Adult ADHD

[quote]tom63 wrote:
mrw173 wrote:
There is a giant difference between a study showing that those with ADHD, on average, show different brain functioning than those who don’t have ADHD, and having a real nuerological TEST for ADHD.

That being said, you’d be excluding practically everything from the DSM if you made having the presence of a valid neurological test a necessary requirement.

Also, I get his “labeling” argument, but really, in our society, that label can do more good than harm in many instances. For example, without a “label,” kids are not going to get the services they need from school, whether it be ADHD, a learning disability, or something else. So yes, these labels do have stigmas associated with them, but let’s not make them out to be all evil as well.

All true.

[/quote]

The problem with this is that when they had the concensus meeting to decide wether or not to put adhd in the DSM the decision to include it was based upon a study that had shown differences in the nervous system between a group of people who supposedly had adhd and a control group who didn’t.

Doctor Baughman who owns the site www.adhdfraud.org was there. When he questioned the author of the study if any of the subjects in the ADHD group were on ritalin the author reluctantly admitted that all of them were. When Doctor Baughman asked him why he did not include that information in his report the author said he didn’t consider it important.

If all the ADHD test subjects who are showing differences in their nervous system are on ritalin, but the control group of non-ADHD test subjects is not on ritalin, there is no way to tell if the nerve damage in the ADHD group is in fact the cause of ADHD or if it is damage caused by the ritalin. I am not a doctor but even I can figure that out. Yet the author of the study that got ADHD put into the DSM says he did think it was an important piece of information to include in his report when he submitted it for peer review.

This is the kind of junk science that has gone on within the medical community in regards to ADHD.

Labeling kids who have nothing wrong with them as mentally defective is is extremely harmful and does terrible damage to their development. Without a reject label put on them kids get to be seen by their peers as normal. Without labels to put on kids schools lose a way to apply to the government for extra money.

The bounty system of special ed funding has resulted in millions of kids who had nothing wrong with them being stigmatized so the schools can nake money out of them. This is human trafficking and it is immoral.

“The bounty system of special ed funding has resulted in millions of kids who had nothing wrong with them being stigmatized so the schools can nake money out of them. This is human trafficking and it is immoral.”

The special ed program? I would assume of all the profit there is to be made off phony diagnoses, the special ed program sees about 0.00000001% of it.

Not treating a medical condition for fear of labeling a child as “Mentally defective” is child abuse.

Honestly, I’ve seen more harm done by the ‘Big Pharm is the devil’ folks than by the pharm companies. Occassionally, people are over-medicated…but when it comes to ADHD, I think it’s a pretty open-and-shut case - mostly because the meds are so effective.

Resorting to scientology for you facts is about the same as resorting to the Weekly World News for your news.

[quote]wirewound wrote:
Honestly, I’ve seen more harm done by the ‘Big Pharm is the devil’ folks than by the pharm companies. Occassionally, people are over-medicated…but when it comes to ADHD, I think it’s a pretty open-and-shut case - mostly because the meds are so effective.

Resorting to scientology for you facts is about the same as resorting to the Weekly World News for your news.[/quote]

Also true, what I don’t understand is how people can look at this one way or the other. Dr. amen is an advocate of lifestyle changes along with meds. He’s all for lifestyle changes instead of meds if you can manage.

Soemecan’t, some can. And if parents do the meds and it’s detrimental to a kid, so what? This might sound ridiculous, but how many fat kids are out there? How many idiot kids aren’t disciplined right and are out of control?

My point is that the government can’t raise kids. Parents have to, and many aren’t bright enough to do a good job with them. Some won’t know enough to work with a doctor and their kid properly.

Those that do won’t have any worries about a school system of pyschologist or whatever. I have seen locally that many underprivileged kids seem to have ADD or ADHD. Now I have seen and read that there could be a genetic component to ADHD,a nd this might explain things.

Or, if you’re raised by an idiot, symptoms might be worse and harder to control.

[quote]Sifu wrote:
tom63 wrote:
mrw173 wrote:
There is a giant difference between a study showing that those with ADHD, on average, show different brain functioning than those who don’t have ADHD, and having a real nuerological TEST for ADHD.

That being said, you’d be excluding practically everything from the DSM if you made having the presence of a valid neurological test a necessary requirement.

Also, I get his “labeling” argument, but really, in our society, that label can do more good than harm in many instances. For example, without a “label,” kids are not going to get the services they need from school, whether it be ADHD, a learning disability, or something else. So yes, these labels do have stigmas associated with them, but let’s not make them out to be all evil as well.

All true.

The problem with this is that when they had the concensus meeting to decide wether or not to put adhd in the DSM the decision to include it was based upon a study that had shown differences in the nervous system between a group of people who supposedly had adhd and a control group who didn’t.

Doctor Baughman who owns the site www.adhdfraud.org was there. When he questioned the author of the study if any of the subjects in the ADHD group were on ritalin the author reluctantly admitted that all of them were. When Doctor Baughman asked him why he did not include that information in his report the author said he didn’t consider it important.

If all the ADHD test subjects who are showing differences in their nervous system are on ritalin, but the control group of non-ADHD test subjects is not on ritalin, there is no way to tell if the nerve damage in the ADHD group is in fact the cause of ADHD or if it is damage caused by the ritalin. I am not a doctor but even I can figure that out. Yet the author of the study that got ADHD put into the DSM says he did think it was an important piece of information to include in his report when he submitted it for peer review.

This is the kind of junk science that has gone on within the medical community in regards to ADHD.

Labeling kids who have nothing wrong with them as mentally defective is is extremely harmful and does terrible damage to their development. Without a reject label put on them kids get to be seen by their peers as normal. Without labels to put on kids schools lose a way to apply to the government for extra money.

