Letter to Editor USA Today

Jan Drew wrote:

You claim to be a pediatrician, kidsdoc and you don't know whaere this study
came from?
Use the exact words--
Stimulant treatment in high school also did not influence drug use in
adulthood except for greater use of cocaine.

http://www.google.com/

You can easily find it. If you cannot-- YOU are the loser.


Sure it was easy to find. It was also easy to see that Jan Drew
dishonestly snipped and took a single sentence out of context, failing
to include the actual conclusion of the paper:

"Conclusion. This study concurs with 11 previous studies in finding no
compelling evidence that stimulant treatment of children with
attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder leads to an increased risk for
substance experimentation, use, dependence, or abuse by adulthood."

Well, well, well...seems Jan has been hoisted by her own petard, oui?

Mark, MD

Mark wrote:

"Conclusion. This study concurs with 11 previous studies in finding no
compelling evidence that stimulant treatment of children with
attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder leads to an increased risk for
substance experimentation, use, dependence, or abuse by adulthood."

Let's post the full abstract...

Does the treatment of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder with
stimulants contribute to drug use/abuse? A 13-year prospective study.
Barkley RA, Fischer M, Smallish L, Fletcher K.
Department of Psychiatry, University of Massachusetts Medical School,
Worcester, Massachusetts, USA.
OBJECTIVE: To examine the impact of stimulant treatment during childhood
and high school on risk for substance use, dependence, and abuse by
young adulthood. METHODS: A total of 147 clinic-referred hyperactive
children were followed approximately 13 years into adulthood (mean: 21
years old; range: 19-25). At adolescent (age 15) and adult follow-up,
probands were interviewed about their use of various substances and
duration of stimulant treatment. RESULTS: Duration of stimulant
treatment was not significantly associated with frequency of any form of
drug use by young adulthood. Stimulant-treated children had no greater
risk of ever trying drugs by adolescence or any significantly greater
frequency of drug use by young adulthood. Stimulant treatment in high
school also did not influence drug use in adulthood except for greater
use of cocaine. This difference was no longer significant after
controlling for severity of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder and
conduct disorder in childhood, adolescence, and adulthood. Stimulant
treatment in either childhood or high school was not associated with any
greater risk for any formal Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental
Disorders, Third Edition, Revised drug dependence or abuse disorders by
adulthood. Treatment with stimulants did not increase the risk of ever
having tried most illegal substances by adulthood except for cocaine.
Subsequent analyses showed that this elevated risk was primarily
mediated by severity of conduct disorder by young adulthood and not by
stimulant treatment in childhood. CONCLUSION: This study concurs with 11
previous studies in finding no compelling evidence that stimulant
treatment of children with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder
leads to an increased risk for substance experimentation, use,
dependence, or abuse by adulthood.

----------

Russell Barkley is one of the leading authorities on AD/HD, its
diagnosis and its treatment. He is the author of "Talking Back to
Breggin" where he exposes Breggin's lies and spin.

ADHD, Ritalin, and Conspiracies:
Talking Back to Peter Breggin
Russell A. Barkley, Ph.D.
© 1998

In Talking Back to Ritalin: What Doctors Aren't Telling You about
Stimulants for Children (Monroe, ME: Courage Press, 1998), psychiatrist
Peter R. Breggin, M.D., warns us of the catastrophe now befalling
children in the United States as a consequence of the clinical methods
of organized psychiatry and psychology, the widespread use of
professional diagnostic classifications for childhood mental disorders
by these professions, and the prescribing of psychiatric medications for
the treatment of those disorders. For more than 15 years, Breggin has
written books that attack established psychiatry, psychology, and now
pediatrics, for their approaches to the diagnosis and treatment of
children and adults with mental and developmental disorders. In this
book, the disorder known as ADHD, for attention deficit hyperactivity
disorder, and the stimulant medication, Ritalin (methylphenidate) often
used to treat it, come in for very heavy (and lopsided) criticism. Along
the way, a number of leading clinical scientists in the field of ADHD,
myself included, are criticized for misrepresenting the status of our
science. National charities that advocate on behalf of those with the
disorder, such as CHADD (Children and Adults with ADD), the
pharmaceutical companies that produce the stimulant medications, such as
Novartis (manufacturers of Ritalin), and even federal institutes that
fund mental health research, such as the NIMH (National Institute of
Mental Health), also receive the full brunt of Breggins' ire. Breggin
claims that all are conspiring to "drug" America's school children for
the management of their ADHD, among other behavior problems. Left
unaddressed by the author is precisely how such a complex conspiracy
could ever be organized and kept secret, if it actually existed. No
persuasive evidence of such a conspiracy is ever provided in the book,
just the repeated assertion that an ADHD/Ritalin conspiracy exists.

