 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / General / Dentistry / January 2005RITALIN CAUSES TOOTH DECAY - RANT
This is really pissing me off My teeth are decaying so badly I've gone of the Ritalin. Don't fob me off with Ritalin doesn't affect tooth decay - I do dentistry. Methlyphenidate causes dry mouth. Saliva is essential for protecting your teeth - it kills bacteria, mechanically disrupts biolfilm formation and contains calcium and phosphate ions that prevent your teeth from dissolving away. I could be more dentally aware - it's not like I need dental advice... I have never had a filling IN MY LIFE. A few weeks on ritalin, i need 4. Guys, I'm warning you, think about getting a saliva subsitute or just don't take Ritalin. > This is really pissing me off > [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > Guys, I'm warning you, think about getting a saliva subsitute or just > don't take Ritalin. This warrants consideration. So is the appearance of 4 carious lesions after a few weeks. So, after 3+ years of UK dental education, how do you explain developing caries on virgin teeth in a few weeks. Just curious. carabelli >> This is really pissing me off >> [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > >carabelli W_B thinks this is spam for Ritalin's competitor. He has reported all of them. Joel >This warrants consideration. > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > >carabelli They were deflowered. -- W_B Take out the G'RBAGE wubbabubbazG@RBAGEyahoo.com >This is really pissing me off > >My teeth are decaying so badly I've gone of the Ritalin. Doubtful, sorry. >Don't fob me off with Ritalin doesn't affect tooth decay - I do >dentistry. DO DENTISTRY? How so? >Methlyphenidate causes dry mouth. Saliva is essential for protecting >your teeth - it kills bacteria, mechanically disrupts biolfilm [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >I have never had a filling IN MY LIFE. A few weeks on ritalin, i need >4. NEW DENTIST, right? Joel >Guys, I'm warning you, think about getting a saliva subsitute or just >don't take Ritalin. >>This is really pissing me off >> [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] >>Guys, I'm warning you, think about getting a saliva subsitute or just >>don't take Ritalin. He is a dental student in the UK I have patients - I do dentistry. Dry mouth/Xerostomia is a huge problem (not just caused by Ritalin I'm sure) > This is really pissing me off > [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > Guys, I'm warning you, think about getting a saliva subsitute or just > don't take Ritalin. Well it affects the ANS, increased sympathetic hence inc. sweating and decreased salivary function. In alt.support.attn-deficit Chris <chris.holland16@btopenworld.com> wrote: : This is really pissing me off : My teeth are decaying so badly I've gone of the Ritalin. : Don't fob me off with Ritalin doesn't affect tooth decay - I do : dentistry. : Methlyphenidate causes dry mouth. Saliva is essential for protecting it's not just Ritalin. it's many medications. chill out. > In alt.support.attn-deficit Chris <chris.holland16@btopenworld.com> wrote: > : This is really pissing me off [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > chill out. And I don't think it is all that common on methylphenidate, is it? I don't hear about it much anyway. > This is really pissing me off Don't get pissed off... Get gum with Xylitol sugar substute... You know sugar? You know substitute? You know Extra®, Trident® ??? These will tend to put the brakes on bactrial function, as they cannot metabolize the Xylitol to acids. You know acids? > My teeth are decaying so badly I've gone of the Ritalin. Oooohhhh... I've seen this: DON'T DO IT..... this Ritalin is an AMPHETAMINE. One does not quit amphetamines cold turkey.... You know bananas? Straight jackets? Psychotic breakdowns? Sounds like fun to you? Sounds to me like your dose of Rit is quite high. Remember: it allows you to function with FOCUS, ORGANIZATION and RESTRAINT.... Can you afford to lose that? Is that worth it, especially before trying other solutions? You know Seven Percent Solution? Definitely NOT a solution to this problem.... Xylitol, Biotene gum, artificial saliva... > Don't fob me off with Ritalin doesn't affect tooth decay - I do > dentistry. Ah-HA!!! FamiliPrix!!! Dental person, drinking coffee with cream and sugar, maybe? > Methlyphenidate causes dry mouth. Saliva is essential for protecting > your teeth - it kills bacteria, mechanically disrupts biolfilm > formation and contains calcium and phosphate ions that prevent your > teeth from dissolving away. Then take my suggestion for chewing Xylitol gum seriously: will promote better salivation, replace sugar with another C6 H12 O6 that is not metabolizable by the bacteria in your mug... > I could be more dentally aware - it's not like I need dental advice... > > I have never had a filling IN MY LIFE. A few weeks on ritalin, i need > 4. You had small cavities already: should have done seallants when it was the time. > Guys, I'm warning you, think about getting a saliva subsitute or just > don't take Ritalin. Reality: many people need that stuff to function optimally. You know optimally? As opposed to bumping your head and arse continually down the halls and low ceilings of life? Look back at the few weeks on your medication and see how well you functioned. Moi, je vous dis: Go back on the Ritalin® before you really get f.cked up. Stop the concentrated sweets (I'm betting you eat them because you don't really feel like eating much while on Ritalin®, so you compensate by eating concentrated calories). Remember my words... SP  SignatureNot a real Addy, yet Thanks for the advice (regarding "Moi, je vous dis: Go back on the Ritalin® before you really get f.cked up") I FEEL AWFUL. OVER THE PAST FEW DAYS SINCE I HAVE STOPPED (I used to be on 60mg/day). THIS EXPLAINS IT! I don't drink Tea/Coffee - so a xylitol subsitute isn't needed. StovePipe , Thanks very much for your post - it's the most helpful advice I've read on this. > StovePipe , Thanks very much for your post - it's the most helpful > advice I've read on this. Like I've said: I've seen what happens when ADD's decide they don't need the meds... Maybe you won't need it all your life... The thing is, get finished with school (if that's where you're at), and then see what you can do... but wean yourself under strict medical/psychological supervision. JMO SP SignatureNot a real Addy, yet > > StovePipe , Thanks very much for your post - it's the most helpful > > advice I've read on this. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > can do... but wean yourself under strict medical/psychological > supervision. ROTFLOL!!! What about all of us with ADHD that <gasp> *forget* to take our doses from time to time, and do *NOT* suffer from such frightening side effects??? Buny > ROTFLOL!!! What about all of us with ADHD that <gasp> *forget* to take our > doses from time to time, and do *NOT* suffer from such frightening side > effects??? > > Buny Read the book: The ADD answer (How to help your child NOW). Dr Frank Lawlis. Viking press. © 2004. Cheers SP SignatureNot a real Addy, yet > > ROTFLOL!!! What about all of us with ADHD that <gasp> *forget* to take our > > doses from time to time, and do *NOT* suffer from such frightening side [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Read the book: The ADD answer (How to help your child NOW). Dr Frank > Lawlis. Viking press. ? 