The bounty system of special ed funding has resulted in millions of kids who had nothing wrong with them being stigmatized so the schools can nake money out of them. This is human trafficking and it is immoral.
[/quote]

You’re missing a huge component of the disorder, which is impairment. It’s not like psychiatrist, neurologists, and psychologists are going around the community and stamping labels on every kid they see. What usually happens is that kids are assessed for ADHD not only because they show the symptoms but because they are experiencing significant impairment in the classroom setting and at home. Now, if you want to stick to the labeling argument and decide that a label is not worth treatment for something that is clearly debilitating, then you’re also choosing to ignore any positives that may result from things like treatment and special accommodations in the school. In addition, if someone is experiencing no impairment but exhibits some symptoms of ADHD, they can’t receive the diagnosis.

Personally, I think people get too caught up in diagnoses and labels. I honestly don’t put too much stock in diagnoses. Basically, people in the field have generally agreed upon certain classes of behavior that tend to cluster together, and you get a “diagnosis.” That’s irrelevant. When people show up to a clinical setting, it’s usually because they have a behavior they want to stop (or behavior they cannot do), it’s interfering with their lives, and they want help for it. Call that a diagnosis if you want.

[quote]atypicaluser wrote:
“The bounty system of special ed funding has resulted in millions of kids who had nothing wrong with them being stigmatized so the schools can nake money out of them. This is human trafficking and it is immoral.”

The special ed program? I would assume of all the profit there is to be made off phony diagnoses, the special ed program sees about 0.00000001% of it.

Not treating a medical condition for fear of labeling a child as “Mentally defective” is child abuse.

[/quote]

Most of the kids who get put into special ed are put there by school psychiatrists. The fact that you consider a label from a school psychiatrist to be equivalent to a medical diagnosis shows just how ignorant you are about this subject.

In the school system I went to the special ed funding was five million a year. It was equivalent to one of the high schools. But unlike the high schools the special ed program contributed over five hundred thousand dollars to the districts general fund. That is a ten percent profit which is way more than your calculation of 0.00000001%.

Here is an excerpt of some information on the bounty system.
Effects of Funding Incentives on Special Education Enrollment | Manhattan Institute

Effects of Funding Incentives on Special Education Enrollment

Jay P. Greene, Ph.D.
Senior Fellow, Manhattan Institute for Policy Research
Greg Forster, Ph.D.
Senior Research Associate, Manhattan Institute for Policy Research

Executive Summary

The report examines the effect of state funding systems and high stakes testing on special education enrollment. It specifically finds that:

Nationally, special education enrollment grew from 10.6% of all students to 12.3% during the study period, from the 1991�??92 school year to 2000-01.
During this period, 33 states and the District of Columbia had �??bounty�?? funding systems, which create financial incentives to place children in special education. Sixteen states had �??lump-sum�?? funding systems, which do not create such incentives. New Hampshire had no state funding system until 1999.
There is a statistically significant positive relationship between bounty funding systems and growth in special education enrollment. Bounty funding results in an additional enrollment increase of 1.24 percentage points over ten years.
The effect of the bounty system accounts for 62% of the enrollment growth experienced by bounty states during the study period. This represents roughly 390,000 extra students in special education, resulting in additional spending of over $2.3 billion per year.
If all bounty states had switched to lump-sum systems in 1994�??95, their special education enrollments in 2000�??01 would have been lower by an average of 0.82 percentage points. This represents roughly 258,000 students and over $1.5 billion per year in extra spending.
Between 1991�??92 and 2000�??01, 29 states and the District of Columbia employed high stakes testing, and 21 did not.
High stakes testing has no statistically significant effect on special education enrollment.
The average (i.e. not weighted by population) state enrollment level in the states that had lump-sum funding during the study period rose from 11.1% to 12.4%, an increase of 1.3 percentage points.
The average enrollment level in states with bounty funding rose from 10.5% to 12.8%, an increase of 2.3 percentage points.
Total special education enrollment under lump-sum funding systems grew from 10.5% to 11.5%, a 1 percentage point change.
By comparison, total special education enrollment under bounty funding systems increased by 2 percentage points, from 10.6% to 12.6%.
About the Authors

Jay P. Greene is a Senior Fellow at the Manhattan Institute for Policy Research where he conducts research and writes about education policy. He has conducted evaluations of school choice and accountability programs in Florida, Charlotte, Milwaukee, Cleveland, and San Antonio. He has also investigated the effects of school choice on civic values and integration.

His research was cited four times in the Supreme Court�??s opinions in the landmark Zelman v. Simmons-Harris case on school vouchers. His articles have appeared in policy journals, such as The Public Interest, City Journal, and Education Next, in academic journals, such as The Georgetown Public Policy Review, Education and Urban Society, and The British Journal of Political Science, as well as in major newspapers, such as the Wall Street Journal and Christian Science Monitor. Most recently he published a piece on vouchers and school integration in the Wall Street Journal, analyses of problems with special education in Education Week, National Review Online and The Education Gadfly, and a defense of high stakes testing in Education Next.

Greene has been a professor of government at the University of Texas at Austin and the University of Houston. He received his B.A. in history from Tufts University in 1988 and his Ph.D. from the Government Department at Harvard University in 1995. He lives with his wife and three children in Weston, Florida.

Greg Forster is a Senior Research Associate at the Manhattan Institute�??s Education Research Office. He is the co-author of several education studies and op-ed articles. He received a Ph.D. with distinction in Political Science from Yale University in May 2002, and his B.A. from the University of Virginia, where he double-majored in Political and Social Thought and Rhetoric and Communications Studies, in 1995.

The funding system used in New York and most other states, which some education officials candidly refer to as �??the bounty system,�?? pays school districts more for each additional student diagnosed with a disability. This provides a perverse financial incentive for schools to diagnose more students. By comparing the rates of growth in special education enrollment in states with and without the bounty funding system, we find that 62% of the increase in special education during the 1990s in states with the bounty system can be attributed to these financial incentives. Nationwide, this represents roughly 390,000 extra students placed in special education because of the bounty system, resulting in additional spending of over $2.3 billion per year. In New York, it would represent over 44,000 extra students and additional spending of more than $260 million.

I can back up what I am saying with hard facts. Lets see you back up 0.00000001%.

