posted 02-01-2002 10:23 AM            

quote:

---

Most physicians, like the public, have bought into the whole psychiatric line. The populace at large has been so brainwashed by this "tyranny of the experts" that they cannot bring themselves to believe things are other than what the psychiatric industry and the pharmaceutical companies tell them. The population has been told again and again that these "diseases" exist, despite the fact that there is no scientific proof to back up their claims.

People have been lied to so often that they can't disabuse themselves of the notion that these so-called diseases are chemical abnormalities of the brain. Psychiatry never has proved that ADHD, let alone depression, anxiety or obsessive-compulsive disorder [OCD], even exists. Yet this hasn't stopped doctors from diagnosing them. It simply was decided during the early days of psychopharmacology — of psychiatric drugs — that these were nice theories and they were fed to the public as fact.

---

posted 02-01-2002 11:21 AM            

Yet, in his practice, he sees many kids whose symptoms show a definite impairment, and whose tests show a chemical imbalance; and those kids and their parents usually see marked improvement with the proper drug treatement. I'll stick with someone I know and trust on this issue.

Thermit, your quote was insightful. There are many phenomena or instances of such interpretations. Just replace the specific nouns with X's and see how many different things might be germane:

posted 02-01-2002 08:02 PM            

Drug-Free Treatment of "Attention Deficit Disorder (ADD)" by Dr. Allen Burez http://www.psychtruth.com/Pages/Drug_Free_Treatment_of_ADD.htm

Also: Attention Deficit Disaster by John McGinnis http://www.psychtruth.com/Pages/Attention_Deficit_Disaster.htm

posted 02-02-2002 12:34 PM            

Note, when I began this topic I did not state an agreement or disagreement with the views of Dr. Fred Baughman nor am I doing so at this time. I offered the topic and the response has been what it has been.

3T3L1, I have something else to say to you but before I do I must digress for a moment for the purpose of letting you have a better idea of where I'm coming from.

There's a question I have to ask myself constantly: "Am I observing or listening for that which will confirm what I already think? Or, am I observing and listening in order to discover something new?" I have the necessity to ask myself this question continuously because I seem to have an almost automatic impluse (an unwanted condition) to confirm what I already think and there is no growth in that.

It seems to me that if I observe or listen with an intention to confirm what I already think, then I am only seeking to affirm my rightness (the more that agree = the more right I am). It would also appear that I might not be so confident or stable with my viewpoint and need further approval to feel secure. On the other hand, when I observe and listen with an intention to discover something new I'd better have a willingness to evaluate the data I'm receivng and possibly even shift my viewpoint. And how do I evaluate? Well, I compare data to data. For instance: a)datum - ADHD is a myth. b)datum - ADHD is real. I observe and listen to (a). I observe and listen to (b). Now I compare a and b to (c) the environment. What do I observe in my environment. Does what I observe align to (a) or to (b) or does yet another datum emerge? In any case, this process eventually progresses me to the attainment of my own viewpoint on the topic.

A primary viewpoint and one I strive to keep constant, is to always observe and listen with the intention to discover something new all the while maintaining a willingness to change my mind (reality/agreement).

Another point on evaluation: Words that are aggregative such as, everyone, everybody, all, etc. or any reference to a preponderance of agreement ie., millions of children are diagnosed with ADHD every year and... are eradicated from any evaluation immediately as "generalizations". Also, any reference to an "authoritative" figure or "credentials" is taken with a grain of salt as "authorities" are for hire and "credentials" can be bought.

My senior datum in evaluation is my personal integrity ie., What do I observe? What do I hear? What do I feel? et. And having the courage to know what it is that I know and say what I know despite anything. That is my personal integrity (my truth) and whether or not my truth aligns or agrees with another's truth is of no importance.

It is my truth that we must challenge everything but to do so with an intention of discovery not with an intention of stubborness or asserting our own rightness. We must challenge it all. Any that do not, I believe, have fallen into a state of apathy in relation to what they are not willing to challenge.

But keep in mind, it's when we begin to enforce our own truth onto others that we get into some deep trouble.

Okay, that's enough for my digression.

3T3L1, as you suggested earlier, I am checking out Biederman and Faraone. Now, as for the other two articles I posted, You said, "These articles contain so much information that's just plain untrue, I don't know where to begin." 3T3L1, I consider this to be an irresponsible comment on your part. You're using the preponderance angle ie., "...so much information..." then go on to imply that you're overwhelmed by this volume of untruth ie., "...I don't know where to begin." And that's it?!