2004. Are you under the mistaken notion that the *only* therapy that I (or many others with ADHD) use to treat my and my family's ADHD is medication?!?! If you had *any* idea about the behavioral- and environmental-modifications that we use *in addition* to medication, you might not be so quick to insist that we read a book that discredits medication in favor of "anything but"... Buny > Are you under the mistaken notion that the *only* therapy that I (or many > others with ADHD) use to treat my and my family's ADHD is medication?!?! Yes.... Up here, that is the only therapy I see... I see no programs for any support whatsoever... Ritalin®... Adderall®... Concerta®.. that's all.. SP SignatureNot a real Addy, yet > > Are you under the mistaken notion that the *only* therapy that I (or many > > others with ADHD) use to treat my and my family's ADHD is medication?!?! > > Yes.... Up here, Where is that? that is the only therapy I see... I see no programs > for any support whatsoever... Ritalin?... Adderall?... Concerta?.. > that's all.. You have not been reading long enough. Use Google Groups and read the last few years worth of postings. > > Are you under the mistaken notion that the *only* therapy that I (or many > > others with ADHD) use to treat my and my family's ADHD is medication?!?! > > Yes.... Up here, that is the only therapy I see... I see no programs > for any support whatsoever... Ritalin?... Adderall?... Concerta?.. > that's all.. Try looking at these things... http://www.add.org/articles/jobacc.html a.. Take time management, study skills, and organization classes. Use only the ideas that will work for you. b.. Ask a friend, a coach, or even a trusted relative to help you plan your day. Then follow your plan. In other words, plan your work, then work your plan. c.. Get ready the night before; leave everything you will need for the next day by the door. d.. Use a daily planner and schedule. Use color codes, stickers, or anything else that makes it fun to give yourself feedback as you finish each task. You might put a white sticker over each completed task, for example. e.. Ask a friend, a coach, or even a trusted relative to help you break down long jobs into shorter tasks. f.. Use personal information management software, which can keep your schedule, organize your phone calls, and handle other memory-based tasks. a.. Ask for a private place to work. b.. Arrange to work at home on occasion. c.. Negotiate for the quietest and least distracting location. This is usually far away from the door, near a wall, or at an end of a row of work stations. d.. Arrange to use libraries, file rooms, private offices, storerooms, and other enclosed spaces when they are not in use. e.. Use a machine that creates white noise-background noise that drowns out other distracting sounds. f.. Use headphones that play white noise or soothing music. Tell your fellow workers and managers how to get your attention. g.. Put partitions around the space where you do your work. h.. Find a quiet area where you can take frequent, quick breaks. You may find exercises such as deep breathing and visualization to be helpful. I use a LOT of these *in addition* to medication...medication alone will not work for me (and for many others)...many people comment on how "overorganised" I am, but I *have* to be in order to function well. Buny > > StovePipe , Thanks very much for your post - it's the most helpful > > advice I've read on this. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > can do... but wean yourself under strict medical/psychological > supervision. You seem to imply that methylphenidate is some how addicting when taken as prescribed. Can you provide some form of proof? While you are at it, disprove the studies which show that proper treatment prevents substance abuse, that MPH is not addicting when taken as prescribed, etc. > You seem to imply that methylphenidate is some how addicting when taken as > prescribed. Can you provide some form of proof? > > While you are at it, disprove the studies which show that proper treatment > prevents substance abuse, that MPH is not addicting when taken as > prescribed, etc. Read the book: The ADD answer (How to help your child NOW). Dr Frank Lawlis. Viking press. © 2004. Cheers SP SignatureNot a real Addy, yet > > You seem to imply that methylphenidate is some how addicting when taken as > > prescribed. Can you provide some form of proof? [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Read the book: The ADD answer (How to help your child NOW). Dr Frank > Lawlis. Viking press. ? 2004. Any jerk can write a book. I was referring to scientific studies by well respected researchers. > > > You seem to imply that methylphenidate is some how addicting when taken > as [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > Any jerk can write a book. I was referring to scientific studies by well > respected researchers. This is the same answer I got, verbatim...I wonder if he gets commission... Buny In response to: > > > Read the book: The ADD answer (How to help your child NOW). Dr Frank > > > Lawlis. Viking press. © 2004. You all wrote: > > Any jerk can write a book. I was referring to scientific studies by well > > respected researchers. > > This is the same answer I got, verbatim...I wonder if he gets commission... > > Buny No: no commission to Lawlis or Nadeau... How do you all know that Frank Lawlis is NOT a respected researcher.....? Is this just because his approach is different from the majority? You know his philosophy without having read the book? SP SignatureNot a real Addy, yet > In response to: > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > No: no commission to Lawlis or Nadeau... How do you all know that Frank > Lawlis is NOT a respected researcher.....? When he does not show up with one peer reviewed paper or study on Medline...one begins to suspect that he has no respectable background in scientific research. > Is this just because his approach is different from the majority? You > know his philosophy without having read the book? Here is his bio: Frank Lawlis, Ph.D., is a renowned psychologist, researcher, counselor, and an innovator in the field of behavioral medicine with more than thirty-five years' experience working with parents and children with ADD. He has been named director of The Angel Foundation Research Institute for Neuroplasticity and he is a fellow of the American Psychological Association. In addition to being the primary contributing psychologist for the Dr. Phil television show, he is editor at large for Dr. Phil McGraw's newsletter, The Next Level. He lives in Sanger, Texas. When I see a bio of a "researcher" without reference to any of his research, then I begin to get a tad suspicious. Any one can be on television. I read the excerpts and they sound nice, until one looks at some of his statements which are merely a re-hash of the old bullshit, e.g. parents, nutrition, etc. Here is one quote: Far too many children are being drugged as a solution to the symptoms of ADD. Medications may be necessary for short-term goals, but I believe they are dangerous. I do not advocate the use of drugs as the fix for ADD because of the very real possibility that they will lead to severe complications, toxicity, and even death. This is the S.O.P. of the anti-drugster who really has no idea what they are talking about. What I advocate is quite "simple": thorough evaluation using the AAP diagnostic protocol as a model, add a comprehensive neuropsychological evaluation that includes an educational assessment to ascertain if there are any learning disorders, individual and family counseling, stress management (Barkley has address the very high stress levels of those who deal with AD/HD), special education as warranted, and, last, but not least, appropriate pharmacotherapy. All treatments work better when medication is used. >>In response to: >> [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > the Dr. Phil television show, he is editor at large for Dr. Phil McGraw's > newsletter, The Next Level. He lives in Sanger, Texas. That's the same biographical blurb that's on the book jacket. I now have the book, so when I get time to read it more thoroughly, I post more of the details. > When I see a bio of a "researcher" without reference to any of his research, > then I begin to get a tad suspicious. Any one can be on television. I'll let you know if the book gives us any clues as to what "research" he's done. > I read the excerpts and they sound nice, until one looks at some of his > statements which are merely a re-hash of the old bullshit, e.g. parents, > nutrition, etc. In his book, he recommends Breggin's book as a source of info about Ritalin studies. What does that tell you? [For those of you not familiar with Breggin, and why he's not a reliable source of info on Ritalin, read Russell Barkley's, "Talking Back to Peter Breggin": http://www.quackwatch.org/04ConsumerEducation/NegativeBR/breggin.html ] Lawlis rehashes the same old, same old scary stories and studies, without disclosing that many of them have been challenged or contradicted by others. Or without putting them into perspective. There's no way to check the basis for some of his claims about the dangers of Ritalin and other meds, since for most of them, he doesn't provide cites to source material in the text, footnotes, or an appendix. This hardly inspires confidence on my part. As with many anti-med publications, Lawlis writes things about Ritalin that, while perhaps true on their face, are misleading. For instance, in the section of his book "Is Ritalin a Gateway Drug?" he writes that "Drug enforcement groups around the world have categorized the brain-stimulating drugs Ritalin, Adderall, and Dexedrine as Schedule II drugs that cause