Rethinking the AAP Attention Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder Guildlines

On Tue, 19 Oct 2004 18:55:54 GMT, Ritalin Pusher "Mark Probert" Mark
wrote:

All
bull****.

what an understatement ...

http://www.humanticsfoundation.com/P...stProbert.html


Ragtag Posse Quack Member:
www.humanticsfoundation.com/andysposse.htm

ADHD is "evolutionarily adaptive" [Bradshaw & Sheppard, 2000] hence
encompassing asseries of behaviors that are more rather than less suited
to life in a rapidly changing society. ADHD-diagnosed behavior & creative
behavior are frequently identical [Shaw & Giambra, 1993]. ADHD children
and adults are more creative when not drugged, & drugging is frequently
not necessary [Low, 1999; Rickson, 2003]. Often the alleged ADHD
individual & the creative individual are one & the same, & the real cause
of disruptiveness &/or lack of focus is an uninteresting, repetitive
environment [Douglas, 1983; Farley, 1981]. Farley has suggested that ADHD
personality may be productive & not at all disruptive with superior
performance if the environment & social context permits playfulness,
complexity, variety, novelty, & creative performance. The real cause of
ADHD or alleged ADHD may very often be a lack of educative value in the
environment, not a neurological disorder in the individual.

This is hardly new or obscure information. The researchers who disagree
that drugging children diminishes their creative spirit tend to rely on
subjective systems of scoring creativity, which have built into them
measures that define creative ability in decidedly uncreative terms. The
subject's ability to converse with the test-giver becomes part of the
tests; but the test-giver may legitimately be a bore or a dumbass, so will
be treated accordingly by the subject, so that the inferior adult is
alienated from the child & assesses him or her in a way that assuages the
inferior test-giver's ego. Or tests value most highly an ability to finish
rote "art" projects which are in reality devoid of creative requirement,
then the assessor who is likely a talentless dwees who wouldn't know
creativity if they paid to see it at the movies becomes an art-critic
deciding if a child with ADHD is creative or not. Some conditions of mind
should not be treated medically -- a belief to the contrary is why
homosexuals were historically categorized as medically ill, & it's why
potentially creative & innovative children are routed into the zombie
factory.

From the point of view of a non-ADD person's subjectivity, the drugged kid
is not less creative than he was before he was drugged. What these tests
fail to assess is originality or a DIFFERENT approach to creativity that
in the long run has vastly superior results -- Einstein & Edison's poor
showing in early education is symptomatic of the inability of the mediocre
to assess the superior. Even though not all creative impulses are that
successful, & ADHD does not automatically indicate superiority & aren't
necessarily going to result in a cure for cancer, that is even so is no
reason to undervalue impulsivity which is a different but not a diseased
way of living in this world.

Furthermore, the studies that conclude it is EXCELLENT to subdue creative
behavior patterns because it in no way harms creativity are funded by the
manufacturers of the drugs, & funding is renewed only where the findings
are valuable for the drug company's purposes. The populations studied have
always been inadequate because an ADHD diagnosis is itself so subjective
that children acting out because of any number of reasons is too easily
diagnosed as suitable for ritalin treatment.

Frequently children suffering from anxiety disorders meet all the criteria
for ADHD; they frequently have rational reasons for their anxiety (from
unrevealed sexual abuse to coping daily with parents with depression) but
it's the kid who ends up on ritalin without ever having had an attention
disorder. Mentally ill parents even if they happen to have medical
coverage will not have coverage for extremely costly mental health
treatment, so it's just easier to assess the child with a problem when the
child's problems would evaporate if their disruptive, dangerous, phobic,
or depressed parent(s) could be treated instead. And the real sick thing
is how, given psychiatry's subjectivity in invented criteria, even when it
is realized that the parents ARE mentally ill, the child is still
ritalinized on the belief that the child has an inherited disease instead
of the child responding the way anyone would to having nutbags for
parents. (Or evne as teachers; I remember one nutbag of a teacher who made
all sorts of recommendations for the treatment of children which were
followed by the system set up to support teachers' opinions, when all the
negative issues in her classrooms extended from her completely insane
behavior; while another teacher abused children physically for fifteen
years before he was finally caught, though every child who passed through
his class knew he was a dangerous son of a bitch.)