3T3L1, if the information contained in these two articles did overwhelm you, as you imply, my suggestion is, that you go back to the articles and choose one or two points that you consider to be untrue and address those from your truth. Then from there you possibly can choose a couple of others and do the same. This way we can deal in specifics not generalities. This will be of benefit to those of us here evaluating the topic of ADHD.

3T3L1, again, why did you feel it necessary to apologize to me?

Hoople

posted 02-05-2002 11:02 PM            

I get that you are a tired and somewhat emotionally drained debunker of ADHD debunkers. Too, I get that, in your opinion, the other two articles I posted contained, what you considered to be, a "huge" amount of false statements (certainly too many to respond to). Then I get that you believe the appearance of a substantial number of footnotes at the end of an article invalidates that article. I also get that it requires less energy and emotional engagement to throw around generalities and subtle implications than it does to address specifics. And finally, I get you're sorry about this.

You know 3T3L1, I don't know what I expected from you, but I guess I somehow expected (from reading many other posts of yours on other threads) a more crisp and direct articulation of your viewpoint than what you've shown here. You know, like your directing me to Biederman and Faraone, then saying that teachers and parents were not qualified to diagnose ADHD, those are the sort of responses I expected from you. This other though, regarding the articles, seems out of character.

It's interesting to me that in posting this topic, and the dialouge that ensued, I inadvertently brought about the realization of my own glibness with regards to my viewpoint on ADHD. Therefore, I'm pursuing a more detailed observation into this topic.

I'll be back around to this thread before long though to offer my opinion on ADHD.

posted 02-20-2002 12:00 AM            

CHILDREN OF THE NEW GENERATION
by Richard Giles

Have you been to the movies lately and experienced the information that's communicated through new screen advertising techniques, and have you been able to take it all in? These rapid fire digital communications techniques are fast and furious. Many people in my (older) generation find the speed of information too much. In contrast, many younger people relate easily to the rush of images and have no trouble understanding it all. I think it's a symptom of the pace of this younger generation's information processing abilities - It's sometimes breathtaking.

This month I want to look at another group whom I've considered before, those born in the years 1988 to 1998. They came into the world as the two outer giant gaseous planets, Uranus and Neptune began a ten year conjunction, most of it in the sign of Capricorn. Neptune had entered Capricorn in 1984 followed by Uranus in 1988. Uranus left Capricorn in 1996 and Neptune in 1998. Outer planets are known as the "impersonal" ones because they represent global, social, political and economic events that impact on us all.

Since Uranus is about the future, inventiveness, computers and new technologies and Neptune about inspiration and sensitivity, the combination is likely to bring about very sensitive children who are in tune with the pace of tecnnological and future change (trying to bring it down to a few key words). Those born in 1988-89 and 1991-93 have the strongest combinations. In 1988-89 the triple boost of Saturn ruled the emphasis with the other two outer planets. In 1991-93 Uranus and Neptune exactly conjuncted three times. In 1995 Uranus moved into Aquarius and the double planet intermingling took on a futuristic overtone due to the Aquarian energies.

Back in Oct/Nov 1999 I wrote on the Indigo children from a book by the same name written by Lee Carroll and JanTober (Hay House, 1999). These children have a number of key issues that help identify them. They have few self-worth issues, they have no fear of authority, they are frustrated by systems that are non-creative and ritual oriented, they want to do things in new and better ways, they sometimes seem antisocial, and they do not respond to guilt-inducing discipline techniques in school or at home. They are born from about 1988 through until 1998. You could look at a wider orb of ages but this is the central period.

Many of these children are gifted souls. They are ones who can combine the weird, inventive and futuristic energies of Uranus with the inspirational energies of Neptune. They have all sorts of patterns by which their behaviors are indicated - probably the most obvious is what we calll ADHD or ADD. However, they ought not be diagnosed as hyperactive, dyslexic and suffering from neurological disorders. The astrologer Donna Cunningham who wrote an excellent article titled The Ritalin Generation, describes them as children who may be "wired" differently from the rest of us. In fact, she suggests that rather than having ADD and being described as hyperactive, it is more likely that the previous generations (the rest of us) are to be considered hypoactive by comparison (Mountain Astrologer, April/May 2001).

