psych meds for kids: my concerns

On Sat, 20 Sep 2003 08:22:51 GMT, "Roger Schlafly"
wrote:

"PF Riley" wrote
[usual ad hominem attack snipped]
Second, look at the actual evidence that the meds are safe and
effective. Some of the drugs have never been tested on kids, and
most only appear to be only marginally effective in adults.
Most? Give some examples of drugs that are only marginally effective
in adults, with citations. ...

Prozac, Paxil, Zoloft. Even under studies that were cooked to favor
the drugs, they only performed marginally better than placebos.
Eg, see this study from last year.
http://www.journals.apa.org/preventi...e0050023a.html

OK, I read it. This is from the discussion:

If antidepressant drug effects and antidepressant placebo effects are
not additive, the ameliorating effects of antidepressants might be
obtained even if patients did not know the drug was being
administered. If that is the case, then antidepressant drugs have
substantial pharmacologic effects that are duplicated or masked by
placebo. In this case, conventional clinical trials are inappropriate
for testing the effects of these drugs, as they may result in the
rejection of effective medications. Conversely, if drug and placebo
effects of antidepressant medication are additive, then the data
clearly show that those effects are small, at best, and of
questionable clinical efficacy. Finally, it is conceivable that the
effects are partially additive, with the true drug effect being
somewhere in between these extremes. The problem is that we do not
know which of these models is most accurate because the assumption of
additivity has never been tested with antidepressant mediation.

In other words, all he has proved is that the studies aren't very well
designed. From this you conclude that "most" psychoactive drugs in
adults are only "marginally" effective? Have you ever given a Haldol
shot to a raving psychotic?

PF

On Sat, 20 Sep 2003 09:15:05 GMT, (PF Riley)
wrote:

On Sat, 20 Sep 2003 08:22:51 GMT, "Roger Schlafly"
wrote:

"PF Riley" wrote
[usual ad hominem attack snipped]
Second, look at the actual evidence that the meds are safe and
effective. Some of the drugs have never been tested on kids, and
most only appear to be only marginally effective in adults.
Most? Give some examples of drugs that are only marginally effective
in adults, with citations. ...

Prozac, Paxil, Zoloft. Even under studies that were cooked to favor
the drugs, they only performed marginally better than placebos.
Eg, see this study from last year.
http://www.journals.apa.org/preventi...e0050023a.html

OK, I read it. This is from the discussion:

If antidepressant drug effects and antidepressant placebo effects are
not additive, the ameliorating effects of antidepressants might be
obtained even if patients did not know the drug was being
administered. If that is the case, then antidepressant drugs have
substantial pharmacologic effects that are duplicated or masked by
placebo. In this case, conventional clinical trials are inappropriate
for testing the effects of these drugs, as they may result in the
rejection of effective medications. Conversely, if drug and placebo
effects of antidepressant medication are additive, then the data
clearly show that those effects are small, at best, and of
questionable clinical efficacy. Finally, it is conceivable that the
effects are partially additive, with the true drug effect being
somewhere in between these extremes. The problem is that we do not
know which of these models is most accurate because the assumption of
additivity has never been tested with antidepressant mediation.

In other words, all he has proved is that the studies aren't very well
designed. From this you conclude that "most" psychoactive drugs in
adults are only "marginally" effective? Have you ever given a Haldol
shot to a raving psychotic?

how pathetic ..is that the best you can do?
conflate SSRIs with neuroleptics?

I wish I was a dab hand at grafix, however I'll try to
paint a picture with words.

The old antipsychotics worked by blocking dopamine
receptors, the new ones do the same but also do some
stuff to the seretonin sites too.

First off lets talk about a neurone simplified it consists
of a big roundish blob called the cell body and a long stalk
called an axon. On the cell bodies surface are tree like
structures called dendrites these are in addition to the axon.

Now, lets talk about 2 of these neurons (nerve cells)
the axon from one nerve cell ALMOST connects
to the dendrites of the next nerve cell. I say almost
because theres a tiny gap called a synapse.

The synapse is where the chemical messengers
such as dopomine pass a signal from the end of
the axon to the tip(s) of a dendrite.

Now different synapses around the brain have
different chemical messengers, this is because
the brain is awash with all sorts of hormones and
"neurotransmitters"(chemical messangers) and
the dendrite needs to know that the message it gets
comes from the right place.

When the second cell gets enough dopamine
it "fires" sends an electical impulse down the
axon which makes it release neurotransmitters
down to the next cell on the network.

Now lets take a look at the dendrites.

If you taks APs (anti Psychotics) they are chemicals that fit into
the receptors on the dendrites and stop it
receiving. This effectively shuts down all
downstream communications on the network.

