Spark's Spark (or "My Little Poppy")

Spark Halloween 2011

2011-12-12T11:17:00.000-05:00

Another Smashing Halloween Party at Spark Development Centers!

Gardasil and the Flu Vaccine

2011-10-27T09:44:00.002-04:00

Sorry to beat a dead horse, but a couple of things have come up in the news that really should be addressed.

First, did you hear that the CDC is now recommending that not only girls should get the Gardasil vaccine, but boys too?!! Check out: http://abcnews.go.com/Health/CancerPreventionAndTreatment/gardasil-hpv-vaccine-faces-safety-questions/story?id=8356717.

Before rushing out to have your kids vaccinated, be aware that there is a lot about this vaccine of which few people know. Emily Tarsell, the women mentioned in the above-cited article, wrote a terrific, and well-researched piece, on the background, marketing, and dangers of Gardasil in New Living magazine (www.newliving.com). Her website is www.gardasil-and-unexplained-deaths.com.

Also, did you hear? The flu vaccine is not nearly as effective as the powers that be made it out to be. “Taking a Shot at Flu Vaccines,” Newsday, A5.

Surprise, surprise.

Coffee and ADHD?

2011-09-07T12:37:00.000-04:00

Did anyone catch Good Morning America today? A mom, who suspects her son has ADHD (there’s been no formal diagnosis, but she stated that her son is very active and has trouble concentrating and finishing tasks. . . .) gives him two, four ounce cups of coffee, each day. She says it calms him down and helps him to focus.

Well, according to GMA, this has the “Mommy Blogs buzzing” with many people questioning this mother’s actions.

Really?? You have got to be kidding me. How can giving a child eight ounces of coffee a day (that’s just one cup) be controversial when giving a child a drug like Ritalin raises few, if any, concerns?

Understand a couple of things. First, Ritalin, and drugs like it such as Concerta and Adderall, are STIMULANTS designed to control impulsivity. Thus, the caffeine in the coffee is most likely just acting in the same manner. Indeed, the literature talks about many adults “self-medicating” with caffeine.

Second, and far more importantly, amphetamines like Ritalin, can have VERY serious side-effects. Aside from the fact that Ritalin is in the same drug classification as cocaine (and, you can check this out), Ritalin, and drugs like it, have been associated with stroke, chromosome damage, and even death. And, let’s not even mention the other psychotropic medications (including antidepressants) that often are prescribed for these kids.

New research points out the benefits of dietary changes and supplementation when it comes to treating disorders like ADHD. Cut out the artificial sweeteners, the artificial colors, cut back on the sugar, and see what happens. Look into supplementation, especially with essential fatty acids. Talk to a nutritionist with experience in this field, and find out what a difference diet can make. (Not the first time this was discussed: http://sparkdevelopment.blogspot.com/2011/08/importance-of-nutrition.html).

Kudos to this mom for finding something far safer than heavily controlled, often abused, pharmaceutical concoctions to help her son.

The Importance Of Nutrition

2011-08-11T14:25:00.000-04:00

In updating the research for my book about our experiences with our son Robert, I came across a study that highlighted the importance of examining diet when it comes to addressing disorders such as ADHD. A far cry from the “diet has absolutely nothing to do with Robert’s problem” proclamation by those doctors who treated Robert some fifteen years ago, it now seems that “nutritional management” is a CRUCIAL component of any treatment plan.

Attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) is multidetermined and complex, requiring a multifaceted treatment approach. Nutritional management is one aspect that has been relatively neglected to date. Nutritional factors such as food additives, refined sugars, food sensitivities/allergies, and fatty acid deficiencies have all been linked to ADHD. There is increasing evidence that many children with behavioral problems are sensitive to one or more food components that can negatively impact their behavior. Individual response is an important factor for determining the proper approach in treating children with ADHD. In general, diet modification plays a major role in the management of ADHD and should be considered as part of the treatment protocol.

Schnoll R, Burshteyn D, Cea-Aravena J, “Nutrition in the treatment of attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder: a neglected but important aspect.” Appl Psychophysiol Biofeedback. 2003 Mar;28(1):63-75.

Indeed, dietary factors including, but not limited to, (i) breastfeeding practices; (ii) the intake of processed foods, artificial dyes and sweeteners; (iii) food sensitivities and allergies; and (iv) essential fatty acid deficiencies all have been linked to the symptoms associated with, and/or the treatment of, disorders like ADHD.

If you’d like to learn more (and there is plenty more to learn), I invite you to visit or website (www.sparkcenters.com), contact our exceptionally knowledgeable nutritionist, Tina Stevens, for an appointment, or read my book (when I get it published . . .).

Autsim and the Environment

2011-07-06T09:44:00.000-04:00

Coming on the heels of the Cold Spring Harbor research that supposedly indicted “bad” genes as the cause of autism, are two new studies published in the July 4^th edition of the Archives of General Psychiatry that indicate environment plays the key role. While a surprise to some scientists, it comes as no surprise to us.

In an article published in Newsday entitled “Environment May Be Especially Key to Autism: Study,” by Jenifer Goodwin, it is reported that:

[T]he . . . environment -- and this could be in utero or in early life -- has to play a major role [in the incidence of autism].

According to [the researchers’] calculations, . . . genes account for 37 percent of the risk of "classic," or severe autism and 38 percent of the risk of milder autism spectrum disorders. By the same calculations, environmental factors would explain 55 percent of the risk of autism and 58 percent of the risk for an autism spectrum disorder, the Stanford team concluded.

And, what environmental factors could be at issue? Well, the second study found a connection between the occurrence of autism and antidepressants taken by mothers during pregnancy:

In another study also published in the online issue of the journal, researchers found a

two-fold risk of autism spectrum disorder among children whose mothers took

antidepressants known as selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRI) during

pregnancy, and that the risk was more than three times higher if the mothers took

the drugs during early pregnancy, compared to children without the disorder.

SSRIs include widely used antidepressants such as Celexa, Paxil, Prozac and Zoloft.

http://www.newsday.com/news/health/environment-may-be-especially-key-to-autism-study-1.3003680 (July 4, 2011).

Another Misleading Headline.

2011-06-15T08:21:00.000-04:00

The folks at Cold Spring Harbor Genetics Lab apparently have found an association between certain genetic mutations and the diagnosis of ASD (in particular, autism, PDD and Aspergers Syndrome).

Specifically, researchers report that they have found the existence of rare “gene copy number variations (CNV)” (duplicated or deleted genome segments that result in extra, or missing, copies of one or more genes) that appear at some 250 to 300 locations in the human genome. While this study does not state what role these genes have with respect to brain development, and thus, how those genes would actually lead to autism, a related study, employed a new form of analysis called NETBAG to identify “the large biological network of genes affected by [these] rare de novo CNVs in autism.” This related study noted that this large biological network is “strongly related to genes previously implicated in studies of autism and intellectual disability.” And they specify that the genes in question relate primarily to the development of synapses, the junctions between brain cells where the transmission of neurotransmitters takes place, axonal fibers, and the ability of young neurons to migrate -- essential aspects of brain development.

Of particular interest was the finding of what the researchers referred to as “de novo” genetic mutations in affected children. These are mutations that did not appear in either parent.

This is potentially good news. I mean, anything that helps us to better understand ASD must be good, right? If they have found certain mutated genes, perhaps this will give us an inkling as to what is causing the problem in the first place.

So, why am I writing, and what has this to do with the “Misleading Headline?”

Well, despite the very specific findings of these studies, as set forth above, the researchers have made some pretty giant, hypothetical leaps which are not founded in any factual findings derived from their research. As such, a couple of “theories” have been thrown about as a result of this research, which, if taken as true, can have very serious repercussions when it comes to treating ASDs.

Specifically, Newsday reports:

New research adds weight to a growing body of evidence that autism is caused by scores of rare genetic mutations, most of which occur spontaneously at conception and aren't passed from parent to child.

"This [study] solidifies that autism is a genetic disease. This suggests that the environment plays a limited role, but that needs to be researched in more depth," said Michael Ronemus, a researcher from Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory and an author of two papers published Thursday in the journal Neuron.

“The studies build on previous research. Wigler has proposed in the past that inherited cases of autism account for about a quarter of all cases; more than half, he and his colleagues have proposed, are the result of spontaneous mutations. How the rest of the cases are derived is unclear, Ronemus said.”

I’m sorry, but the fact of the matter is this study said ABSOLUTELY NOTHING regarding the actual cause of autism – let alone that it is a “genetic disease” in which “environment plays a limited role.” Yet, the genetic researchers seem to think it proves that autism is the result of a spontaneous genetic mutation that takes place in affected individuals at the time of conception. Indeed, they are bold enough to state that autism is inherited 25% of the time, results from these theorized “de novo mutations that occur at conception 50% of the time, but have no idea about the other 25%. How do they know all this?

They don’t. It’s just their best guess . . .

Now, I’m not even going to pretend that I fully understand the study (which I read, but discovered employed lingo that was completely foreign to me (and people complain about “legalese”)), so, I tapped into a pair of sources that can speak with far more knowledge about these topics – my wife, Catherine, and Mark Blaxill.

Here’s just some of what they had to say:

To begin with, the study’s methodologies are somewhat questionable. In particular, Blaxill is not convinced that the test subjects were a properly representative field of candidates. But, even assuming the study’s methodologies were appropriate, what the study actually found and what the headlines report are two entirely different things.

