
learning "disorder", simply ask them how the f*^k they know that? Ask
them for medical evidence. Tests, scans, you name it. You'll
eventually realise that they really don't have a clue and that it's
all a bunch of baloney.

Take your kid for valid medical testing, to make sure that
"psychiatric symptoms" are not the result of an underlying PHYSICAL
problem. Check also for allergies, for vitamin/mineral deficiences, or
for psychological issues that can be addressed. Use exercise,
relaxation, self-help if needed. Visit
http://www.alternativementalhealth.com also for advice and information
on how to help your child.

For additional advice, up-to-date news, support and further resources,
please visit http://groups.msn.com/psychbusters

All the best
Mike

--

Decoding Psychiatric Propaganda
http://groups.msn.com/psychbusters

[Roger Schlafly]

"PF Riley" > wrote
> >Prozac, Paxil, Zoloft. Even under studies that were cooked to favor
> >the drugs, they only performed marginally better than placebos.
> >Eg, see this study from last year.
> >http://www.journals.apa.org/prevention/volume5/pre0050023a.html
> designed. From this you conclude that "most" psychoactive drugs in
> adults are only "marginally" effective? Have you ever given a Haldol
> shot to a raving psychotic?

I hope you don't get those drugs mixed up when you treat patients.

[Theta]

"Mark Probert" > wrote in message >...
> "Ted Shoemaker" > wrote in message
> om...
> > Hello,
> >
> > I need your advice and wisdom.
> >
> > This post isn't intended to give the
> > impression that meds are
> > ALWAYS GOOD or ALWAYS BAD.
> > Let's start with the guess that meds are
> > somewhere in between: both good and bad, and
> > deserving of a critical examination.
>
> I disagree with your premise entirely. Medications are neither good or bad,
> but useful or non-useful.
>
>

Would you say the same for cannabis, cocaine or ecstasy? These drugs
are no doubt "useful" to those that take them.

Mike

[Mark D Morin]

On 21 Sep 2003 05:59:18 -0700, (Theta) wrote:

>"Mark Probert" > wrote in message >...
>> "Ted Shoemaker" > wrote in message
>> om...
>> > Hello,
>> >
>> > I need your advice and wisdom.
>> >
>> > This post isn't intended to give the
>> > impression that meds are
>> > ALWAYS GOOD or ALWAYS BAD.
>> > Let's start with the guess that meds are
>> > somewhere in between: both good and bad, and
>> > deserving of a critical examination.
>>
>> I disagree with your premise entirely. Medications are neither good or bad,
>> but useful or non-useful.
>>
>>
>
>Would you say the same for cannabis,

very effective adjunct treatment with chemotherapy. And IIRC,
medicinal use is still legal in at least one state.

>cocaine

very effective topical anesthetic--it's the active ingredient in
corneal anesthetics?

>or ecstasy?

I'm not aware of a perscribed use for this.

> These drugs are no doubt "useful" to those that take them.

Taken as directed (except for ecstasy), you are correct.

================================================== ==
The "anti" group on any subject can stall it forever
by asking an unlimited number of questions and feeding
an unlimited number of fears. And if we require that
something be absolutely safe and absolutely understood
before we use it, we'll never use anything,
because we'll never have absolute understanding.
David Wright 9/20/03

http://home.gwi.net/~mdmpsyd/index.htm

[Mark D Morin]

On Sun, 21 Sep 2003 13:13:58 GMT, Jones > wrote:

>On 21 Sep 2003 05:59:18 -0700, (Theta) wrote:
>
>>Would you say the same for cannabis, cocaine or ecstasy? These drugs
>>are no doubt "useful" to those that take them.
>>
>>Mike
>
>Absolutely cannabis is useful for relieving nausea in patients
>receiving chemo therapy and supposedly glaucoma. Havent read anything
>besides the Scientology newsletters and booklets ? Its all over the
>media the last few decades. Ecstasy , they admitted the harmful
>effects reported were greatly exaggerated ...........probably the same
>hysterical reaction they had in the 50s against pot. Not proven 100%
>safe of course , what is.

Actually, there is a large body of research documenting the harmful
effects of even small doses. When I get back this evening, I'll dig up
some references for you.

>You drink too much water and you get ill.
>There have been a few deaths attributed to ecstasy but a surprisingly
>small amount , most honest journalists say when compared to many
>things considered fairly benign. Cocaine............its hard to say.

Cocaine is still used in many perscribed medications.