Sifu- lord man I had to take my medicine just to get through that post. Anyway, I’m not impressed.

"Nationally, special education enrollment grew from 10.6% of all students to 12.3% during the study period, from the 1991�??92 school year to 2000-01. "
Ok great a 2% increase, while the US population rose 9.5% over the same time frame (2380666 verse 2607632).

Also when a school gets additional funding from the state of course they are going to increase the special ed classes as they can now afford better schooling for the kids that were either borderline or they just didn’t have enough funds to cover all of the kids needs.

My girlfriend teachers special needs and trust me they are making ZERO money. In fact the school system has to limit the amount of paper per class room.

If you think it costs the same to teach a gifted student as it does a special needs you are sorely mistaken so the schools should get more money for each special needs student.

Your figures are 7 years old anyway.

[quote]tom63 wrote:
wirewound wrote:
Honestly, I’ve seen more harm done by the ‘Big Pharm is the devil’ folks than by the pharm companies. Occassionally, people are over-medicated…but when it comes to ADHD, I think it’s a pretty open-and-shut case - mostly because the meds are so effective.

Resorting to scientology for you facts is about the same as resorting to the Weekly World News for your news.

Also true, what I don’t understand is how people can look at this one way or the other. Dr. amen is an advocate of lifestyle changes along with meds. He’s all for lifestyle changes instead of meds if you can manage.

Soemecan’t, some can. And if parents do the meds and it’s detrimental to a kid, so what? This might sound ridiculous, but how many fat kids are out there? How many idiot kids aren’t disciplined right and are out of control?

My point is that the government can’t raise kids. Parents have to, and many aren’t bright enough to do a good job with them. Some won’t know enough to work with a doctor and their kid properly.

Those that do won’t have any worries about a school system of pyschologist or whatever. I have seen locally that many underprivileged kids seem to have ADD or ADHD. Now I have seen and read that there could be a genetic component to ADHD,a nd this might explain things.

Or, if you’re raised by an idiot, symptoms might be worse and harder to control.

[/quote]

You haven’t done your homework obviously. “if parents do the meds and it’s detrimental to a kid, so what?” Cat scans performed on Ritalin users have shown that Ritalin cases on average a ten percent loss of brain mass. Your flippant “so what” attitude to what is essentially a chemical lobotomy shows your ignorance.

Furthermore biopsies done on the cardiac tissues of ritalin users have shown structural changes at the cellular level. Several hundred to several thousand kids have had massive heart attacks and died on ritalin has been the result. Millions of young Americans have had permanent damage done to their cardiac tissue and now have ticking time bombs in their chests which can kill them prematurely and you say “so what”.

Here is information on cardiac changes.

[Fred A. Baughman Jr., MD: OF INTEREST (HOPEFULLY) TO ALL WITH CHILDREN ON RITALIN. Just the heart was looked at in this study with electron-microscope. It is probable that similar changes are occurring in all organs, the brain included. Fred Baughman, MD, 10/30/02]
Henderson TA, Fischer VW Effects of Methylphenidate (Ritalin) on Mammalian Myocardial Ultrastructure. The American Journal of Cardiovascular Pathology. 1994;5:68-78.

“A number of adverse reactions have been associated with MPH therapy, particularly cardiovascular side effect, such as arrhythmia, tachycardia, and changes in blood pressure [1,2]. MPH is an amphetamine congener with a molecular structure resembling that of amphiphilic drugs. Administration of certain amphiphilic drugs has been shown to induce phospholipidoses by interfering with phospholipid catabolism in a variety of cell types, resulting in a lysosomal accumulation of abnormal amounts of membranes. Ultrastructurally, one striking alteration, among others, is the presence of lamellar bodies in a variety of tissues exposed to amphiphillic drugs.”

“We have previously observed analogous lamellar membrane accumulations in myocardial cells of a patient on chronic therapy with MPH.” "In order to determine if a causal relationship exists between MPH and ultrastructural myocardial changes previously described in the patient, we administered MPH to two rodent species.

Thirty male Swiss-Webster mice, weighing approximately 25-30 g each: Groups of 3 animals each were injected (intra-peritoneal) with 0.5 mg/kg, 2.5 mg/kg or 5.0 mg /kg of Ritalin. The injections were given three times a week for periods of 4 and 14 weeks prior to sacrifice.

Results: The myocardium of mice injected with 0.5 mg/kg MPH, regardless of treatment duration, showed little or no recognizable ultrasturctural changes�?�Incipient alterations were observed following treatment with 1.5 mg/kg MPH for 4 weeks; however administration of this dose for 14 weeks resulted in a variety of myocardial abnormalities similar to those seen with higher doses at all time points. Initially, foci of loose, unorganized aggregates of membranes and foci of distinctly circular membranous profiles with reduplication, suggesting the formation of lamellations, were observed. These abnormalities were reminiscent of a membrane folding back on itself and spiraling inward�?� "Pronounced lesions in our rodents were more evident with prolonged exposure and appeared to approach a stable level of incidence; however, lesions were highly focal and a wide range of alterations within individual animals was notices. These structural abnormalities persisted to a reduced degree, for as prolonged time after stopping the MPH injections.

“�?�it could be argued that our results do not directly apply to the clinical situation, because MPH was administered by injection. Yet, similar pathological changes were see in the six mice that received MPH orally. The limited number of animals receiving MPH by this route dictates a cautious interpretation; nevertheless, we found no basis to expect a different pathological profile following oral administration.”

"�?�it is difficult to draw conclusions concerning long-term accumulation or safe doses. Yet our observations definitively showed that lesions were present in animals treated with therapeutic doses and that these lesions persisted. "

“this study, using laboratory animals under a controlled single drug regimen, corroborates and strengthens the previous supposition that MPH was a likely causal agent in the formation of similar ultrastructural alterations observed in a patient on chronic MPH therapy.”

“Our treatment protocol revealed clearly the requirement of a minimal dose, in order to induce even incipient structural changes; however, these minimum dosages fell within the range of therapeutic dosage prescribed for patients with attention deficit disorders.”