Breggin considers children with ADHD and other behavior problems
actually to be among our most creative, sensitive, energetic, and
intelligent. And so he fmds the use of medication for their management
to be worthy of public concern and scorn. His assessment of ADHD
children, however, ignores more than 30 years of longitudinal research
on ADHD, including my own ongoing 20-year follow-up study, demonstrating
the substantial and pervasive development risks that ADHD and its
related disorders of oppositional and conduct disorder convey to a
child. Such research clearly demonstrates that ADHD has a negative
impact on intelligence (an average 7-10 points below normal), on
academic achievement skills (an average of 10-15 points below normal),
and academic progress (25-50% are retained in grade, 36% fail to
graduate high school, and only 5% complete a college education).
Children with ADHD, particularly those with childhood oppositional
defiant disorder, are at much higher risk for later lying and stealing
(45%), conduct disorder and delinquency (25-45%), early substance
experimentation and substance dependence/abuse (15-25 %), and social
rejection (50% or more). This is not to say that some children with ADHD
fail to succeed in life; but it is to say that characterizing tl-iis
group of children as our best, most creative, and brightest does a
severe injustice to the facts of the matter and is woefully misleading
to the public in general and to parents of these children in particular.

Literally from its opening pages, this book makes contorted attempts at
the appearance of scholarship, replete with quotes, footnotes, and
references to scientific papers and other sources. Throughout, any quote
is mustered from scientific papers that can be taken out of context to
support the author's biases along with every exaggerated fact and figure
he can flnd to support his call to alarm, no matter the credibility (or
lack of it) of his sources. However, the flaws of both his research
methods and his arguments are evident to any scientist even slightly
familiar with the scientific literature on the topics covered here.
Lacking any sense of perspective and proportion, this book fails to
place its facts and figures in their rightful context and history, and
eschews any attempt at a balanced and thoughtfully reasoned approach to
its major topics. We are left, their, with what appears to be a
carefully and cleverly crafted piece of artful propaganda against the
diagnosis of ADHD and its treatment with Ritalin. "We are left, then,
with what appears to be a carefully and cleverly crafted piece of artful
propaganda against the diagnosis of ADHD and its treatment with Ritalin."

The book's biases and unbalanced scholarsl-lip are evident from the very
first page of Chapter 1. Here the author quotes that 'The U.S. Drug
Enforcement Administration ... has warned about a record six-fold
increase in Ritalin production between 1990 and 1995.' And that "The
International Narcotics Control Board. . . deplores that 'l 0 to 12
percent' of all boys between ages 6 and 14 in the United States have
been diagnosed as having ADD and are being treated with methylphenidate
[Ritalin]." Withheld from the reader are the following facts that would
have helped to put these statements in their proper perspective:

Ritalin production does not directly equate with Ritalin prescribing,
the latter being far lower than the former;
this ridiculously large rise in Ritalin production was largely
orchestrated by the DEA itself after having been soundly and rightly
criticized in 1993 for allowing a shortfall of this medication to occur
in the US. This deprived some children in some parts of the country from
being able to obtain their medication for several months until the DEA
corrected its mistake. Subsequently, the DEA dramatically raised
production quotas so this would not happen again;
it was the DEA that had informed the International Narcotics Control
Board about the supposedly dramatic rise in Ritalin use in the U.S., and
was thanked by the Narcotics Control Board for this assistance at its
press conference, even though the figures cited by the Board were wrong;
and
this press conference was arranged at a time when CHADD, leading
scientists, the American Academy of Child Neurology, and others had
petitioned the government (starting with the DEA) to declassify Ritalin
out of the category of addictive drugs and into a more appropriate
category with other nonaddictive psychiatric medications -- a petition
the DEA did not wish to approve.
In the next sentence we are told that"While estimates vary widely, the
total number of children on Ritalin has probably increased to 4-5
million or more per year." Checking out the footnote that appears in
this sentence, one finds that Breggin is well aware of the most recent,
largest study, and best study to date on this issue conducted by Daniel
Safer and his colleagues (Pediatrics 98:1084-1088, 1996) in which the
investigators attempted to determine the prevalence of Ritalin use in
the United States. Their study found Ritalin use to be less than half
the figure Breggin claims it to be. But Breggin dismisses this study as
just a "hodgepodge of mostly local sources." He prefers instead to rely
on his own firsthand conversations with physicians and teachers around
the country that medication use is much higher than this study indicates
it to be. In essence, we are asked to take Breggin's subjective and
biased impressions over the available scientific research on the matter,
no doubt because that research would not support his call to alarm about
the issue. In reality, out of over 40 million school children in the
U.S., only 1.5 million of them are taking medication for the treatment
of ADHD. This extent of Ritalin use is well below the 5 to 7 percent of
children estimated to have this disorder and so the figure for
medication use hardly seems out of proportion or scandalous when viewed
in its rightful context. Such distortions of fact, dismissives of the
scientific literature (tucked away in footnotes), and citations of
exaggerated statistics await the reader on every page thereafter.

This book further accuses leading scientists, physicians, the Food and
Drug Administration, NIMH, and established psychiatry and psychology of
withholding negative or critical information about stimulant medication
and ADHD from the public. Meanwhile, the author does precisely this very
same sort of thing himself. Breggin draws upon quotes, facts, figures,
and the personal musings of laypeople from many sources in the popular
media, all of which are critical of ADHD or stimulant medications like
Ritalin. Never is their accuracy or credibility challenged. Yet this
book almost ceaselessly criticizes scientific research that supports the
validity of ADHD as neurodevelopmental disorder and on the use of
stimulant medications as safe and effective treatments for it. This
nit-picking at the petty faults of the clinical studies and the
investigators quickly grows tiresome when there is no equally balanced
critical treatment of the sources Breggin wishes to cite in support of
his own prejudices. It is a lack of balance so lopsided as to invite
disbelief.

Not until the last fifth of this book are we finally told what Breggin
believes is the cause of children's developmental disorders, such as
ADHD and autism, and behavioral/emotional problems such as oppositional
defiant disorder and depression. The causes are said to be: (1) lack of
parental love, (2) lack of parental attention, (3) lack of parental
discipline, (4) family stress, (5) poor educational methods, and (6) a
mental health profession that is prejudiced toward neurobiological
explanations for behavior over psychosocial ones. The recommendations
proposed for parents to follow are, of course, the inverse of these
causes; love more, pay more attention, use more discipline, reduce
family stress, work to reform your child's educational system, and avoid
getting help from organized psychiatry and psychology. While there may
be nothing inherently wrong with some of these admonitions, there is
nothing inherently right about them either. Some may even ring with the
sound of common sense about them, but common sense is often just that,
common and often misinformed. Witness the widely held belief among the
lay public that sugar is a major cause of ADHD and learning disabilities
when the weight of credible scientific evidence unquestionably shows
that it is not so. Science has shown that ADHD and the other disorders
Breggin discusses, including autism, are not the consequence of the
causes he cites in his book. And so addressing them is not likely to
remedy the child's problems. Neither is avoiding the established
scientific and clinical pediatric and mental health professions as
Breggin recommends. Breggin's view must be seen for what it actually is
-- a not-so-subtle form of parent-bashing that lays the blame for ADHD
and other complex developmental and mental disorders at the feet of the
child's parents, family, and school. This is outdated psychoanalytic
thinking, discarded decades ago by the scientific community for its
explanatory uselessness not to mention its cruelty toward parents
seeking help for their children.