>The main problem is that its addictive like alcohol , gambling, and
>you know...................cults.

shhhh.

>
>But someone may find a positive use for it too. After all
>they find positive uses for poisons as muscle relaxation drugs etc.
>

================================================== ==
The "anti" group on any subject can stall it forever
by asking an unlimited number of questions and feeding
an unlimited number of fears. And if we require that
something be absolutely safe and absolutely understood
before we use it, we'll never use anything,
because we'll never have absolute understanding.
David Wright 9/20/03

http://home.gwi.net/~mdmpsyd/index.htm

[Mark Probert]

"Theta" > wrote in message
om...
> "Mark Probert" > wrote in message
>...
> > "Ted Shoemaker" > wrote in message
> > om...
> > > Hello,
> > >
> > > I need your advice and wisdom.
> > >
> > > This post isn't intended to give the
> > > impression that meds are
> > > ALWAYS GOOD or ALWAYS BAD.
> > > Let's start with the guess that meds are
> > > somewhere in between: both good and bad, and
> > > deserving of a critical examination.
> >
> > I disagree with your premise entirely. Medications are neither good or
bad,
> > but useful or non-useful.
> >
> >
>
> Would you say the same for cannabis, cocaine or ecstasy? These drugs
> are no doubt "useful" to those that take them.

Actually, yes. The first two seem to have a valid medical use. I am not
aware of a possible medical use for the last.

[Mark Probert]

Pure bilge from the Kriminal Kult of $cientology
"Theta" > wrote in message
om...
> (Ted Shoemaker) wrote in message
>...
> > Hello,
> >
> > I need your advice and wisdom.
> >
> > This post isn't intended to give the
> > impression that meds are
> > ALWAYS GOOD or ALWAYS BAD.
> > Let's start with the guess that meds are
> > somewhere in between: both good and bad, and
> > deserving of a critical examination.
> >
> > Consider a child who is diagnosed with a
> > cluster of neurological and/or psychiatric
> > disorders, and the doctors wanted to give
> > him/her some meds. I don't know when it's a
> > good idea to treat with meds, and when to
> > refuse.
> >
>
>
> Hi Ted. It is good that you are cautious and are willing to
> investigate this subject. My first question to you is what
> "neurological/psychiatric disorders" has this child been labelled
> with? No psychiatric "disorder" or "mental illness" has any scientific
> validity whatsoever. Diagnoses for any such "ill" is based on
> subjective conjecture, with reference to the vague descriptions used
> within the DSM IV (the Diagnostic & Statistics Manual), the
> psychiatric "bible" of all mental "disorders".
>
> Because of this, one must ask what a drug, or worse - a drug
> "cocktail", is being proposed for? They are not "correcting" anything.
> They have the same effects on people with or without these
> "illnesses". They "work" in the same way pot "works" for a dude who
> wants to "chill out". If there is a "desirable" effect then
> wooohooooooo! Here's the prescription! Well, cocaine has a "desirable
> effect" too, as does any 'recreational drug'. But most people know
> that such drugs are harmful and can damage the brain and body through
> repeated use. Fortunately, people are finally learning the same with
> regards to psychiatric "medication". Did you know Effexor's just been
> banned for under-18s in the UK? That's 2 down. About time too.
>
> My advice. Quit agreeing with psychiatric terminology. Quit using it.
> If someone tells you that your kid has a "mental illness" or a
> learning "disorder", simply ask them how the f*^k they know that? Ask
> them for medical evidence. Tests, scans, you name it. You'll
> eventually realise that they really don't have a clue and that it's
> all a bunch of baloney.
>
> Take your kid for valid medical testing, to make sure that
> "psychiatric symptoms" are not the result of an underlying PHYSICAL
> problem. Check also for allergies, for vitamin/mineral deficiences, or
> for psychological issues that can be addressed. Use exercise,
> relaxation, self-help if needed. Visit
> http://www.alternativementalhealth.com also for advice and information
> on how to help your child.
>
> For additional advice, up-to-date news, support and further resources,
> please visit http://groups.msn.com/psychbusters
>
> All the best
> Mike
>
> --
>
> Decoding Psychiatric Propaganda
> http://groups.msn.com/psychbusters

[Mike Gormez]

(Theta) wrote in message >...

Folks, 'theta' here is Scientologist poster. Don't get fooled. The
cult has not the best interest of your child in mind (or theirs -
www.taxexemptchildabuse.net) but because their founder L. Ron Hubbard
decreed that the psychiatric profession is responsible for all the
crime in the world, his little minions like 'theta' here do their
diligent work of their puppet master.

