New study shows fish oil safe and effective alternative to drugs for ADHD

On Tue, 24 Jul 2007 12:15:49 GMT, Mark Probert
wrote:

snip
Don't believe me. Read some of the books below.

Books prove nothing.

As if I wasn't convinced before, this affirms that you're a ****ing
troll, Probert. You're intellectually not only dishonest but utterly
bankrupt.


George M. Carter

***
Marcia Angell, MD. The Truth About the Drug Companies. Former
senior editor, New England Journal of Medicine, Random House, New
York, NY: 2004

Peter Rost, MD. The Whistleblower, former Vice President,
Pfizer. Soft Skull Press, New York, NY:2006

John Abramson, MD. Overdosed America: The Broken Promise of
American Medicine. HarperCollins, New York, NY:2004.

Katharine Greider. The Big Fix: How the Pharmaceutical
Industry Rips Off the American Consumer. Public Affairs, New York,
NY:2003.

GMCarter wrote:
On Tue, 24 Jul 2007 12:09:32 GMT, Mark Probert
wrote:

GMCarter wrote:
On Mon, 23 Jul 2007 22:10:47 GMT, Peter Bowditch
wrote:


It was sponsored by the very eye Q people who made the potion.
"Potion"? Fish oil?

Anyway, where is the support for your claim? Perhaps "eye Q" merely
donated the product for the study. Or perhaps they funded the study.
The article here doesn't say that as far as I can see.

So you claim it was sponsored by the eye Q people. What do you have
to back that claim?

Do you have a copy of the original paper? Love to see it!
So would I.

Here is an abstract:

http://www.jrnldbp.com/pt/re/jdbp/ab...195629!8091!-1

Note that the "improvements" were only in one setting, where the
diagnostic criteria require two settings.

What are you talking about?

The diagnostic criteria include two settings. That doesn't mean an
intervention will work in both.

Do try to keep up. If the diagnosis requires the behaviors to be setting
independent, i.e. in two (or more) settings, then the "treatment" should
affect the behaviors in a setting independent manner.

In this "study" they had the evaluations performed by two different sets
of evaluators in two settings. I would hardly call that an effective
treatment for the symptoms of the disorder.

Results: Significant medium to strong positive treatment effects were
found on parent ratings of core ADHD symptoms, inattention,
hyperactivity/impulsivity, on the Conners Parent Rating Scale (CPRS)
in both PUFA treatment groups compared with the placebo group; no
additional effects were found with the micronutrients. After a one-way
crossover to active supplements in all groups for a further 15 weeks,
these results were replicated in the placebo group, and the treatment
groups continued to show significant improvements on CPRS core
symptoms. No significant effects were found on Conners Teacher Rating
Scales.

However, in short, you don't have any reason to believe that this was
an industry-sponsored study.

The substance, EyeQ, was provided by a manufacturer. Hardly makes it
non-sponsored.

And you bet--I think ANYONE with a kid with ADHD should try fish oil
before ritalin or other such horrifically toxic, overpriced
stuff...that should be the LAST resort. Don't you think so?
Perhaps. However, this looks like false hopes.

No, it looks like a significant advance using a non-toxic and
inexpensive intervention.

Or you prefer to give children speed?

Your inflammatory efforts aside, I favor giving anyone, at any age,
effective treatment. Show me that fish oil is as effective as medication
in all settings, and I will buy into it.


My point is that yes, some kids will benefit from ritalin. But it is
clearly over-prescribed

Clearly over-prescribed? I have heard that before, but have never seen a
shred of actual proof. Can you provide some? You would be the first to
do so.

, merely adding toxicity and unknown long term
effects where fish oil could be a more than adequate intervention for
probably the majority of currently ritalin-treated children.

But no. You prefer the drugs. Biased bull****.


I prefer effective treatment, which you concede medication is.