The propaganda Breggin offers here will be easily dismissed by the
scientific and clinical professional communities as having nothing to
add to the important issues related to understanding and managing ADHD.
But to the lay reader, such misguidance as Breggin provides in Talking
Back to Ritalin can do real harm. Breggin literally encourages parents
of ADHD and developmentally disordered children to turn away from the
established fields of pediatrics, psychiatry, and psychology and the
professionals who practice within them. Instead, Breggin instructs
parents to seek outdated, unscientific, and ineffective
pop-psychological views of disorders and their treatment. What was so
dismaying to me as a professional by the end of the book was the
knowledge that Dr. Breggin took an oath as a physician to "first, do no
harm." In my opinion, his book has violated that sacred oath.

__________________

Dr. Barkley has been a clinician, scientist, and educator specializing
in ADHD and related disorders for more than 20 years. He is the author
of more than 150 scientific papers and book chapters on ADHD and related
topics and the author or editor of 13 books, including Attention Deficit
Hyperactivity Disorder: A Handbook for Diagnosis and Treatment (1990,
1998) and Taking Charge of ADHD: The Complete Authoritative Guide for
Parents (1995). At the time this was written, Dr. Barkley was Director
of Psychology and Professor of Psychiatry and Neurology at the
University of Massachusetts Medical Center, Worcester, MA. In 2002, he
relocated to the university of South Carolina.ADHD, Ritalin, and
Conspiracies:
Talking Back to Peter Breggin
Russell A. Barkley, Ph.D.
© 1998

In Talking Back to Ritalin: What Doctors Aren't Telling You about
Stimulants for Children (Monroe, ME: Courage Press, 1998), psychiatrist
Peter R. Breggin, M.D., warns us of the catastrophe now befalling
children in the United States as a consequence of the clinical methods
of organized psychiatry and psychology, the widespread use of
professional diagnostic classifications for childhood mental disorders
by these professions, and the prescribing of psychiatric medications for
the treatment of those disorders. For more than 15 years, Breggin has
written books that attack established psychiatry, psychology, and now
pediatrics, for their approaches to the diagnosis and treatment of
children and adults with mental and developmental disorders. In this
book, the disorder known as ADHD, for attention deficit hyperactivity
disorder, and the stimulant medication, Ritalin (methylphenidate) often
used to treat it, come in for very heavy (and lopsided) criticism. Along
the way, a number of leading clinical scientists in the field of ADHD,
myself included, are criticized for misrepresenting the status of our
science. National charities that advocate on behalf of those with the
disorder, such as CHADD (Children and Adults with ADD), the
pharmaceutical companies that produce the stimulant medications, such as
Novartis (manufacturers of Ritalin), and even federal institutes that
fund mental health research, such as the NIMH (National Institute of
Mental Health), also receive the full brunt of Breggins' ire. Breggin
claims that all are conspiring to "drug" America's school children for
the management of their ADHD, among other behavior problems. Left
unaddressed by the author is precisely how such a complex conspiracy
could ever be organized and kept secret, if it actually existed. No
persuasive evidence of such a conspiracy is ever provided in the book,
just the repeated assertion that an ADHD/Ritalin conspiracy exists.

Breggin considers children with ADHD and other behavior problems
actually to be among our most creative, sensitive, energetic, and
intelligent. And so he fmds the use of medication for their management
to be worthy of public concern and scorn. His assessment of ADHD
children, however, ignores more than 30 years of longitudinal research
on ADHD, including my own ongoing 20-year follow-up study, demonstrating
the substantial and pervasive development risks that ADHD and its
related disorders of oppositional and conduct disorder convey to a
child. Such research clearly demonstrates that ADHD has a negative
impact on intelligence (an average 7-10 points below normal), on
academic achievement skills (an average of 10-15 points below normal),
and academic progress (25-50% are retained in grade, 36% fail to
graduate high school, and only 5% complete a college education).
Children with ADHD, particularly those with childhood oppositional
defiant disorder, are at much higher risk for later lying and stealing
(45%), conduct disorder and delinquency (25-45%), early substance
experimentation and substance dependence/abuse (15-25 %), and social
rejection (50% or more). This is not to say that some children with ADHD
fail to succeed in life; but it is to say that characterizing tl-iis
group of children as our best, most creative, and brightest does a
severe injustice to the facts of the matter and is woefully misleading
to the public in general and to parents of these children in particular.