Another rather modern tendency is for psychiatrists to distinguish between
proactive antisocial behavior & reactive antisocial behavior, but to treat
both identically with drugs. A child constantly abused by an antisocial
teacher, sexual predator, or mentally ill parent is certainly likely to be
reactively antisocial, oversensitive to even small injustices, or hide
behind very disruptive class-clown behaviors or strange outbursts about
indignities, besides just stubbornly refusing to sit still & concentrate
on work. It again just becomes vastly easier to give such kids drugs than
to fire bad teachers, investigate paedophiles, or interfer with dangerous
parents' costodial rights. A 2004 study by Bennett et al published in the
Journal of Attention Disorder concvluded that most children diagnosed with
ADHD with attendant antisocial aggression are reactive, not proactive, yet
nobody seems to be assessing weather reaction to stressful, dangerous,
frightening, or merely unjust situations would be perfectly rational
rather than evidence of a neurological disorder.

For a TINY percentage of children there may be no other recourse than
ritalin. But the MAJORITY of children on this drug have been misdiagnosed
& are getting no authentic treatment or assistanced of any kind other than
to be drugged. ADHD is the #1 reason children are referred to mental
health clinics, already diagnosed before they are even assessed. The #1
threat to children in our society is neglect & abuse, not ADHD.

Advocates for the acceptable differentness of ADHD children & adults such
as Dr. Gallagher provide excellent arguments for environmental changes
rather than drug therapy for even that TINY percentage of children who are
neurologically different from the norm, but the HUGE percentage of
children diagnosed with & drugged for ADHD simply are the victims of a
system that is itself pathological in its response to a normal range of
individuality & normal if disruptive responses to authentic dangers.

-paghat the ratgirl

--
"Of what are you afraid, my child?" inquired the kindly teacher.
"Oh, sir! The flowers, they are wild," replied the timid creature.
-from Peter Newell's "Wild Flowers"
Visit the Garden of Paghat the Ratgirl: http://www.paghat.com

On Tue, 19 Oct 2004 12:18:19 -0700,
(paghat) wrote:

For a TINY percentage of children there may be no other recourse than
ritalin. But the MAJORITY of children on this drug have been misdiagnosed
& are getting no authentic treatment or assistanced of any kind other than
to be drugged.


Thanks for this ... well put.

"Ilena Rose" in her official capacity as the Driector of
the *DE-LICENSED* and apparently *DEFUNCT* Humantics Foundation, wrote in
message news
On Tue, 19 Oct 2004 18:55:54 GMT,Ritalin Pusher "Mark Probert" Mark
wrote:


Gibberish.


... Ritalin Pushing Gibberish.

That's right, Ilena, do not provide an intelligent reply. Do not think for a
moment. Do not get that one grey cell going.

http://www.humanticsfoundation.com/P...stProbert.html

Yes, your best efforts are posting URLs.

"Ilena Rose" in her official capacity as the Director of
the *DE-LICENSED*, and apparently *DEFUNCT* Humantics Foundation, wrote in
message ...
On Tue, 19 Oct 2004 18:55:54 GMT, Ritalin Pusher "Mark Probert" Mark
wrote:

All
bull****.

what an understatement ...

Nope. You see, when I type the word "bull****" I know it attracts you.

http://www.humanticsfoundation.com/P...stProbert.html

Yes, that is an excellent example of BULL****.

Please provide the URL of where you cut and paste this from.



