Ritalin Helps Beat Cancer Fatigue

  • Thread starter Marciosos6 Probertiosos6
  • Start date



"jake" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Sat, 20 Dec 2003 16:13:02 -0500, nknisley
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >David Wright wrote:
> >
> >> In article <[email protected]>,
> >> jake <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>
> >>>On Sat, 20 Dec 2003 14:29:03 GMT, "Marciosos7 Probertiosos8"
> >>><[email protected]> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>Edited for clarity
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>>"jake" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >>>>>>news:[email protected]...
> >>>>
> >>>>>>Dr. Mary Ann Block
> >>>>
> >>>>BTW, in some recent readsing, I came accross this little gem....
> >>>>
> >>>>http://www.fumento.com/adhdblock.html
> >>>>
> >>>>Imagine if anyone who is pro med used an expert that was this
tainted.....
> >>>
> >>>Agreed..
> >>>
> >>>Michael Fumento must be one of the most tainted authors on the
> >>>planet..
> >>
> >>
> >> Ah, the usual "attack the messenger." Don't attempt to refute the
> >> message, which you can't anyway, unless you're going to start
> >> claiming that Block is an MD or something.
> >>
> >>
> >>>dealing with the issue of diabetes being qualitatively distinct
> >>
> >>>from a construct such as ADHD..is a far better idea than using smear
> >>
> >>>tactics against those with the temerity to mention it.
> >>
> >>
> >> Reporting facts about Block is now a smear tactic. Will wonders never
> >> cease?
> >
> >Especially coming from jake--who often attempts discredit peer reviewed
> >published studies of medications merely by pointing out that the
> >researchers have links to pharmaceutical companies.
>
> you ..presumeably..would wish readers to remain in ignorance of
> the fact that these "objective scientific" studies are commissioned
> and paid for by the producers of the drug from their billions of
> dollars PR budget?

And, when i poin tout that so and so is in bed with the Sceinos, or
something about Breggin or Baughman, et al, you jump all over me. Strange
set of standards you have there. They seem "Do as I say, not as I do."
 
"Roger Schlafly" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Marciosos7 Probertiosos8" <[email protected]> wrote
> > >>Dr. Mary Ann Block
> > BTW, in some recent readsing, I came accross this little gem....
> > http://www.fumento.com/adhdblock.html
> > Imagine if anyone who is pro med used an expert that was this
tainted.....
>
> They do. (Do you mean Block or Fumento?)

Block, of course, as that was the context which you snipped and did not
mention.

> I usually enjoy Fumento's column, but he is a little off-base here.

Disagree. I would say "Grand slam." (pun intended)

He tries
> to smear Block with a scientology charge, when the connection is very
> tenuous at best.

********. I looked at all of it, ans she is a fellow traveller, and in lock
step.

> Fumento complains about a TV show, saying:

> Viewers are told that Dr. Block is part of a "vocal minority
> of doctors who oppose medication" for ADHD treatment. ...
> But "48 Hours" doesn't tell the public that [various medical
> groups say] that ADHD is a brain disorder that can be
> effectively treated with medication and behavior therapy.
>
> ISTM that if the TV show said that Block was in a "vocal minority"
> that opposes medication, then most viewers would fairly assume that
> the mainstream medicos favor medication (under appropriate
> circumstances). So I don't see the proof that the show was biased.
 
Su_Texas wrote:

Ritalin (& other such drugs) had bad sides effects for me, & made me
feel super-sick. So I have no faith in this study.

-------------

[email protected] (Marciosos7 Probertiosos8) wrote:

Sorry you had problems. Howevr, what you seem to fail to take into
consideration is that these people were extremely ill, and taking chemo.
I sure hope that you are never in a position where the study becomes
personally relevant.

------------

Su_Texas writes:

I have third-stage blood/breast/lymph cancer, & have already been
through the current (PHARMA owned & controlled) cancer cr*p-care system
(chemotherapy & radiation, then abandonment), with which I'm
super-Not-impressed.