The children elected as "Indigo" by authors Carroll and Tober may be the ones who can best adjust to the future as it's forming now with it's vast high tech and mind expanding possibilities. Only they have a nervous system "wired" for the immense unfolding of the next few decades, processing and acting upon astoundingly large amounts of information in very short spaces of time. This is why the new movie and TV adverts can be described as creative, independent, brilliant and self-governing. Unfortunately it also means they do not fit in with today's education systems which to many of these children, seem as unfulfilling as a discarded old piece of rag and as frustratingly slow as can be with non-responsive, entrenched authoritarianism.

Many then are seen as difficult and overactive and are drugged out with Ritalin or similar pharmaceutical prescriptions to keep them limited to the older standards. Give them enlightened teachers who don't have issues with authority themselves and they will thrive. Lock their minds up and they will rebel or refuse to cooperate and drop out.

Identifying this combination child is the first step (not all born from 1988 have every characteristic). Cooperating with them is next. They will inherit the environmental predicament made by today's leaders as their big issue being called upon to resolve it. They need support, understanding, creativeness and patience.

The Indigo Children, Lee Carroll & Jan Tober, Hay House, USA 1999. The Ritalin Generation, Donna Cunningham, Mtn Astrologer, Issue #96, 2001. Website: http://www.indigochildren.com

Perhaps many of you are familiar with the Indigo children, but, for me, this is the first time I've heard of them. I find this to be a very interesting angle to the ADD/ADHD situation and one that backs me further away to look at the broader picture.

posted 02-23-2002 05:45 PM            

Whenever the doctor writes a prescription for Ritalin, he notes the date, the amount, and the unique triplicate form number on the patient's chart. The patient must pick up (or have mailed to him) the top two pages of the physical form. The third page remains in our office. The blank triplicate forms are locked up at night, and a strict inventory is kept so that forms are not diverted or stolen.

The patient must take the physical prescription form to a pharmacy and have it filled within seven days, or the prescription is void. If the patient loses the form, we require that he turn in a report of that loss to the police before we will write another prescription. Upon filling the prescription, the pharmacy will mail one of the sheets of the triplicate form to Austin and keep the other sheet for its records.

If the patient observes that a pharmacy has shorted the number of pills dispensed, we investigate the situation and if we feel there is likelihood of a crime, we report that pharmacist to the State Board of Pharmacy. We have done this at least once. If a patient runs out of pills too soon, he is not given another prescription until the date on which the prescription is due to run out. If this happens repeatedly, the patient is dismissed from the practice. (We have had to do this three times in recent years.) If a patient claims to have lost his pills and needs a new prescription, he must file a police report and give us the number of that report before he gets a new prescription. The incident is recorded in his chart, and it never happens more than once.

If we have reason to believe that a patient is getting Ritalin from more than one doctor, this is investigated, and if necessary the patient is dismissed from the practice. I don't believe this has ever happened, but we are always alert to the possbility.

posted 02-23-2002 07:28 PM            

1. No Refills; a new Rx must be presented each time.
2. A photo driver's license or state ID must be presented when dropping off the Rx and picking it up. The ID # is recorded. (Of course there were 4 cameras recording every action in and around the pharmacy.)
3. All C-II's were double-counted by a tech/store manager and then again by the pharmacist. All Rx's are scanned and recorded. C-II's are kept in a locked safe that only the pharmacist has the combination. Strict Inventory is kept and each is entered. Weekly accounting is made and it better be to the pill. (One error is big trouble.)

posted 02-25-2002 02:46 PM            

But compare the number of unscrupulous physicians (MDs and DOs) with the number of non-physicians who hustle their own formulations -- which have not even gone through any sort of serious testing procedure -- as cures of everything from cancer to bad breath! Those losers peddle their own quack nostrums at the less-reliable health food stores, over the Internet, and at park-n-swaps. Their research consists of undocumented testimonials and just plain deceptive and fraudulent advertising.

How many people, with a progressive cancer -- who might've been saved through aggresive accepted medical approaches -- condemned themselves to death and their families to a lifetime of grief by running off somewhere for some "sure cure" for cancer like "electro-bio-cosmico-therapy" or, even worse, that apricot-pit formulation which was so popular -- and deadly -- ten to twenty years ago?

I'll bank on the boys and girls with the MD after their names -- any time. There are some quacks and incompetents, true; but the chances of being killed by them are a whole lot less, in my opinion.

Regards,