"paghat" wrote in message
news
ADHD is "evolutionarily adaptive" [Bradshaw & Sheppard, 2000] hence
encompassing asseries of behaviors that are more rather than less suited
to life in a rapidly changing society. ADHD-diagnosed behavior & creative
behavior are frequently identical [Shaw & Giambra, 1993]. ADHD children
and adults are more creative when not drugged, & drugging is frequently
not necessary [Low, 1999; Rickson, 2003]. Often the alleged ADHD
individual & the creative individual are one & the same, & the real cause
of disruptiveness &/or lack of focus is an uninteresting, repetitive
environment [Douglas, 1983; Farley, 1981]. Farley has suggested that ADHD
personality may be productive & not at all disruptive with superior
performance if the environment & social context permits playfulness,
complexity, variety, novelty, & creative performance. The real cause of
ADHD or alleged ADHD may very often be a lack of educative value in the
environment, not a neurological disorder in the individual.

This is hardly new or obscure information. The researchers who disagree
that drugging children diminishes their creative spirit tend to rely on
subjective systems of scoring creativity, which have built into them
measures that define creative ability in decidedly uncreative terms. The
subject's ability to converse with the test-giver becomes part of the
tests; but the test-giver may legitimately be a bore or a dumbass, so will
be treated accordingly by the subject, so that the inferior adult is
alienated from the child & assesses him or her in a way that assuages the
inferior test-giver's ego. Or tests value most highly an ability to finish
rote "art" projects which are in reality devoid of creative requirement,
then the assessor who is likely a talentless dwees who wouldn't know
creativity if they paid to see it at the movies becomes an art-critic
deciding if a child with ADHD is creative or not. Some conditions of mind
should not be treated medically -- a belief to the contrary is why
homosexuals were historically categorized as medically ill, & it's why
potentially creative & innovative children are routed into the zombie
factory.

From the point of view of a non-ADD person's subjectivity, the drugged kid
is not less creative than he was before he was drugged. What these tests
fail to assess is originality or a DIFFERENT approach to creativity that
in the long run has vastly superior results -- Einstein & Edison's poor
showing in early education is symptomatic of the inability of the mediocre
to assess the superior. Even though not all creative impulses are that
successful, & ADHD does not automatically indicate superiority & aren't
necessarily going to result in a cure for cancer, that is even so is no
reason to undervalue impulsivity which is a different but not a diseased
way of living in this world.

Furthermore, the studies that conclude it is EXCELLENT to subdue creative
behavior patterns because it in no way harms creativity are funded by the
manufacturers of the drugs, & funding is renewed only where the findings
are valuable for the drug company's purposes. The populations studied have
always been inadequate because an ADHD diagnosis is itself so subjective
that children acting out because of any number of reasons is too easily
diagnosed as suitable for ritalin treatment.

Frequently children suffering from anxiety disorders meet all the criteria
for ADHD; they frequently have rational reasons for their anxiety (from
unrevealed sexual abuse to coping daily with parents with depression) but
it's the kid who ends up on ritalin without ever having had an attention
disorder. Mentally ill parents even if they happen to have medical
coverage will not have coverage for extremely costly mental health
treatment, so it's just easier to assess the child with a problem when the
child's problems would evaporate if their disruptive, dangerous, phobic,
or depressed parent(s) could be treated instead. And the real sick thing
is how, given psychiatry's subjectivity in invented criteria, even when it
is realized that the parents ARE mentally ill, the child is still
ritalinized on the belief that the child has an inherited disease instead
of the child responding the way anyone would to having nutbags for
parents. (Or evne as teachers; I remember one nutbag of a teacher who made
all sorts of recommendations for the treatment of children which were
followed by the system set up to support teachers' opinions, when all the
negative issues in her classrooms extended from her completely insane
behavior; while another teacher abused children physically for fifteen
years before he was finally caught, though every child who passed through
his class knew he was a dangerous son of a bitch.)

Another rather modern tendency is for psychiatrists to distinguish between
proactive antisocial behavior & reactive antisocial behavior, but to treat
both identically with drugs. A child constantly abused by an antisocial
teacher, sexual predator, or mentally ill parent is certainly likely to be
reactively antisocial, oversensitive to even small injustices, or hide
behind very disruptive class-clown behaviors or strange outbursts about
indignities, besides just stubbornly refusing to sit still & concentrate
on work. It again just becomes vastly easier to give such kids drugs than
to fire bad teachers, investigate paedophiles, or interfer with dangerous
parents' costodial rights. A 2004 study by Bennett et al published in the
Journal of Attention Disorder concvluded that most children diagnosed with
ADHD with attendant antisocial aggression are reactive, not proactive, yet
nobody seems to be assessing weather reaction to stressful, dangerous,
frightening, or merely unjust situations would be perfectly rational
rather than evidence of a neurological disorder.