First, the findings are severely limited. According to Blaxill, the study itself, indicates that at best, these purported gene mutations are connected to only two (2) to three (3) percent of autism cases!

Second, and perhaps more importantly, “association is not the same as causation.” In other words, even assuming the researchers found a pattern of gene mutations, it does not mean such mutations cause autism.

While it may be safe to say that the “affected” children in this study did not inherit the gene mutations from the parents, jumping to the conclusion that such mutation occurred without any external catalyst at the time of conception is quite the leap of logic – and one the is not supported with any factual findings. Assuming such mutations are, indeed, linked to autism, what caused such mutations? This is a very important question that is left purely to speculation.

Moreover, even assuming such mutations are linked to autism and such mutations did occur spontaneously without any external catalyst whatsoever, does the mere presence of such mutations inexorably lead to autism or must there still be some external trigger? Do the mutations merely make you susceptible to an environmental insult, and that such externally triggered susceptibility cause autism? Again, another very important question that remains unanswered.

Also, even assuming the existence of such spontaneous genetic mutations taking place at conception, and such mutations “cause” autism, gaping questions would still exist. First, how could such a mutation take place on such a large scale? We’re talking about autism rates that could be as high as 1 in 38 (or even 1 in 10 if you include ADD/ADHD in the spectrum).

Really, we can experience a “rare” genetic mutation that “just happens” that can affect 1 in 10 people? Really??

And, again, if it’s something that “just happens” without any external trigger, then it’s something that always should have been happening. So, where are the 1 in 10 thirty, forty, fifty, sixty, seventy, and eighty year olds that are on the spectrum? How do you account for the meteoric rise in ASD diagnoses just over the past twenty years? If the genes mutations have always been there, but autism has not, then what was the trigger over the past two decades?

And, if such mutations take place at conception, and such mutations affect those genes that are involved in critical brain development, how do you explain cases of “autistic regression,” that is cases where the child is developing normally until about the age of 2 ½ to 3 years of age and then suddenly, and without warning, descends into autism? If the genetic mutations are present from the time of conception, wouldn’t there have been some signs of a problem from the date of birth?

Additionally, I am concerned by yet another theory tossed out by the researchers (again, asserted with no factual support) that points to an inconsistency in the “spontaneous mutation” theory.

According to the researchers, themselves, boys and girls are equally susceptible to these mutations, thus, boys and girls should each have about the same number of CNVs. Presuming this is the case, why do more boys than girls develop ASD? And why are the observed CNVs in girls larger?

The researchers guess that girls are in some manner “resistant” to autism based upon the fact that female brains “have an accelerated timescale for a number of cognitive milestones, for example, their first words at an earlier age. A quicker pace of development might reflect a robustness that offers females protection.” As the researchers put it, “this apparent female resistance to comparatively small genetic hits remains one of autism’s mysteries.”

I’m no geneticist, but isn’t it also possible that if the mutations occur at the time of conception, and the mutations adversely affect brain development, and the female brain develops faster – with the mutations already in place (it’s not as if the female brain can outrun the mutations) – wouldn’t the girls possibly be worse off?

Moreover, if we’re talking about “female robustness,” the same can be said of the arguments that point to vaccines as a cause of autism. Female immune systems are stronger than boys. Testosterone inhibits the immune systems’ ability to detoxify the body, estrogen enhances that ability.

Also, a stronger immune system makes the girls less prone to chronic infections often treated with antibiotics. Another theory regarding a cause of autism is the disruption of the mind-gut connection. Antibiotics have been proven to cause such disruption. Is it possible that girls get sick less, therefore, take fewer antibiotics, and therefore, do not experience gut dysfunction as often as boys?

So, is it the female’s more robust brain or their more robust immune system?

As anyone who has followed this blog knows, I sit firmly in the camp of those who believe ASD (including ADD/ADHD) are caused by something in our environment that affects those genetically predisposed to harm. The theory that ASD is an environmental disorder, and I admit, it is just a theory, is completely compatible with the findings of these studies.

First, it is a given that environmental factors can, in fact, affect our genes. Indeed, even the makeup of your gut flora (the bacteria inhabiting your digestive system) affects your genes and how they work. Second, as is the case with certain diseases like breast cancer, one may have the gene associated with a particular disease, but never actually contract that disease absent some external trigger.

I’m sorry, but I simply do not see how this study and the hypotheses thrown about by the genetic researchers discounts environment as a cause of autism.

Or, as Mr. Blaxill put it:

“What does that mean for the interpretation of autism-CNV research? The one glaringly obvious possibility that none of the genetic researchers can bring themselves to admit is that their painstaking genetic findings could simply be an effect and not a cause. Indeed, why wouldn’t it be the case that a population of pregnant women and infants that is under higher environmental stress than a control population would have a higher rate of DNA damage? Isn’t it more likely that the environmental exposures that have provoked the autism epidemic are also mutagenic in their own right?”

Indeed, Andy Shih, vice president of scientific affairs for the advocacy group Autism Speaks, said the studies don't "eliminate the role of the environment at all."

“Even the possible role of vaccines in triggering autism -- a controversial theory -- cannot be dismissed based on the new studies, he said. It's possible, [Shih] added, that people with certain genetic mutations are more susceptible to vaccines.”

In addition, the research does little to explain the vast majority of autism cases. Prior research has shown that about 5 percent to 7 percent of autism cases can be explained by a single gene disorder. Another 5 percent seems to be caused by metabolic conditions that affect brain function.

De novo copy number variants explain anywhere from 7 percent to 20 percent of autism cases with no known cause. But for the other 70-plus percent, there is no genetic explanation.

“It doesn’t mean we’ll [never] know the risk factors for the other 70 percent. Some could be environmental, some could be other genetic mechanism not yet discovered or that our current technology doesn’t allow us to identify,” Shih said.

So, here we are again, looking for the car keys, “not where we lost them, but where the light is better.” http://sparkdevelopment.blogspot.com/2010/12/autism-and-genetics.html.

Sources:

Stephan J. Sanders, A. Gulhan Ercan-Sencicek, et al., “Multiple Recurrent De Novo CNVs, Including Duplications of the 7q11.23 Williams Syndrome Region, Are Strongly Associated with Autism,” Neuron 70, 863–885 (June 9, 2011).

Sarah R. Gilman,Ivan Iossifov, et al., “Rare De Novo Variants Associated with Autism Implicate a Large Functional Network of Genes Involved in Formation and Function of Synapses,” Neuron 70, 898–907 (June 9, 2011)

Ridgely Ochs, “Research ‘solidifies’ autism, genetic link,” Newsday (June 8, 2011).

Young Shin Kim, Bennett L. Leventhal, et al., “Prevalence of Autism Spectrum Disorders in a Total Population Sample,” Am J Psychiatry, first published on May 9, 2011 as doi: doi:10.1176/appi.ajp.2011.10101532)

Jenifer Goodwin, “Girls May Be More Resistant to Autism Than Boys: Study,” HealthDay (June 8, 2011

David Kirby, Evidence of Harm, (St. Martin’s Press 2005)

Mark Blaxill, New Autism Consortium Study Proves (Again) that Inherited Genes Don’t Cause Autism, Age of Autism (2011) (http://www.ageofautism.com/2010/07/new-autism-consortium-study-proves-again-that-inherited-genes-dont-cause-autism.html)

Fraud in Connection with a Pro-Vaccine Study? Gasp!

2011-05-22T14:29:00.000-04:00

By now, I’m sure everyone who has an interest in the possible connection between vaccines and autism has heard about Dr. Wakefield and his supposedly “fraudulent” research. Never mind that his results have been independently replicated – twice! (http://sparkdevelopment.blogspot.com/2011/02/offit-wakefield-hot-sticky-wax.html).

But, here’s an interesting piece of news. The CDC funded (i.e., United States taxpayer funded) researcher who headed The Danish Study (the one cited as proof that there is supposedly no connection between the MMR and autism), Poul Thorsen, has been indicted for fraud.

Seems that Thorsen has been charged with 13 counts of wire fraud and nine counts of money laundering. Specifically, it is alleged that Thorsen stole over $1 million from autism research funding he received in connection with The Danish Study, and used the proceeds to buy a home in Atlanta, two cars and a Harley Davidson.

The Copenhagen Post Online (http://www.cphpost.dk/news/international/51446-danish-scientist-indicted-in-us.html) (Friday, 15 April 2011).

One in Thirty Eight

2011-05-09T18:28:00.000-04:00

Anyone catch the article in Newsday today, “Study in South Korea finds higher rate of autism,” by The Associated Press Carla K. Johnson (AP Medical Writer) (http://www.newsday.com/news/health/study-in-south-korea-finds-higher-rate-of-autism-1.2864765)? Seems that South Korea puts the autism rate at one (1) in thirty eight (38)! Is autism truly that prevalent? It seems like it sometimes . . .

Personally, I don’t know what to say about the study. It was based on an extremely large survey (55,000 students), follow up and some testing, although there is speculation that the population that responded to the survey may have been disproportionately made up of parents with children with issues, and it was indicated that very few of the children actually went through an entire diagnostic procedure. How accurate was the survey? And, how can it be so very different from our own CDC’s estimate of one (1) in one hundred (100) (although, I have mentioned it before, that estimate is probably low).