FYI, Scientology says that there aren't any mental illnesses and
requires its members to sign release forms stating such. Recenlty
these contracts emerged after one of their members (Lisa McPherson -
www.lisamcpherson.org) died after 17 days of isolation and was force
feed drugs against her consent.

Ask yourself if you would let your kid sign the following and do away
with his/her family in time of need:

"I do not believe in or subscribe to psychiatric labels for
individuals It is my strongly held religious belief that all mental
problems are spiritual in nature and that there is no such thing as a
mentally incompetent person-- only those suffering from spiritual
upset of one kind or another dramatized by an individual. I reject all
psychiatric labels and intend for this Contract to clearly memorialize
my desire to be helped exclusively through religious, spiritual means
and not through any form of psychiatric treatment, specifically
including involuntary commitment based on so-called lack of
competence. Under no circumstances, at any time, do I wish to be
denied my right to care from members of my religion to the exclusion
of psychiatric care or psychiatric directed care, regardless of what
any psychiatrist, medical person, designated member of the state or
family member may assert supposedly on my behalf."
http://www-2.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs.cmu.edu/user/dst/www/Scientology/ReleaseForms/Introspection-Release.html



Mike Gormez
--
http://whyaretheydead.net

[SumBuny]

"Jones" > wrote in message
...
> On 21 Sep 2003 05:59:18 -0700, (Theta) wrote:
>
> >Would you say the same for cannabis, cocaine or ecstasy? These drugs
> >are no doubt "useful" to those that take them.
> >
> >Mike
>
> Absolutely cannabis is useful for relieving nausea in patients
> receiving chemo therapy and supposedly glaucoma. Havent read anything
> besides the Scientology newsletters and booklets ? Its all over the
> media the last few decades. Ecstasy , they admitted the harmful
> effects reported were greatly exaggerated ...........probably the same
> hysterical reaction they had in the 50s against pot. Not proven 100%
> safe of course , what is. You drink too much water and you get ill.
> There have been a few deaths attributed to ecstasy but a surprisingly
> small amount , most honest journalists say when compared to many
> things considered fairly benign. Cocaine............its hard to say.


Cocaine is used as a topical anesthetic..is quite useful that way in
emergency rooms, when a good, quick, safe topical anesthetic is needed.

Buny

[Theta]

"Mark Probert" > wrote in message >...
> "Theta" > wrote in message
> om...
> > "Mark Probert" > wrote in message
> >...
> > > "Ted Shoemaker" > wrote in message
> > > om...
> > > > Hello,
> > > >
> > > > I need your advice and wisdom.
> > > >
> > > > This post isn't intended to give the
> > > > impression that meds are
> > > > ALWAYS GOOD or ALWAYS BAD.
> > > > Let's start with the guess that meds are
> > > > somewhere in between: both good and bad, and
> > > > deserving of a critical examination.
> > >
> > > I disagree with your premise entirely. Medications are neither good or
> bad,
> > > but useful or non-useful.
> > >
> > >
> >
> > Would you say the same for cannabis, cocaine or ecstasy? These drugs
> > are no doubt "useful" to those that take them.
>
> Actually, yes. The first two seem to have a valid medical use. I am not
> aware of a possible medical use for the last.

Giving Ritalin to a child for "ADHD" is not a "medical use" because
there is no such disease. It is a label given to a person exhibiting
particular behavioural traits that, listed in the DSM IV, the APA
considers to be a "mental illness". Diagnoses are based solely on
subjective conjecture, NOT in medical science.

What would you do if you found out your child used cocaine regularly?
Or ecstasy? Serious question. What would you do?

Mike

[Theta]

Zzzzz...so you keep saying. One wonders why you still bother reading my posts.