For a TINY percentage of children there may be no other recourse than
ritalin. But the MAJORITY of children on this drug have been misdiagnosed
& are getting no authentic treatment or assistanced of any kind other than
to be drugged. ADHD is the #1 reason children are referred to mental
health clinics, already diagnosed before they are even assessed. The #1
threat to children in our society is neglect & abuse, not ADHD.

Advocates for the acceptable differentness of ADHD children & adults such
as Dr. Gallagher provide excellent arguments for environmental changes
rather than drug therapy for even that TINY percentage of children who are
neurologically different from the norm, but the HUGE percentage of
children diagnosed with & drugged for ADHD simply are the victims of a
system that is itself pathological in its response to a normal range of
individuality & normal if disruptive responses to authentic dangers.

-paghat the ratgirl

--
"Of what are you afraid, my child?" inquired the kindly teacher.
"Oh, sir! The flowers, they are wild," replied the timid creature.
-from Peter Newell's "Wild Flowers"
Visit the Garden of Paghat the Ratgirl: http://www.paghat.com

In article , "Mark
Probert" Mark wrote:

"paghat" wrote in message.

Do ADD children need to be subdued ever? Perhaps. It does not need to be
done with drugs. A 2003 study by Rikson & Watson (at Halswell Residential
College, New Zealand)

Yahoo: We didn't find any Web pages matching the following criteria:
Containing this query term: Rikson Watson New Zealand

PubMed also did not find it.

found that ADHD children with aggressive tendencies
ceased their behavioral problems when provided with musical classes in
smaller groups. The study found that learning activities that promoted
autonomy made ADHD children more productive than "ordinary" school room
settings which enlarged the disruptive potential for ADHD. Making the
school day rewarding & creative PART of the day caused ADHD children to
suffer the rest of the day more gracefully.

A good idea for all students. However, without the "study", who really
knows?

Googling is a nice short-cut for reminders, but when google is your only
source of knowledge, that explains why you have deficites in that
department. Your excuse that you could not find Daphne Ricktor's research
with a google search is shocking on two levels -- first, because you
believe if it isn't on the web it isn't real, & second because in this
case Ricktor's research is being quoted ALL OVER THE WEB and anyone with
an interest in ADHD should already be very, very familiar with her work.
It also happens to be on file at PubMed, leaving me to wonder if your
computer is broken or you are just lying as the best way to avoid facts &
adhere to your own falsehoods.

That you never heard of of Ricktor's research is more damning than just
disagreeing with it. Not that here research is all that surprising given
what others have also published. It DOES take serious blinders to make
most of the justifications you make, justifications for things that don't
necessarily help ADHD people to live in this world safely, but which
certainly do profit drug companies selling mind-altering swill which they
want given to a maximum number of children to maximize profits. I provided
citations throughout & you ask for citations -- the last resort of fools
who have none themselves -- & you even lied that PubMed never heard of
that researcher.

The difficulty for drug-them-all advocates is that they would have to face
the harm & destruction they have caused to face the truth, rather continue
falsely to view their actions & advocacies positively. Drug therapy should
be SO far & a way the last resort. It has become the primary mode of
therapy. I'll again recommend you peruse Dr. Gallagher's website, even if
a trip to the library for any of the recent books on ADHD as "the Edison
gene" is too much for an exclusive googler to ponder. I know Dr. Gallagher
won't change your mind, but if you're going to argue for the zombification
of children, you should at least be able to recognize easily recognizable
names of researchers who disagree with you.

And the vaster number of children falsely
diagnosed with ADHD

Can you provide verfiable proof of this claim, i.e. that there are vast
numbers of kids who are diagnosed with AD/HD that do not have it?