However the brain is a clever old thing
and says hang on a sec ~I havent heard
from charlie lately, so a tiny reverse
synaptic transfer occurs from cell 3
in this sequence that tells cell 2
hey mat cant you grow some more dendrites
you seem to be getting a bit deaf.

Cell 2 says oh yeah, I've been oversleeping
a bit wheres my mate cell 1 he usaully has a chat
hasent been in touch for ages.

So cell 2 grows more dendrites to make
up for the fact that most of them are clogged
up with AP ****.

So you need more and more APs
to clog up more and more receptors.

THats why you shouldn't give APs to
normaloes cause it'll send them mad,
by cuasing them to become hypersensitive
to dopamine.

It's also why theres no cure cause
the treatment makes you worse in
the long run.

But we're schizos, so it dosent matter ****,
if we get madder 'cause they can just up
thier AP crap as often as they like until
they shoot your liver, or your brain
gives out completely and you get
tardith dementia.

By which time your mum and dad are
dead and they can get one more
****head in a body bag and
stop them sucking off the state.

On their way home they laugh
away in thier mercedes
"Fooled them suckers,
silly buggers don't realise
I'm cuasing all the symptoms.
My, this is the gavy train,
I think I'll put this weeks xs
in elly lilly."

--
WARNING!
When trying to withdraw from many psychiatric drugs, patients can
develop serious and even
life-threatening emotional and physical reactions. In short, it is
dangerous not only to
start taking psychiatric drugs but also can be hazardous to stop
taking them. Therefore,
withdrawal from psychiatric drugs should be done under clinical
supervision. Principles of
drug withdrawal are discussed in Your Drug May Be Your Problem: How
and Why to Stop Taking
Psychiatric Medications.
information on Prozac and Prozac-like drugs can be found in Talking
Back to Prozac by
Peter R. Breggin, M.D. and Ginger Ross Breggin.

DSM IV is the fabrication upon which
psychiatry seeks acceptance by medicine
in general. Insiders know it is more
a political than scientific document.
To its credit it says so

--Loren R. Mosher, M.D.



PF

Ritalin has been in use for fifty years. In all that time, the only apparent
side effect was growth-related. It turns out that's a symptom related to AD/HD,
not to Ritalin.


--
_
Kevin D. Quitt 91387-4454
96.37% of all statistics are made up

It has just recently come to light that both Paxil and Effexor may have serious
and adverse side effects when given to youngsters under the age of 18.

(Ted Shoemaker) wrote in message . com...
Hello,

I need your advice and wisdom.

This post isn't intended to give the
impression that meds are
ALWAYS GOOD or ALWAYS BAD.
Let's start with the guess that meds are
somewhere in between: both good and bad, and
deserving of a critical examination.

Consider a child who is diagnosed with a
cluster of neurological and/or psychiatric
disorders, and the doctors wanted to give
him/her some meds. I don't know when it's a
good idea to treat with meds, and when to
refuse.



Hi Ted. It is good that you are cautious and are willing to
investigate this subject. My first question to you is what
"neurological/psychiatric disorders" has this child been labelled
with? No psychiatric "disorder" or "mental illness" has any scientific
validity whatsoever. Diagnoses for any such "ill" is based on
subjective conjecture, with reference to the vague descriptions used
within the DSM IV (the Diagnostic & Statistics Manual), the
psychiatric "bible" of all mental "disorders".

Because of this, one must ask what a drug, or worse - a drug
"cocktail", is being proposed for? They are not "correcting" anything.
They have the same effects on people with or without these
"illnesses". They "work" in the same way pot "works" for a dude who
wants to "chill out". If there is a "desirable" effect then
wooohooooooo! Here's the prescription! Well, cocaine has a "desirable
effect" too, as does any 'recreational drug'. But most people know
that such drugs are harmful and can damage the brain and body through
repeated use. Fortunately, people are finally learning the same with
regards to psychiatric "medication". Did you know Effexor's just been
banned for under-18s in the UK? That's 2 down. About time too.

My advice. Quit agreeing with psychiatric terminology. Quit using it.
If someone tells you that your kid has a "mental illness" or a
learning "disorder", simply ask them how the f*^k they know that? Ask
them for medical evidence. Tests, scans, you name it. You'll
eventually realise that they really don't have a clue and that it's
all a bunch of baloney.

Take your kid for valid medical testing, to make sure that
"psychiatric symptoms" are not the result of an underlying PHYSICAL
problem. Check also for allergies, for vitamin/mineral deficiences, or
for psychological issues that can be addressed. Use exercise,
relaxation, self-help if needed. Visit
http://www.alternativementalhealth.com also for advice and information
on how to help your child.