addiction and abuse." (Well, even that's not entirely true as written, as "groups around the world" don't use the same drug classification system as the US government does. Sloppy writing and editing, at the least.) More importantly, what Lawlis doesn't mention, is that there have been no studies (at least none that I'm aware of) that have found that normal prescriptive use of these meds can lead to addiction. And he doesn't mention the recent research that may explain why they don't. In addition, he doesn't mention the ever growing number of studies which show that ADHD children who take meds to treat ADHD are *less likely* to abuse drugs and other substances in later years when compared to ADHD kids who didn't take meds. And, while he does mention Vulkow's study comparing the effects of cocaine and methylphenidate on the brain, he doesn't mention that Vulkow herself has said that her work has been misinterpreted and that the hysteria in the media and in anti-med circles was off-base, and that oral use of Ritalin in prescriptive amounts does *not* have the same effect as cocaine does. [See, for example, http://www.neuropsychiatryreviews.com/feb02/adictive.html and this from NIDA itself: http://www.nida.nih.gov/MedAdv/98/MA-929.html] And, of course, Lawlis doesn't mention that the US Surgeon General, in his Mental Health Report, gave the stimulants "A's" for both safety and effectiveness when used to treat ADHD. [http://www.surgeongeneral.gov/library/mentalhealth/chapter3/sec4.html]. Nor does Lawlis mention the many many studies that have found stimulants to be both safe and effective for treatment of ADHD. I didn't even see a mention of the NIMH MTA study in his chapter on medication. What does that tell you? Nancy Unique, like everyone else > >>In response to: > >> [quoted text clipped - 40 lines] > I'll let you know if the book gives us any clues as to what "research" > he's done. I checked every database available at my library, which includes several for peer reviewed research, and found: NOTHING! > > I read the excerpts and they sound nice, until one looks at some of his > > statements which are merely a re-hash of the old bullshit, e.g. parents, > > nutrition, etc. > > In his book, he recommends Breggin's book as a source of info about > Ritalin studies. What does that tell you? He is inherently anti-meds. > [For those of you not familiar with Breggin, and why he's not a reliable > source of info on Ritalin, read Russell Barkley's, "Talking Back to [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > provide cites to source material in the text, footnotes, or an appendix. > This hardly inspires confidence on my part. If they mirror Breggins concerns, I have refuted them in the past. > As with many anti-med publications, Lawlis writes things about Ritalin > that, while perhaps true on their face, are misleading. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > world" don't use the same drug classification system as the US > government does. Sloppy writing and editing, at the least.) Also, slopy reporting, since these groups have mimicked the DEA. > More importantly, what Lawlis doesn't mention, is that there have been > no studies (at least none that I'm aware of) that have found that normal > prescriptive use of these meds can lead to addiction. And he doesn't > mention the recent research that may explain why they don't. I have yet to find one scintilla of proof that MPH is addictive when used as prescribed. ALL of the addiction yarns are involved with excessive dosing, or improper administration, e.g. snorting. > In addition, he doesn't mention the ever growing number of studies which > show that ADHD children who take meds to treat ADHD are *less likely* to > abuse drugs and other substances in later years when compared to ADHD > kids who didn't take meds. It is always important to IGNORE anything that refutes your premise when selling books. > And, while he does mention Vulkow's study comparing the effects of > cocaine and methylphenidate on the brain, he doesn't mention that Vulkow [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > http://www.neuropsychiatryreviews.com/feb02/adictive.html and this from > NIDA itself: http://www.nida.nih.gov/MedAdv/98/MA-929.html] That would be Dr. Nora *Volkow*, who is now the head of the NIH's National Institute of Drug Abuse (and Bush's best appointment). > And, of course, Lawlis doesn't mention that the US Surgeon General, in > his Mental Health Report, gave the stimulants "A's" for both safety and > effectiveness when used to treat ADHD. > [http://www.surgeongeneral.gov/library/mentalhealth/chapter3/sec4.html]. More inconvenient facts. > Nor does Lawlis mention the many many studies that have found stimulants > to be both safe and effective for treatment of ADHD. I didn't even see a > mention of the NIMH MTA study in his chapter on medication. What does > that tell you? Like I originally said, any idiot can write a book. >>>>In response to: >>>> [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] >>>>Is this just because his approach is different from the majority? You >>>>know his philosophy without having read the book? >>>Here is his bio: >>> [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > > NOTHING! That confirms my own search for info on the claim that he's a "researcher." Interesting. >>>I read the excerpts and they sound nice, until one looks at some of his >>>statements which are merely a re-hash of the old bullshit, e.g. parents, [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > > If they mirror Breggins concerns, I have refuted them in the past. Well, I could take a pretty good guess at the sources of some of his claims since I'm familiar with similar dire warnings about the meds in the past. I'll let you know if anything stumps me when I give the book a closer read. >>As with many anti-med publications, Lawlis writes things about Ritalin >>that, while perhaps true on their face, are misleading. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Also, slopy reporting, since these groups have mimicked the DEA. Also, now that I think about it, I see another, even more serious error in that statement which I'm surprised I didn't see earlier, because it just screams out at me now: Those meds aren't on Schedule II because they "cause addiction and abuse" as Lawlis claims. They're on Schedule II because the DEA has decided that they: 1. Have a high *potential* for abuse (Not that they "cause" abuse as Lawlis writes.); 2. Have a legitimate, recognized medical use; and, 3. *Abuse* of them may lead to severe psychological or physical dependence. (Not that they "cause" addiction as Lawlis writes.) So the quote above from Lawlis is just flat out wrong. Bad writing or editing? Failure to understand the DEA criteria? Or a deliberate misstatement to bolster his claim that the meds are dangerous? In any case, it hardly inspires my confidence in the accuracy of the rest of what Lawlis writes. >>More importantly, what Lawlis doesn't mention, is that there have been >>no studies (at least none that I'm aware of) that have found that normal [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > prescribed. ALL of the addiction yarns are involved with excessive dosing, > or improper administration, e.g. snorting. Nor have I ever seen one anti-meder produce anything--well anything relevant--to support a claim that prescriptive use causes addiction. You'd think that those warning about such things would have a basis for their claims, wouldn't you? So why are they keeping the source of their warnings such a secret? <snip> Nancy Unique, like everyone else > > "MothWrangler" <MothWrangler@hotmail.com> wrote in message snippo > >>More importantly, what Lawlis doesn't mention, is that there have been > >>no studies (at least none that I'm aware of) that have found that normal [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > their claims, wouldn't you? So why are they keeping the source of their > warnings such a secret? I have finally seen it in writing: http://alcoholism.about.com/od/prescription/a/aa040704.htm *****When used correctly, they're safe and non-addictive.***** > That's the same biographical blurb that's on the book jacket. I now have > the book, so when I get time to read it more thoroughly, I post more of > the details. Better you than me. :-) > > In response to: > > [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > of the very real possibility that they will lead to severe complications, > toxicity, and even death. Y'know...the same bilge can be said about someone with an allergy..simply replace the word "allergy" for "ADD"...