Mike


"Mark Probert" > wrote in message >...
> Pure bilge from the Kriminal Kult of $cientology
> "Theta" > wrote in message
> om...
> > (Ted Shoemaker) wrote in message
> >...
> > > Hello,
> > >
> > > I need your advice and wisdom.
> > >
> > > This post isn't intended to give the
> > > impression that meds are
> > > ALWAYS GOOD or ALWAYS BAD.
> > > Let's start with the guess that meds are
> > > somewhere in between: both good and bad, and
> > > deserving of a critical examination.
> > >
> > > Consider a child who is diagnosed with a
> > > cluster of neurological and/or psychiatric
> > > disorders, and the doctors wanted to give
> > > him/her some meds. I don't know when it's a
> > > good idea to treat with meds, and when to
> > > refuse.
> > >
> >
> >
> > Hi Ted. It is good that you are cautious and are willing to
> > investigate this subject. My first question to you is what
> > "neurological/psychiatric disorders" has this child been labelled
> > with? No psychiatric "disorder" or "mental illness" has any scientific
> > validity whatsoever. Diagnoses for any such "ill" is based on
> > subjective conjecture, with reference to the vague descriptions used
> > within the DSM IV (the Diagnostic & Statistics Manual), the
> > psychiatric "bible" of all mental "disorders".
> >
> > Because of this, one must ask what a drug, or worse - a drug
> > "cocktail", is being proposed for? They are not "correcting" anything.
> > They have the same effects on people with or without these
> > "illnesses". They "work" in the same way pot "works" for a dude who
> > wants to "chill out". If there is a "desirable" effect then
> > wooohooooooo! Here's the prescription! Well, cocaine has a "desirable
> > effect" too, as does any 'recreational drug'. But most people know
> > that such drugs are harmful and can damage the brain and body through
> > repeated use. Fortunately, people are finally learning the same with
> > regards to psychiatric "medication". Did you know Effexor's just been
> > banned for under-18s in the UK? That's 2 down. About time too.
> >
> > My advice. Quit agreeing with psychiatric terminology. Quit using it.
> > If someone tells you that your kid has a "mental illness" or a
> > learning "disorder", simply ask them how the f*^k they know that? Ask
> > them for medical evidence. Tests, scans, you name it. You'll
> > eventually realise that they really don't have a clue and that it's
> > all a bunch of baloney.
> >
> > Take your kid for valid medical testing, to make sure that
> > "psychiatric symptoms" are not the result of an underlying PHYSICAL
> > problem. Check also for allergies, for vitamin/mineral deficiences, or
> > for psychological issues that can be addressed. Use exercise,
> > relaxation, self-help if needed. Visit
> > http://www.alternativementalhealth.com also for advice and information
> > on how to help your child.
> >
> > For additional advice, up-to-date news, support and further resources,
> > please visit http://groups.msn.com/psychbusters
> >
> > All the best
> > Mike
> >
> > --
> >
> > Decoding Psychiatric Propaganda
> > http://groups.msn.com/psychbusters

[jake]

On Sat, 20 Sep 2003 08:22:51 GMT, "Roger Schlafly"
> wrote:

>"PF Riley" > wrote
>> [usual ad hominem attack snipped]
>> >Second, look at the actual evidence that the meds are safe and
>> >effective. Some of the drugs have never been tested on kids, and
>> >most only appear to be only marginally effective in adults.
>> Most? Give some examples of drugs that are only marginally effective
>> in adults, with citations. ...
>
>Prozac, Paxil, Zoloft. Even under studies that were cooked to favor
>the drugs, they only performed marginally better than placebos.
>Eg, see this study from last year.
>http://www.journals.apa.org/prevention/volume5/pre0050023a.html

oh dont confuse him with the facts.


Improvement at the highest doses of medication was not different from
improvement at the lowest doses. The proportion of the drug response
duplicated by placebo was significantly greater with observed cases
(OC) data than with last observation carried forward (LOCF) data. If
drug and placebo effects are additive, the pharmacological effects of
antidepressants are clinically negligible. If they are not additive,
alternative experimental designs are needed for the evaluation of
antidepressants.


>

__

"In its recent infatuation with symptomatic, push-button remedies,
psychiatry has lost its way not only intellectually but spiritually
and morally. Even when it is not actually doing damage to the people
it is supposed to help,…it is encouraging among doctors and patients
alike the fraudulent and dangerous fantasy that life's every passing
'symptom' can be clinically diagnosed and, once diagnosed, alleviated
if not eliminated by pharmacological intervention."

Paul R. McHugh
Professor of Psychiatry,
Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine

[Markuss Probertuss]

To point out your bilge, naturally!