But it makes you think. How do we define “autism”? How do we diagnose it? How accurate can we possibly be when it comes to disorders that are so subjective in nature?

What’s really at issue, though, is once it is diagnosed, what do we do about it?

And, again, sorry to anyone following this blog. I am still working on my book about my son, and how we helped him “recover” from ADHD, ODD, and PDD. The first half is done – the part about our story (from a father’s perspective). The second half, the one with all the relevant research about the methods we used, is taking a while. Seems there’s a whole lot of stuff that supports what we did. I’m still trying to glean through the best of it.

Don't you love being right?

2011-04-01T10:49:00.000-04:00

My friend (and a Spark Development supporter), Donna, sent me an email with this title a couple of days ago. She was referring to an article that appeared in Newsday entitled "The dark side of brightly colored food" (at A34, March 29, 2011) (it appears on the web as: "Opinion: Danger of artificial food dyes" (http://www.newsday.com/opinion/oped/opinion-danger-of-artificial-food-dyes-1.2787500).

Written by a Professor of Psychiatry at Columbia University (David W. Schab) and The Executive Director of the Center for Science in the Public Interest (Michael F. Jacobson), the article makes some excellent, and disturbing, points about (i) artificial dyes and their PROVEN connection to attention and behavior issues; and (ii) the FDA's previous reluctance to admit any such link even though that link had been addressed in Europe some SEVEN years ago!

Specifically, the article notes that "According to a growing number of scientific studies, [artificial dyes] are causing behavioral problems and disrupting children's attention. . . . In a significant turn from the agency's previous denials that dyes have any influence on children's behavior, an FDA staff report released last week concluded that synthetic food colorings do affect some children." Emphasis added.

The sad part is, that nutritionists, like the one who helped my son, Robert, recover from ADHD and PDD, knew about this DECADES ago! And if that wasn't enough, studies about artificial dyes and their effects on behavior have been coming out of Europe for the past several years.

In fact, the article notes, that "In 2004, one of us, David Schab, co-wrote an analysis of the best studies of food dyes' effects on behavior. That analysis found striking evidence that hyperactive children who consumed dyes became significantly more hyperactive than children who got a placebo.

At the same time, the British government funded two studies, each involving almost 300 children. Their results were even more startling: Artificial food dyes, in combination with a common preservative, could make even children with no known behavioral problems hyperactive and inattentive. Health officials in the United Kingdom urged manufacturers to stop using the six dyes -- including Red 40, Yellow 5 and Yellow 6 -- involved in those studies. Next, the European Parliament required that foods containing those chemicals bear a label warning that the dyes 'may have an adverse effect on activity and attention in children.'"

No such research or warnings ever came from the good, old FDA.

Anyone get the feeling the FDA isn't really on our side?

Another interesting little tidbit in this article, and one that should really get you mad, is the fact that "[a]rtificial colorings are meant to manipulate consumers' perceptions. Manufacturers tout research showing that redness enhances the impression of sweetness, and that in tests with beverages and sherbets, color did more to influence consumers' perception of the flavor than the flavor itself." Emphasis added.

Anyone feeling a little controlled by marketers?

Our diets really do impact the way we feel, the way we act, our attention, our behavior, and our ability to learn. This simple FACT cannot be stressed enough. Indeed, it's why nutrition counseling is a part of our program.

Remember, dietary issues usually fall into one of these categories:

-- Food Allergies or Sensitivities. While some people may experience adverse physical reactions to foods such as itching, hives or swelling, other people may have adverse behavioral reactions to eating certain foods. Thus, while there may be no physical manifestation of an issue, certain foods can, like the artificial dyes noted above, cause behavior problems including, but not limited to, hyperactivity and inattentiveness. Other common culprits include artificial sweeteners, dairy products, and even wheat and corn.

-- Nutritional Deficiencies. Given our love of processed and fast foods, is it any wonder that many children are deficient in nutrients essential to optimal development? Probably at the top of the list are essential fatty acids. Indeed, research has shown that the vast majority of children diagnosed with ADHD are deficient in essential fatty acids.

-- Injured/Impaired Gut. I've written about this before. Exposure to environmental insults, including the overuse of antibiotics, can impair a child's ability to properly digest food. Thus, even if he or she is eating properly, his or her body simply cannot process the food correctly. Or, in more severe cases, the child's gut may allow improperly digested substances to pass into their systems, or may even be producing toxins that affect behavior and development.

So, if your child is having these types of attention and behavior issues, take a good, hard look at what they are eating. If you suspect an issue, I urge you to consult with a knowledgeable nutritionist immediately.

Just a Quick Update

2011-03-31T13:26:00.000-04:00

Hi Everyone,

No, I haven't fallen off the face of the earth. I know I haven't blogged in a while, and for those who follow, I do apologize. I just tend to get drawn into one project at a time -- I admit, I'm not the world's best multi-tasker.

So, what have I been up to? Well, several years ago, I wrote a book about our experiences with our son, Robert. You know, the kid originally diagnosed with ADHD, ODD and PDD? Well, I've dusted off the cobwebs, and in this age of digital self-publication, have been revising the text, getting feedback, editing, and in general, getting the book ready for the internet.

Perhaps some of you will even read it. That would be cool.

Anyway, working on that has taken me away from this. But, not for long. There's some interesting stuff in the news, and I'm sure I'll blog about it here.

One last note: Congratulations to my son, Robert. He was just accepted into a very competitive design program at FIT -- only 50 spots open each year, and my Poppy got one!

That's my boy.

Eat Smart -- That Is, Eat To Be Smart

2011-02-09T18:26:00.000-05:00

A new study reports that what you eat affects your IQ.

"Startling," "new" research shows that if you eat junk food (i.e., high in fat and sugar, and processed foods) during the critical years of neurodevelopment (i.e., up to the age of three), your IQ will be lower. Conversely, if you eat healthy food (fruits, vegetables, etc.) during this time period, your IQ will be higher. http://www.newsday.com/news/health/processed-fatty-foods-may-dumb-down-your-kids-study-1.2668600

And it only took a team of researchers in the year 2011 to figure this out . . .

Offit, Wakefield, Hot Sticky Wax

2011-02-02T11:48:00.001-05:00

I wanted to write about something different. Something funny. Something happy. Some life event. I’ve been reading other people’s blogs, and it’s so cool how well people write about just everyday stuff.

And, while we laugh nearly every day about something (like my daughter launching overly-nuked, molten-lava hot, hair removal wax across the kitchen and redecorating every appliance and cabinet in a lovely greenish-blue, splattered, spot pattern) , I couldn’t think of a thing to write.

Then, Paul Offit, vaccine patent owner, and outspoken vaccine defender, , appears on “The Colbert Report” hawking his new pro-vaccine book, and states, with absolute certainty and arrogance, that vaccines have nothing to do with autism. He then adds this lovely, little tidbit:

        “In the first few years of life, you can get as many as twenty six inoculations and you can get as many as five at one time,” and that this “immunological challenge is a drop in the ocean of what kids can counter manage every day.”

I won’t belabor the point about vaccines here – I’ve written about it before (see, e.g., http://sparkdevelopment.blogspot.com/2009/11/vaccines-whats-truth.html). Suffice it to say, I am not in complete agreement with Offit's views.

And one final note. Anybody see that Wakefield’s “fraudulent” research apparently has been confirmed? See http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2011/02/07/new-research-shows-link-between-mmr-vaccine-and-autism.aspx:

         “New research reveals that there could indeed be a link between the controversial MMR vaccine and autism, as well as bowel disease in children. The study appears to confirm the findings of doctor Andrew Wakefield . . . .

          A research team is in the process of examining 275 children with regressive autism and bowel disease. Of the 82 looked at so far, 70 tested positive for the measles virus. In all cases, the virus came from a vaccine strain rather than wild measles.

         The Daily Mail reports:

         ‘The 1998 study by Dr. Wakefield ... and 12 other doctors claimed to have found a new bowel disease, autism enterocolitis ... This is the second independent study to back up Dr. Wakefield.’"

Seems like the debate will continue for awhile . . .

Genetics vs. Environment

2011-01-12T09:31:00.002-05:00

“Study: Spacing babies close may raise autism risk,” by CARLA K. JOHNSON (AP Medical Writer) (Jan. 10, 2011):

“Close birth spacing may put a second-born child at higher risk for autism, suggests a preliminary study based on more than a half-million California children. Children born less than two years after their siblings were considerably more likely to have an autism diagnosis compared to those born after at least three years. The sooner the second child was conceived the greater the likelihood of that child later being diagnosed with autism. The effect was found for parents of all ages, decreasing the chance that it was older parents and not the birth spacing behind the higher risk.

‘That was pretty shocking to us, to be honest,’ said senior author Peter Bearman of Columbia University in New York. The researchers took into account other risk factors for autism and still saw the effect of birth spacing.

‘No matter what we did, whether we were looking at autism severity, looking at age, or looking at all the various dimensions we could think of, we couldn't get rid of this finding,’ Bearman said. Still, he said more studies are needed to confirm the birth spacing link.”

So reads an article published in Newsday. http://www.newsday.com/news/health/study-spacing-babies-close-may-raise-autism-risk-1.2601091

So, if birth spacing puts a child at “considerably more” risk of having ASD, and “no matter what [the researchers] did . . . [they] couldn’t get rid of this finding,” then how on earth can ASD be a purely genetic disorder that is inherited? I mean, assuming the mother and the father of the second children in this study are the same, how can the genetics be any different?