*if* the prejudicial person believed that taking antihistimines was the *only* thing the allergic person did (i.e., did not try to eliminate the allergen from the environment, or rearranged their life to cope with allergens)....and it makes as much "sense".... Buny All of you WROTE or QUOTE "> You all wrote: > > > Any jerk can write a book. I was referring to scientific studies by well > > > respected researchers. > > This is the same answer I got, verbatim...I wonder if he gets commission ..." I wish to point out that "ANY" jerk can ALSO be scientist, medical practicioner, or researcher. .... and perhaps even a 'president' of a great country? Hello People. ... Didn't have patience to snake my way down the full length of this very "funny" thread of 'rumor', "supposition", and 'expert' medical opinion. I'll plop down my own personal experience right here. ...I use Ritalin, dextroamphetamine. ( dosage? ... who cares! ) Some rough facts & personal observations: In Canada, there is a "warning" that these stimulant(?)s shouldn't be stopped 'cold turkey'. There are some prudent reasons for this to be so. >From personal experience, I can tell you that it is NOT because of physical withdrawall symptoms. All things being equal Caffeine withdrawal is worse. Consider: 1) When these stimulants SUDDENLY aren't there, it's usualy because the person who is taking them is in a state of distress. ... No money. ...No prescription. ...No sympathy & understanding NSU ( Ohh! like that one.) With NSU, a consumer is SOL because the situation is FUBAR. O.K.? Take stimulants for a while and it's focus, focus, focus focus. ... Stop stimulants and its loose focus, loose focus ... and after 2 days ...less focus,...less focus .... .... at a time when for the "consumer"s life is FUBAR, FUBAR, FUBAR. and "said" consumer has ...less self-control, ... less self-control, ...less self-control .... In my humble opinion, this is the danger. 2) When I forget to take 'em ..."Usually" because they WORK, and thus am 'busy' doing things. I kinda' fall off the wagon! ... and start sleeping and eating and sleeping and eating and sleeping and ...well, you know what I mean. ...and in those moments that I'm awake, I have ...more energgy, ... more energy, ...more energy which matches "nicely" with ...less self-control, ... less self-control, ...less self-control .... and when brought about by FORCE is usualy accompanied with " life" is FUBAR, FUBAR, FUBAR. ...and I am wondering "Why am I in this situation" .... "Why am I in this situation" ... "Why am I in this situation". I use the 'snide' language deliberately to emphasize the 'implicit' details. ( and because it's fun.) "Unique, like everyone else" - for some, it's never easy Looney tunes enough. >All of you WROTE or QUOTE > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] >practicioner, or researcher. >.... and perhaps even a 'president' of a great country? We agree. When you run low on oil in Texas, there is always Iraq. Joel Joel writes - We agree. When you run low on oil in Texas, there is always Iraq. I agree. I wrote - > I wish to point out that "ANY" jerk can ALSO be scientist, medical >practicioner, or researcher. >.... and perhaps even a 'president' of a great country? ... which president? .....which country? Raving Loon > In response to: > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > No: no commission to Lawlis or Nadeau... How do you all know that Frank > Lawlis is NOT a respected researcher.....? One good indication that he's not is that my search of PubMed only found one article that he *may* have coauthored. (The coauthor of "Imagery and health intervention" is listed as F. Lawlis. Don't know if it's the same person as Frank Lawlis or not.) I see the book jacket says, among other things, that he's a "researcher." Does his book talk about his "research"? (I haven't had time to read all of it yet.) Nancy Unique, like everyone else > > In response to: > > [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > "researcher." Does his book talk about his "research"? (I haven't had > time to read all of it yet.) My library's databases have NOTHING. > In response to: > [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > Is this just because his approach is different from the majority? You > know his philosophy without having read the book? I have not read the book, and make no comment on it, other to note that *you* have made the exact same "advertisement" for that book as your "answer" to many different questions....and wondered why--perhaps you got commission on sales... Buny > > > > You seem to imply that methylphenidate is some how addicting when > taken [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > This is the same answer I got, verbatim...I wonder if he gets commission... If so, cannot be much...Cntrl-C Cntrl-V...... >>>You seem to imply that methylphenidate is some how addicting when taken > [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > Any jerk can write a book. I was referring to scientific studies by well > respected researchers. The book jacket claims Lawlis is a "researcher," but I've only found one study in PubMed coauthored by a F. Lawlis. Have you ever heard of him? Nancy Unique, like everyone else > >>>You seem to imply that methylphenidate is some how addicting when taken > > [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > The book jacket claims Lawlis is a "researcher," but I've only found one > study in PubMed coauthored by a F. Lawlis. Have you ever heard of him? Since I do not watch Dr. Phil, no. He is not on MedLine Plus. I will check my library in the next day or two. Entering my 22 digit access code is a pain. Regarding comment - Stop the concentrated sweets (I'm betting you eat them because you don't really feel like eating much while on Ritalin®, so you compensate by eating concentrated calories). YES! THAT'S TRUE AS WELL I'm glad someone as intelligent as you has responded to my post. I have Class V cavities - upper anterior teeth affected mainly. However, teeth continuted being extremely sensitive (sharp paid - sensitive to breathing, hot/cold). Craters are now starting to appear on the labian surfaces there is enamel loss in interproximal areas. > However, teeth continuted being extremely sensitive (sharp paid - > sensitive to breathing, hot/cold). > > Craters are now starting to appear on the labian surfaces there is > enamel loss in interproximal areas. Wean yourself off the concentrated sugar; eat SMALL meals often, brush 20 mins after eating, not right away (mouth will be too acidic), use cheese as snack food; the calcium will help protect the teeth. Cheers SP SignatureNot a real Addy, yet > > This is really pissing me off > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > Straight jackets? > Psychotic breakdowns? It is very rare for people to have any problem stopping Ritalin cold turkey. Plenty of people take it only when they need it, or don't take it on the weekend. These statements are unnecessarily scary. Furthermore, the OP claimed he only took Ritalin for a few weeks. I am really skeptical that a person could get four cavities in a few weeks, but maybe that's possible. I don't get a dry mouth from Ritalin myself. >>>This is really pissing me off >> [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > turkey. Plenty of people take it only when they need it, or don't take > it on the weekend. Not to mention the high percentages of ADHD individuals who take methylphenidate on an irregular basis because they either forget to take it, or they inadvertently fail to get a new prescription, or if they do get a prescription, forget to have it filled. > These statements are unnecessarily scary. > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > weeks, but maybe that's possible. I don't get a dry mouth from Ritalin > myself. I've read about the possibility of dry mouth WRT to use of any of the stims, including IIRC, caffeine. Like any of the other possible side effects, it's probably one of the YMMV things. Nancy Unique, like everyone else [posting from ASAD] > My teeth are decaying so badly I've gone of the Ritalin. <snip> > Oooohhhh... I've seen this: DON'T DO IT..... this Ritalin is an > AMPHETAMINE. One does not quit amphetamines cold turkey.... [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Sounds like fun to you? I agree with your comments about the wisdom of quitting Ritalin, except the above. Ritalin, although a stimulant, is not an amphetamine. It's methylphenidate. I agree that individuals should check with their doctor before quitting Ritalin (or any other medication that the doctor has prescribed