--------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 222 ATTENTION DEF. Ref: E1500013Date: 01/03/97 From: SPACEBOY Time: 05:09pm \/To: ALL (Read 1 times) Subj: ZOLOFT I have a friend who is on zoloft, he doesn't take it because he says it makes him feel bad. I wonder, what are the side effects of zoloft? If my memory serves, which often as not it doesn't, zoloft has some significant side effects. I am wondering if he should be taking it. And don't anyone tell me that he should be taking it just becuase a doctor perscribed it. I have been told by multiple doctors and read in lots of books that if a drug is not working or is making you feel bad that you should discontinue use im- mediatly and consult your physician. It seem to me that a lot of these phyciatrists are just playing hit or miss. My girlfriend went through this same thing. They started her out on prozac and changed her perscriptions to what seemed to be random, "lets see if this works" drugs. How can a person perscribe mind altering drugs to another per- son when we don't even understand how the brain of a sea-slug works, much less an infinatly more complex human mind. I guess what I am trying to say is that psyciatry should be kept as with psycotherepists and the like. Not perscribing drugs, but trying to help the people deal with their problems. I won't argue that sometimes people need those drugs, but the cases of need are much less and should be perscibed by a physician under counceltation with a phyciatrist. I guess what I am saying is that I don't trust those guys. Do you know what I am saying? ... "Don't mince words, All ... what do you *REALLY* think?" --- Blue Wave/DOS v2.20 [NR] * Origin: The Round Table, BBS of Gulf Coast Mensa (1:106/1393) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 222 ATTENTION DEF. Ref: E1500014Date: 01/03/97 From: JENNIFER LEWIS Time: 03:55pm \/To: JEFF RICHTER (Read 1 times) Subj: Attention/behavioral diso -=> Quoting Jeff Richter to Jennifer Lewis <=- > Don't know if you like this option, but my Mom and Dad always > found excellent > sitters by checking with the local Girl Scout Troop. I'm not > saying all > Girl Scouts are excellent sitters, but we did quite well, and > my sister and > I both had a disability (Not ADD/ADHD) that had to be dealt > with. JR> I will check this out, thankyou. Planning a big trip to New Jersey JR> (With the kids of course). I think the family is ready to go for a JR> long drive across the country. Sounds like fun! Hope the sitter situation works out for you. jennifer ... "What?!? This isn't the Files section?!?" --- FMailX 1.02 * Origin: (1:108/535) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 222 ATTENTION DEF. Ref: E1A00000Date: 01/05/97 From: MARY CURTIS Time: 05:12pm \/To: REGINA FINAN (Read 1 times) Subj: Re: Attention/behavioral diso RE: Re: Attention/behavioral diso BY: Regina Finan to MARK PROBERT on Tue Dec 31 1996 06:21 pm > appreciate it. They also need to know that you love them regardless > of their behavioral problems and that they are not what the world > perceives them as. Children hear much about what is said about kids > who are ADHD and they know the labels put on them. It is this label > they adopt that must be broken and set straight. It is a continuous > battle, but I see rewards and although it may not seem like much to > someone else it is alot to the child and myself. Peachy. I can see how the praise would help them...however raising my son alone most of his 13 years has been exhausting, and while I already feel guilty much of the time for not being able to do enough and always being on his ase, now I can also feel guilty for not having the fortitude left to "catch him being good" and praise him. I'm constantly frustrated and frankly pissed off dealing with his attitudes and all the things he can't or won't do. I try to put him in as many programs as I can thru our church, community center, his school, etc. 1. for structured activities for him and a rare break for me, nd 2. so he will hopefully be getting some positive messages from somewhere. I try, but it's pretty hard to notice the stuff he does right...when it happens I'm still catching my breath from wondering what he's gonna pull next, and 'm too stunned to know what the hell to say. I've been sick with a head cold for a couple days, I was still in bed at noon today when the kids brought me breakfast...did pretty damn good too. Fried eggs, a bagel with my favorite strawberry cream cheese, o.j., and chocolate