"Also noteworthy was the rapid development of pathological changes (i.e., within 3 weeks). "

"The rapid appearance of lamellar structures, coupled with the potential for irreversibility and the profound structural changes seen in a patient on long-term MPH therapy, suggests that these findings may have clinical consequences for drug interactions and long-term side effects of MPH of which clinicians should be aware. "

[quote]Sifu wrote:
tom63 wrote:
wirewound wrote:
Honestly, I’ve seen more harm done by the ‘Big Pharm is the devil’ folks than by the pharm companies. Occassionally, people are over-medicated…but when it comes to ADHD, I think it’s a pretty open-and-shut case - mostly because the meds are so effective.

Resorting to scientology for you facts is about the same as resorting to the Weekly World News for your news.

Also true, what I don’t understand is how people can look at this one way or the other. Dr. amen is an advocate of lifestyle changes along with meds. He’s all for lifestyle changes instead of meds if you can manage.

Soemecan’t, some can. And if parents do the meds and it’s detrimental to a kid, so what? This might sound ridiculous, but how many fat kids are out there? How many idiot kids aren’t disciplined right and are out of control?

My point is that the government can’t raise kids. Parents have to, and many aren’t bright enough to do a good job with them. Some won’t know enough to work with a doctor and their kid properly.

Those that do won’t have any worries about a school system of pyschologist or whatever. I have seen locally that many underprivileged kids seem to have ADD or ADHD. Now I have seen and read that there could be a genetic component to ADHD,a nd this might explain things.

Or, if you’re raised by an idiot, symptoms might be worse and harder to control.

You haven’t done your homework obviously. “if parents do the meds and it’s detrimental to a kid, so what?” Cat scans performed on Ritalin users have shown that Ritalin cases on average a ten percent loss of brain mass. Your flippant “so what” attitude to what is essentially a chemical lobotomy shows your ignorance.

Furthermore biopsies done on the cardiac tissues of ritalin users have shown structural changes at the cellular level. Several hundred to several thousand kids have had massive heart attacks and died on ritalin has been the result. Millions of young Americans have had permanent damage done to their cardiac tissue and now have ticking time bombs in their chests which can kill them prematurely and you say “so what”.

Here is information on cardiac changes.

[Fred A. Baughman Jr., MD: OF INTEREST (HOPEFULLY) TO ALL WITH CHILDREN ON RITALIN. Just the heart was looked at in this study with electron-microscope. It is probable that similar changes are occurring in all organs, the brain included. Fred Baughman, MD, 10/30/02]
Henderson TA, Fischer VW Effects of Methylphenidate (Ritalin) on Mammalian Myocardial Ultrastructure. The American Journal of Cardiovascular Pathology. 1994;5:68-78.

“A number of adverse reactions have been associated with MPH therapy, particularly cardiovascular side effect, such as arrhythmia, tachycardia, and changes in blood pressure [1,2]. MPH is an amphetamine congener with a molecular structure resembling that of amphiphilic drugs. Administration of certain amphiphilic drugs has been shown to induce phospholipidoses by interfering with phospholipid catabolism in a variety of cell types, resulting in a lysosomal accumulation of abnormal amounts of membranes. Ultrastructurally, one striking alteration, among others, is the presence of lamellar bodies in a variety of tissues exposed to amphiphillic drugs.”

“We have previously observed analogous lamellar membrane accumulations in myocardial cells of a patient on chronic therapy with MPH.” "In order to determine if a causal relationship exists between MPH and ultrastructural myocardial changes previously described in the patient, we administered MPH to two rodent species.

Thirty male Swiss-Webster mice, weighing approximately 25-30 g each: Groups of 3 animals each were injected (intra-peritoneal) with 0.5 mg/kg, 2.5 mg/kg or 5.0 mg /kg of Ritalin. The injections were given three times a week for periods of 4 and 14 weeks prior to sacrifice.

Results: The myocardium of mice injected with 0.5 mg/kg MPH, regardless of treatment duration, showed little or no recognizable ultrasturctural changes�?�Incipient alterations were observed following treatment with 1.5 mg/kg MPH for 4 weeks; however administration of this dose for 14 weeks resulted in a variety of myocardial abnormalities similar to those seen with higher doses at all time points. Initially, foci of loose, unorganized aggregates of membranes and foci of distinctly circular membranous profiles with reduplication, suggesting the formation of lamellations, were observed. These abnormalities were reminiscent of a membrane folding back on itself and spiraling inward�?� "Pronounced lesions in our rodents were more evident with prolonged exposure and appeared to approach a stable level of incidence; however, lesions were highly focal and a wide range of alterations within individual animals was notices. These structural abnormalities persisted to a reduced degree, for as prolonged time after stopping the MPH injections.

“�?�it could be argued that our results do not directly apply to the clinical situation, because MPH was administered by injection. Yet, similar pathological changes were see in the six mice that received MPH orally. The limited number of animals receiving MPH by this route dictates a cautious interpretation; nevertheless, we found no basis to expect a different pathological profile following oral administration.”

"�?�it is difficult to draw conclusions concerning long-term accumulation or safe doses. Yet our observations definitively showed that lesions were present in animals treated with therapeutic doses and that these lesions persisted. "

“this study, using laboratory animals under a controlled single drug regimen, corroborates and strengthens the previous supposition that MPH was a likely causal agent in the formation of similar ultrastructural alterations observed in a patient on chronic MPH therapy.”

“Our treatment protocol revealed clearly the requirement of a minimal dose, in order to induce even incipient structural changes; however, these minimum dosages fell within the range of therapeutic dosage prescribed for patients with attention deficit disorders.”

"Also noteworthy was the rapid development of pathological changes (i.e., within 3 weeks). "

"The rapid appearance of lamellar structures, coupled with the potential for irreversibility and the profound structural changes seen in a patient on long-term MPH therapy, suggests that these findings may have clinical consequences for drug interactions and long-term side effects of MPH of which clinicians should be aware. "

[/quote]

Medications have side effects. True. Is this really being debated? It’s up to the prescribing doctor to fully inform patients and/or families of patients what they are getting into. I’m not a huge fan of meds, and I do think a lot of people who are on meds would be better off making changes to their lives as a first line response, but these drugs, despite their negatives, can help produce powerful positive changes as well.