on a long term basis), and follow the doctor's directions for doing so. But in all the reading I've done over the years about methylphenidate, I've never heard of anyone going bananas, having a psychotic breakdown, if they quit taking prescribed doses of Ritalin "cold turkey," without tapering down. If there are documented cases of such breakdowns occurring, I suspect that they are extremely rare. If you know of anything authoritative that supports warnings of psychosis when the prescriptive use of methylphenidate is ended abruptly, I'd be interested in reading it. OTOH, I have seen warnings about the possibility of psychosis when methylphenidate *abuse* is involved--individuals crushing, then snorting or injecting methylphenidate, or taking doses much larger than prescribed. But I would hope Chris is not involved with drug abuse. > Sounds to me like your dose of Rit is quite high. Remember: it allows > you to function with FOCUS, ORGANIZATION and RESTRAINT.... [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > You had small cavities already: should have done seallants when it was > the time. While I have read warnings about methylphenidate causing dry mouth leading to the possibility of increased dental problems, and the need for vigilance in this regard, I was surprised to read Chris' claim that four cavities could develop as a result of his Ritalin use after only a few weeks. Is this possible? Do cavities really develop this quickly in previously decay free teeth? >>Guys, I'm warning you, think about getting a saliva subsitute or just >>don't take Ritalin. > > Reality: many people need that stuff to function optimally. You know > optimally? As opposed to bumping your head and arse continually down the > halls and low ceilings of life? Nod. Those are very important issues for Chris to consider. As with any other medication, individuals need to weigh the benefits vs. drawbacks of using Ritalin. I don't know what Chris' ADHD symptoms are, but in order to be diagnosed with ADHD, an individual must have *impairing* symptoms. Chris should weigh a return to impaired functioning vs. his dental issues. > Look back at the few weeks on your medication and see how well you > functioned. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > don't really feel like eating much while on Ritalin®, so you compensate > by eating concentrated calories). Nancy Unique, like everyone else [posting from ASAD] > Ritalin, although a stimulant, is not an amphetamine. It's methylphenidate. > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > psychosis when the prescriptive use of methylphenidate is ended > abruptly, I'd be interested in reading it. Read the book: The ADD answer (How to help your child NOW). Dr Frank Lawlis. Viking press. © 2004. Cheers SP SignatureNot a real Addy, yet >>Ritalin, although a stimulant, is not an amphetamine. It's methylphenidate. >> [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > Cheers > SP I'm not familiar with Dr. Lawlis or his book, so I don't know if I'd agree that they're "authoritative," but I'm going to try to get my hands on a copy, then I'll get back to you. In the meantime, I've reread the prescribing information for Ritalin and I don't see any cautions there about the necessity of weaning off Ritalin. As to psychosis, the only mention I see in the prescribing information is that "toxic psychosis" can be a "very rare" adverse reaction to the medication itself. In addition, there's a warning that chronic abuse of Ritalin may lead to "psychotic episodes." Nancy Unique, like everyone else Nancy uniquely wrote: > I'm not familiar with Dr. Lawlis or his book, so I don't know if I'd > agree that they're "authoritative," but I'm going to try to get my hands [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > medication itself. In addition, there's a warning that chronic abuse of > Ritalin may lead to "psychotic episodes." Moi: not an expert, by any means. Vous: Much more expert than I, and you personally know the Meds I only know what I've read and what I've seen: The ADD Answer: Forward by Phil McGraw... I have it here in front of me. Lawlis is a PhD Psychologist, as opposed to an MD type Psychiatrist. So, his approach is not just meds-oriented... He warns of dangers in the book. Adventures in Fast Forward... Nothing about dangers of meds... What I've seen: When the kids in the neighborhood go off their meds on the weekend.... If ADD: not too bad. IF ADHD: Holy Buckshot.... they are certifiable. Don't you people notice these things? Just my chicken scratchin's SP SignatureNot a real Addy, yet StovePipe, I take it you're posting from the dentistry ng. I don't want to clutter up that group discussing ADHD treatments, so I'd like to stop cross-posting this discussion if you agree. Are you comfortable joining us in ASAD to continue this thread? > Nancy uniquely wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > I only know what I've read and what I've seen: > The ADD Answer: Forward by Phil McGraw... I have it here in front of me. Me too. So now we can discuss it better, be on the same page. So on what page does Lawlis talk about psychosis resulting from stopping Ritalin "cold turkey"? I haven't found that info so far. > Lawlis is a PhD Psychologist, as opposed to an MD type Psychiatrist. So, > his approach is not just meds-oriented... He warns of dangers in the > book. Some of those "dangers" have been debunked by other doctors, or contradicted by studies other than those he cites, but of course, he doesn't tell you that. And heck, every medication has "dangers." The issue is, is the risk of any medication worth the benefits of using that medication? Another consideration is: if you are impaired by ADHD, and you don't use medication, are there any other alternative treatments that have been supported, by peer reviewed studies, as being both safe and effective? (And AFAIK, the answer to that is "no," unless Lawlis presents info on such studies that I'm unaware of. I'm going to read his book more thoroughly when I get time to see what authorities he cites to back his recommended alternative treatments.) So Lawlis is a psychologist? <shrug> Every psychologist or neuropsychologist I've personally discussed ADHD with (and there have been quite a few, all with a great deal of expertise in ADHD), have recommended the use of medication to treat ADHD (along with behavior modification, family and individual counseling, and the use of appropriate supports and accommodations in school.) None of those psychologists recommended alternative treatments like "stimulating acupuncture points in the ear with acoustical vibrations" or "magnet therapy" as Lawlis does. > Adventures in Fast Forward... Nothing about dangers of meds... Ah, one of Kathleen Nadeau's books. I haven't read that one, but, I have read some of her other books, as well as articles she's written, and IMO, she gets "two thumbs up." > What I've seen: When the kids in the neighborhood go off their meds on > the weekend.... Geez, you know which kids in your neighborhood are ADHD, and which of them are on meds? How did you come by this rather intimate knowledge of your neighbors' kids' medical histories? Heck, I didn't even know my own kid was ADHD until he was 14 years old! > If ADD: not too bad. There is no such diagnosis as "ADD" (Despite the fact that Lawlis titles his book "The ADD Answer"). Are you perhaps referring to ADHD primarily inattentive? OR?? If you're talking about kids who are ADHD inattentive, well, you wouldn't necessarily notice their problems when they're not on meds. That doesn't mean that they aren't impaired when off meds, only that their impairment wouldn't necessarily be evident to a casual observer. > IF ADHD: Holy Buckshot.... they are certifiable. Well, they're not on the medication they need so they can control their behavior. What would you expect? > Don't you people notice these things? Who are "you people"? > Just my chicken scratchin's What's your interest in ADHD anyway? Do you have ADHD or have a child with ADHD? Nancy Unique, like everyone else > StovePipe, I take it you're posting from the dentistry ng. I don't want > to clutter up that group discussing ADHD treatments, so I'd like to stop > cross-posting this discussion if you agree. Are you comfortable joining > us in ASAD to continue this thread? I appreciate the invite, but I really don't have more info at the moment to add. As I said in reply to your other post, if and when I find some hard data on the side effects and risks of Rit, I'll post them over there, but I'd appreciate it if you'd at least notify me here in the SMD if you find anything