|
| If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|||||||
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#91
May 13th 05, 03:19 PM
|
|||
|
|||
"LadyLollipop" wrote in message news:s3wge.72386$NU4.1341@attbi_s22... "Mark Probert" Mark wrote in message ... "LadyLollipop" wrote in message news:ugpge.74265$WI3.24692@attbi_s71... "Mark Probert" Mark wrote in message ... "LadyLollipop" wrote in message news:gBbge.70031$NU4.55318@attbi_s22... "Mark Probert" Mark wrote in message ... "Brad_Chad" wrote in message oups.com... By definition? The medical community can't even agree on a definition of ADD. Some doctors say that it doesn't even exist. Get a clue. The DSM IV clearly delineates the diagnostic criteria for AD/HD. The AAP has published diagnostic and treatment protocols. However, there is no doubt that the diagnosis and treatment remain in the forefront of discussion amongst professionals, and this is a good thing, not bad as you seem to imply. Refining, learning, studying is good. You can do your homework and learn more about AD/HD by visiting the appropriate websites. Those websites you posted do not provide factual information. I suggest the American Academy of Pediatrics and the National Institutes of Health. __________________________________________________ __________________________ ____________________ (that's the line in which I restrained myself after taking a five minute break) Your break should have been longer. Sometimes it is better to keep quiet and have others suspect that you are a fool than to open your mouth and remove all doubt". Sound advice. When will you start taking it? Dr. DuBose Ravenel, a nationally-known developmental/behavioral *******pediatrician******** who serves as one of my consultants on medical matters. Nationally known? One reference on Medline for a letter he wrote. Medline isn't the only source of information. When it comes to seeing if a person is "nationally known" it sure helps to see if they are really nationally known. However, just to be fair, I looked on GoogleScholar and found that he is a well known anti-spanking advocate, which, IMNSHO, is a good thing. As for his "expertise" in the area of treating ADHD, GoogleScholar failed to add anything. His sole contribution seems to be one letter to the editor. The bottom line: As concerns the diagnosis and treatment of ADD/ADHD (attention deficit disorder/attention deficit hyperactivity disorder), let the buyer beware. No other contemporary "medical" issue is full of more myth, hype, and dubious advertising as this. In 1998, an overwhelming majority of experts attending the ********* National Institutes of Health ********* Consensus Conference, after days of reviewing all of the available evidence, agreed there is no compelling evidence to the effect that ADD/ADHD is caused by or significantly and reliably associated with physical or biochemical "irregularities" (e.g., deficiencies in the left temporal lobe, biochemical imbalances) in the brain. They furthermore agreed that no objective test or set of criteria exists with which to accurately diagnose ADD. Yes, in *1998* there was no evidence that there were any structural or chemical differences. However, if the "nationally known" doctor had done some homework, and it is obvious that he has not, he would have found copious documentation in the form of studies reported where there were clear structural differences found in the ADHD brain. He could do a simple search on Nora Volkow's work. She is now the head of the National Institute of Drug Abuse, and is an expert on the imaging of the brain with various types of scanners, etc. Dr. Volkow is cited on Medline 323 times. A 2002 book, "Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder-State of the Science," written by a number of recognized authorities in the field, reported that the 1998 Consensus Conference findings remained unchanged. The American Psychiatric Association recognizes ADD as a mental disorder-the exact cause is unknown; there is no medical test for it; therefore, the diagnosis is based on observations of children's behavior In 1998, a ******U.S. National Institutes of Health ******** Conference of the world's leading ADHD experts, was forced to conclude that there is no data confirming it as a brain dysfunction. The ******National Institute of Health (NIH)******* reported, "We do not have an independent valid test for ADHD, and there are no data to indicate that ADHD is due to brain malfunction. Further research to establish the validity of the disorder continues to be a problem." The ****NIH****** also reported that Ritalin and other stimulant drugs result in "little improvement in academic or social skills," and they recommend research into alternatives such as change in diet or biofeedback. The medical community has expressed alarm over the widespread use of psychotropic drugs for children. Dr. Fred Baughman Jr., *******pediatric neurologist,******** said of psychiatrists, "They have proven several times over that chronic Ritalin/amphetamine exposure they advocate for millions of children causes brain atrophy (shrinkage)." In the area of AD/HD research, citing a book, etc. written 1998 is the equivalent of citing King Tut. Sometimes it is better to keep quiet and have others suspect that you are a fool than to open your mouth and remove all doubt". Again, advice that you should be taking in large doses yourself. The fact remains, a 1998 book is not authorative in this area, simply because knowledge has greatly expanded in the past seven years, as I pointed out. A 2002 book, "Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder-State of the Science," written by a number of recognized authorities in the field, 