I'm extremely ill from the cancer treatments & botched surgeries, &
there seems to be no good/legitimate medical help or care, ... unless
you want to veg-out on those expensive, bad & harmful, can't-work,
"symptom-relief"-type(ha!) drugs, & suffer to death horribly that way.
I don't.

I'd rather have some legitimate medical care. Some that makes sense &
might help. Know of any?

Susan, Su_Texas my opinions
 
On Sun, 21 Dec 2003 16:07:48 GMT, "Marciosos7 Probertiosos8"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>
>"jake" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> On Sat, 20 Dec 2003 16:13:02 -0500, nknisley
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> >David Wright wrote:
>> >
>> >> In article <[email protected]>,
>> >> jake <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>>On Sat, 20 Dec 2003 14:29:03 GMT, "Marciosos7 Probertiosos8"
>> >>><[email protected]> wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>>Edited for clarity
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>>>>"jake" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> >>>>>>news:[email protected]...
>> >>>>
>> >>>>>>Dr. Mary Ann Block
>> >>>>
>> >>>>BTW, in some recent readsing, I came accross this little gem....
>> >>>>
>> >>>>http://www.fumento.com/adhdblock.html
>> >>>>
>> >>>>Imagine if anyone who is pro med used an expert that was this
>tainted.....
>> >>>
>> >>>Agreed..
>> >>>
>> >>>Michael Fumento must be one of the most tainted authors on the
>> >>>planet..
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Ah, the usual "attack the messenger." Don't attempt to refute the
>> >> message, which you can't anyway, unless you're going to start
>> >> claiming that Block is an MD or something.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>>dealing with the issue of diabetes being qualitatively distinct
>> >>
>> >>>from a construct such as ADHD..is a far better idea than using smear
>> >>
>> >>>tactics against those with the temerity to mention it.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Reporting facts about Block is now a smear tactic. Will wonders never
>> >> cease?
>> >
>> >Especially coming from jake--who often attempts discredit peer reviewed
>> >published studies of medications merely by pointing out that the
>> >researchers have links to pharmaceutical companies.
>>
>> you ..presumeably..would wish readers to remain in ignorance of
>> the fact that these "objective scientific" studies are commissioned
>> and paid for by the producers of the drug from their billions of
>> dollars PR budget?
>
>And, when i poin tout that so and so is in bed with the Sceinos, or
>something about Breggin or Baughman, et al, you jump all over me. Strange
>set of standards you have there. They seem "Do as I say, not as I do."

It is absurd to suggest that the scientologists criticisms of
psychiatric policies is in any way comparable with the influence
weilded by multinational pharmaceutical companies that have wormed
their way into the White House itself to plunder the public purse..

when was the last time a president signed a bill giving them billions
of dollars at a stroke..or passed legislation that appeared
anonymously in the Homeland Security Act that granted them immunity
from being sued?

It is no more comparable than ADHD and diabetes..

the accusations of scientolgy are a stale old trick..
pulled out of the hat to abuse people and derail discussions
when the issues cannot be addressed..
 
On Sun, 21 Dec 2003 16:09:27 GMT, "Marciosos7 Probertiosos8"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>
>"Roger Schlafly" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> "Marciosos7 Probertiosos8" <[email protected]> wrote
>> > >>Dr. Mary Ann Block
>> > BTW, in some recent readsing, I came accross this little gem....
>> > http://www.fumento.com/adhdblock.html
>> > Imagine if anyone who is pro med used an expert that was this
>tainted.....
>>
>> They do. (Do you mean Block or Fumento?)
>
>Block, of course, as that was the context which you snipped and did not
>mention.
>
>> I usually enjoy Fumento's column, but he is a little off-base here.
>
>Disagree. I would say "Grand slam." (pun intended)
>
>He tries
>> to smear Block with a scientology charge, when the connection is very
>> tenuous at best.
>
>********. I looked at all of it, ans she is a fellow traveller, and in lock
>step.

"fellow traveller"???
thats a useful expresion..