pancakes! I'm sure my response was less than enthusiastic in appearance tho, I couldn't muster any energy for more than just to get up and start eating. Guess I'll say something when they get back from wherever they've gone to play...just before asking them to clean their mess in the kitchen! Well that's about sapped my energy for today, just sitting here at the keyboard thinking about all this and managing to type...can't wait to go back to bed! "AAACHOO! ...sniff.." --- Synchronet+SBBSecho v1.22 * Origin: Black Ridge BBS, Vancouver, WA. (360) 574-1250 (1:105/184) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 222 ATTENTION DEF. Ref: E1A00001Date: 01/05/97 From: JERRY SCHWARTZ Time: 11:53am \/To: JANE KELLEY (Read 1 times) Subj: Adhd....76 [Jan 04, 97 - 09:39] Jane Kelley of 1:138/255 wrote to Jerry Schwartz: JS>>You have offered no evidence that a disproportionate number of people ith JS>>AD(H)D are from families with a history of alcoholism: you have merely JS>>asserted that a certain percentage is (and you didn't even specify the JS>>percentage). With alcoholics making up 9% of the population (as I heard JS>>thi morning on the news), any child has around a 17% chance that at least JS>>one parent will be an alcoholic (if I remember my statistics correctly). JK> Your figures are inacurate. Alcoholics and their families make up JK> closer to around 30% of the total population, and the percentage of JK> children with ADHD from such families in one study by Dr. Terry Neher JK> was around 33%. You are misreading what I said. I heard that 9% of the population is alcoholic; obviously, the number of families would be far larger, and your 30% may well be as accurate as need be. The 17% was my own calculation, based simply on each parent having a 9% shot; if you extend this to uncles, aunts, and other relatives then the odds go up, but when you correct for clustering then they go down again. If you say 30%, then I'll accept that. As for the percentage of children with ADHD from such families being 33%, that would be higher than the general population as I understand it; but "one study" is not convincing unless it is huge, diverse, and (since a diagnosis of ADHD can be swayed by the subjectivity of the researcher) blind. JK> I am constantly aware that many professionals will do anything to avoid JK> going back to school or attend lectures and seminars to learn new JK> information. THESE ARE VERY DANGEROUS and should be kept from seeing JK> patients at all cost. JK> Worse are those who have no background at all in medicine who think JK> they are experts. Whether an ill-informed lay person or a professional with an ax to grind is more dangerous may be arguable, but the argument is not profitable. Jerry Schwartz --- Msged/386 4.00 * Origin: Write by Night (1:142/928) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 222 ATTENTION DEF. Ref: E1A00002Date: 01/05/97 From: JERRY SCHWARTZ Time: 12:03pm \/To: JANE KELLEY (Read 1 times) Subj: News From Nami [Jan 04, 97 - 09:39] Jane Kelley of 1:138/255 wrote to Jerry Schwartz: JK> Convincing logic? What more do you need? ADHD IN CHILDREN OF FAMILIES JK> WITH ALCOHOLISM IS A VARIATION OF THE SAME PROBLEM! You have presented no scientific references to support that contention: none. It is obvious from even a cursory scan of the medical literature that alcohol's mechanism is quite different from those of marijuana, amphetamines, cocaine, or opiates. The latter (and most modern psychoactive pharmaceuticals) operate upon specific receptors, reuptake pathways, or the like; whereas alcohol interferes with a host of metabolic functions and is classified as a "dirty" drug for that reason (it "gums up the works" rather than manipulating specific functions). Similarly, current research on AD(H)D indicates that it involves specific metabolic irregularities in specific parts of the brain. No doubt at some point it will be possible (at least in theory) to diagnose AD(H)D by detecting those metabolic irregularities. There is wide variability in both the symptoms of AD(H)D (hence the parentheses I use) and in the medications which are effective in various individuals. This suggests that there is probably more than one specific cause of the external behaviors classified as AD(H)D, and nobody knows yet how many nor how closely related they are. However, in general they respond to one or another of a small handful of medications. Turning that around, of course, you could say that only those cases which respond to