Also, what about the “old days” before the ASD epidemic? I know my Grandparents had six kids, and my wife’s grandparents had eleven (ow!), all pretty close together, and no ASD issues there . . .

Doesn’t this speak far more to our own frailty? Do you think, maybe, we’ve weakened our bodies, weakened our immune systems, made ourselves more susceptible to injury from environmental factors through poor nutrition, over use of antibiotics, lack of exercise, etc., and now our children are paying the price?

Don’t write off Wakefield just yet . . .

Spark Development Center Video Testimonials

2011-01-07T14:55:00.008-05:00

Janice

Donna

Marilyn

Ellyn

Please remember that all individuals are different and results will vary.

To read parent testimonials, Click Here.

To return to Spark Development Centers "home" page,

Click Here.

Again With Dr. Wakefield? Really?

2011-01-06T22:02:00.002-05:00

Ah, how can I not talk about Dr. Wakefield? Now, he’s accused of outright fraud. An investigative reporter named Brian Deer (who I believe has attacked Wakefield before) supposedly found that the information contained in the medical records of the children subject to Dr. Wakefield’s original research did not match the information Dr. Wakefield actually published.

Is it just me, or is this whole thing getting weirder and weirder? How did Mr. Deer get a hold of these kids’ medical records? Why some thirteen (13) years after the fact? (Could it have anything to do with Wakefield’s recent book, “Callous Disregard: Autism and Vaccines: The Truth Behind a Tragedy (2010)”?). What about the other twelve (12) authors of the original study (yes, I know 10 of them renounced the study (one must wonder why – did they really have misgivings about the work, were they worried they would have to endure what Dr. Wakefield has had to go through, was money involved?) – how come none of them are ever mentioned? How come we haven't heard from them? Surely, if there was such massive fraud, then the others must have known about it and have been complacent. Yet, only Wakefield’s name comes up again and again.

I was glad to see Delthia Ricks article in Newsday today (1/7/11). Of all the articles I've seen of late, only she noted that Wakefield's original research never stated a "direct cause and effect" between the MMR and autism. She also noted that Brian Deer's efforts have "consumed the past seven years" (bit much don't you think?). Finally, she includes statements by those who praise Dr. Wakefield for helping "thousands of children," and wondering "why this focus is on him and these misleading statements -- these efforts to tar and feather him."

Of course, no one in their right mind would support research fraud, but I still think we're missing the bigger picture here. Even if it’s true that Wakefield and the other researchers made it all up, this only deals with the MMR. It still doesn't completely absolve all vaccines from, at the least, being possible contributing factors to our now present autism epidemic. What about thimerisol (not contained in the MMR)? What about aluminum and other potentially hazardous substances contained in most vaccines? What about the actual immunization schedule?

I am so sick and tired of hearing how science has “proven” that vaccines have no connection to autism; it has not! At best, some statistical analyses might indicate that there is no statistical connection, but as far as I know, no one has ever published any double-blind, control experiment that shows that vaccines, given in the combinations given, at the ages given, with all the original crap in them, are perfectly safe. To the contrary, read “Evidence of Harm.” Actual scientific studies using lab animals seems to prove the contrary when it comes to some of the materials used to produce vaccines. (http://sparkdevelopment.blogspot.com/2010/02/poor-doctor-wakefield.html).

And, as many have come to conclude, autism is most assuredly caused by multiple factors; if you can only really investigate potential contributors one at a time, you are not likely to find any real answers.

I'm also sick and tired of hearing how people like Wakefield have put our children at risk by creating a fear of vaccines. Quite frankly, I think the government and the medical industry are far more to blame for creating an atmosphere of mistrust. When originally presented with legitimate fears of harm back in the 1990's about a plausible, possible causal connection between vaccines and autism, instead of immediately taking steps to lessen any potential harm, the two entities dug in and did everything they could to defend the status quo. I mean, really, first a denial that the staggering rise in autism wasn't real? Their original explanation (which has seemingly been abandoned) was the higher numbers weren't really new cases, just "a change in the definition of autism," and "better diagnostics."

Then a denial that it had anything to do with the environment ("it's all genetics"). Also, now a seemingly abandoned train of thought, the numbers can't justify the "genetic roulette" theory, let alone the fact that if it were purely genetics, then where are all the thirty, forty, fifty, etc., year olds with autism?

Then a refusal to ban substances like thimerisol despite the AAP's suggestion to do so as early as 1999 because of it's potential to do harm, and the FDA's ban of the substance in animal vaccines and over the counter products because it was too dangerous, and it's not even really needed in vaccines at all!

Then, just adding vaccine after vaccine to the list of mandatory shots that our kids have to get lest they not be allowed to attend public school.

Really?? Wouldn't it have been better to say, "We hear your concerns, and while we do not believe vaccines have any connection to autism, we will do everything we can to lessen any potential threat. We will remove all non-necessary ingredients. We will stop the practice of multi-dosing. We will spread the shots out over a longer time period and warn parents to watch for potential side-effects. We will only mandate vaccines for truly dangerous, life-threatening diseases."

I, for one, would have been far more trusting of this approach.

Cover Your Eyes -- Nintento 3DS Is Here

2011-01-06T21:52:00.000-05:00

Did you hear about Nintendo’s warning regarding young children’s use of its soon to be released Nintendo 3DS System? According to Nintendo, “Vision of children under the age of six has been said [to be in the] developmental stage.” Apparently the company is worried that because the 3DS system “delivers 3D images with different left and right images, [the system may have] a potential impact on the growth of children’s eyes.”

In July, Sony warned of similar issues with its PlayStation 3: “Some people may experience discomfort (such as eye strain, eye fatigue or nausea) while watching 3D video images or playing stereoscopic 3D games on 3D televisions."

Some commentators feel that the dangers may be exaggerated, and that Nintendo and Sony are just “covering their asses” in case there is some legal suit down the road trying to pin liability for eye problems on the companies.

This may, in fact, be true, but as has been demonstrated before, too much television, computers, video games, etc., is NEVER good, 3D or otherwise. (http://sparkdevelopment.blogspot.com/2009/01/dont-touch-that-dial-literally.html).

Maybe a warning from the manufacturers themselves about keeping young children away from these games, taking breaks, and watching for potential eye problems is simply overdue.

Adult ADHD

2010-12-21T11:04:00.000-05:00

Arrghhh . . . . Anyone see Dr. Hallowell on Good Morning America today talking about Adult ADHD? I’ve read his books, and I’ve found him to be one of the few medical practitioners in this field that seems open to treating the disorder without medications, including the very methods we use at Spark, but you wouldn’t know it from this interview.

He says that (i) ADHD is “genetically transmitted, there is no doubt about it,” “95%” of the time; (ii) it is extremely under diagnosed in adults; (iii) medications – taken properly – are “very safe” and can be taken “indefinitely” because “when used properly,” these meds have “no side-effects;” and (iv) if you learn to adjust your life-style and develop new habits, you can wean yourself off these meds.

Also, if you watch the interviews with two adults who were diagnosed with ADHD and began taking meds for it, you’re led to believe these meds will enable you to have a novel published and earn huge bonuses at work (hmmm, maybe I should start taking Ritalin . . .).

I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again. I’m all for people getting help with attention issues – they really do exist -- and I believe that meds have their place, but only as a last resort.

I mean, really, if ADHD is genetic (and on that note, what about the research linking the disorder to, among other things, pesticide exposure (http://sparkdevelopment.blogspot.com/2010/05/pesticides-and-adhd-whats-next.html), too much television (http://sparkdevelopment.blogspot.com/2009/01/dont-touch-that-dial-literally.html), and artificial food additives (see, e.g., The Oxford-Durham Study: A Randomized, Controlled Trial of Dietary Supplementation With Fatty Acids in Children With Developmental Coordination Disorder?), and you need meds to deal with it, how can a change in lifestyle and habits cure the disorder?

Maybe, I’m missing something, but meds, in theory, affect a theoretical imbalance of neurotransmitter transmission and uptake in the brain. Also, in theory, these meds do their thing in your brain and then they’re out of there. Thus, you have to take them pretty much every day (in some cases, more than once a day). So, I don’t think anyone believes that these meds permanently repair the hypothetical imbalance in your brain.

If that’s the case, how can a lifestyle change get you off these meds successfully?

What is actually going on? Read between the lines. Dr. Hallowell states that lifestyle changes can work. And we know, and the research backs us up on this, that dietary changes, exercise, and sensory programs can quiet the internal “noise,” decrease the intensity of (and sometimes even eliminate) the “distractions,” and increase focus and attention.

Would one argue that a change in lifestyle is merely a coping mechanism, and the ADHD still exists? If that’s the case, then aren’t the meds merely coping mechanisms as well? And, if the two serve basically the same purpose, i.e., coping with ADHD, wouldn’t you want to do the one that is safer, and probably ultimately more likely to present a more permanent solution?

Granted, drugs are quicker, but if the meds are not changing the biology, are we merely promoting the idea of taking drugs to enhance performance (http://sparkdevelopment.blogspot.com/2009/02/drugs-for-everyone.html)?