Good lord, you read only in-house drug-company pamphlets for your
fraudulant sweeping denials??? The American Academy of Child & Adolescent
Psychiatry, the American Psychiatric Association, & the American Academy
of Pediatrics, all have issued statements that the FIVE-FOLD increase in
Ritalin use in just the last half-decade is not justified by the
percentage of children who might actually benefit from this drug. And
that's the CONSERVATIVE take on over-prescription because it assumes at
least one out of five do need it, while other researchers assume that one
out of five need a different environment that permits autonomy & is richer
& more exciting.

Ritalin prescribing fluctuates dramatically depending on how parents and
teachers perceive "misbehavior" and how tolerant they are of it. Children
who have been given Ritalin to subdue them is a practice that recalls the
opium syrups used to shut up noisy infants a century ago.

-paghat the ratgirl

--
"Of what are you afraid, my child?" inquired the kindly teacher.
"Oh, sir! The flowers, they are wild," replied the timid creature.
-from Peter Newell's "Wild Flowers"
Visit the Garden of Paghat the Ratgirl: http://www.paghat.com

In article , "Mark
Probert" Mark wrote:

Please provide the URL of where you cut and paste this from.

Presuming you weren't a complete idiot, & my writing could be found at
some url, then go to google & find for yourself if it's at some url. If
you could find it, I'd be the author credited. And I've already REPEATEDLY
given Dr. Gallagher's website as a good place to visit if you want to see
a body of work drawn from many sources that is compatible with the science
& with my own commentaries. You don't seem to care about any of that, & I
can see why people killfile you since you don't actually give the "pro"
side of the debate with any degree of reasonableness.

It is interesting to see that you really DON'T care about citations & are
instantly suspicious when people have them. When I ask for citations (of
which I note you never have any but I know the literature well enough I
don't have to ask you where you get your silly notions) it is to know if
they are peer-reviewed doubleblind studies or just some propogandistic
editorial (pro or con) that would never have qualified for a peer-reviewed
journal. Those are the reasons I applaud citations; they're clearly not
your reasons as you're only pretending to require citations & get all
shocked that citations are given.

I'm no great expert, but it's an interest for sure, & I can read & comment
on the studies in my own without having to cut & paste, & will put in
quotes anything that is not my own. That you think cutting & pasting is
the likeliest method for such a discussion is probably just you projecting
-- you've parroted a few bad ideas from some in-house drug-company
pamphlets, so you assume people who oppose that sort of malarky are as
ill-informed as yourself. But really, we're not all as limited &
folly-driven as you are making yourself out to be, so we don't all need to
plagiarize.

What DO you do for a living? Push drugs as has been alleged by others? I'm
just curious, not flaming you for it, as the last time I saw someone so
narrowmindedly cantancerous over a lost cause, it was a Monsanto employee
who thinks pesticides could be sprinkled liberally on all our meals & it
would be safer than table-salt. Monsanto actually directs their employees
to do this kind of thing on UseNet, & provide them with the precise
dissimilating arguments Monsanta requires. (As for me, my only related
expertise have been as a medical paper editor at the University of
Washington Hospital doing everything from correcting surgeons' sentence
structure to gophering around the Health Sciences Library tracking down
citations. So I know my way around the system but my income does not
demand that I suck up to the system.)

-paghat the ratgirl


"paghat" wrote in message
news
ADHD is "evolutionarily adaptive" [Bradshaw & Sheppard, 2000] hence
encompassing asseries of behaviors that are more rather than less suited
to life in a rapidly changing society. ADHD-diagnosed behavior & creative
behavior are frequently identical [Shaw & Giambra, 1993]. ADHD children
and adults are more creative when not drugged, & drugging is frequently
not necessary [Low, 1999; Rickson, 2003]. Often the alleged ADHD
individual & the creative individual are one & the same, & the real cause
of disruptiveness &/or lack of focus is an uninteresting, repetitive
environment [Douglas, 1983; Farley, 1981]. Farley has suggested that ADHD
personality may be productive & not at all disruptive with superior
performance if the environment & social context permits playfulness,
complexity, variety, novelty, & creative performance. The real cause of
ADHD or alleged ADHD may very often be a lack of educative value in the
environment, not a neurological disorder in the individual.