IOW you are totally aware that the lady is NOT in fact a scientologist
and its just another pathetic attempt to smear using "guilt by
association"
 
"Roger Schlafly" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "SumBuny" <[email protected]> wrote
> > Hmm...what about those who ingest antihistimines for their stimulating
> > effects? They are abusing the OTC meds, but according to this line,
> cannot
> > be addicting....
>
> Sorry, I just don't know if they are addicting or not.


<nodding>...that is what I wanted to hear...whether or not your "definition"
of addiction would hold water...and you admit it does not.

Thanks,
Buny
 
"Roger Schlafly" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "SumBuny" <[email protected]> wrote
> > > > You *are* stating categorically that you have, and will, *refuse all
> > > > medications*?
> > > No. I take something on rare occasions.
> > OK, so you would refuse to take medications for any chronic condition?
>
> No. But all things being equal, I'd much rather avoid a long-term drug
> dependency.


Most of us do...but chronic conditions call for chronic treatments, no?

I would *love* to be able to throw away my asthma meds, to no longer need
antihistimines or migraine meds...to not have these problems...but that is
what life gave me...as well as ADHD...and I have to deal with it...if you do
not have to deal with it, fine--but do not criticize others for their
medical conditions...that is "blaming the victim" at its worst...

Buny
 
"jake" <[email protected]> wrote
> the accusations of scientolgy are a stale old trick..
> pulled out of the hat to abuse people and derail discussions
> when the issues cannot be addressed..

That's right. Scientology is just a small fringe group compared to
the drug industry.
 
On Sun, 21 Dec 2003 18:53:16 GMT, "Roger Schlafly"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>"jake" <[email protected]> wrote
>> the accusations of scientolgy are a stale old trick..
>> pulled out of the hat to abuse people and derail discussions
>> when the issues cannot be addressed..
>
>That's right. Scientology is just a small fringe group compared to
>the drug industry.

a certain clique in these forums has spent literally years
trying to build up their image to use as a bogeyman..

raving about clams and space beings..to totally drown out rational
discussion they would rather was not taking place..
If you discuss issues and not personalities all of that
drool is irrelevant.

That pharmaceutical companies doctor research..employ ghost
writers ..bribe doctors..interfere with editorial policy of socalled
learned journals..and even try to set the syllabus in higher education
is highly relevant.
just my 2c
 
jake wrote:

> On Sat, 20 Dec 2003 16:13:02 -0500, nknisley
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>David Wright wrote:
>>
>>>In article <[email protected]>,
>>>jake <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Sat, 20 Dec 2003 14:29:03 GMT, "Marciosos7 Probertiosos8"
>>>><[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Edited for clarity
>>>>>
>>>>>>>"jake" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>>>>news:[email protected]...
>>>>>
>>>>>>>Dr. Mary Ann Block
>>>>>
>>>>>BTW, in some recent readsing, I came accross this little gem....
>>>>>
>>>>>http://www.fumento.com/adhdblock.html
>>>>>
>>>>>Imagine if anyone who is pro med used an expert that was this tainted.....
>>>>
>>>>Agreed..
>>>>
>>>>Michael Fumento must be one of the most tainted authors on the
>>>>planet..
>>>
>>>Ah, the usual "attack the messenger." Don't attempt to refute the
>>>message, which you can't anyway, unless you're going to start
>>>claiming that Block is an MD or something.
>>>
>>>>dealing with the issue of diabetes being qualitatively distinct
>>>>from a construct such as ADHD..is a far better idea than using smear
>>>>tactics against those with the temerity to mention it.
>>>
>>>Reporting facts about Block is now a smear tactic. Will wonders never
>>>cease?
>>
>>Especially coming from jake--who often attempts discredit peer reviewed
>>published studies of medications merely by pointing out that the
>>researchers have links to pharmaceutical companies.
>
>
> you ..presumeably..would wish readers to remain in ignorance of
> the fact that these "objective scientific" studies are commissioned
> and paid for by the producers of the drug from their billions of
> dollars PR budget?

You presume wrongly. Again.

I am in favor of full disclosure of conflicts of interests. Actual
conflicts, potential conflicts, or anything that gives the "appearance
of impropriety." I think such disclosures are appropriate and in the
public interest, and I am glad to see more journals publishing studies
that provide such disclose.