No one really knows how these meds work, no one really knows about the long term effects of these meds (see, eg, http://sparkdevelopment.blogspot.com/2009/01/finnish-study-questions-long-term.html), and it is simply and utterly untrue that these meds have no side-effects. Like all psychotropic medications, they do have side-effects, even when taken properly, and while it is rare, there is documented proof of some very bad things happening to some people who took these meds (http://sparkdevelopment.blogspot.com/2009/02/on-subject-of-medications.html and http://sparkdevelopment.blogspot.com/2009/06/unexplained-sudden-death-and-adhd-meds.html).

Hey ABC, how about a story about people who cured themselves without meds?

Spark Development Centers Testimonials

2010-12-18T19:26:00.007-05:00

We are deeply touched by the kind words of these parents. While we realize that every child is different and that results will vary, we greatly appreciate our parents' eagerness to share success stories like these. Most of all, we thank our parents for their continued support and for the opportunity to serve their families.

To view complete video testimonials, Click Here.

To read parent testimonials, Click Here.

We thank Joseph Eckardt for capturing these very special moments for us.

Video Editor: Stephanie Lombardo

Production Coordinator: Gordon Edward

Autism and Genetics

2010-12-07T16:39:00.001-05:00

Did you see the article by Delthia Ricks, entitled “Scientists finding genes related to autism,” Newsday (12/5/10)? It states that as a result of “combing the human genome,” “new gene discoveries . . . are helping to shape a narrative that autism spectrum disorders are largely genetic conditions.” In fact, Dr. Eli Hatchwell, a geneticist and founder of a biotechnology firm claims that, "There may be a small number of individuals who are reacting badly to something in the environment, but I don't believe that to be the case for everyone. . . Autism is 90 percent genetic in my opinion." It should be noted that Hatchwell and his team are working on gene-based diagnostics for autism.

Sadly, I’m reminded of the old joke where a guy is intently scouring the ground under a street lamp one night. Another guy sees him and asks, “What are you doing?” The searcher replies, “Looking for my car keys.” “Where exactly did you lose them?” inquires the second guy, to which the first points off into the dark distance, and says, “over there by my car.” Incredulous, the second guy asks “Why on earth are you looking over here then?” “Because the light’s better,” says the first.

Millions and millions of dollars and research are being thrown at finding the “genetic” basis of autism, but really, are we looking in the right place?

Yes, the “light’s better” – if autism is truly an inherited, genetic condition, then autism is no one’s fault. There is no one to blame; it’s just an unfortunate accident. There is no need to change or go without what our society has come to accept as safe and normal. Even from an economic standpoint, a genetic cause of autism would pretty much benefit everyone. A proven biologically based medical condition would surely be covered under insurance (and don’t worry about the insurance companies – when and if the time comes for them to belly up to the bar, they’ll work the cost into our insurance premiums – they’re pretty good at making money no matter what), the medical practitioners will have a guaranteed stream of diagnostic/treatment-related income, the drug manufacturers will surely come up with a slew of drugs to treat the “medical” condition, testing companies will have a field day screening all of our kids, and no messy lawsuits from “those people” who believe it was some environmental insult that perpetrated the harm.

Consider the alternative, looking in the dark. If something in the environment is causing autism, then is it really a medical condition? And, surely, someone created the environmental condition, so maybe autism really is someone’s fault. Can you imagine the consequences? The lawsuits, the liability. And, we’d have to change. Maybe we can’t use so many pesticides. Well, wouldn’t that hurt the farmers with increased costs of production? Wouldn’t that hurt the vegetable and fruit eating consumers who would be forced to pay more for produce? Maybe we can’t use scientifically created hormones and antibiotics on our farm animals. That also hurts the farmers and consumers, and of course, the people who make the hormones and antibiotics. What if it’s over exposure to EMR, cell phones, television/computer? What if it’s vaccines? What if it’s jet fuel? Can we ever do without these ubiquitous items (yes, our parents did, and their parents did, and isn’t it interesting to note that even as late as the mid-1980’s, autism was thought to affect only about 1 in 2,500, not 1 in 100 like today?).

And, if autism is caused by something in the environment, and we simply eliminate that cause, who would turn a profit?

But, even though the light is better, is it really the place to look?

First, and foremost, even if there is a difference in the genes of autistic individuals, the question that really needs to be answered, but apparently is not, is whether the difference is innate or the result of some external catalyst.

In other words, are different genetics the cause or the result?

Moreover, in order for autism to be a genetic disorder, unrelated to environment, one must assume either that (i) autism always existed to the extent it does today, that is in 1 of 100 individuals, and we just didn't notice it all these years, or (ii) the human race has undergone a spontaneous genetic mutation of staggering proportions over the last twenty to thirty years.

Otherwise, by definition, some external – i.e., environmental – factor must be to blame.

Now, I like science, I like math, I like facts, and I really do want to believe that autism is nothing more than a genetic accident, that no one is to blame for what happened to those affected. I want to keep my cell phone, and watch too much TV, and not worry about the cell phone antennae and high voltage wires in my neighborhood. I want to eat fish, and meat, and not worry about hormones or genetically modified foods.

But, I need proof.

So, if you want me to really believe that autism is 90% genetics, prove to me that ASD always existed to the extent it does today.

Show me that 1 in 100 of all 80 year olds, 70 year olds, 60, 50, 40 and 30 year olds have autism.

Explain the math that would prove that better diagnostics/different definitions could possibly account for the staggering increase in the incidence of autism. Really, explain how you go from one in 2,500 in the mid-1980’s to one in 100 today.

Explain why there are classrooms dedicated to autistic children today that did not exist even ten years ago. Explain why teachers are saying they see a fundamental change in our student population.

Or, terrify me, and explain how we can undergo such a dramatic, and damaging, genetic mutation -- without any external trigger -- in the span of a single generation.

Some Things Just Work Out In The Wash

2010-12-04T10:38:00.000-05:00

You ever notice how life works out? I was training, really hard, for three races this past fall. I'm fairly competitive and hoped to win some awards. The first was the Warrior Dash - a three mile obstacle course. The second, a four mile run to support an autism foundation. The last, a 5K for a special needs school.

I convinced Robert to run the Warrior Dash with me. Of course, being young, and strong, and a high-school cross-country runner, he did no training whatsoever. He did, however engage in an awful lot of boasting about how well he was going to do while I wasted my time training.

We arrived bright and early for our run. Little did we know that it was about a mile and a half up a ski mountain, and then two miles back down.

Robert made it about 1/4 of a mile up the mountain before he had to stop, walk and be sick. Being a good daddy, I stayed with him. And, we walked, and ran a little, and walked some more, and ran a little. Robert looked green -- I was chomping at the bit to run. But, I stayed with him.

After forever, we got down to the last three obstacles at the bottom of the course. Robert went first down a 100 foot waterslide -- I had to wait for him to clear it. When Robert saw he had the lead, he took off like a bat out of hell!

I cursed him from the mud I was lying in at the bottom of the slide and took off after him at full speed. He had me, but fatigue caught up with him at the barb-wire trench we had to crawl through, and we crossed the finish line together.

Our times were pitifully slow. There was no award for me. But, I never had more fun running a race!

I was really ready for the 4 mile autism run, and I ran a good race. I improved substantially over last year's time and overall finish. Knowing that I had taken third place in my division last year, I was hoping with my much improved time, to place second this year.

Well, I didn't get second.

And, I didn't get third.

I came in fourth by 3.7 seconds. Son of a &*%#@!!

Yeah, I was ticked. I killed myself, done well (so I thought), and NOTHING!

On to the 5K. I ran it well, but not as fast as my last 5K. I hurt at the end, and was a bit disappointed with my time.

I thought maybe I might take third in my division, maybe.

Instead, I came in FIRST in the MASTER'S DIVISION! I never dreamed I'd ever take a Masters (and, I won FIFTY dollars, to boot!).

That's my youngest, Matt, running the 5K with me last year.

A glutton for punishment, I ran one more race. A four-miler near my learning center. I didn't expect much -- it's a very competive race, and runners come from all over the state to compete. I didn't really train hard for this one -- I originally wasn't even going to run it, but something told me to give it a shot.

I was in pain from the second mile on, but I pushed through and did okay taking fifth place in my division. But, what was truly wonderful was hearing the name of one of my former students as he crossed the finish line!

I had no idea he was running, and never would have guessed it. When he started with our program, he had coordination issues, and no one would ever have accused him of being athletic. He was also a bit distractable. He did well by us. He grew stronger, more coordinated, better able to focus, and graduated the program about two years ago. We knew what we did with him would eventually bear fruit, but we had no idea this was coming.

There he was, crossing the finish line in under thirty minutes! His dad came to me beaming. "You should see him. Cross-country, basketball, honor society and straight A's!"

The best award I ever got at the end of a race. And, to think, I almost didn't even run.

MRIs, Autism & ADHD

2010-12-03T13:31:00.003-05:00

I may be wrong, but I think we have another “duh” moment. According to “Brain MRI may lead to early autism detection,” reported by Nicole Ostrow of Bloomberg News, researchers studying 60 children, half diagnosed with mild autism and half without autism, were able to identify autism 94% of the time using magnetic resonance imaging. Specifically, the MRI looked at water diffusion along the brain’s nerve fibers.

The article talks of “the disorder’s biological base,” and objective markers, and early detection.