For additional advice, up-to-date news, support and further resources,
please visit http://groups.msn.com/psychbusters

All the best
Mike

--

Decoding Psychiatric Propaganda
http://groups.msn.com/psychbusters

"PF Riley" wrote
Prozac, Paxil, Zoloft. Even under studies that were cooked to favor
the drugs, they only performed marginally better than placebos.
Eg, see this study from last year.
http://www.journals.apa.org/preventi...e0050023a.html
designed. From this you conclude that "most" psychoactive drugs in
adults are only "marginally" effective? Have you ever given a Haldol
shot to a raving psychotic?

I hope you don't get those drugs mixed up when you treat patients.

"Mark Probert" wrote in message .net...
"Ted Shoemaker" wrote in message
om...
Hello,

I need your advice and wisdom.

This post isn't intended to give the
impression that meds are
ALWAYS GOOD or ALWAYS BAD.
Let's start with the guess that meds are
somewhere in between: both good and bad, and
deserving of a critical examination.

I disagree with your premise entirely. Medications are neither good or bad,
but useful or non-useful.



Would you say the same for cannabis, cocaine or ecstasy? These drugs
are no doubt "useful" to those that take them.

Mike

On 21 Sep 2003 05:59:18 -0700, (Theta) wrote:

"Mark Probert" wrote in message .net...
"Ted Shoemaker" wrote in message
om...
Hello,

I need your advice and wisdom.

This post isn't intended to give the
impression that meds are
ALWAYS GOOD or ALWAYS BAD.
Let's start with the guess that meds are
somewhere in between: both good and bad, and
deserving of a critical examination.

I disagree with your premise entirely. Medications are neither good or bad,
but useful or non-useful.



Would you say the same for cannabis,

very effective adjunct treatment with chemotherapy. And IIRC,
medicinal use is still legal in at least one state.

cocaine

very effective topical anesthetic--it's the active ingredient in
corneal anesthetics?

or ecstasy?

I'm not aware of a perscribed use for this.

These drugs are no doubt "useful" to those that take them.

Taken as directed (except for ecstasy), you are correct.

================================================== ==
The "anti" group on any subject can stall it forever
by asking an unlimited number of questions and feeding
an unlimited number of fears. And if we require that
something be absolutely safe and absolutely understood
before we use it, we'll never use anything,
because we'll never have absolute understanding.
David Wright 9/20/03

http://home.gwi.net/~mdmpsyd/index.htm

On Sun, 21 Sep 2003 13:13:58 GMT, Jones wrote:

On 21 Sep 2003 05:59:18 -0700, (Theta) wrote:

Would you say the same for cannabis, cocaine or ecstasy? These drugs
are no doubt "useful" to those that take them.

Mike

Absolutely cannabis is useful for relieving nausea in patients
receiving chemo therapy and supposedly glaucoma. Havent read anything
besides the Scientology newsletters and booklets ? Its all over the
media the last few decades. Ecstasy , they admitted the harmful
effects reported were greatly exaggerated ...........probably the same
hysterical reaction they had in the 50s against pot. Not proven 100%
safe of course , what is.

Actually, there is a large body of research documenting the harmful
effects of even small doses. When I get back this evening, I'll dig up
some references for you.

You drink too much water and you get ill.
There have been a few deaths attributed to ecstasy but a surprisingly
small amount , most honest journalists say when compared to many
things considered fairly benign. Cocaine............its hard to say.

Cocaine is still used in many perscribed medications.

The main problem is that its addictive like alcohol , gambling, and
you know...................cults.

shhhh.


But someone may find a positive use for it too. After all
they find positive uses for poisons as muscle relaxation drugs etc.


================================================== ==
The "anti" group on any subject can stall it forever
by asking an unlimited number of questions and feeding
an unlimited number of fears. And if we require that
something be absolutely safe and absolutely understood
before we use it, we'll never use anything,
because we'll never have absolute understanding.
David Wright 9/20/03

http://home.gwi.net/~mdmpsyd/index.htm

"Theta" wrote in message
om...
"Mark Probert" wrote in message
.net...
"Ted Shoemaker" wrote in message
om...
Hello,

I need your advice and wisdom.

This post isn't intended to give the
impression that meds are
ALWAYS GOOD or ALWAYS BAD.
Let's start with the guess that meds are
somewhere in between: both good and bad, and
deserving of a critical examination.

I disagree with your premise entirely. Medications are neither good or
bad,
but useful or non-useful.



Would you say the same for cannabis, cocaine or ecstasy? These drugs
are no doubt "useful" to those that take them.

Actually, yes. The first two seem to have a valid medical use. I am not
aware of a possible medical use for the last.