those medications or which have those specific metabolic irregularities are "true" AD(H)D. As a matter of diagnosis, that is a dangerous technique; but as a matter of definition, it may work. If you are saying that there is a high percentage of the children of alcoholics who have a condition which resembles AD(H)D, but which is not treatable in the same way, then I am not in a position to argue with you, nor interested in doing so, since we are not talking about the same thing. But if you are saying that if someone has AD(H)D, could be treated by the standard medications, but should not be because they have a relative with alcoholism, then I think you are wrong. You said (and I'll concede, for the sake of argument) that 30% of all families have one or more individuals with alcoholism. You also claim that 33% of the children of such families have AD(H)D which should not be treated with the standard medications. Since I don't think there is a reliable number for the cases of AD(H)D in the population at large, will you grant me 10% for the sake of argument and easy math? Now, if 30% of the families have a history of alcoholism, and 33% of their children have this putative alcohol-related form of AD(H)D, then the most simpleminded estimate is that .3*.33 or about 10% of the population would have this specific, alcoholism-related problem. Subtract that from the 10% number I pulled out of the air in the paragraph above, and you have no room at all for non-alcohol-related AD(H)D. You can fudge my 10% number upwards if you like, but in order to make room for the number of AD(H)D cases which appear to be unrelated to alcoholism you'd have to have an implausibly high total incidence of AD(H)D in the general population. Of course, to do this properly you'd have to completely redo my calculations to compensate for sampling without replacement, but since you didn't specify how a "family" is counted in your 30% there's not much point in trying to do so. (Most critically, how many generations and what degrees of consanguinity do you count as one family in that 30%? If an alcoholic has two children who each marry and have children in turn, is that one family, two, or three?) And as for your central argument, which I believe is that people with alcoholic relatives should not be treated with the standard medications for AD(H)D, that would rest not only upon your thesis that there is a form of AD(H)D which is unique to alcoholic families but on the corollary that no one with alcoholic relatives can have the "other" kind of AD(H)D. I might be willing to concede the former, although I think it more likely that there are conditions related or consequent to alcoholism (FAS, FAE, or something not yet named) which are symptomatically similar to AD(H)D; for those people, the standard remedies for AD(H)D might well not work, and might be dangerous. I would also concede that alcohol use (not alcoholism itself) might cause genetic changes which give rise to AD(H)D in subsequent generations, since heavy alcohol use does seem able to induce genetic damage in sperm (and therefore quite possibly in ova), let alone raise havoc with a fetus exposed to alcohol. But I am unwilling to concede that those with alcoholic relatives should not be treated with the standard medications if those medications work, that all AD(H)D is coincident with a family history of alcoholism, nor (returning to your other theme) that if a medication is in the form of nuts, berries, twigs, or leaves that it is ipso facto better or safer than the product of a chemical laboratory. Jerry Schwartz --- Msged/386 4.00 * Origin: Write by Night (1:142/928) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 222 ATTENTION DEF. Ref: E1A00003Date: 01/05/97 From: JERRY SCHWARTZ Time: 01:20pm \/To: JANE KELLEY (Read 1 times) Subj: Sugar [Jan 04, 97 - 09:39] Jane Kelley of 1:138/255 wrote to Bob Moylan: JK> I've also posted information on ADHD obtained from NAMI, one journal for None of which supported your contention that AD(H)D should be treated with supplements. In fact, when I pointed this out you said something to the effect that this shows how misguided or incomplete that resource is. In other words, you told me to consult NAMI. I did so, and found nothing that supported what you said. Jerry Schwartz --- Msged/386 4.00 * Origin: Write by Night (1:142/928) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 222 ATTENTION DEF. Ref: E1A00004Date: 01/05/97 From: JERRY SCHWARTZ Time: 01:29pm \/To: JANE KELLEY (Read 1 times) Subj: Latest From Nami..... [Jan 04, 97 - 09:39] Jane Kelley of 1:138/255 wrote to Jerry Schwartz: JK> Best to find someone local who knows or get in touch with someone who JK> has done extensive research in this area. Are there any such who do not sell the supplements they recommend? The relationship between the medical professions and the pharmaceutical companies is incestous enough, but at least it is illegal in most places for doctors to own pharmacies. Jerry Schwartz --- Msged/386 4.00 * Origin: Write by Night (1:142/928) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 222 ATTENTION DEF. Ref: E1B00000Date: 01/05/97 From: BOB MOYLAN Time: 04:54pm \/To: JANE KELLEY (Read 1 times) Subj: Adhd....76 Jane Kelley On (04 Jan 97) was overheard to say to Mark Probert JK> I could keep alcoholics perfectly happy with a wide variety of other JK> drugs. JK> We don't because we have learned that these drugs will wind up doing JK> damage to the same immune system damaged by the alcohol. Horsefeathers! Prove it. Chapter and verse, no hearsay, no "I have in front of me this or that that says..." none of your anecdotal ramblings. JK> SO, EXPLAIN TO ME WHY IT MAKES SENSE TO PROVIDE CHILDREN WITH THIS JK> SAME BRAIN AND BODY CHEMISTRY WITH THE DRUGS THAT WE HAVE LEARNED THE JK> HARD WAY DID SO MUCH DAMAGE TO THEIR IMMEDIATE ANCESTORS? "WE" don't Jane. Produce some statistical evidence that has been peer reviewed and replicated, that clearly shows any, or even one, of the meds being used in the overall treatment of ADD/ADHD was used by any family member in the past that is directly linked as causal to the child with ADD/ADHD. ... Artificial Intelligence: The other guy's opinion. --- PPoint 2.02 * Origin: What's The Point? Virginia Beach, VA USA (1:275/429.5) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 222 ATTENTION DEF. Ref: E1B00001Date: 01/05/97 From: BOB MOYLAN Time: 05:04pm \/To: JANE KELLEY (Read 1 times) Subj: Caffine Jane Kelley On (04 Jan 97) was overheard to say to Bob Moylan JK> When one parent gets over the fear indoctrinated in them for JK> questioning what doctors do to their kids, there will be a lawsuit JK> that will be the granddaddy of all law suits. You are still living in the dark ages Jane. You obviously don't comprehend what you read here and in other places. I don't know anyone, and I have a large circle of friends, professional colleagues, and acquaintances, who accepts at face value the pronouncements of any doctor when it comes to their children or themselves. Nurse may be scared silly of doctors, and those from your era particularly so. Medical consumers today, for the most part, do not accept unsubstantiated medical "opinions" as holy writ handed down on that mountain. ... Take a number in the Martyr line and respond when your name is called --- PPoint 2.02 * Origin: What's The Point? Virginia Beach, VA USA (1:275/429.5) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 222 ATTENTION DEF. Ref: E1B00002Date: 01/05/97 From: BOB MOYLAN Time: 05:20pm \/To: JANE KELLEY (Read 1 times) Subj: Latest From Nami..... Jane Kelley On (04 Jan 97) was overheard to say to Jerry Schwartz JK> JS>Since you have spoken only in vague terms of "supplements" JK> JS>you are leaving it to me to guess what you mean, JK> You bet I'm being vague. Learned in the Alaskan bush a long time ago JK> from chronic alcoholics not to give out the content of the protein JK> drink I made up for those in jail in withdrawal. That would make it JK> too easy for the other drunks to think that they could keep right on JK> drinking, sober up easily, and not suffer any damage to themselves. That is just about the clearest statement of position that you have made to date. You consider yourself to be the font of all wisdom, dispenser of cures, a virtual cyberspace mother theresa. <--In my thinking a very apt comparison since _her_ credentials have recently been held up to close scrutiny and found to be wanting. JK> Sometimes it is best to keep one's mouth shut. ROFLMAO!!!!!!! JK> And in the case of food supplements, we have learned that small JK> differences in the composition of formulas are necessary to address JK> specific conditions. ... yet another one will work on the ADHD JK> children. At the risk of being redundant, ah what the heck, Prove it, usual requirements for proof, if you have any that is. ... Some minds are cultivated others are just plowed under. --- PPoint 2.02 * Origin: What's The Point? Virginia Beach, VA USA (1:275/429.5)