Literally from its opening pages, this book makes contorted attempts at
the appearance of scholarship, replete with quotes, footnotes, and
references to scientific papers and other sources. Throughout, any quote
is mustered from scientific papers that can be taken out of context to
support the author's biases along with every exaggerated fact and figure
he can flnd to support his call to alarm, no matter the credibility (or
lack of it) of his sources. However, the flaws of both his research
methods and his arguments are evident to any scientist even slightly
familiar with the scientific literature on the topics covered here.
Lacking any sense of perspective and proportion, this book fails to
place its facts and figures in their rightful context and history, and
eschews any attempt at a balanced and thoughtfully reasoned approach to
its major topics. We are left, their, with what appears to be a
carefully and cleverly crafted piece of artful propaganda against the
diagnosis of ADHD and its treatment with Ritalin. "We are left, then,
with what appears to be a carefully and cleverly crafted piece of artful
propaganda against the diagnosis of ADHD and its treatment with Ritalin."

The book's biases and unbalanced scholarsl-lip are evident from the very
first page of Chapter 1. Here the author quotes that 'The U.S. Drug
Enforcement Administration ... has warned about a record six-fold
increase in Ritalin production between 1990 and 1995.' And that "The
International Narcotics Control Board. . . deplores that 'l 0 to 12
percent' of all boys between ages 6 and 14 in the United States have
been diagnosed as having ADD and are being treated with methylphenidate
[Ritalin]." Withheld from the reader are the following facts that would
have helped to put these statements in their proper perspective:

Ritalin production does not directly equate with Ritalin prescribing,
the latter being far lower than the former;
this ridiculously large rise in Ritalin production was largely
orchestrated by the DEA itself after having been soundly and rightly
criticized in 1993 for allowing a shortfall of this medication to occur
in the US. This deprived some children in some parts of the country from
being able to obtain their medication for several months until the DEA
corrected its mistake. Subsequently, the DEA dramatically raised
production quotas so this would not happen again;
it was the DEA that had informed the International Narcotics Control
Board about the supposedly dramatic rise in Ritalin use in the U.S., and
was thanked by the Narcotics Control Board for this assistance at its
press conference, even though the figures cited by the Board were wrong;
and
this press conference was arranged at a time when CHADD, leading
scientists, the American Academy of Child Neurology, and others had
petitioned the government (starting with the DEA) to declassify Ritalin
out of the category of addictive drugs and into a more appropriate
category with other nonaddictive psychiatric medications -- a petition
the DEA did not wish to approve.
In the next sentence we are told that"While estimates vary widely, the
total number of children on Ritalin has probably increased to 4-5
million or more per year." Checking out the footnote that appears in
this sentence, one finds that Breggin is well aware of the most recent,
largest study, and best study to date on this issue conducted by Daniel
Safer and his colleagues (Pediatrics 98:1084-1088, 1996) in which the
investigators attempted to determine the prevalence of Ritalin use in
the United States. Their study found Ritalin use to be less than half
the figure Breggin claims it to be. But Breggin dismisses this study as
just a "hodgepodge of mostly local sources." He prefers instead to rely
on his own firsthand conversations with physicians and teachers around
the country that medication use is much higher than this study indicates
it to be. In essence, we are asked to take Breggin's subjective and
biased impressions over the available scientific research on the matter,
no doubt because that research would not support his call to alarm about
the issue. In reality, out of over 40 million school children in the
U.S., only 1.5 million of them are taking medication for the treatment
of ADHD. This extent of Ritalin use is well below the 5 to 7 percent of
children estimated to have this disorder and so the figure for
medication use hardly seems out of proportion or scandalous when viewed
in its rightful context. Such distortions of fact, dismissives of the
scientific literature (tucked away in footnotes), and citations of
exaggerated statistics await the reader on every page thereafter.