[quote]CrewPierce wrote:
Sifu- lord man I had to take my medicine just to get through that post. Anyway, I’m not impressed. [/quote]

I know it is a lot of info, sorry. I am just trying to show that I am not talking out of my ass. I am getting my info from a neurologist.

[quote]
"Nationally, special education enrollment grew from 10.6% of all students to 12.3% during the study period, from the 1991�??92 school year to 2000-01. "
Ok great a 2% increase, while the US population rose 9.5% over the same time frame (2380666 verse 2607632). [/quote]

You need to reread that. The growth in enrollment was the percentage of all students. It wasn’t affected by population growth.

[quote]
Also when a school gets additional funding from the state of course they are going to increase the special ed classes as they can now afford better schooling for the kids that were either borderline or they just didn’t have enough funds to cover all of the kids needs. [/quote]

Creative accounting and book keeping methods can cause the money to go to uses it wasn’t intended for.

[quote]
My girlfriend teachers special needs and trust me they are making ZERO money. In fact the school system has to limit the amount of paper per class room. [/quote]

In Michigan special ed teachers get a six thousand dollar a year bonus. Trust me they are making money. The reason why the limit the number of kids they can enroll is because of the bounty system. Under the bounty system schools can get three times more money for a special ed student as they do for a regular student. If they didn’t put a limit on it there would be entire school districts in special ed.

[quote]
If you think it costs the same to teach a gifted student as it does a special needs you are sorely mistaken so the schools should get more money for each special needs student. [/quote]

A lot of gifted students end up in special ed because they are bored to distraction in regular classes. When that happens the gifted students are called speds and ridiculed as being retards by their less gifted peers.

[quote]
Your figures are 7 years old anyway.[/quote]

What has changed in seven years? The only thing I can think of is schools are no longer allowed to coerce parents into putting their children on drugs. But maybe you know something I don’t. So what is it?

Here is information showing ritalin is more addictive than cocaine.

New Research Indicts Ritalin

By Kelly Patricia O’Meara

A recent study reveals that the drug being prescribed to tens of millions
of school-age children for a scientifically unproved mental disorder is
more potent than cocaine.
Thirty years ago the World Health Organization (WHO) concluded that Ritalin was
pharmacologically similar to cocaine in the pattern of abuse it fostered and cited it as a
Schedule II drug �?? the most addictive in medical use. The Department of Justice also
cited Ritalin as a Schedule II drug under the Controlled Substances Act, and the Drug
Enforcement Agency (DEA) warned that “Ritalin substitutes for cocaine and d-
amphetamine in a number of behavioral paradigms.”

Despite decades of official warnings and supporting research confirming the
similarities of methylphenidate (Ritalin) and cocaine, tens of millions of children in the
United States have been prescribed this psychotropic drug for a widely accepted yet
scientifically unproved mental condition: attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder
(ADHD). Now a recently concluded study at the Brookhaven National Laboratory (BNL)
not only confirms the similarities of cocaine and Ritalin, but finds that Ritalin is more
potent than cocaine in its effect on the dopamine system, which many doctors believe is
one of the areas of the brain most affected by drugs such as Ritalin and cocaine.

   The outcome of this research was so surprising that team leader Nora Volkow, a 

psychiatrist who is associate laboratory director for life sciences at BNL, told the media
that she and the team were “shocked as hell” at the results. “The data,” explains Volkow,
“clearly show that the notion that Ritalin is a weak stimulant is completely incorrect.”

   This revelation should be of no surprise to the medical and psychiatric communities, 

given the already documented warnings about methylphenidate by federal law-
enforcement agencies and international organizations, but it is noteworthy on one level.
Volkow’s newly released research reinforces what critics long have known �?? that the
“medication” being prescribed for ADHD is not merely similar to cocaine but is in fact
more potent. And the results raise further questions about the validity and repercussions
of having an entire generation of children diagnosed with a “mental disorder” or “brain
disease” which to date has no basis in physical science.

   Volkow's findings, published in the Journal of Neuroscience and reported in the 

Journal of the American Medical Association, may act as a wake-up call to parents,
educators and lawmakers who have yet to address the question of whether ADHD is a
real physical, medical or neurological disease that can be scientifically confirmed or is
even confirmable. Because the ADHD diagnosis is the No. 1 reason for drugging school-
age children, and Volkow’s research reconfirms that Ritalin isn’t just kid stuff, parents
may want to re-evaluate their child’s treatment. The numbers alone are a telling sign of
where the push to medicate is going.

   According to the DEA, the number of prescriptions written for Ritalin since 1991 has 

increased by a factor of five (2.2 million) and about 80 percent of the 11 million
prescriptions written for Ritalin are to “treat” ADHD. This means that nearly 9 million
children have been prescribed the cocainelike “medication.”

   Furthermore, according to a study published last February in the Journal of the 

American Medical Association, “Trends in the Prescribing of Psychotropic Medications
to Preschoolers,” psychotropic medications have tripled in preschoolers ages 2 to 4
during a five-year period. More disturbing, say critics, given Volkow’s recent revelations,
is that during the last 15 years the use of Ritalin increased by 311 percent for those ages
15 to 19 and 170 percent for those ages 5 to 14.

   The most recent figures available reveal that in 1998 there were approximately 46 

million children in kindergarten through grade 12. Twenty percent �?? one of every five
children in school �?? have been doped with the mind-altering drug.

   This can be good news only for investors in the Swiss-based pharmaceutical 

company Novartis, which makes Ritalin. For instance, if the number of children taking
the drug increased fivefold, so did the drug company’s resultant profits and (presumably)
stock value. In a June 28, 1999, article, “Doping Kids,” Insight estimated that Novartis
generated an increase in its stock-market value of $1,236 per child prescribed Ritalin.
Based on these evaluations, the drug company would have enjoyed an increased stock-
market value of approximately $10 billion or more since 1991.