for or against the suggestions in Lawlis' book. I would then add your group to my reader and see it. I don't monitor your group; there are only so many hours in the day. BTW: there is another book (no, I haven't read it either) called 'What You Should Know About Ritalin®'. You might want to check that one out as well. Re: my interest: Yes there is that in my family, yes I do have it (I was evaluated at the same time they did one of my son) and no, I don't take meds, but I would reconsider if things got so bad that I couldn't function. (Afterall; I did make it to being a dentist with no other meds but coffee and nicotene; the nicotene has long since fallen by the wayside.) There is so much of it around here (neighborhood, my own patients) that I'm wondering how much of it is a passing fad.... Thanks sincerely for your interest. SP SignatureNot a real Addy, yet Stovepipe, I know you will have all these preconceptions because you will have studied pharmacology as part of your degree in dentistry. When people with ADHD take Ritalin they feel *****NOTHING****** - it just feels like what it is to be 'normal'. (If the correct dosage is taken) I was *shocked* when I first took Ritalin - *it has changed my life* Sounds like you've been using caffeine and nicotine for stimulation. I used to smoke loads (especially weed). Want to risk getting a tumour in your lungs? Please take it from me - forget all this bullshit propoganda you hear about Ritalin. It is only bad in people who genuinely *don't* have ADD. But saying that - i quite like not being Meds - it may annoy the hell out of people but I love being energetic and full of life. I just choose not to associate with boring people. ofcourse, in dentistry, most people are geeks so it helps if you aren't too excitable... This is the best article I have found: http://www.pcnet.com/~dodge/Dodson2.rtf *please read it* > Stovepipe, > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > Please take it from me - forget all this bullshit propoganda you hear > about Ritalin. It is only bad in people who genuinely *don't* have ADD. It is really bad in only those who *abuse* it. When taken as prescribed it is quite safe and effective. Thus, an AD/HDer can get a bad effect if they abuse it. A NT can get a mild effect, if they take a prescription doseage as prescribed. The method it is taken is very determinative of the wway it affects the patient. If you want to read up on this, take a look at the work of the group at Stony Brook/Brookhaven National Lab who actually studied it. The ring leader of that group is Nora Volkow, who Bush appointed to head NIDA (and is, IMNSHO, his best appointment). > But saying that - i quite like not being Meds - it may annoy the hell > out of people but I love being energetic and full of life. I just > choose not to associate with boring people. ofcourse, in dentistry, > most people are geeks so it helps if you aren't too excitable... One of my best friends from HS is a boring dentist...not (boring that is). > > Stovepipe, > > [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > that group is Nora Volkow, who Bush appointed to head NIDA (and is, IMNSHO, > his best appointment). <G> If abuse is the main reason for banning a drug, then why are there still nasal sprays on the market?!?! I was addicted to OTC nasal spray for years, until a doc helped get me off of it by properly treating my allergies and nasal polyps with prescriptions.... Not to mention my addiction to caffeine...which was stopped when I was properly treated for my ADHD (I had been self-medicating with a drug that is highly addictive when taken as directed...caffeinated sodas...)...why is caffeine not banned?!?! <shaking head> Funny what happens when someone's fallacious logic gets used in logical manners, isn't it?<G> Buny > It is really bad in only those who *abuse* it. When taken as prescribed it > is quite safe and effective. How do you answer the assertions of Fred Baughman, MD, the neurologist that doesn't believe the ADD/ADHD phenomenon is real?. He further states that the meds are doing more harm than good. Cheers SP SignatureNot a real Addy, yet >>It is really bad in only those who *abuse* it. When taken as prescribed it >>is quite safe and effective. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Cheers > SP Baughman!!! BWAAAHHHAAA!!! The claims of quackpot Baughman, who is, or at least was, the leading spokesman for the CCHR, an organization created by the "Church" of Scientology, (You are familiar with the COS, and its goal of stamping out psychiatry, aren't you?) have been picked apart on numerous occasions on ASAD, as so many of the trolls, snake-oil sales critters, and anti-med true believers like to cite him. I don't know if Mark is inclined to rebut Baughman's claims yet again. I'm not. I suggest you do a search of the ASAD archives on Google groups for "Baughman." Everything I could tell you about Baughman and his bogus claims has probably already been said. Here, I'll even get you started: http://makeashorterlink.com/?E15A2143A Nancy Unique, like everyone else > >>It is really bad in only those who *abuse* it. When taken as prescribed it > >>is quite safe and effective. [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > I don't know if Mark is inclined to rebut Baughman's claims yet again. > I'm not. It is hard to rebut nebulous claims. Breggin makes it easier, as his claims are specific. > I suggest you do a search of the ASAD archives on Google groups for > "Baughman." Everything I could tell you about Baughman and his bogus [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Nancy > Unique, like everyone else > >>It is really bad in only those who *abuse* it. When taken as prescribed it > >>is quite safe and effective. [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > > Here, I'll even get you started: http://makeashorterlink.com/?E15A2143A <BEG> Isn't invoking Baughman awfully close to invoking Godwin (especially around here)? Buny > > It is really bad in only those who *abuse* it. When taken as prescribed it > > is quite safe and effective. > > How do you answer the assertions of Fred Baughman, MD, the neurologist > that doesn't believe the ADD/ADHD phenomenon is real?. Fred may be a nice guy, but, there are a bunch of lawyers who should be really pissed at him for his promoting the anti-Rital class action suits over the last few years. Five suits, two dismissed for failure to state a claim, three dismissed by request of the plaintiffs. As for his claim that it does not exist, he missed an opportunity to rent out my son for an unmedicated week. Note that the rental is free, but, alas, I must charge for early return. People used to say that the earth is flat, that the sun revolved around the earth, etc. They, just like Fred, are wrong. Seriously, Fred, like Breggin, rejects biopsychiatry, which substanties the existence of ADHD. Note that Breggin was caught in one whopping inconsistency when he testified that altered brain chemistry due to SSRIs caused violent behavior, when he had previously denied that brain chemistry affects behavior. He further states > that the meds are doing more harm than good. That would be a logical conclusion if AD/HD did not exist. Since it is well accepted by the vast majority of those who study these things, then the conclusion does not fit reality. I do realize that the argument that many people beleive it exists is somewhat fallacious in and of itself, but, when you couple this with the long history of the disorder being described in the medical literature, along with the fact that there seems to be clear structural differences in the brain which affect functioning, they are supported by evidence. Fred is supported by his philosophy. Cheers > SP > > > It is really bad in only those who *abuse* it. When taken as prescribed > it [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > over the last few years. Five suits, two dismissed for failure to state a > claim, three dismissed by request of the plaintiffs. Interesting thing about those lawsuits...when they were filed, it was "front page news"....when they were dropped/dismissed, it was a one-paragraph blurb, deeply buried... Buny "How do you answer the assertiions of Fred Baughman, MD, the neurologist that doesn't believe the ADD/ADHD phenomenom is real" Finally, a voice in the wilderness with reason. Pharmaceutical cos. would have us all on meds if they are to be believed. Gail Are You on any Meds Gail? MC Oh Gail, I hope They are the fun drugs. Not the Yukky kind.. MC > Sounds like you've been using caffeine and nicotine for stimulation. I > used to smoke loads (especially weed). Want to risk getting a tumour in > your lungs? .... Weed never did it for me. Tobacco fell by the wayside in 1992. Caffeine is still up there as my fix. Thanks SP SignatureNot a real Addy, yet > > Sounds like you've been using caffeine and nicotine for stimulation. I > > used to smoke loads (especially weed). Want to risk getting a tumour in > > your lungs? > > .... Weed never did it for me. Tobacco fell by the wayside in 1992. > Caffeine is still up there as my fix. Better watch out...caffeine is highly addictive when taken "as directed" and can be quite dangerous.... http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/druginfo/uspdi/202105.html Check with your doctor as soon as possible if any of the following side effects occur: a.. More common a.. Diarrhea; dizziness; fast heartbeat; hyperglycemia, including blurred vision, drowsiness, dry mouth, flushed dry skin, fruit-like breath odor, increased urination, ketones in urine, loss of appetite, nausea, stomachache, tiredness, troubled breathing, unusual thirst, or vomiting (in newborn babies); hypoglycemia, including anxious feeling, blurred vision, cold sweats, confusion, cool pale skin, drowsiness, excessive hunger, fast heartbeat, nausea, nervousness, restless sleep, shakiness, or unusual tiredness or weakness (in newborn babies); irritability, nervousness, or severe jitters (in newborn babies); nausea (severe) ; tremors; trouble in sleeping ; vomiting a.. Rare a.. Abdominal or stomach bloating; dehydration ; diarrhea (bloody); unusual tiredness or weakness a.. Symptoms of overdose a.. Abdominal or stomach pain; agitation, anxiety, excitement, or restlessness; confusion or delirium; convulsions (seizures)-in acute overdose ; dehydration; faster breathing rate; fast or irregular heartbeat; fever; frequent urination; headache; increased sensitivity to touch or pain ; irritability; muscle trembling or twitching; nausea and vomiting, sometimes with blood; overextending the body with head and heels bent backward and body bowed forward; painful, swollen abdomen or vomiting (in newborn babies); ringing or other sounds in ears; seeing flashes of "zig-zag" lights; trouble in sleeping; whole-body tremors (in newborn babies) Oh, yeah....give me some more of that... Oh, wait...this is the one that is supposed to be "safe"..... Buny >>StovePipe, I take it you're posting from the dentistry ng. I don't want >>to clutter up that group discussing ADHD treatments, so I'd like to stop [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > I appreciate the invite, but I really don't have more info at the moment > to add. Yeah, but I have the feeling that some of us on ASAD may have a lot more to add to this thread for you :-) , and I really don't like cluttering up another ng with posts that are OT for that group. > As I said in reply to your other post, if and when I find some > hard data on the side effects and risks of Rit, I'll post them over > there, I doubt if you'll find anything that will be new to most of the ASAD regulars who have been here for any length of time, so check the archives before you post. Many of the side effects of Ritalin have been discussed over and over again. But if you find a study that either concluded that normal (oral) prescriptive use of methylphenidate was addicting, or that going off of prescriptive use of Ritalin "cold turkey" could lead to psychosis, I'd sure like to read it. So if you find any scientific studies that reach either conclusion, be sure to let me know. > but I'd appreciate it if you'd at least notify me here in the SMD > if you find anything for or against the suggestions in Lawlis' book. I [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > BTW: there is another book (no, I haven't read it either) called 'What > You Should Know About Ritalin®'. Couldn't find it listed on Amazon.com. Who wrote it? > You might want to check that one out as well. Why? Whether it's pro-Ritalin or con-Ritalin, I'd be surprised if it will tell me anything I haven't already read someplace else. Look, if you want accurate scientifically based info on methylphenidate, I suggest you read "Advances in the Pharmacotherapy of Attention-Deficit-Hyperactivity Disorder: Focus on Methylphenidate Formulations." Pharmacotherapy 23(10):1281-1299, 2003. That article gives a good overview of the research. If you don't have access to that journal, you can read the article on Medscape, http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/462703_1. [If you're not already registered with Medscape, you'll need to do so to read the article, but registration is free.] Or, read "Methylphenidate: New Information and New Options" Pediatr Pharm 8(2), 2002. (Also available on Medscape at: http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/441908) If you'd like to read something less academic, try Joe Parson's Ritalin FAQ, "Myths, Lies, Misunderstandings--and Facts--about Ritalin." You can find that FAQ at http://www.yankeemedia.net/asad/ritalin.html or in the ASAD archives. > Re: my interest: Yes there is that in my family, yes I do have it (I was > evaluated at the same time they did one of my son) More and more adults seem to be diagnosed when their kids are. Would almost make you suspect ADHD was genetically based or something. :-) Nancy Unique, like everyone else Nancy. Very unscientific opinion. As a layperson have not read anything about Ritalin. but hardly believe it is genetic, nor necesary much of the time it is prescribed. It is in my family also, and I would be very happy if the father would be taken off Paxil (to control his, I don't know what, and his daughter has been given Ritalin. Far as I can tell, one is necessary because of the other. Since when cannot people and children be just ordinary with ordinary problems that do not require medication. They are both stimulants, and that is the trend to all of the ills of today. Read my theory on website http://ascc.healingwell.com/info/gailfaq.htm how much of these problems begin. Everyone around this father is extremely nervous and have problems they would not ordinarily have. The only one that benefits is perhaps the father who is oblivious to what he is doing to the rest of the unmedicated family. As far as tooth decay, I am afraid to ask, the subject is taboo for my version. Also, other meds can cause the type of conditions the theory relates. Xanax, Buspar, Depakote, Flexeril, natural herbs with natural stimulants, kava kava, st johns wort, etc. etc. etc The father has gained a ton of weight on the paxil, and used to be a real exercise nut. And when does it stop. Seems like never. I am writing because I worry for his family, and many others. Ritalin is no different than the other drugs prescribed on flimsy, ridiculous evidence. Don't know if you can follow this post, it is a little unusual, but since you recognize that adults and their kids are diagnosed as both being whatever it is that requires the medication. How did the world manage to survive before everyone was depressed and the pharmaceutical companies and physicians decided that every problem requuires an anti-depressant or something to get someone going. Where they are going is harming others. The mind/body connection is present in all dual problems in those situations. Sure hope Ritalin does not cause tooth problems. It does enough without that. Gail Michael > > StovePipe, I take it you're posting from the dentistry ng. I don't want > > to clutter up that group discussing ADHD treatments, so I'd like to stop [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > wayside.) There is so much of it around here (neighborhood, my own > patients) that I'm wondering how much of it is a passing fad.... Well, considering that it was first described in the late 1800s, and that methylphenidate has been used in its treatment for over 50 years, I do not think it can be considered a "passing fad"... Buny >>> Ritalin, although a stimulant, is not an amphetamine. It's >>> methylphenidate. [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > agree that they're "authoritative," but I'm going to try to get my hands > on a copy, then I'll get back to you. OK. Got a copy of "The ADD Answer" by Lawlis. So now I'm back. Although I didn't have a chance to read the entire book thorough, I did look at every page indexed to "Ritalin," and I read the entire medication chapter (or should I say anti-medication chapter), but I didn't see any mention of problems caused by abrupt discontinuation of Ritalin or any recommendation that individuals be weaned off Ritalin. Perhaps that info is mentioned in some section of the book that I haven't read