This is hardly new or obscure information. The researchers who disagree
that drugging children diminishes their creative spirit tend to rely on
subjective systems of scoring creativity, which have built into them
measures that define creative ability in decidedly uncreative terms. The
subject's ability to converse with the test-giver becomes part of the
tests; but the test-giver may legitimately be a bore or a dumbass, so will
be treated accordingly by the subject, so that the inferior adult is
alienated from the child & assesses him or her in a way that assuages the
inferior test-giver's ego. Or tests value most highly an ability to finish
rote "art" projects which are in reality devoid of creative requirement,
then the assessor who is likely a talentless dwees who wouldn't know
creativity if they paid to see it at the movies becomes an art-critic
deciding if a child with ADHD is creative or not. Some conditions of mind
should not be treated medically -- a belief to the contrary is why
homosexuals were historically categorized as medically ill, & it's why
potentially creative & innovative children are routed into the zombie
factory.

From the point of view of a non-ADD person's subjectivity, the drugged kid
is not less creative than he was before he was drugged. What these tests
fail to assess is originality or a DIFFERENT approach to creativity that
in the long run has vastly superior results -- Einstein & Edison's poor
showing in early education is symptomatic of the inability of the mediocre
to assess the superior. Even though not all creative impulses are that
successful, & ADHD does not automatically indicate superiority & aren't
necessarily going to result in a cure for cancer, that is even so is no
reason to undervalue impulsivity which is a different but not a diseased
way of living in this world.

Furthermore, the studies that conclude it is EXCELLENT to subdue creative
behavior patterns because it in no way harms creativity are funded by the
manufacturers of the drugs, & funding is renewed only where the findings
are valuable for the drug company's purposes. The populations studied have
always been inadequate because an ADHD diagnosis is itself so subjective
that children acting out because of any number of reasons is too easily
diagnosed as suitable for ritalin treatment.

Frequently children suffering from anxiety disorders meet all the criteria
for ADHD; they frequently have rational reasons for their anxiety (from
unrevealed sexual abuse to coping daily with parents with depression) but
it's the kid who ends up on ritalin without ever having had an attention
disorder. Mentally ill parents even if they happen to have medical
coverage will not have coverage for extremely costly mental health
treatment, so it's just easier to assess the child with a problem when the
child's problems would evaporate if their disruptive, dangerous, phobic,
or depressed parent(s) could be treated instead. And the real sick thing
is how, given psychiatry's subjectivity in invented criteria, even when it
is realized that the parents ARE mentally ill, the child is still
ritalinized on the belief that the child has an inherited disease instead
of the child responding the way anyone would to having nutbags for
parents. (Or evne as teachers; I remember one nutbag of a teacher who made
all sorts of recommendations for the treatment of children which were
followed by the system set up to support teachers' opinions, when all the
negative issues in her classrooms extended from her completely insane
behavior; while another teacher abused children physically for fifteen
years before he was finally caught, though every child who passed through
his class knew he was a dangerous son of a bitch.)

Another rather modern tendency is for psychiatrists to distinguish between
proactive antisocial behavior & reactive antisocial behavior, but to treat
both identically with drugs. A child constantly abused by an antisocial
teacher, sexual predator, or mentally ill parent is certainly likely to be
reactively antisocial, oversensitive to even small injustices, or hide
behind very disruptive class-clown behaviors or strange outbursts about
indignities, besides just stubbornly refusing to sit still & concentrate
on work. It again just becomes vastly easier to give such kids drugs than
to fire bad teachers, investigate paedophiles, or interfer with dangerous
parents' costodial rights. A 2004 study by Bennett et al published in the
Journal of Attention Disorder concvluded that most children diagnosed with
ADHD with attendant antisocial aggression are reactive, not proactive, yet
nobody seems to be assessing weather reaction to stressful, dangerous,
frightening, or merely unjust situations would be perfectly rational
rather than evidence of a neurological disorder.

