"Jeff" wrote in message
ink.net...
this was 3 1/2 years ago. Try more modern news next time.

Jeff

Pat reply #
43480324885809348790324899348932948932483094834934-3249348903493248-93-24884

FACT is , it was 3 1/2 years ago, and it is STILL being prescribed!!!!!!!


http://www.preventcancer.com/patient...id/ritalin.htm

American Academy of Pediatrics Guidelines for Treating Behavioral
Disorders in Children with Ritalin Ignores Evidence of Cancer Risks
warns Samuel S. Epstein, M.D.

Chicago, 10/04/01. Based on an industry-funded multi-university trial
on
282 pre-teen children treated with Ritalin for attention
deficit/hyperactivity disorders (ADHD), just published in Pediatrics,
the American Academy of Pediatrics has endorsed the use of the drug.
However, the Academy ignores clear evidence of the drug's cancer risks
of which parents, teachers and school nurses, besides most
pediatricians
and psychiatrists, still remain uninformed and unaware.

Some 40 years after the drug was first marketed by Ciba Geigy,
carcinogenicity tests were conducted at the taxpayers expense by the
National Toxicology Program, the results of which were published in
1995. Adult mice were fed Ritalin over a two-year period at dosages
close to those prescribed to children. The mice developed a
statistically significant incidence of liver abnormalities and tumors,
including highly aggressive rare cancers known as hepatoblastomas.
These
findings are particularly disturbing as the tests were conducted on
adult, rather than young mice which would be expected to be much more
sensitive to carcinogenic effects. The National Toxicology Program
concluded that Ritalin is a "possible human carcinogen," and
recommended
the need for further research. While still insisting that the drug is
safe, the Food and Drug Administration admitted that these findings
signal "carcinogenic potential," and required a statement to this
effect
in the drug's package insert. However, these inserts are not seen by
parents or nurses.

The Physicians' Desk Reference admits evidence on the carcinogenicity
of
Ritalin, now manufactured by Novartis, qualified by the statement that
"the significance of these results is unknown," apparently not
recognizing that this is more alarming than reassuring. Apart from
cancer risks, there is also suggestive evidence that Ritalin induces
genetic damage in blood cells of Ritalin-treated children.

Concerns on Ritalin's cancer risk are more acute in view of the
millions
of children treated annually with the drug and the escalating incidence

of childhood cancer, by some 35% over the last few decades, quite apart

from delayed risks of cancer in adult life. These risks are compounded
by the availability of alternative safe and effective procedures,
notably behavior modification and biofeedback.

There is no justification for prescribing Ritalin, even by highly
qualified pediatricians and psychiatrists, unless parents have been
explicitly informed of the drug's cancer risks. Otherwise, prescribing
Ritalin constitutes unarguable medical malpractice.

CONTACT: Samuel S. Epstein, M.D.

Professor emeritus Environmental & Occupational Medicine

Chairman, Cancer Prevention Coalition

c/o University of Illinois at Chicago

School of Public Health, M/C 922

2121 W. Taylor Street

Chicago, IL 60612

phone 312-996-2297, fax 312-413-9898

email