   In fact, the number of children being prescribed the cocainelike drug is rising at such 

a rate that, while good for investors, if ADHD were based on science and were a
communicable disease, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention would consider it
a major medical epidemic among America’s youth. In the meantime, prescriptions
continue to increase even as researchers continue to focus on the effect of psychotropic
drugs such as Ritalin rather than on how scientifically to verify or validate the diagnosis.

And critics of this mass drugging have become convinced that is no accident.

   Take neurologist Fred Baughman for example, who tells Insight, "Yes, they have 

proved and we’ve known for decades that Ritalin alters/damages/changes the brain. But
with no evidence that ADHD is a disease we also know that these children are normal.
All this research [from Volkow at BNL] says to me is that 9 million children diagnosed
as having ADHD are being damaged by Ritalin just as with cocaine and every other
psychotropic drug."

   "The point," explains Baughman, "is that normal children are being drugged exactly 

like the Cali and Medellín cartels, but under the guise of medication to help and with all
in the medical community being knowing participants. She [Volkow] found something
very alarming about Ritalin and at the same time is writing like ADHD is a proven thing
�?? that ADHD is a real disease. It just isn’t so. It’s pure propaganda and there never has
been proof of a specific chemical [or] physical abnormality in children diagnosed with
the alleged ADHD. None."

   Renay Tanner, an expert in human rights and psychiatry and a doctoral candidate in 

sociomedical sciences at Columbia University, tells Insight, “Volkow isn’t saying
anything new. She’s just looked at the issue with a different technique. The important
thing to remember is that no child ever has died from ADHD, yet a number of children
have died from the ‘treatment,’ not to mention the brain damage, stunted growth and
suicidal feelings they experience. One has to ask why children are being targeted for the
myth of the chemical imbalance when no one can show that an alleged sufferer has a
chemical imbalance and no one �?? certainly not the medical community �?? even knows
what such a chemical imbalance might be.”

   Tanner continues: "The brain is too complex and our understanding of it is too 

minimal to be giving children these drugs. We know the drugs cause harm to the brain
but have yet to find any real evidence that they are helpful. Sure, the drugs may shut them
up, and I suppose that’s good for the parents and teachers, but is it good for the children?
I strongly believe that the federal government should remove the financial incentives
from school districts as a kind of reward for the number of children put on these drugs.
After all, why does the government do this? Is it good intentions gone bad or social
policy with unintended consequences? At the most, Volkow’s research is excellent
evidence that children should not be given Ritalin. One has to ask why this research
wasn’t done before millions of children were put on a mind-altering drug."

   Despite Volkow's revelations about Ritalin's potency, critics don't see changes in 

the status quo anytime soon. Beverly Eakman, founder of the National Education
Consortium, a nonprofit corporation specializing in education law, and the author of
Cloning of the American Mind, tells Insight, “The agenda is to dope as many kids as
possible because it makes them more suggestible �?? more open to doing what normally
they wouldn’t do.”

   According to Eakman, "These drugs make children more manageable, not 

necessarily better. ADHD is a phenomenon, not a ‘brain disease.’ It is culture-caused,
and what we need to focus on is that we are manufacturing drugs for diseases that don’t
exist. Because the diagnosis of ADHD is fraudulent, it doesn’t matter whether a drug
‘works.’ You’ve got doctors being encouraged to prescribe these drugs whenever a
complaint from a patient is too difficult or costly to diagnose. Why aren’t people up in
arms about the fact that children are being forced to take a drug that is stronger than
cocaine for a disease that is yet to be proven?"

   Critics of the ADHD diagnosis have been asking this question for years, but the 

psychiatric community appears to have turned more and more to medicating. A closer
look at what leaders in psychiatry are saying may prove helpful. In January, for example,
National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH) Director Steve Hyman reported at the NIMH
Advisory Council meeting that “we can make correct clinical diagnoses if the right kind
of evaluation is available to children. When proper diagnosis is made,
methylphenidate/Ritalin can be safe and effective.” Hyman warned: “We ignore mood
disorders in children at our peril. Just because a child is in their seat doesn’t mean they
are okay.”

   Critics suggest that it also doesn't mean that they aren't okay, and that Hyman's 

remarks only confirm that psychiatric diagnosis is subjective �?? that diagnosis of mental
health depends upon who is looking.

Question: why is it that this Baughman implies that ADHD is not a real disease because there is no “chemical or physical abnormality” demonstrated? Whoever latches onto this argument does not understand how the system is currently set up. Is depression a real disease? Panic disorder? How about Autism?

[quote]mrw173 wrote:
Question: why is it that this Baughman implies that ADHD is not a real disease because there is no “chemical or physical abnormality” demonstrated? Whoever latches onto this argument does not understand how the system is currently set up. Is depression a real disease? Panic disorder? How about Autism?[/quote]

Autism spectrum disorders like Aspergers have their roots in the medical establishment of nazi Germany. When Hans Asperger invented the condition he was working at the Leigzig clinic which was nazi Germanies first child killing center. The Leipzig clinic was were Joseph Mengele had is first posting after he graduated from medical school. The head of the Leipzig clinic authored the infamous book “The Release of the Destruction of Life unworthy of living” which was the justification for the euthenasia program there.

[quote]Sifu wrote:
tom63 wrote:
wirewound wrote:
Honestly, I’ve seen more harm done by the ‘Big Pharm is the devil’ folks than by the pharm companies. Occassionally, people are over-medicated…but when it comes to ADHD, I think it’s a pretty open-and-shut case - mostly because the meds are so effective.

Resorting to scientology for you facts is about the same as resorting to the Weekly World News for your news.

Also true, what I don’t understand is how people can look at this one way or the other. Dr. amen is an advocate of lifestyle changes along with meds. He’s all for lifestyle changes instead of meds if you can manage.