While there is no doubt that early diagnosis and more objectivity are worthy goals, I have to wonder, if autism is a neurological disorder, and even subjectively, differences in behavior, intellect and communication are readily apparent, isn’t it a given that brain processing will be different? Isn’t this just objective confirmation of what we already know? (and why only 94% success?)

Also, this test does nothing to shed light on the cause of autism. When the article discusses “the disorder’s biological base,” is it suggesting that the differences found in the autistic brain are innate, and thus, the cause of the disorder? Or, is it merely finding changes in the brain caused by some external, environmental insult (which, combined with a genetic disposition of susceptibility to such harm, is what we believe to be the true cause of the disorder)? If it’s the latter, are these differences in brain processing really a “biological base”?

And, another thought, this one regarding ADHD. We’ve always maintained that disorders like ADHD are part of the ASD spectrum (and there are researchers out there who apparently believe likewise). That is, that whatever is causing the ASD epidemic also is causing the ADHD epidemic. It’s just a different degree of effect and a different manifestation. I’ll bet if the same MRI studies were done on kids diagnosed with ADHD, the researchers would find that the ADHD brains also process information differently.

If that’s the case, then you have to wonder. We were always told by Robert’s doctors that ADHD was caused by a brain chemistry imbalance with respect to certain neurotransmitters, and that drugs were the only way to address his issues.

If the ADHD brain, like the autistic brain, processes information differently, is that really the result of a “neurotransmitter imbalance?” And, more to the point, how can messing with those neurotransmitters, as the ADHD meds are theorized to do, really fix the problem?

Just a thought.

Autism, Mitochondria, Science & Parents

2010-12-01T11:02:00.004-05:00

Came across a very interesting article in the paper today. Delthia Ricks reports in “New angle on autism,” that “[a]utism for some children may be related to defects in the mitochondria.” This “new” finding is reported in the Journal of the American Medical Association.

I write “new” because this theory has been around for a while. In fact, I believe there are practitioners here on Long Island that have been testing for these defects for several years.

And, Ms. Ricks notes that “[f]or years, parents on Long Island and elsewhere have argued their children diagnosed as having autism actually are affected by mitochondrial defects but the scientific work to support their claims have been scarce. . . ‘It always takes the medical and scientific community a long time to catch up with what parents are saying,’” noted Evelyn Ain, an advocate for children with autism.

Yeah, don’t we know that!

Oh, and there was one more quote that I particularly enjoyed. Dr. Eli Hatchwell, while commenting that the findings were “intriguing but not definitive,” stated “I have said it before and I will say it again: There is no single cause of autism.”

Funny, we’ve been saying that for the last ten years!!

But, maybe now that a doctor says it . . .

Don't the Needs of the Many Outweigh the Wants of the Few?

2010-11-24T10:50:00.002-05:00

Is it just me, or is there something fundamentally wrong when you read in the paper about Long Island school superintendents who are making hundreds of thousands of dollars a year in salaries, pensions and benefits, and then two days later, read in the same paper, that services for special needs children are being cut?

One person wrote an editorial in which he was outraged that anyone should have an issue with the superintendents' pay because they "earned it," and the pay simply can't compare to that of private sector CEOs. I think this person is missing the point.

It's not really a matter of "earning it" (although others were quick to point out that city school superintendents', with far more children to account for, don't make nearly as much), and it has nothing to do with the private sector (our taxes pay for their jobs -- it's not a for-profit organization). What is at issue here, what should only really be at issue here, is what's best for our children. If the districts need money -- and remember, it's really our money in the form of ever increasing taxes -- the cuts should NOT come at the expense of our children. The schools, and the superintendents, exist for our children's benefit -- not the other way around.

Or maybe I'm just crazy to think that maybe the needs of the kids should come before those who have "earned it."

A Response to a Post on Dr. Rory F. Stern's Website

2010-11-11T15:34:00.002-05:00

I came across a post entitled "How Do ADD/ADHD Medications Really Work" by Dr. Rory F. Stern. He asked for comments. You all know this subject has been addressed here many times. Here's what I wrote to Dr. Stern.

Wow.

I must admit I was a little upset when I saw the title of this post: “How Do ADD/ADHD Medications Really Work,” because NO ONE really knows how any of these medications work. We’ve all been told about the medical theory underlying ADHD, i.e., that ADHD is the result of a chemical imbalance in the brain involving certain neurotransmitters and that the medications help regulate such neurotransmitters.

However, this is only a THEORY. No one really knows what causes ADHD, and NO ONE really knows how any of these medications actually work. As most of you certainly know, ADHD is a symptom driven diagnosis – if you check off enough behaviors on the Conners sheet in enough environments, you will be diagnosed with ADHD regardless of what is actually causing the behaviors.

If you do the research, you’ll find studies that “prove” inattentiveness and impulsivity can be traced back to many different “causes” -- overexposure to media (including television and video games), poor diets and food allergies, nutrition deficiencies (including essential fatty acids), sensory integrations problems, sleep problems or emotional issues, to name but a few. I noticed that some of the previous posts mention such issues.

But, to Dr. Stern’s credit, he did not try to explain exactly how these medications work, nor did he take a stand on their use. The subject of medication is near and dear to me, and I have blogged about it extensively in the past. While I am certainly not a proponent of medication, I do realize that for some people it is a life changer. I only urge that you try other therapies and approaches, and use medications as a last resort.

Without getting into the gory details, our son was diagnosed with ADHD, borderline ODD, and PDD by the age of 7. We reluctantly tried medications, and unfortunately for our son, he got hit with nearly every side-effect you could get, from wild mood swings, to hyper anxiety, to facial tics. One med led to another, and to another, as his doctors tried to medicate his side-effects away and get his behavior under control.

He was a mess, and the cocktail of ever changing meds was only making him worse. When we mentioned trying alternatives ranging from dietary changes to homeopathy to sensory integration work, we were told by every professional that meds were the only proven therapy and the rest was a waste of time and money. However, our son’s downward spiral on the meds, the doctors’ insistence on more meds, and our desperation drove us to explore the alternatives.

We did, and we have never looked back. It took time and a lot of effort, but by the time our son entered sixth grade, he was completely off all medications and you would never have known there was ever an issue with this child.

Over that time, we learned a great deal about meds that the doctors never shared with us. First, nearly all studies show that over the long run, these meds lose their effectiveness. Second, these meds almost always have side-effects (although some may argue that the benefits outweigh the side-effects). Third, while rare, there are some serious issues with these medications that have led some to be banned in other countries. Fourth, the effectiveness of such meds is greatly over sold. You see, it depends on your definition of “effectiveness.” If you define “effectiveness” as having some “effect,” then these meds are very effective. If you define “effectiveness” as satisfactorily alleviating the issues for which the medication is given, you’ll find that these meds aren’t nearly as effective as promised.

In fact, during a Special Education PTA seminar, less than 30% of the parents who tried medications to regulate their children’s behavior thought the meds did what they were supposed to do, and 100%(!!) experienced side-effects. This number was interesting since a psychologist writing on the subject of the effectiveness of psychotropic meds, made a similar distinction, and stated with authority, that such meds had an “effect” 70% of the time, but only really worked about 30% of the time!

So, I was truly shocked to see how many people responded that their children were helped by meds. I was even more shocked by the apparent lack of those who had awful experiences with medications, like we did. I can only say to those who responded by saying that meds were life savers, I am truly glad that you were able to help your children, and be aware how lucky you are!

Spark Halloween 2010

2010-11-05T11:58:00.001-04:00

Some More TV News

2010-10-19T17:07:00.000-04:00

Can you stand one more blog about television?

An article posted at http://www.themedguru.com/20101011/newsfeature/long-hours-watching-tv-can-harm-child-s-mental-health-study-86140882.html by Silky Chandvani (10/11/10), cites a study that indicates that long hours of screen exposure at an early age might lead to psychological problems.

The study examined 1000 children, all around 10 years of age. Two measuring devises were used. The first was a questionnaire that covered: television viewing time, emotional difficulties, conduct problems, hyperactivity or inattention, friendships, and problems relating to peer groups. The second was an activity monitor that recorded the children’s sedentary time and moderate physical activity over a week’s period.

What did the researchers find?

The children who sat in front of a screen for more than two hours a day scored low on the questionnaires, regardless of how much physical activity in which they otherwise engaged. In addition, these children ran a 60% higher risk of developing psychological problems than those who racked up fewer viewing hours.

The study was published in the November edition of “Pediatrics” and was supported by the World Cancer Research Fund and the National Prevention Research Initiative.

Need I say more?

The Warnings Keep Coming, But Is Anybody Listening?

2010-10-04T16:43:00.004-04:00

Got a few things to talk about this week. The theme? We keep getting warned about potential issues with medications, the political underpinnings of health care, and dangers regarding products we use and consume, but the warnings are side-notes, buried in the back of the paper, confined to the pages on health books generally dismissed by the mainstream medical community, and on the web – if you know where to look. But, if you’re reading this, then you might want to know a couple of things. In no particular order:

When a new client joins our Center, we always ask if they ever (a) suffered from any form of chronic infection, such as ear infections, sinus infections, etc.; and (b) took antibiotics for extended periods of time. You’d be surprised to learn that the majority of our students answer these questions with a resounding “Yes!”

We ask for two main reasons. First, chronic infections often are a sign of a food allergy (or, if you prefer, a food “aversion”). Simply put, the student is eating something that is triggering an immune response and making them sick. But, food allergies are not the point of this blog -- that’s a whole ‘nother story.