However, I do not feel that a study is tainted *merely* because the
researchers have a tie to a pharmaceutical company or because the study
was funded in whole or part by a pharmaceutical company. Those may be
reasons to look more closely at the study results--as would any kind of
actual/potential conflict of interest--but, by themselves, are not
enough to invalidate the study.


Nancy
Unique, like everyone else
 
On Sun, 21 Dec 2003 15:01:23 -0500, nknisley
<[email protected]> wrote:

>jake wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 20 Dec 2003 16:13:02 -0500, nknisley
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>David Wright wrote:
>>>
>>>>In article <[email protected]>,
>>>>jake <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Sat, 20 Dec 2003 14:29:03 GMT, "Marciosos7 Probertiosos8"
>>>>><[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>Edited for clarity
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>"jake" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>news:[email protected]...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Dr. Mary Ann Block
>>>>>>
>>>>>>BTW, in some recent readsing, I came accross this little gem....
>>>>>>
>>>>>>http://www.fumento.com/adhdblock.html
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Imagine if anyone who is pro med used an expert that was this tainted.....
>>>>>
>>>>>Agreed..
>>>>>
>>>>>Michael Fumento must be one of the most tainted authors on the
>>>>>planet..
>>>>
>>>>Ah, the usual "attack the messenger." Don't attempt to refute the
>>>>message, which you can't anyway, unless you're going to start
>>>>claiming that Block is an MD or something.
>>>>
>>>>>dealing with the issue of diabetes being qualitatively distinct
>>>>>from a construct such as ADHD..is a far better idea than using smear
>>>>>tactics against those with the temerity to mention it.
>>>>
>>>>Reporting facts about Block is now a smear tactic. Will wonders never
>>>>cease?
>>>
>>>Especially coming from jake--who often attempts discredit peer reviewed
>>>published studies of medications merely by pointing out that the
>>>researchers have links to pharmaceutical companies.
>>
>>
>> you ..presumeably..would wish readers to remain in ignorance of
>> the fact that these "objective scientific" studies are commissioned
>> and paid for by the producers of the drug from their billions of
>> dollars PR budget?
>
>You presume wrongly. Again.
>
>I am in favor of full disclosure of conflicts of interests. Actual
>conflicts, potential conflicts, or anything that gives the "appearance
>of impropriety." I think such disclosures are appropriate and in the
>public interest, and I am glad to see more journals publishing studies
>that provide such disclose.
>

fair comment..


>However, I do not feel that a study is tainted *merely* because the
>researchers have a tie to a pharmaceutical company or because the study
>was funded in whole or part by a pharmaceutical company.

but cricisms of those studies are unquestionably tainted if the
critic happened to speak at the same conference as someone
who once sat next to someone whose nephew has been known to read a
scientology book?


>Those may be
>reasons to look more closely at the study results--as would any kind of
>actual/potential conflict of interest--but, by themselves, are not
>enough to invalidate the study.

exactly..and that is precisely why Ms Blocks criticisms of
the facile use of diabetes and insulin are perfectly valid
whatever may be dug up by the American Enterprise Institute
or the Hudson Institutes hired hacks or their spokespeople
in these forums..

"There's a greater and greater attempt by the pharmaceutical companies
to define normal behaviours as signs of illness and therefore as
something that can be treated by their products,"

Professor Allan Horwitz
 
In article <[email protected]>,
jake <[email protected]> wrote:
>On Sat, 20 Dec 2003 20:05:13 GMT, [email protected] (David
>Wright) wrote:
>
>>In article <[email protected]>,
>>jake <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>On Sat, 20 Dec 2003 14:29:03 GMT, "Marciosos7 Probertiosos8"
>>><[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Edited for clarity
>>>>
>>>>> > "jake" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>> > news:[email protected]...
>>>>
>>>>>>Dr. Mary Ann Block
>>>>
>>>>BTW, in some recent readsing, I came accross this little gem....
>>>>
>>>>http://www.fumento.com/adhdblock.html
>>>>
>>>>Imagine if anyone who is pro med used an expert that was this tainted.....
>>>
>>>Agreed..
>>>
>>>Michael Fumento must be one of the most tainted authors on the
>>>planet..
>>
>>Ah, the usual "attack the messenger."
>
>indeed..this was precisely the purpose of posting Fumentos
>ravings..this is certainly a usual tactic with your clique
>when unable to address the arguments..