For a TINY percentage of children there may be no other recourse than
ritalin. But the MAJORITY of children on this drug have been misdiagnosed
& are getting no authentic treatment or assistanced of any kind other than
to be drugged. ADHD is the #1 reason children are referred to mental
health clinics, already diagnosed before they are even assessed. The #1
threat to children in our society is neglect & abuse, not ADHD.

Advocates for the acceptable differentness of ADHD children & adults such
as Dr. Gallagher provide excellent arguments for environmental changes
rather than drug therapy for even that TINY percentage of children who are
neurologically different from the norm, but the HUGE percentage of
children diagnosed with & drugged for ADHD simply are the victims of a
system that is itself pathological in its response to a normal range of
individuality & normal if disruptive responses to authentic dangers.

-paghat the ratgirl

--
"Of what are you afraid, my child?" inquired the kindly teacher.
"Oh, sir! The flowers, they are wild," replied the timid creature.
-from Peter Newell's "Wild Flowers"
Visit the Garden of Paghat the Ratgirl: http://www.paghat.com

"paghat" wrote in message
news
In article , "Mark
Probert" Mark wrote:

"paghat" wrote in message.

Do ADD children need to be subdued ever? Perhaps. It does not need to
be
done with drugs. A 2003 study by Rikson & Watson (at Halswell
Residential
College, New Zealand)

Yahoo: We didn't find any Web pages matching the following criteria:
Containing this query term: Rikson Watson New Zealand

PubMed also did not find it.

found that ADHD children with aggressive tendencies
ceased their behavioral problems when provided with musical classes in
smaller groups. The study found that learning activities that promoted
autonomy made ADHD children more productive than "ordinary" school
room
settings which enlarged the disruptive potential for ADHD. Making the
school day rewarding & creative PART of the day caused ADHD children
to
suffer the rest of the day more gracefully.

A good idea for all students. However, without the "study", who really
knows?

Googling is a nice short-cut for reminders, but when google is your only
source of knowledge, that explains why you have deficites in that
department. Your excuse that you could not find Daphne Ricktor's research
with a google search is shocking on two levels

What is quite shocking is that you first spell the name "Rikson" and then
spell it, "Ricktor" and then provide a first name. If one of my staff were
sloppy like that, they would get counselling.

-- first, because you
believe if it isn't on the web it isn't real, & second because in this
case Ricktor's research is being quoted ALL OVER THE WEB and anyone with
an interest in ADHD should already be very, very familiar with her work.

Wow. What is really strange is that I did a Yahoo search and found

We didn't find any Web pages matching the following criteria:
Containing this query term: "Daphne Ricktor" .

Now, how strange is that? You say her research is all over the web, and
there is nothing found.

It also happens to be on file at PubMed,

A PubMed search on Ricktor gets no hit.

And, I did a Infotrac search on Ricktor and Rickson, and found nothing.

Ebsco research database also found nothing.

I did some others, and there was NOTHING.

Now, these are major databases, and your sources come up blank.

Thus, since you cited them as authoratitvie, the onus is on you to provide
citations.

leaving me to wonder if your
computer is broken or you are just lying as the best way to avoid facts &
adhere to your own falsehoods.

The best defense is a good offense, until your defense is shown to be full
of holes.

That you never heard of of Ricktor's research is more damning than just
disagreeing with it. Not that here research is all that surprising given
what others have also published. It DOES take serious blinders to make
most of the justifications you make, justifications for things that don't
necessarily help ADHD people to live in this world safely, but which
certainly do profit drug companies selling mind-altering swill which they
want given to a maximum number of children to maximize profits. I provided
citations throughout

Bull****. You provided no citation to what you cut and paste.

& you ask for citations -- the last resort of fools
who have none themselves -- & you even lied that PubMed never heard of
that researcher.

There was no lie, and you know it.