Soemecan’t, some can. And if parents do the meds and it’s detrimental to a kid, so what? This might sound ridiculous, but how many fat kids are out there? How many idiot kids aren’t disciplined right and are out of control?

My point is that the government can’t raise kids. Parents have to, and many aren’t bright enough to do a good job with them. Some won’t know enough to work with a doctor and their kid properly.

Those that do won’t have any worries about a school system of pyschologist or whatever. I have seen locally that many underprivileged kids seem to have ADD or ADHD. Now I have seen and read that there could be a genetic component to ADHD,a nd this might explain things.

Or, if you’re raised by an idiot, symptoms might be worse and harder to control.

You haven’t done your homework obviously. “if parents do the meds and it’s detrimental to a kid, so what?” Cat scans performed on Ritalin users have shown that Ritalin cases on average a ten percent loss of brain mass. Your flippant “so what” attitude to what is essentially a chemical lobotomy shows your ignorance.

Furthermore biopsies done on the cardiac tissues of ritalin users have shown structural changes at the cellular level. Several hundred to several thousand kids have had massive heart attacks and died on ritalin has been the result. Millions of young Americans have had permanent damage done to their cardiac tissue and now have ticking time bombs in their chests which can kill them prematurely and you say “so what”.

Here is information on cardiac changes.

[Fred A. Baughman Jr., MD: OF INTEREST (HOPEFULLY) TO ALL WITH CHILDREN ON RITALIN. Just the heart was looked at in this study with electron-microscope. It is probable that similar changes are occurring in all organs, the brain included. Fred Baughman, MD, 10/30/02]
Henderson TA, Fischer VW Effects of Methylphenidate (Ritalin) on Mammalian Myocardial Ultrastructure. The American Journal of Cardiovascular Pathology. 1994;5:68-78.

“A number of adverse reactions have been associated with MPH therapy, particularly cardiovascular side effect, such as arrhythmia, tachycardia, and changes in blood pressure [1,2]. MPH is an amphetamine congener with a molecular structure resembling that of amphiphilic drugs. Administration of certain amphiphilic drugs has been shown to induce phospholipidoses by interfering with phospholipid catabolism in a variety of cell types, resulting in a lysosomal accumulation of abnormal amounts of membranes. Ultrastructurally, one striking alteration, among others, is the presence of lamellar bodies in a variety of tissues exposed to amphiphillic drugs.”

“We have previously observed analogous lamellar membrane accumulations in myocardial cells of a patient on chronic therapy with MPH.” "In order to determine if a causal relationship exists between MPH and ultrastructural myocardial changes previously described in the patient, we administered MPH to two rodent species.

Thirty male Swiss-Webster mice, weighing approximately 25-30 g each: Groups of 3 animals each were injected (intra-peritoneal) with 0.5 mg/kg, 2.5 mg/kg or 5.0 mg /kg of Ritalin. The injections were given three times a week for periods of 4 and 14 weeks prior to sacrifice.

Results: The myocardium of mice injected with 0.5 mg/kg MPH, regardless of treatment duration, showed little or no recognizable ultrasturctural changes�?�Incipient alterations were observed following treatment with 1.5 mg/kg MPH for 4 weeks; however administration of this dose for 14 weeks resulted in a variety of myocardial abnormalities similar to those seen with higher doses at all time points. Initially, foci of loose, unorganized aggregates of membranes and foci of distinctly circular membranous profiles with reduplication, suggesting the formation of lamellations, were observed. These abnormalities were reminiscent of a membrane folding back on itself and spiraling inward�?� "Pronounced lesions in our rodents were more evident with prolonged exposure and appeared to approach a stable level of incidence; however, lesions were highly focal and a wide range of alterations within individual animals was notices. These structural abnormalities persisted to a reduced degree, for as prolonged time after stopping the MPH injections.

“�?�it could be argued that our results do not directly apply to the clinical situation, because MPH was administered by injection. Yet, similar pathological changes were see in the six mice that received MPH orally. The limited number of animals receiving MPH by this route dictates a cautious interpretation; nevertheless, we found no basis to expect a different pathological profile following oral administration.”

"�?�it is difficult to draw conclusions concerning long-term accumulation or safe doses. Yet our observations definitively showed that lesions were present in animals treated with therapeutic doses and that these lesions persisted. "

“this study, using laboratory animals under a controlled single drug regimen, corroborates and strengthens the previous supposition that MPH was a likely causal agent in the formation of similar ultrastructural alterations observed in a patient on chronic MPH therapy.”

“Our treatment protocol revealed clearly the requirement of a minimal dose, in order to induce even incipient structural changes; however, these minimum dosages fell within the range of therapeutic dosage prescribed for patients with attention deficit disorders.”

"Also noteworthy was the rapid development of pathological changes (i.e., within 3 weeks). "

"The rapid appearance of lamellar structures, coupled with the potential for irreversibility and the profound structural changes seen in a patient on long-term MPH therapy, suggests that these findings may have clinical consequences for drug interactions and long-term side effects of MPH of which clinicians should be aware. "

[/quote]

My point is that the parents have the right to be idiots, unless you want a fascist state raising your kid. I don’t care about all this crap, just my kids. I do my job well. If others don’t, who cares?

I can’t raise 50 million kids. If you have crappy parents, you will get crappy kids. I don’t personally think it’s the government’s job to dictate one way or the other.

But of course, I’m sure you’d get a big chubby if the government did what you think is right.

If people don’t think there can be long term side effects from drug therapy, they are morons. But is is still legal to be stupid in this country.

I myself dealt with ADD with me and my daughter. She did the drugs a few years and did well and is now off the drugs. We worked with the family doctor. And it was picked up by the school. And we had her tested. and she had it and what I said before.

You’re not going to find this process in each family that deals with this. some people are idiots and will not do the same things, but it is America and they have the right to be shitty parents.

Copy and pasted articles aside.

[quote]Sifu wrote:
mrw173 wrote:
Question: why is it that this Baughman implies that ADHD is not a real disease because there is no “chemical or physical abnormality” demonstrated? Whoever latches onto this argument does not understand how the system is currently set up. Is depression a real disease? Panic disorder? How about Autism?