What arguments. Fumento points out that 48 Hours was being quite
deceptive by not revealing a number of things about Block -- none
of which you have shown to be untrue. Your "defense" consists of
attacking Fumento. If you can demonstrate that anything he said
was untrue, do it. Otherwise, ********. His source of funding does
not make his facts invalid.

-- David Wright :: alphabeta at prodigy.net
These are my opinions only, but they're almost always correct.
"If I have not seen as far as others, it is because giants
were standing on my shoulders." (Hal Abelson, MIT)
 
"Happy Dog" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:OdiFb.251$d%[email protected]...
>
> "Roger Schlafly" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > "SumBuny" <[email protected]> wrote
> > > Hmm...what about those who ingest antihistimines for their stimulating
> > > effects? They are abusing the OTC meds, but according to this line,
> > cannot
> > > be addicting....
> >
> > Sorry, I just don't know if they are addicting or not.
> >
> > > Are you just as vocal in decrying all stimulants taken solely for the
> > effect
> > > on the brain? I expect to see identical articles posted by you
> demanding
> > > that all caffeinated products, all chocolate (has the same chemical as
> > > marijuana), all alcohol products be treated in the same manner that
you
> > > demand medically prescribed ADHD meds treated...
> >
> > I do know parents who let their kids eat chocolate on a nearly daily
> > basis. I also know people who routinely give chocolate to other people's
> > kids, without checking with the parents. I don't really agree with them.
> > However, I don't have any research articles one way or the other.
> > If anyone does, I'd be interested to see them.
>
> Alcohol, Roger. The poster mentioned alcohol. Well? And caffeine? How
> typical of you to focus on chocolate and ignore what anyone with a
> functional brain would refer to as "obvious". Some things never change.
>
> Bernstein GA, Carroll ME, Thuras PD, Cosgrove KP, Roth ME.
>
> Division of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, University of Minnesota
Medical
> School, F256/2B West, 2450 Riverside Avenue, Minneapolis, MN 55454, USA.
> [email protected]
>
> This study identifies and characterizes symptoms of caffeine dependence in
> adolescents. Thirty-six adolescents who consumed caffeine daily and had
some
> features of caffeine dependence on telephone screen were scheduled for
> outpatient evaluation. Evaluation included the Diagnostic Interview
Schedule
> for Children-IV-Youth Version (DISC-IV) and modified DISC-IV questions
that
> assessed caffeine dependence based on DSM-IV substance dependence
criteria.
> Of 36 subjects, 41.7% (n=15) reported tolerance to caffeine, 77.8% (n=28)
> described withdrawal symptoms after cessation or reduction of caffeine
> intake, 38.9% (n=14) reported desire or unsuccessful attempts to control
> use, and 16.7% (n=6) endorsed use despite knowledge of physical or
> psychological problems associated with caffeine. There was no significant
> difference in the amount of caffeine consumed daily by caffeine dependent
> versus non-dependent teenagers. These findings are important due to the
vast
> number of adolescents who drink caffeinated beverages.
>
> PMID: 11850129 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
>
> le moo



You know, speaking of caffiene, that more than anything has sent me towards
tracking down my likely ADHD. I drank anywhere from two to three TWO-LITERS
of soda a day for over twenty years. Started with the "Real Thing", then
somehow became habituated to Diet Pepsi then Diet Dr. Pepper.

I was a running joke even to myself, for I kept a two-liter "going" all the
time no matter where I was, including out to dinner in public, etc.

No diabetes, no sugar craving, just drank it all the time and thought it was
mostly because I disliked the local water (and refused to pay for the
stuff).