The difficulty for drug-them-all advocates

Well, there ya go. I am not a drug them all advocate. I advocate for proper
treatment after throrough diagnosis.

is that they would have to face
the harm & destruction they have caused to face the truth, rather continue
falsely to view their actions & advocacies positively. Drug therapy should
be SO far & a way the last resort. It has become the primary mode of
therapy. I'll again recommend you peruse Dr. Gallagher's website, even if
a trip to the library for any of the recent books on ADHD as "the Edison
gene" is too much for an exclusive googler to ponder. I know Dr. Gallagher
won't change your mind, but if you're going to argue for the zombification
of children, you should at least be able to recognize easily recognizable
names of researchers who disagree with you.

Easily recognizable? Hmmm...I know of a group with some very knowledgeable
people when it comes to ADHD, so I added that group to the list. One of them
is even personally familiar with one of the authros cited on the Born to
Explore web page.

And the vaster number of children falsely
diagnosed with ADHD

Can you provide verfiable proof of this claim, i.e. that there are vast
numbers of kids who are diagnosed with AD/HD that do not have it?

Good lord, you read only in-house drug-company pamphlets for your
fraudulant sweeping denials???

Nope. I rarely read the pamphlets. I prefer original sources.

The American Academy of Child & Adolescent
Psychiatry, the American Psychiatric Association, & the American Academy
of Pediatrics, all have issued statements that the FIVE-FOLD increase in
Ritalin use in just the last half-decade is not justified by the
percentage of children who might actually benefit from this drug.

I would ask you for citations, but, I know they would not be forthcoming.
And, I know what those organizations have said, and you are quite wrong.

And
that's the CONSERVATIVE take on over-prescription because it assumes at
least one out of five do need it, while other researchers assume that one
out of five need a different environment that permits autonomy & is richer
& more exciting.

Can you document this? Of course you cannot.

Ritalin prescribing fluctuates dramatically depending on how parents and
teachers perceive "misbehavior" and how tolerant they are of it. Children
who have been given Ritalin to subdue them is a practice that recalls the
opium syrups used to shut up noisy infants a century ago.

You are absurd.

Someone said:

Pagfat is an old time crank poster, infesting several News Groups and with
never anything authoritative or useful to add.

Seems that have you pegged four sqaure.

"paghat" wrote in message
news
In article , "Mark
Probert" Mark wrote:

Please provide the URL of where you cut and paste this from.

Presuming you weren't a complete idiot, & my writing could be found at
some url, then go to google & find for yourself if it's at some url. If
you could find it, I'd be the author credited. And I've already REPEATEDLY
given Dr. Gallagher's website as a good place to visit if you want to see
a body of work drawn from many sources that is compatible with the science
& with my own commentaries. You don't seem to care about any of that, & I
can see why people killfile you since you don't actually give the "pro"
side of the debate with any degree of reasonableness.

It is interesting to see that you really DON'T care about citations & are
instantly suspicious when people have them.

You had one, and none for your claims. Your "sources" could not be found
anywhere.

When I ask for citations (of
which I note you never have any but I know the literature well enough

You have no knowledge.

I
don't have to ask you where you get your silly notions) it is to know if
they are peer-reviewed doubleblind studies or just some propogandistic
editorial (pro or con) that would never have qualified for a peer-reviewed
journal. Those are the reasons I applaud citations; they're clearly not
your reasons as you're only pretending to require citations & get all
shocked that citations are given.

I cite, when you cite. You have none.

I'm no great expert,

Well, well, finally you say something that is true. Just remove the "great"
and you would be right on.

but it's an interest for sure, & I can read & comment
on the studies in my own without having to cut & paste, & will put in
quotes anything that is not my own. That you think cutting & pasting is
the likeliest method for such a discussion is probably just you projecting
-- you've parroted a few bad ideas from some in-house drug-company
pamphlets, so you assume people who oppose that sort of malarky are as
ill-informed as yourself. But really, we're not all as limited &
folly-driven as you are making yourself out to be, so we don't all need to
plagiarize.

What DO you do for a living? Push drugs as has been alleged by others?

The refuge of s scoundrel who wil not substantiate their claims. I do admit,
you resported to that much quicker than I expected. I thought it would take
at least another post or two.

What I do for a living has been posted. Look it up.

snip