yet?? As for this book being an "authoritative source" of information on Ritalin....BWWHAAAAH! Dr. Lawlis recommends Peter Breggin's book as a good source of information on Ritalin studies for heavens sake! And what does Lawlis suggest parents use instead of "toxic" meds like Ritalin?: Brain training through psychoneuroimmunology (PNI), stressing the child with "good stress," exercise, "detoxifying the diet and the environment," dietary "adjustment," biofeedback, stimulating the brain with sounds, "stimulating acupuncture points in the ear with acoustical vibrations," magnet therapy, spiritual healing. But, hey, Lawlis is the editor-at-large for Dr. Phil's newsletter, and Dr. Phil wrote the Foreword to the book, so Lawlis *must* be right. Right? <snort> I'm going to read the book more thoroughly when I have the time, and I'll post (in ASAD only) if I find anything of interest. Nancy Unique, like everyone else > But, hey, Lawlis is the editor-at-large for Dr. Phil's newsletter, and > Dr. Phil wrote the Foreword to the book, so Lawlis *must* be right. > Right? <snort> I'm not really familiar with Dr.Phil, other than I've heard the name. Again, I don't pretend to be an expert here at all; YOU all are the experts. If you don't think that his therapies (admittedly, some of them are out there a bit...) are worth persuing, I would like to know. Incedently: I never said that meds don't have their place in ADD/ADHD. I DO say they have their side effects and their drawbacks. If you will remember, I am the one who suggested to the OP dentist to go back on his meds. I have seen good benefits from them in adults and kids. I am saying that there HAVE been serious episodes with these meds, but I cannot quote you chapter and verse, sorry. Lawlis does mention them, somewhere in that book. I am surprised that you all don't know about this. > I'm going to read the book more thoroughly when I have the time, and > I'll post (in ASAD only) if I find anything of interest. I'd appreciate it if you'd at least give notice that you have evaluated the book, here on the SMD, as I don't monitor your group. I would go over and see what you wrote. (BTW:Is there no sci.med. section that deals with ADD/ADHD?) Conversely, If I find some hard data on the risks of Rit, I'll head on over to your group to post it. Sorry to get your backs up, but that's my story, and I'm sticking to it until proven otherwise. (IF proven otherwise, that's Okay, too). Totally Uniquely, SP SignatureNot a real Addy, yet > > But, hey, Lawlis is the editor-at-large for Dr. Phil's newsletter, and > > Dr. Phil wrote the Foreword to the book, so Lawlis *must* be right. > > Right? <snort> > > > I'm not really familiar with Dr.Phil, other than I've heard the name. Good. > Again, I don't pretend to be an expert here at all; YOU all are the > experts. If you don't think that his therapies (admittedly, some of them > are out there a bit...) are worth persuing, I would like to know. > Incedently: I never said that meds don't have their place in ADD/ADHD. I > DO say they have their side effects and their drawbacks. EVRYTHING has drawbacks. However, the alleged drawbacks, like stunting of growth, are way overpromoted by the anti-med crowd. If you will > remember, I am the one who suggested to the OP dentist to go back on his > meds. I have seen good benefits from them in adults and kids. I am > saying that there HAVE been serious episodes with these meds, but I > cannot quote you chapter and verse, sorry. Interestingly, those of us who have been around for a while, have not seen them. While there have been stories about them, they seem to have large holes in them. Many of the stories are linked to abusers. Other, like the kid whose death was rule to be the result of MPH have more to the story than meets the eye. When you take the fact that the ME was the one who nailed Kevorkian, which was a good thing IMNSHO, and was out of the spotlight, and then take the fact that the kid had a severe blunt force trauma to his chest shortly before his death, one wonders about whether there was something else working in the ME's mind. Lawlis does mention them, > somewhere in that book. I am surprised that you all don't know about > this. You will find that those who are familiar with this, like me for over 16 years, know that there is NO withdrawal and that the major problem is remembering to take the meds. Years back, there were those who advocated medication free weekends, summers off, etc. I trust that you see the inconsistency. If you are familiar with pharmacotherapy, then consider that the serum half life of MPH is quite short. That factoid, coupled with the studies by Volkow which demonstrate that the brain's addictive response is affected by the means of ingestion, should tell you that there is little, if not no, chance of addiction when taken as prescribed. > > I'm going to read the book more thoroughly when I have the time, and > > I'll post (in ASAD only) if I find anything of interest. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > Totally Uniquely, > SP > >>But, hey, Lawlis is the editor-at-large for Dr. Phil's newsletter, and >>Dr. Phil wrote the Foreword to the book, so Lawlis *must* be right. >>Right? <snort> >> > I'm not really familiar with Dr.Phil, other than I've heard the name. Dr. Phil is a popular TV psychologist in the US. I don't watch him often, but when I have caught his show, I thought his advice was pretty sensible. But I'm beginning to think that his touting of Lawlis' book was not one of his better recommendations. > Again, I don't pretend to be an expert here at all; YOU all are the > experts. If you don't think that his therapies (admittedly, some of them > are out there a bit...) are worth persuing, I would like to know. Well, exercise and good nutrition are always a good idea, and may make you or your child feel better, but the ameliorative effects of exercise are transient, and studies don't seem to support dietary interventions as helpful in controlling the symptoms of ADHD. I've looked into biofeedback myself. About 6 years ago, the former head of psychiatry at one of the US's most highly respected teaching and research hospitals volunteered to check for me with some of his colleagues at the hospital who were doing work with biofeedback to see if it might be of help in treating ADHD. The answer was basically, "There's nothing yet to support such use." Based on that response, I never pursued it. I know of only one since-published peer reviewed controlled study that indicates it might be helpful as a treatment for ADHD. Yes, you'll find lots of "studies" supporting the use of biofeedback as a treatment for ADHD on the Net, but they're uncontrolled, and almost all are conducted by individuals or companies that sell biofeedback equipment, or by biofeedback practitioners. And, if published anywhere other than on that practictioner's/seller's web site, are published in alternative treatment journals which aren't peer reviewed. While there's virtually no scientific evidence that I'm aware of that biofeedback will help ADHD symptoms, if you have the time and the money (I don't know where you are, but in the US, it's expensive and not covered by insurance), I don't see why you might not give it a try. It seems it would be relatively side effect free, except perhaps, to your financial condition. Wish I could tell you more. From time to time we've had posters say they were going to try biofeedback. I always tell them I'm interested in the results and ask them to report back. They say, "I'll be sure to do that," but they never do. Mark Probert probably knows more about the other alternative treatments Lawlis espouses than I do. > Incedently: I never said that meds don't have their place in ADD/ADHD. I > DO say they have their side effects and their drawbacks. There aren't any meds I know of that don't have side effects. Just consider the rather significant dangers of many of the over-the-counter meds we take and give to our children without hesitation for conditions much less serious than ADHD. > If you will > remember, I am the one who suggested to the OP dentist to go back on his [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > somewhere in that book. I am surprised that you all don't know about > this. What "this" are you referring to? The death of a teenager attributed to his use of methylphenidate perhaps? That topic has been discussed in ASAD several times over the years. You might want to check the google archives. Plus, you should know that the claim that the teenage boy died as a result of his use of |
Enable EMail Alerts
Start New Thread
Reply to this Message