It is the second reason that I’d like to address here. For years, we have known that antibiotics can wreak havoc on the digestive system. This can negatively impact the student’s immune system, since the vast majority (70% to 80%, depending on your reference source) resides in the digestive system. Your immune system, of course, has a direct impact on your overall health, but it also has a major impact on your mood and behavior.

Surprise, surprise. While everyone knows that antibiotic use can upset your stomach, a new study reveals that “repeatedly taking [antibiotics] can trigger long-lasting changes in all those good germs that live in your gut, raising questions about lingering ill effects.” Newsday, 9/14/10 at A33. The article noted that three healthy adults who had not used antibiotics in at least the past year where given low, five-day courses of the antibiotic Cipro, six months apart. The researchers found that the “bacterial diversity” of those three individuals “plummeted as a third to half of the volunteers’ original germ species were nearly wiped out, though other species moved in.”

How could this not affect your immune system?

Did you hear? The Food Pyramid may be “so politically influenced that it is ineffective.” (check out Newsday, 10/4/10 at A23). “This year, the meat lobby has opposed strict warnings on sodium that could cast a negative light on lunch meats. The milk lobby has contested warnings to cut back on added sugars, lest chocolate- and strawberry-flavored milk fall from favor.” Really? You don’t say. And, here I thought the Food Pyramid was a totally objective, science-based guide to eating healthy . . .

So who says Frankenfood is bad for you? Well, a lot of people, actually. According to “This Supermarket ‘Health Food’ Killed These Baby Rats in Three Weeks,” written By Jeffrey Smith and Posted By Dr. Mercola on October 4, 2010, Biologist Arpad Pusztai; Irina Ermakova, a senior scientist at the Russian National Academy of Sciences; Embryologist Andrés Carrasco; Epidemiologist Judy Carman; prominent virologist Terje Traavik; and Ohio State University plant ecologist Allison Snow. In one way or another, these researchers and scientists proved that genetically modified foods can be quite harmful. But, each and every one of these individuals was put through a trial by fire. Some were fired from their positions, others had research funding withdrawn, some had their research blocked, and some were even subject to baseless rumors attacking their credibility. See http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2010/10/04/watch-out-there-are-more-problems-with-genetically-modified-foods-than-youre-allowed-to-know.aspx.

Really, if we can’t trust the companies that are genetically mutilating our food, who can we trust?

ADHD: Nutrition versus Meds

2010-09-15T16:26:00.002-04:00

Came across an interesting little snippet on an ADHD forum to which I belong. In an attempt to avoid medicating her child, suspected by doctors of having ADHD, a Mom tried to help her son through a nutrition intervention. It is unclear whether she had consulted with anyone about her approach, but what was clear is that the child had an immediate reaction to the intervention – apparently a very bad one which prompted this Mom’s call for help on the forum. Specifically, she indicated that it was as if the child was going through “withdrawal” and after two weeks, she only saw his behavior getting worse.

Tina responded privately to her offering advice and insight into the situation. Among other things, she noted that, as we always tell the parents here at the center, while the “withdrawal” like symptoms may be upsetting, the fact that her child had a definitive response to a new intervention is usually a very positive sign. At a minimum, it shows a clear sensitivity related toward that intervention (in this case, what the child was eating), and that usually means you’re looking in the right direction. The trick now is to figure out the proper approach.

Moreover, as we always tell parents, whenever trying a new intervention, many times things tend to get worse before they get better – especially behaviors. The child literally feels very different, the body is physically affected, and the child’s mind and body must adapt. This can be rough, and lead, at least in the beginning, to worse behaviors.

Finally, like anything else, it takes time to adjust to new interventions. Unlike medication, nutrition intervention takes time. This is especially so if the gut is affected or you are addressing a deficiency. Simply put, it takes time for the body to heal.

Another gentleman on the forum (we’ll call him “Biff”) had a different response. Posted on the forum: give up the diet and give him meds.

Guess who had the right approach?

It turns out that not long after Biff’s post, Mom gave us an update. It took a couple of weeks, but she stuck with the dietary intervention and was now seeing very positive results. In particular, she noted that her son was “calmer,” “focus[ing] longer,” and experiencing “less sensory break downs.”

Tina 1: Biff O

ADHD, Adderall and Lindsay Lohan

2010-09-04T10:42:00.003-04:00

So, heard the latest? I am not making this up.

Adderall May Have Unhinged Lindsay Lohan (8/20/2010 12:30 AM PDT by TMZ Staff)
Lindsay Lohan's Adderall dependence -- the result of a medical misdiagnosis -- may have been the reason she went off the rails.

[T]he docs at the UCLA rehab facility believe Lindsay was misdiagnosed with Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder ... and then prescribed Adderall to treat the phantom affliction.

Dr. Joe Haraszti -- a prominent L.A. addiction specialist [states that] people who take Adderall when they don't need it can experience similar effects as people who use cocaine or methamphetamine.

Dr. Haraszti tells us ... people who unnecessarily take Adderall can display manic symptoms ... "and often do things like 'driving around until all hours of the morning ... smoking heavily ... tweeting ... and texting all night long." The doc adds, "They can become very impulsive."

"The doc also notes that people in that situation "might then complain of insomnia and then take Ambien or other sleep aids to help fall asleep ... it's a vicious cycle."

Dr. Marc Kern -- another addiction expert -- tells us alcohol abuse is also very common among patients who take Adderall.

Dr. Kern tells us, 'The Adderall counteracts the sedative side effects of alcohol use … making these people often drink more than someone who does not take the drug."

That is, pretty much, word for word, the article about Ms. Lohan, ADHD and Adderall. Now, let’s play a game. How many things are terribly wrong about the information contained in this article?

Here are my top three:

1. How is someone like Lindsay Lohan “misdiagnosed?” One would assume that she has access to the best medical practitioners around, right? So, are her doctors so inept that they could not diagnose a “disorder” that affects anywhere from 8% to 15% (or more, depending upon your information source) of the population?

Or, is it more likely, that the “disorder” is so vaguely defined, subjectively diagnosed, and misunderstood, both in its manifestation and causes, that it too difficult to diagnose correctly?
In either event, if Ms. Lohan is truly misdiagnosed, either through her doctors’ lack of skill or the inherent vagueness of this “disorder,” how do we know that our kids are not also being misdiagnosed?

2. “[P]eople who take Adderall when they don't need it can experience similar effects as people who use cocaine or methamphetamine.”

Ah, this one’s a bit trickier. Yes, people who take Adderall “can experience similar effects as people who use cocaine or methamphetamine.” No issue there. That’s because Adderall, Ritalin, and the like ARE IN THE SAME CHEMICAL FAMILY AS COCAINE AND METHAMPHETAMINE!! (in fact, Ritalin’s real name is “methyiphenidate”). And, like cocaine, they are all Schedule II controlled substances! (see http://www.justice.gov/dea/pubs/scheduling.html).

Thus, “like cocaine, Ritalin is a powerful stimulant that increases alertness and productivity. Ritalin and cocaine also look and act the same. Both have a similar chemical structure.” http://learn.genetics.utah.edu/content/addiction/issues/ritalin.html

So, what’s terribly wrong with this statement? First, Adderall affects EVERYONE the same way, whether you have ADHD or not! That’s why you can’t use the drug’s so-called effectiveness as a diagnostic tool. So, when you give your “ADHD” kid Adderall, he/she may “experience similar effects as people who use cocaine or methamphetamine,” including as
“Dr. Haraszti tells us … manic symptoms ... and impulsiv[ity]."

And lets not forget what Dr. Kern has to say: “alcohol abuse is also very common among patients who take Adderall.”

3. Just a headcount – how many of you parents out there were told either that (a) ADHD was very difficult to properly diagnose; or (b) that drugs like Ritalin and Adderall are class II controlled substances, just like cocaine, with a similar chemical structure as cocaine, that can cause “manic symptoms, impulsivity, and/or alcohol abuse”?

I’ll bet you were told, like me, these drugs were perfectly safe, with few if any side-effects. And, if your son/daughter had diabetes, you’d give him/her insulin, wouldn’t you?

The Boston Marathon, The Long Island Marathon, and Hearing Loss

2010-08-20T10:11:00.002-04:00

Hi All!

Yes, it’s been a while. And, any rumors that you might have heard suggesting that I haven’t blogged because I was embarrassed that I didn’t finish the Boston Marathon are completely untrue. And, I know I said I would blog a bit more consistently (sorry! Just lost track of time), and I am absolutely sure you are all dying to know how I did in the Boston Marathon, so, here’s the scoop.

(Hopefully, you recognize the tongue in cheek tone of the previous sentence. I’m pretty sure you’ve heard no rumors about me, and that you really don’t care about the Marathon. That’s just me.

Funny, I had a long talk with Tina about Facebook. She wanted me to set up an account (and a Twitter account, too!) for Spark, but I just don’t get it. What is the purpose of Facebook? Does Facebook actually serve society?

Tina pointed out that if you’re offering useful information, or networking to find resources, then the answer is “yes.”

But, don’t most people just give their “status,” post pictures of their vacation/party/pets, “poke people,” write on someone’s wall, or whatever else it is you do on Facebook?

Really, isn't Facebook just about publishing yourself?