GMCarter wrote:
On Tue, 24 Jul 2007 12:15:05 GMT, Mark Probert
wrote:

GMCarter wrote:
On Tue, 24 Jul 2007 03:45:09 GMT, Mark Probert
wrote:

snip
The fact is, idiot, that the study was by a manufacturer of a specific
brand. If you had any ability to comprehend what you read, you would
know that.
Well, "idiot' the STUDY was conducted at the University of Adelaide.
You have provided no evidence that the study was funded by the fish
oil industry....
I never claimed the industry sponsored it. Take a careful look.


No w you're a ****ing lawyer.

You implied. You smeared.

I see, so my allegation that the study was a smear? Do try, at least a
little, to use a single standard.

You sound like Karl Rove.

While that is insulting, at least you did not call me George Bush.

GMCarter wrote:
On Tue, 24 Jul 2007 12:15:49 GMT, Mark Probert
wrote:

snip
Don't believe me. Read some of the books below.
Books prove nothing.

As if I wasn't convinced before, this affirms that you're a ****ing
troll, Probert. You're intellectually not only dishonest but utterly
bankrupt.

Any asshole can write a book. I prefer peer reviewed science.



George M. Carter
***
Marcia Angell, MD. The Truth About the Drug Companies. Former
senior editor, New England Journal of Medicine, Random House, New
York, NY: 2004

Peter Rost, MD. The Whistleblower, former Vice President,
Pfizer. Soft Skull Press, New York, NY:2006

John Abramson, MD. Overdosed America: The Broken Promise of
American Medicine. HarperCollins, New York, NY:2004.

Katharine Greider. The Big Fix: How the Pharmaceutical
Industry Rips Off the American Consumer. Public Affairs, New York,
NY:2003.

On Wed, 25 Jul 2007 12:05:57 GMT, Mark Probert
wrote:

GMCarter wrote:
On Tue, 24 Jul 2007 12:09:32 GMT, Mark Probert
wrote:

GMCarter wrote:
On Mon, 23 Jul 2007 22:10:47 GMT, Peter Bowditch
wrote:


It was sponsored by the very eye Q people who made the potion.
"Potion"? Fish oil?

Anyway, where is the support for your claim? Perhaps "eye Q" merely
donated the product for the study. Or perhaps they funded the study.
The article here doesn't say that as far as I can see.

So you claim it was sponsored by the eye Q people. What do you have
to back that claim?

Do you have a copy of the original paper? Love to see it!
So would I.

Here is an abstract:

http://www.jrnldbp.com/pt/re/jdbp/ab...195629!8091!-1

Note that the "improvements" were only in one setting, where the
diagnostic criteria require two settings.

What are you talking about?

The diagnostic criteria include two settings. That doesn't mean an
intervention will work in both.

Do try to keep up. If the diagnosis requires the behaviors to be setting
independent, i.e. in two (or more) settings, then the "treatment" should
affect the behaviors in a setting independent manner.

Unfortunately, as I say, I don't have access to the full article. But
the abstract says nothing about this.

I though you were referring to different scales to measure ADHD.

In this "study" they had the evaluations performed by two different sets
of evaluators in two settings. I would hardly call that an effective
treatment for the symptoms of the disorder.

Please share the data that describes what these two "settings" are and
what the results were in these two settings.

Results: Significant medium to strong positive treatment effects were
found on parent ratings of core ADHD symptoms, inattention,
hyperactivity/impulsivity, on the Conners Parent Rating Scale (CPRS)
in both PUFA treatment groups compared with the placebo group; no
additional effects were found with the micronutrients. After a one-way
crossover to active supplements in all groups for a further 15 weeks,
these results were replicated in the placebo group, and the treatment
groups continued to show significant improvements on CPRS core
symptoms. No significant effects were found on Conners Teacher Rating
Scales.

However, in short, you don't have any reason to believe that this was
an industry-sponsored study.

The substance, EyeQ, was provided by a manufacturer. Hardly makes it
non-sponsored.

Oh, bull****.

And you bet--I think ANYONE with a kid with ADHD should try fish oil
before ritalin or other such horrifically toxic, overpriced
stuff...that should be the LAST resort. Don't you think so?
Perhaps. However, this looks like false hopes.

No, it looks like a significant advance using a non-toxic and
inexpensive intervention.