This book further accuses leading scientists, physicians, the Food and
Drug Administration, NIMH, and established psychiatry and psychology of
withholding negative or critical information about stimulant medication
and ADHD from the public. Meanwhile, the author does precisely this very
same sort of thing himself. Breggin draws upon quotes, facts, figures,
and the personal musings of laypeople from many sources in the popular
media, all of which are critical of ADHD or stimulant medications like
Ritalin. Never is their accuracy or credibility challenged. Yet this
book almost ceaselessly criticizes scientific research that supports the
validity of ADHD as neurodevelopmental disorder and on the use of
stimulant medications as safe and effective treatments for it. This
nit-picking at the petty faults of the clinical studies and the
investigators quickly grows tiresome when there is no equally balanced
critical treatment of the sources Breggin wishes to cite in support of
his own prejudices. It is a lack of balance so lopsided as to invite
disbelief.

Not until the last fifth of this book are we finally told what Breggin
believes is the cause of children's developmental disorders, such as
ADHD and autism, and behavioral/emotional problems such as oppositional
defiant disorder and depression. The causes are said to be: (1) lack of
parental love, (2) lack of parental attention, (3) lack of parental
discipline, (4) family stress, (5) poor educational methods, and (6) a
mental health profession that is prejudiced toward neurobiological
explanations for behavior over psychosocial ones. The recommendations
proposed for parents to follow are, of course, the inverse of these
causes; love more, pay more attention, use more discipline, reduce
family stress, work to reform your child's educational system, and avoid
getting help from organized psychiatry and psychology. While there may
be nothing inherently wrong with some of these admonitions, there is
nothing inherently right about them either. Some may even ring with the
sound of common sense about them, but common sense is often just that,
common and often misinformed. Witness the widely held belief among the
lay public that sugar is a major cause of ADHD and learning disabilities
when the weight of credible scientific evidence unquestionably shows
that it is not so. Science has shown that ADHD and the other disorders
Breggin discusses, including autism, are not the consequence of the
causes he cites in his book. And so addressing them is not likely to
remedy the child's problems. Neither is avoiding the established
scientific and clinical pediatric and mental health professions as
Breggin recommends. Breggin's view must be seen for what it actually is
-- a not-so-subtle form of parent-bashing that lays the blame for ADHD
and other complex developmental and mental disorders at the feet of the
child's parents, family, and school. This is outdated psychoanalytic
thinking, discarded decades ago by the scientific community for its
explanatory uselessness not to mention its cruelty toward parents
seeking help for their children.

The propaganda Breggin offers here will be easily dismissed by the
scientific and clinical professional communities as having nothing to
add to the important issues related to understanding and managing ADHD.
But to the lay reader, such misguidance as Breggin provides in Talking
Back to Ritalin can do real harm. Breggin literally encourages parents
of ADHD and developmentally disordered children to turn away from the
established fields of pediatrics, psychiatry, and psychology and the
professionals who practice within them. Instead, Breggin instructs
parents to seek outdated, unscientific, and ineffective
pop-psychological views of disorders and their treatment. What was so
dismaying to me as a professional by the end of the book was the
knowledge that Dr. Breggin took an oath as a physician to "first, do no
harm." In my opinion, his book has violated that sacred oath.

__________________

Dr. Barkley has been a clinician, scientist, and educator specializing
in ADHD and related disorders for more than 20 years. He is the author
of more than 150 scientific papers and book chapters on ADHD and related
topics and the author or editor of 13 books, including Attention Deficit
Hyperactivity Disorder: A Handbook for Diagnosis and Treatment (1990,
1998) and Taking Charge of ADHD: The Complete Authoritative Guide for
Parents (1995). At the time this was written, Dr. Barkley was Director
of Psychology and Professor of Psychiatry and Neurology at the
University of Massachusetts Medical Center, Worcester, MA. In 2002, he
relocated to the university of South Carolina.