A bit less than a year ago, I had to prioritize my soda "habit" against my
smoking due to income (or lack of same). I quit soda cold turkey - and never
had a bit of problem doing so. No headaches, no craving, no shakes or
crabbiness.

What I DID have was sleepiness even more in excess than "normal" (I've have
problems with apnea among other things, being tested for that on the 17th,
yay), but other than that, I just thought that water was boring.

I've had about a dozen caffeinated drinks since then, for the hell of it
more than anything, and I still don't miss it. I believe I was
self-medicating like crazy - but according to Roger I would have been
addicted.

I was... addicted to keeping focused. That is the reason I used it, I'm
certain. It was my "pause that refreshes ("concentrates", that is,) at the
times I couldn't be smoking.

Sorry, just an aside.

--
Jon Quixote
What is axiomatic frequently isn't.
 
"Jon Quixote" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:z%[email protected]...
>
> I was... addicted to keeping focused. That is the reason I used it, I'm
> certain. It was my "pause that refreshes ("concentrates", that is,) at the
> times I couldn't be smoking.


You do realise that nicotine (in cigarettes) is also a central nervous
*stimulant*?

Buny
 
>From: [email protected] (David Wright)
>Date: 12/21/2003 4:16 PM Central Standard Time
>Message-id: <[email protected]>

>His source of funding does
>not make his facts invalid.

There's a keeper.

When people are selling a product, their source is not invalid, either.

What a hypocrite.

Jan
 
On 22 Dec 2003 00:18:04 GMT, [email protected] (Jan) wrote:

>>From: [email protected] (David Wright)
>>Date: 12/21/2003 4:16 PM Central Standard Time
>>Message-id: <[email protected]>
>
>>His source of funding does
>>not make his facts invalid.
>
>There's a keeper.
>
>When people are selling a product, their source is not invalid, either.
>
>What a hypocrite.
>
>Jan


>>>[email protected] (Jan) wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
>>
>>>> Your insult in noted.
>>>>
>>>> It is also a character weakness. Work on it.
>>>>
>>>> Jan
>>
>>>
>>>>I have seen darn little in the way of civilized discussion.
>>>
>>>Jan
>
>>
>>On 19 Nov 2003 20:33:03 GMT, [email protected] (Jan) wrote:
>>
>>
>>>There is no need to make a post personal just because you disagree. We have
>>>far too much of this here.

Aloha,

Rich
------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------

The best defense to logic is ignorance.
 
"Jon Quixote" <[email protected]> wrote
> You know, speaking of caffiene, that more than anything has sent me
towards
> tracking down my likely ADHD. I drank anywhere from two to three
TWO-LITERS
> of soda a day for over twenty years. Started with the "Real Thing", then
> somehow became habituated to Diet Pepsi then Diet Dr. Pepper.
> I was a running joke even to myself, for I kept a two-liter "going" all
the
> time no matter where I was, including out to dinner in public, etc.
> No diabetes, no sugar craving, just drank it all the time and thought it
was

And you weren't addicted? Ok, maybe not, but most people who
tell stories like that were addicts.
 
"SumBuny" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:9uqFb.8021$Fg.5496@lakeread01...
>
> "Jon Quixote" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:z%[email protected]...
> >
> > I was... addicted to keeping focused. That is the reason I used it, I'm
> > certain. It was my "pause that refreshes ("concentrates", that is,) at
the
> > times I couldn't be smoking.
>
>
> You do realise that nicotine (in cigarettes) is also a central nervous
> *stimulant*?
>
> Buny

Yepper. Note the phrasing: "...at the times I couldn't be smoking." It never
really struck me as strange that I didn't particularly want/need soda when I
was smoking or vice-versa - now I know why. :)

It also explains more neatly why I didn't/don't have any particular smoking
pattern. I'll *average* perhaps a pack a day, but there are times it'll
shoot up to three packs(!) and others where I may only smoke half a pack or
less. There's the stress-reduction element, certainly, but in hindsight (and
monitoring myself now) I see that I tend to smoke (or drink soda in the
past) the most intensely when I'm hyperfocusing.