Autism spectrum disorders like Aspergers have their roots in the medical establishment of nazi Germany. When Hans Asperger invented the condition he was working at the Leigzig clinic which was nazi Germanies first child killing center. The Leipzig clinic was were Joseph Mengele had is first posting after he graduated from medical school. The head of the Leipzig clinic authored the infamous book “The Release of the Destruction of Life unworthy of living” which was the justification for the euthenasia program there.

[/quote]

Thanks for not answering the question.

Why ask the question to begin with?

Just curious. Your mind is obviously set, there’s no point in believing anyone will be changing it. Given the experiences listed on this thread, I don’t think you’ll be changing their minds either.

So far you’ve questioned some posters asking what kind of medical authority they are on ADHD when you’re not one yourself, but you do know a neurologist which apparently trumps anyone else – including those who actually have it or know someone who do.

It’s interesting reading your posts about the irresponsibility of taking Ritalin, etc., when you’ve linked the Death from Ritalin site. They version of ADHD treatment includes visiting a chiropractor and an optometrist (?!).

Not to mention the assertions on that site of how incredibly helpful these ‘treatments’ are and make general claims about studies made which prove it yet don’t link the study or say when it was – which is funny since you’ve got a problem with anyone making general claims unless they back it up with some official study.

And your comment to CrewPierce about the school system doing “creative accounting” for financial coverups so they get more money? Bold claim. Where are your facts for this? Perhaps there’s an accountant you know personally as well?

[quote]Tech9 wrote:
Sifu wrote:But maybe you know something I don’t. So what is it?

Why ask the question to begin with?
[/quote]

You are the one who tried to imply that things have changed in the last seven years. I am simply asking what has changed.

[quote]
Just curious. Your mind is obviously set, there’s no point in believing anyone will be changing it. Given the experiences listed on this thread, I don’t think you’ll be changing their minds either. [/quote]

Experience is a great teacher. I know people who have had to deal with this stuff. I have seen the kind of pressure tactics the drug pushers use and I have seen the dishonesty that goes on. I know people who were coerced, I konw people who were drugged, I work for a boss who is an adult ritalin user. I’m glad when I can get away from him when he’s coked up on his pills. So you do have a point about my mind being set, but it didn’t just happen in one day. It was a lot of experience over several decades that has developed my point of view.

[quote]
So far you’ve questioned some posters asking what kind of medical authority they are on ADHD when you’re not one yourself, but you do know a neurologist which apparently trumps anyone else – including those who actually have it or know someone who do. [/quote]

A neurologist is a doctor who specializes in the nervous system. So yes he does trump a lot of people. The primary group pushing drugs has been school psyciatrists. A neurologist is qualified to make diagnosis and much more honest. School pschiatrists are proven decievers and the schools they work for have a financial stake in them pushing drugs.

I wouldn’t trust a school psychiatrist going anywhere near my kid. Would you? If you would why?

[quote]
It’s interesting reading your posts about the irresponsibility of taking Ritalin, etc., when you’ve linked the Death from Ritalin site. They version of ADHD treatment includes visiting a chiropractor and an optometrist (?!). [/quote]

I don’t agree with it but a lot of these people are under heavy pressure from some sleazy manipulative people and they don’t understand the type of people they are dealing with. The fact remains, they caved into the pressure and now their kid is dead as a result. There are hundreds or even thousands more families that have lost a child the same way.

[quote]
Not to mention the assertions on that site of how incredibly helpful these ‘treatments’ are and make general claims about studies made which prove it yet don’t link the study or say when it was – which is funny since you’ve got a problem with anyone making general claims unless they back it up with some official study.

And your comment to CrewPierce about the school system doing “creative accounting” for financial coverups so they get more money? Bold claim. Where are your facts for this? Perhaps there’s an accountant you know personally as well?[/quote]

Violating civil rights is a crime. All the school administrators who used coercion are criminals. Practicing medicine without a license is a crime. Criminals cannot be trusted to account for money in an honest manner.

[quote]Sifu wrote:
You are the one who tried to imply that things have changed in the last seven years. I am simply asking what has changed.[/quote]

That was CrewPierce. I was just asking because I was curious.

True. However your point of view and experience isn’t the end all be all.

I’m not talking about school psychiatrists. I’m talking about the people you’ve brushed aside on this thread who actually have it or know someone who does and got treated for it.

If every ADD drug killed or doped up people into zombies, then you might have something, but the experience of several people here show that to be otherwise.

School psychiatrists aren’t the only ones who diagnose ADD, btw.

I don’t have kids, so my response would be completely theoretical. Best example I can think of is a friend who has a kid whose 4th grade teacher pointed out he might have ADD. He got tested (more than a pencil doodle test and not from a school psychiatrist), which showed he did have ADD and was given Strattera.

Worked like a charm and he’s able to concentrate in class and get great grades, which he wasn’t before. He’s now in a couple honors programs.

[quote]Sifu wrote:
I don’t agree with it but a lot of these people are under heavy pressure from some sleazy manipulative people and they don’t understand the type of people they are dealing with.[/quote]

About as sleazy as people advocating vision and chiropractic treatment? I knew someone who had ADHD who wore glasses and got adjusted for a back issue. Still had ADHD. The only difference is when he took Adderall.

Again, you’re bypassing my original comment. Not all schools are engaged in coverups or coercion regarding ADD. You’re painting a broad stroke of an argument without backing it up with any “facts” – the same “facts” you’d be requesting from someone regarding schools systems not being greedy/something proving ADD exists.

Not that you’d believe it anyway, so it’d be a moot point to begin with.

Cheers.

I think I have ADHD… =/

Sifu - You have cited one or two neurologists that are skeptical about ADHD diagnoses. Care to explain the thousands of neurologists who DO support diagnosing ADHD?

If you’re using the expertise of neurologists as the foundation of your argument, then you’re really shooting yourself in the foot here.