"Mark" wrote in message
ups.com...
Jan Drew wrote:

Jan Drew" wrote in message
. ..

You claim to be a pediatrician, kidsdoc and you don't know whaere this
study
came from?
Use the exact words--
Stimulant treatment in high school also did not influence drug use in
adulthood except for greater use of cocaine.

http://www.google.com/

You can easily find it. If you cannot-- YOU are the loser.

What dishonest Mark, MD snipped:

No, you are the loser, harasseer and liar.

You refuse to do your own homework. Norkidsdoc--Jeffrey Peter, M.D Jeff P.
Utz, MD.


Sure it was easy to find.

Then let Jeff--notkidsdoc--Jeffrey Peter, M.D Jeff P. Utz, MD.--find it!



It was also easy to see that Jan Drew
dishonestly snipped and took a single sentence out of context, failing
to include the actual conclusion of the paper:

"Conclusion. This study concurs with 11 previous studies in finding no
compelling evidence that stimulant treatment of children with
attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder leads to an increased risk for
substance experimentation, use, dependence, or abuse by adulthood."

*Substantial* *real* *convincing* *hard* *clear-cut* *reasonable*
*significant* *credibile* *compelling* *copious* *direct* *reliable*
*adequate*


Well, well, well...seems Jan has been hoisted by her own petard, oui?

Mark, MD

No, harrasser, proven liar, and *gang member*, it just hoisted Your own.

"Jan Drew" wrote in message
m...

"Mark" wrote in message
ups.com...
Jan Drew wrote:

Jan Drew" wrote in message
. ..

You claim to be a pediatrician, kidsdoc and you don't know whaere this
study
came from?
Use the exact words--
Stimulant treatment in high school also did not influence drug use in
adulthood except for greater use of cocaine.

http://www.google.com/

You can easily find it. If you cannot-- YOU are the loser.

What dishonest Mark, MD snipped:

No, you are the loser, harasseer and liar.

You refuse to do your own homework. Norkidsdoc--Jeffrey Peter, M.D Jeff P.
Utz, MD.


Sure it was easy to find.

Then let Jeff--notkidsdoc--Jeffrey Peter, M.D Jeff P. Utz, MD.--find it!

Jeff's credentials far surpass your own, Jan. You are in no position to
sneer when you, yourself are evidence that midwestern highschools sometimes
give diplomas to people who have not really earned them.



It was also easy to see that Jan Drew
dishonestly snipped and took a single sentence out of context, failing
to include the actual conclusion of the paper:

"Conclusion. This study concurs with 11 previous studies in finding no
compelling evidence that stimulant treatment of children with
attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder leads to an increased risk for
substance experimentation, use, dependence, or abuse by adulthood."

*Substantial* *real* *convincing* *hard* *clear-cut* *reasonable*
*significant* *credibile* *compelling* *copious* *direct* *reliable*
*adequate*

These are all perfectly useful words. Your contempt for them implies you
prefer that evidence be insubstantial, imaginary, unconvincing, soft, vague,
unreasonable, insignificant, incredible, noncompelling, scant, indirect,
unreliable, and inadequate.





Well, well, well...seems Jan has been hoisted by her own petard, oui?

Mark, MD

No, harrasser, proven liar, and *gang member*, it just hoisted Your own.

The only proven liar here is YOU. ("I posted it with the permission of the
author." Remember?)
--


--Rich

Recommended websites:

http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles
http://www.acahf.org.au
http://www.quackwatch.org/
http://www.skeptic.com/
http://www.csicop.org/

"Mark Probert" wrote in message
news:RahTg.1509$1o.1097@trndny09...
Mark wrote:

"Conclusion. This study concurs with 11 previous studies in finding no
compelling evidence that stimulant treatment of children with
attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder leads to an increased risk for
substance experimentation, use, dependence, or abuse by adulthood."

Let's post the full abstract...