I recall/notice distinctly that I tend to smoke/drink when I want to "gather
my thoughts" or take a break from whatever I'm hyperfocusing on...
apparently I'm boostin' the ol' brain cells attention rate. ;)

--
Jon Quixote
What is axiomatic frequently isn't.
 
"Roger Schlafly" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Jon Quixote" <[email protected]> wrote
> > You know, speaking of caffiene, that more than anything has sent me
> towards
> > tracking down my likely ADHD. I drank anywhere from two to three
> TWO-LITERS
> > of soda a day for over twenty years. Started with the "Real Thing", then
> > somehow became habituated to Diet Pepsi then Diet Dr. Pepper.
> > I was a running joke even to myself, for I kept a two-liter "going" all
> the
> > time no matter where I was, including out to dinner in public, etc.
> > No diabetes, no sugar craving, just drank it all the time and thought it
> was
>
> And you weren't addicted? Ok, maybe not, but most people who
> tell stories like that were addicts.

No, I don't believe I was. There were many times where I didn't have access
to soda for whatever reason, and for significant periods of time (as in
months where I was hitchiking cross-country), yet I never craved/missed it.
Actually, I'll qualify that a bit - during those times, I'd occasionally
miss the *flavor* of the soda, as compared to having to drink water, but
those were literally passing thoughts.

You probably do, but please credit me with the intelligence to realize my
description would sound like addiction (ref: as I mentioned you would
probably say it was), and that I am aware of "methinks the King/Queen doth
protest too much" syndrome - it was an anecdotal retelling of my own
particular experience, I agree, and not to be taken as "proof" of
anything... but I will say this much:

I dropped soda without noticable effort, but cigarettes I *am* addicted to
in the way I think of "addiction". That smoking tends to help my ADHD is a
fortituous side-effect... but not one I want to continue for that reason
alone, yet I still haven't managed to break the habit.

Contrary-wise, I can take or leave my Concerta or Ritalin without any other
ill affect except that my procrastination and lack of
motivation/organization worsens back to "normal", this after being on both
of them (and Adderall in the beginning) for nearly a year now.

--
Jon Quixote
What is axiomatic frequently isn't.
 
On Sun, 21 Dec 2003 22:16:48 GMT, [email protected] (David
Wright) wrote:

>In article <[email protected]>,
>jake <[email protected]> wrote:
>>On Sat, 20 Dec 2003 20:05:13 GMT, [email protected] (David
>>Wright) wrote:
>>
>>>In article <[email protected]>,
>>>jake <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>On Sat, 20 Dec 2003 14:29:03 GMT, "Marciosos7 Probertiosos8"
>>>><[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Edited for clarity
>>>>>
>>>>>> > "jake" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>>> > news:[email protected]...
>>>>>
>>>>>>>Dr. Mary Ann Block
>>>>>
>>>>>BTW, in some recent readsing, I came accross this little gem....
>>>>>
>>>>>http://www.fumento.com/adhdblock.html
>>>>>
>>>>>Imagine if anyone who is pro med used an expert that was this tainted.....
>>>>
>>>>Agreed..
>>>>
>>>>Michael Fumento must be one of the most tainted authors on the
>>>>planet..
>>>
>>>Ah, the usual "attack the messenger."
>>
>>indeed..this was precisely the purpose of posting Fumentos
>>ravings..this is certainly a usual tactic with your clique
>>when unable to address the arguments..
>
>What arguments.

Ms Blocks argument that ADHD is not remotely like diabetes
and it it disingeneous to suggest it is..

not to mention an insult to those suffering from this ghastly
disabling disease.

__

"In its recent infatuation with symptomatic, push-button remedies,
psychiatry has lost its way not only intellectually but spiritually
and morally. Even when it is not actually doing damage to the people
it is supposed to help,…it is encouraging among doctors and patients
alike the fraudulent and dangerous fantasy that life's every passing
'symptom' can be clinically diagnosed and, once diagnosed, alleviated
if not eliminated by pharmacological intervention."

Paul R. McHugh
Professor of Psychiatry,
Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom Back