Or you prefer to give children speed?

Your inflammatory efforts aside, I favor giving anyone, at any age,
effective treatment. Show me that fish oil is as effective as medication
in all settings, and I will buy into it.

No study is utterly definitive. But if I were a parent with a kid with
a diagnosis of ADHD, I think I'd try the fish oil.

Certainly, more studies are warranted.


My point is that yes, some kids will benefit from ritalin. But it is
clearly over-prescribed

Clearly over-prescribed? I have heard that before, but have never seen a
shred of actual proof. Can you provide some? You would be the first to
do so.

I'll see if I have the time to look up some data. Undoubtedly, because
you disagree with it, it will not be adequate for you no matter how
robust.

Do you have specific criteria for acceptable data?

, merely adding toxicity and unknown long term
effects where fish oil could be a more than adequate intervention for
probably the majority of currently ritalin-treated children.

But no. You prefer the drugs. Biased bull****.


I prefer effective treatment, which you concede medication is.

I concede medication CAN be.

Whether it is in the case of ADHD, I have not reviewed the data.

George M. Carter

On Wed, 25 Jul 2007 12:07:44 GMT, Mark Probert
wrote:

GMCarter wrote:
On Tue, 24 Jul 2007 12:15:05 GMT, Mark Probert
wrote:

GMCarter wrote:
On Tue, 24 Jul 2007 03:45:09 GMT, Mark Probert
wrote:

snip
The fact is, idiot, that the study was by a manufacturer of a specific
brand. If you had any ability to comprehend what you read, you would
know that.
Well, "idiot' the STUDY was conducted at the University of Adelaide.
You have provided no evidence that the study was funded by the fish
oil industry....
I never claimed the industry sponsored it. Take a careful look.


No w you're a ****ing lawyer.

You implied. You smeared.

I see, so my allegation that the study was a smear? Do try, at least a
little, to use a single standard.

You're being a weasel. You stated that the trial was sponsored by EyeQ
and then retreated to the position that merely providing product
constitutes "sponsorship" which is nonsense.

You implied that as a result of sponsorship, the results were
necessarily in doubt.

Not an unreasonable position IF the study is sponsored--that is PAID
for--by the manufacturer.

As is the case with so many wasted lives committed to pharmaceutically
funded studies which very often find "results" that help sell their
product.

If you have the paper, you can find out who paid for this fish oil
study. IF indeed it is totally sponsored by EyeQ, then I would agree
the results are suspect.

IF they merely donated product, that does not mean much in terms of
the study outcome.

And indeed, again, I think giving fish oil a try FIRST before harsh
drugs like ritalin may WELL be an excellent idea, even based on this
preliminary data. Risk/benefit would suggest that the intervention
makes sense.

There are also other data on fish oil in mild-to-moderate depression
that further underscore the rationale for its use in psychological
disorders.

George M. Carter

On Wed, 25 Jul 2007 12:09:11 GMT, Mark Probert
wrote:

GMCarter wrote:
On Tue, 24 Jul 2007 12:15:49 GMT, Mark Probert
wrote:

snip
Don't believe me. Read some of the books below.
Books prove nothing.

As if I wasn't convinced before, this affirms that you're a ****ing
troll, Probert. You're intellectually not only dishonest but utterly
bankrupt.

Any asshole can write a book. I prefer peer reviewed science.

Oh. I see. Marcia Angell is an asshole? Former senior editor at the
New England Journal of Medicine.

The "peers" of peer review, my dear, also run the risk of being
assholes. Just like you.

George M. Carter

***
Marcia Angell, MD. The Truth About the Drug Companies. Former
senior editor, New England Journal of Medicine, Random House, New
York, NY: 2004

Peter Rost, MD. The Whistleblower, former Vice President,
Pfizer. Soft Skull Press, New York, NY:2006

John Abramson, MD. Overdosed America: The Broken Promise of
American Medicine. HarperCollins, New York, NY:2004.

Katharine Greider. The Big Fix: How the Pharmaceutical
Industry Rips Off the American Consumer. Public Affairs, New York,
NY:2003.