"Theta" > wrote in message
om...
> Zzzzz...so you keep saying. One wonders why you still bother reading my
posts.
>
> Mike
>
>
> "Mark Probert" > wrote in message
>...
> > Pure bilge from the Kriminal Kult of $cientology
> > "Theta" > wrote in message
> > om...
> > > (Ted Shoemaker) wrote in message
> > >...
> > > > Hello,
> > > >
> > > > I need your advice and wisdom.
> > > >
> > > > This post isn't intended to give the
> > > > impression that meds are
> > > > ALWAYS GOOD or ALWAYS BAD.
> > > > Let's start with the guess that meds are
> > > > somewhere in between: both good and bad, and
> > > > deserving of a critical examination.
> > > >
> > > > Consider a child who is diagnosed with a
> > > > cluster of neurological and/or psychiatric
> > > > disorders, and the doctors wanted to give
> > > > him/her some meds. I don't know when it's a
> > > > good idea to treat with meds, and when to
> > > > refuse.
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Hi Ted. It is good that you are cautious and are willing to
> > > investigate this subject. My first question to you is what
> > > "neurological/psychiatric disorders" has this child been labelled
> > > with? No psychiatric "disorder" or "mental illness" has any scientific
> > > validity whatsoever. Diagnoses for any such "ill" is based on
> > > subjective conjecture, with reference to the vague descriptions used
> > > within the DSM IV (the Diagnostic & Statistics Manual), the
> > > psychiatric "bible" of all mental "disorders".
> > >
> > > Because of this, one must ask what a drug, or worse - a drug
> > > "cocktail", is being proposed for? They are not "correcting" anything.
> > > They have the same effects on people with or without these
> > > "illnesses". They "work" in the same way pot "works" for a dude who
> > > wants to "chill out". If there is a "desirable" effect then
> > > wooohooooooo! Here's the prescription! Well, cocaine has a "desirable
> > > effect" too, as does any 'recreational drug'. But most people know
> > > that such drugs are harmful and can damage the brain and body through
> > > repeated use. Fortunately, people are finally learning the same with
> > > regards to psychiatric "medication". Did you know Effexor's just been
> > > banned for under-18s in the UK? That's 2 down. About time too.
> > >
> > > My advice. Quit agreeing with psychiatric terminology. Quit using it.
> > > If someone tells you that your kid has a "mental illness" or a
> > > learning "disorder", simply ask them how the f*^k they know that? Ask
> > > them for medical evidence. Tests, scans, you name it. You'll
> > > eventually realise that they really don't have a clue and that it's
> > > all a bunch of baloney.
> > >
> > > Take your kid for valid medical testing, to make sure that
> > > "psychiatric symptoms" are not the result of an underlying PHYSICAL
> > > problem. Check also for allergies, for vitamin/mineral deficiences, or
> > > for psychological issues that can be addressed. Use exercise,
> > > relaxation, self-help if needed. Visit
> > > http://www.alternativementalhealth.com also for advice and information
> > > on how to help your child.
> > >
> > > For additional advice, up-to-date news, support and further resources,
> > > please visit http://groups.msn.com/psychbusters
> > >
> > > All the best
> > > Mike
> > >
> > > --
> > >
> > > Decoding Psychiatric Propaganda
> > > http://groups.msn.com/psychbusters

[Markuss Probertuss]

More pure bilge from the Kriminal Kult of $cientology.


"Theta" > wrote in message
om...
> "Mark Probert" > wrote in message
>...
> > "Theta" > wrote in message
> > om...
> > > "Mark Probert" > wrote in message
> > >...
> > > > "Ted Shoemaker" > wrote in message
> > > > om...
> > > > > Hello,
> > > > >
> > > > > I need your advice and wisdom.
> > > > >
> > > > > This post isn't intended to give the
> > > > > impression that meds are
> > > > > ALWAYS GOOD or ALWAYS BAD.
> > > > > Let's start with the guess that meds are
> > > > > somewhere in between: both good and bad, and
> > > > > deserving of a critical examination.
> > > >
> > > > I disagree with your premise entirely. Medications are neither good
or
> > bad,
> > > > but useful or non-useful.
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > Would you say the same for cannabis, cocaine or ecstasy? These drugs
> > > are no doubt "useful" to those that take them.
> >
> > Actually, yes. The first two seem to have a valid medical use. I am not
> > aware of a possible medical use for the last.
>
> Giving Ritalin to a child for "ADHD" is not a "medical use" because
> there is no such disease. It is a label given to a person exhibiting
> particular behavioural traits that, listed in the DSM IV, the APA
> considers to be a "mental illness". Diagnoses are based solely on
> subjective conjecture, NOT in medical science.
>
> What would you do if you found out your child used cocaine regularly?
> Or ecstasy? Serious question. What would you do?

My son wouldn't. he realizes the differences between medication and drug
abuse.