|
|
#92
May 13th 05, 03:23 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
"LadyLollipop" wrote in message news:9NMge.76092$c24.13733@attbi_s72... "Mark Probert" Mark wrote in message ... "LadyLollipop" wrote in message news:TUzge.75012$c24.55108@attbi_s72... "Jeff" wrote in message nk.net... "LadyLollipop" wrote in message news:s3wge.72386$NU4.1341@attbi_s22... "Mark Probert" Mark wrote in message (...) In the area of AD/HD research, citing a book, etc. written 1998 is the equivalent of citing King Tut. Mark is correct that the info in a book from about 8 years ago (a book is typically about a year out of date when it is published) is old. snip BS In addition, there was a lot of information that indicated that ADHD was a real problem involving the biochemistry of the brain, even back in 1997. What Mark stated was:The DSM IV clearly delineates the diagnostic criteria for AD/HD. The snip insane need to argrr from Mark Here is what you snipped. You snipped it because you know I was right, and you cannot handle that: In a word, bull****. YOU posted the crap from this so-called "nationally known" expert whose sole contribution to medical knowledge is a letter written to one medical journal. I was addressing the crap that YOU quoted. For YOU to say that I was the person who diverted is an outright lie. AAP has published diagnostic and treatment protocols. However, there is no doubt that the diagnosis and treatment remain in the forefront of discussion amongst professionals, and this is a good thing, not bad as you seem to imply. Refining, learning, studying is good. You can do your homework and learn more about AD/HD by visiting the appropriate websites. I did just that, and you can note it isn't any different that what I posted. Mark just want to argue, and so do all the *gang*. http://www.adhdinfo.com/hcp/about/hc...osing_adhd.jsp snip again You snip what you cannot handle. restored: No, I do not just want to argue, I want to post precise information. While that website is better than most, it is not as clear and specific as taking the DSM IV, and the two protocols published by the AAP. Since you did not comment on the balance of the post, I snipped it for brevity.
|
|
#93
May 13th 05, 03:30 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
"LadyLollipop" wrote in message news:q2Nge.76110$c24.32402@attbi_s72... "Jeff" wrote in message . net... "LadyLollipop" wrote in message news:TUzge.75012$c24.55108@attbi_s72... "Jeff" wrote in message nk.net... "LadyLollipop" wrote in message news:s3wge.72386$NU4.1341@attbi_s22... "Mark Probert" Mark wrote in message (...) In the area of AD/HD research, citing a book, etc. written 1998 is the equivalent of citing King Tut. Mark is correct that the info in a book from about 8 years ago (a book is typically about a year out of date when it is published) is old. Mark diverted from the subject. Who brought up the subject of the book in the first place? You. WRONG. It was contianed in the websites I posted. Let's see....You claim I diverted because I commented on a book mentioned and quoted from a website which you posted. That is illogical to say the least. Mark's comment were appropriate. Mark'ss. comment were a diversion, just like you are doing right now. It is not possible for my comments to be a diversion since I was commenting on what you posted, as you readily acknowledged above. Thus, if there was any diversion, it was generated by you. In addition, there was a lot of information that indicated that ADHD was a real problem involving the biochemistry of the brain, even back in 1997. What Mark stated was:The DSM IV clearly delineates the diagnostic criteria for AD/HD. And you posted info that suggested that ADHD was not a biological condition. Your diversionary tactics did not work. ... In fact YOU are now doing just that! Well known how you LIARS stick together. Marks words: Those websites you posted do not provide factual information. I suggest the American Academy of Pediatrics and the National Institutes of Health. Now Jeff, you can go back and read what I posted and count the times the National Institutes of Health was mentioned. then you can do the right thing and admit you lied and then apologize or not. So, you posted the words National Institutes of Health. Big deal. The other information was from 1998, which is outdated due to advances in human knowledge and understanding. What I posted brought the information up to date, and was not posted in a negative judgemental manner as yours was.