Does the treatment of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder with
stimulants contribute to drug use/abuse? A 13-year prospective study.
Barkley RA, Fischer M, Smallish L, Fletcher K.
Department of Psychiatry, University of Massachusetts Medical School,
Worcester, Massachusetts, USA.
OBJECTIVE: To examine the impact of stimulant treatment during childhood
and high school on risk for substance use, dependence, and abuse by young
adulthood. METHODS: A total of 147 clinic-referred hyperactive children
were followed approximately 13 years into adulthood (mean: 21 years old;
range: 19-25). At adolescent (age 15) and adult follow-up, probands were
interviewed about their use of various substances and duration of
stimulant treatment. RESULTS: Duration of stimulant treatment was not
significantly associated with frequency of any form of drug use by young
adulthood. Stimulant-treated children had no greater risk of ever trying
drugs by adolescence or any significantly greater frequency of drug use by
young adulthood. Stimulant treatment in high school also did not influence
drug use in adulthood except for greater use of cocaine. This difference
was no longer significant after controlling for severity of
attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder and conduct disorder in
childhood, adolescence, and adulthood. Stimulant treatment in either
childhood or high school was not associated with any greater risk for any
formal Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Third
Edition, Revised drug dependence or abuse disorders by adulthood.
Treatment with stimulants did not increase the risk of ever having tried
most illegal substances by adulthood except for cocaine. Subsequent
analyses showed that this elevated risk was primarily mediated by severity
of conduct disorder by young adulthood and not by stimulant treatment in
childhood. CONCLUSION: This study concurs with 11 previous studies in
finding no compelling evidence that stimulant treatment of children with
attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder leads to an increased risk for
substance experimentation, use, dependence, or abuse by adulthood.

"Rich" wrote in message
...

"Jan Drew" wrote in message
m...

"Mark" wrote in message
ups.com...
Jan Drew wrote:

Jan Drew" wrote in message
. ..

You claim to be a pediatrician, kidsdoc and you don't know whaere this
study
came from?
Use the exact words--
Stimulant treatment in high school also did not influence drug use in
adulthood except for greater use of cocaine.

http://www.google.com/

You can easily find it. If you cannot-- YOU are the loser.

What dishonest Mark, MD snipped:

No, you are the loser, harasseer and liar.

You refuse to do your own homework. Norkidsdoc--Jeffrey Peter, M.D Jeff
P.
Utz, MD.


Sure it was easy to find.

Then let Jeff--notkidsdoc--Jeffrey Peter, M.D Jeff P. Utz, MD.--find it!

Jeff's credentials far surpass your own, Jan. You are in no position to
sneer when you, yourself are evidence that midwestern highschools
sometimes give diplomas to people who have not really earned them.

Irrelevant. As Usual.

FACT: Jeff LIED!!



It was also easy to see that Jan Drew
dishonestly snipped and took a single sentence out of context, failing
to include the actual conclusion of the paper:

"Conclusion. This study concurs with 11 previous studies in finding no
compelling evidence that stimulant treatment of children with
attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder leads to an increased risk for
substance experimentation, use, dependence, or abuse by adulthood."

*Substantial* *real* *convincing* *hard* *clear-cut* *reasonable*
*significant* *credibile* *compelling* *copious* *direct* *reliable*
*adequate*

snip remaining harassing lying, and, spamming websites





Well, well, well...seems Jan has been hoisted by her own petard, oui?

Mark, MD

No, harrasser, proven liar, and *gang member*, it just hoisted Your own.



--Rich

"Jan Drew" wrote in message
. ..



Jeff's credentials far surpass your own, Jan. You are in no position to
sneer when you, yourself are evidence that midwestern highschools
sometimes give diplomas to people who have not really earned them.

Irrelevant. As Usual.

FACT: Jeff LIED!!

No, he didn't. YOU are the proven liar in this newsgroup. Remember? "I
posted it with the permission of the author."
--


--Rich

Recommended websites:

http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles
http://www.acahf.org.au
http://www.quackwatch.org/
http://www.skeptic.com/
http://www.csicop.org/