|
|
#94
May 13th 05, 03:32 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
"LadyLollipop" wrote in message news:ONPge.76390$WI3.7899@attbi_s71... "Jeff" wrote in message ink.net... "LadyLollipop" wrote in message news:q2Nge.76110$c24.32402@attbi_s72... (...) And you posted info that suggested that ADHD was not a biological condition. Your diversionary tactics did not work. ... In fact YOU are now doing just that! Well known how you LIARS stick together. You are so funny. You create a diversion, and then blame others for responding to it. Jeff That would make YOU a L I A R. No, that did not make Jeff a liar. Let's recap.... You posted an excerpt from a book from 1998. I commented on that and brought the information up to date. YOU said I diverted. Hmmm...where is this illogic coming from????
|
|
#95
May 13th 05, 03:32 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
"LadyLollipop" wrote in message news:uRPge.76431$c24.1884@attbi_s72... Liars, stick together. Not as much as abusers.
|
|
#96
May 13th 05, 03:33 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Fri, 13 May 2005 10:19:46 -0400, "Mark Probert" Mark
wrote: http://www.BreastImplantAwareness.or...stProbert.html
|
|
#98
May 19th 05, 05:23 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
How do you know that it isn't at least a small part of the problem?
Cane sugar is not used that much in processed foods today. High Fructose Corn Syrup is the dominant sweetner. Many doctors may say that you have an intolerance to corn instead of a corn allergy. Either way corn may be making you sick, and you may not realize it because corn syrup, corn starch, etc. are in so many foods. Brad_Chad
|
|
#99
May 19th 05, 02:20 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Brad_Chad" wrote in message oups.com... How do you know that it isn't at least a small part of the problem? It has been tested for using double blind, crossover model testing. No study using that model has shown causality. To the contrary, they have shown the opposite: no causality. Cane sugar is not used that much in processed foods today. High Fructose Corn Syrup is the dominant sweetner. Many doctors may say that you have an intolerance to corn instead of a corn allergy. Either way corn may be making you sick, and you may not realize it because corn syrup, corn starch, etc. are in so many foods.
|
|
#100
May 19th 05, 02:37 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Hi, again -- I'm curious.... do the studies show no causality in *any* individuals, or no causality in a statistical population? --Beth Kevles http://web.mit.edu/kevles/www/nomilk.html -- a page for the milk-allergic Disclaimer: Nothing in this message should be construed as medical advice. Please consult with your own medical practicioner. NOTE: No email is read at my MIT address. Use the AOL one if you would like me to reply. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- How do you know that it isn't at least a small part of the problem? It has been tested for using double blind, crossover model testing. No study using that model has shown causality. To the contrary, they have shown the opposite: no causality. Cane sugar is not used that much in processed foods today. High Fructose Corn Syrup is the dominant sweetner. Many doctors may say that you have an intolerance to corn instead of a corn allergy. Either way corn may be making you sick, and you may not realize it because corn syrup, corn starch, etc. are in so many foods.
|
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
| Ritalin Helps Beat Cancer Fatigue | Marciosos6 Probertiosos6 | Kids Health | 211 | December 31st 03 02:06 AM |
| Another use for Ritalin | Marciosos7 Probertiosos7 | Kids Health | 8 | December 19th 03 10:22 PM |
Linear Mode