I don’t personally think I’m all that interesting. But, the last time I blogged, I did mention that I was training for the Marathon, so, to anyone who read the last blog and is the least bit curious . . . )

I finished the Boston Marathon, ran a negative split (which means I ran the second, harder half of the race (the part with “Heartbreak Hill”) faster than the first part, and managed to qualify for the 2011 Boston Marathon. So, I guess I did good.

Two weeks later, I ran the Long Island Marathon. Probably not the smartest thing I ever did. And, it was ridiculously hot and windy, to boot -- two things that make distance running a really bad experience. The race was great until mile 21 when both my legs completely cramped up, but, remembering what I tell the kids at the center – “the race ain’t over till it’s over” -- I struggled on for five more miles. Somehow, despite slowing down dramatically over those last miles, I managed to run my best time ever, again qualifying for Boston, and took third place for my division (I even got a little award to prove it!). So, I guess I did good.

And, if I can help it, I’m never running another marathon again.

Now, on to more interesting things.

“Study: 1 in 5 US teenagers has slight hearing loss”, August 17, 2010 by The Associated Press / CARLA K. JOHNSON (AP Medical Writer). This article, reported in Newsday, cites to a study that found “[a] stunning one in five teens has lost a little bit of hearing, and the problem has increased substantially in recent years.”

What could be causing this? Well, isn’t it obvious?

“Some experts are urging teenagers to turn down the volume on their digital music players, suggesting loud music through earbuds may be to blame — although hard evidence is lacking. They warn that slight hearing loss can cause problems in school and set the stage for hearing aids in later life.”

Specifically, the researchers found the most of the hearing loss was "slight," defined as inability to hear at 16 to 24 decibels. As the article put it, “[a] teenager with slight hearing loss might not be able to hear . . . his mother whispering ‘good night.’"

And, clearly, there would be an impact on attention and learning. As noted, “[t]hose with slight hearing loss ‘will hear all of the vowel sounds clearly, but might miss some of the consonant sounds’ such as t, k and s.” It’s kind of hard to learn and pay attention when you can’t hear the teacher correctly. "Although speech will be detectable, it might not be fully intelligible." See Wednesday's Journal of the American Medical Association.

There’s no question that hearing issues, like any other sensory issue, can cause problems. (That is why we incorporate an auditory training program at Spark (see www.thelisteningprogram.com).

None of this should come as a surprise. What is shocking to me is that the “experts” can only “suggest” that digital devices and earbuds “may” be to blame because “hard evidence is lacking.”

This, in spite of a spike in hearing loss, and a 2010 Australian study that linked use of personal listening devices with a 70 percent increased risk of hearing loss in children!

Are you kidding me?? If the study concluded that playing music too loudly directly into our ear canals caused minor hearing loss, would digital music player manufactures go ballistic because they might lose some sales, or heaven forbid, be sued?

Pesticides and ADHD -- What's next?

2010-05-18T12:30:00.005-04:00

Once again, I repeat myself. It seems to be happening a lot lately. I guess the more "new" research comes out, the more support there is for what we always knew (some would say "suspected").

Today, we're talking about the "new" research that has linked pesticide use to the occurrence of ADHD. I quote "new" because pesticide use has long been a suspected link to disorders such as ADHD.

For the record, the list of research-backed, possible contributing factors discussed in our seminars over the past ten years includes: undetected/unrecognized "giftedness," sleep issues, emotional issues (including divorce, bullying, academic pressure/anxiety), food sensitivities, digestive disorders, dietary deficiencies, lack of breast feeding, environmental insults (including thimerosal, mercury, lead, aluminum, pesticides, household chemicals/cleaners/detergents, industrial chemicals), electromagnetic radiation (power lines, microwaves, cell phones), overuse of antibiotics, too much television, computers, and video game use, and physical/mental underdevelopment.

Quite the list, huh?

What's more, I, for one, long ago stopped thinking of ADHD as separate and apart from autism spectrum disorders, and I know some researchers also believe that ADHD is a part of the spectrum. Indeed, given the overlap of symptoms, the massive co-morbidity of ADHD and ASD, and the similar rise in the number of cases over time, how can ADHD not be part of the spectrum? And, if it is part, then it must share the same potential causes . . .

Ah, but these thoughts differ greatly from the medical theories (and I say theories, because despite what any doctor says, no one knows what's really causing the problems) that point to genetics and a clear dividing line between ADHD and ASD.

I suppose that on some level it would be nice if ADHD/ASD was purely genetic. Then, no one could be blamed, no fingers will be pointed, no one has to give up anything. If it's genetic, then it's no one's fault.

We wouldn't have to change our lifestyles; we wouldn't have to change our diets; we wouldn't have to give up our microwaves and cell phones; we wouldn't have to get more exercise; we could keep getting all our meds and vaccines; keep our houses clean and our lawns bug and weed free.

Moreover, if it's genetic, and ADHD is a separate animal unto itself, we have FDA approved medications for it's treatment (see my previous posts re: thoughts about medication). There are no such medically approved treatments for autism, however. So, if ADHD is truly a part of ASD, what would be the impact re: medications?

I'm truly afraid it isn't so. By now, pretty much everyone has stopped trying to argue that these disorders are purely genetic or that the horrific rise in diagnoses is due to "better recognition" or "changing definitions." No, even the government is looking for possible environmental causes.

But, here's the rub. At their heart, these disorders are the result of some sort of neurological underdevelopment or impairment. Something in the brain simply did not develop as it should have. Thus, by definition, anything that could ultimately adversely affect neurological development could be a cause. How is anyone to find the single, "this is it," cause?

Worse, the combination of different insults would surely produce far greater harm than the individual insults could. How can one study all the possible combinations?

No, I've said it before, and I'll say it again. All these "disorders," from speech and language delays to ADHD to ASD, are all part of the spectrum, sharing similar causes (and of course, a genetic predisposition to such harm). The resulting diagnosis is nothing more than our poor attempt to specifically label the ultimate degree and manifestation of the harm that has been caused.

Ultimately, we will realize and admit that this explosion of disorders really is some one's fault -- ours, as a society. We truly need to step back, honestly evaluate the safety and impact of all our modern conveniences, medicines, foods, and social environment, and do something about it instead of just relying on a bunch of pills.

Just a note (yes, another one) on meds

2010-05-13T18:40:00.002-04:00

Not to beat a dead horse, but, let’s talk about meds for a minute.

Came across an article that states that commonly used, acid-reducing drugs, have some not so good side-effects, including increased risk of bone fractures and interference with digestive flora. Specifically, “[t]he widely used family of acid-reducing drugs … includ[ing] Prilosec, Nexium and Protonix increases the risk of bone fractures by about 25 percent and can more than double the risk of contracting the troublesome bacterium Clostridium difficile.” Acid-reducing drugs increase risk of bone fractures, Newsday (May 10, 2010). Perhaps even more disturbing is that these drugs “have also been shown to increase the risk of pneumonia.”

(Of course, there is a ridiculous disclaimer in the article. For some reason, the article doesn’t place the blame directly on the drugs, but instead, the blame goes to what the drugs do. “The increased risk is not thought to be caused by the drugs themselves, but by the sharply reduced levels of acid in the stomach and intestinal tract, which make the organs a more hospitable environment for infectious agents like C. difficile and which can impair the uptake of the calcium required for strong bones.”

That’s like saying the bullet doesn’t hurt you: it’s the hole in your body left by the bullet that allows the blood to escape…)

Anyway, here’s the point of my bringing this all up. Whenever you mess around with the body, and try to fix one particular issue with any type of powerful medication, inevitably, you mess up other areas. Everything is connected, and time and again, we miss the side-effects of medications with respect to the amazing systems and overall functioning of our bodies and all the intricate, and complicated, connections between such systems and functions. Hence, the push for more holistic, natural approaches.

Now, think about this in the context of the unbelievably potent, psychotropic drugs used on our children in connection with the treatment of such disorders as ADHD. Remember, these drugs are used even though no one is completely sure what causes such disorders, and no one is completed sure how such drugs actually work!

We’re dealing with a developing, human brain here, and the drugs are supposed to be affecting very specific chemicals in our brains. If we can’t get heartburn and our stomachs right....

And they worry about vitamins . . .

2010-05-03T11:27:00.011-04:00

There has been a movement afoot by the medical and pharmaceutical industries calling for the strict regulation of the manufacture and sale of vitamins and supplements. The justification offered by the med/pharm industries is that consumers should be assured that what is on the label of such vitamins and supplements is exactly what is in such vitamins and supplements -- nothing more and nothing less. In addition, the med\pharm industry wants to make sure that any health claims on the vitamin and supplement labels are true. And, finally, there is always med\pharm talk about the safety of such vitamins and supplements.

Now, I agree. Vitamins and supplements, like every other product on the market, should be safe, contain what they purport to contain, and do what they purport to do. That's just decency, honesty, and common sense. Likewise, I am sure that in the vitamin and supplement industry, some manufacturers are good, honest companies selling good, honest products, while some companies may not be quite so good or quite so honest -- just like every other industry on this planet. For the most part, whenever we make a purchase, the best we can do is do our research, check reputations, lay our money down and hope that we get that for which we have paid.

But, I have to ask, what is really prompting the push for such regulations, and exactly how effective would such regulation be anyway?

Regarding the first question, let's, for the moment, assume that the altruistic justifications given by the med/pharm industries are true. Is it possible that something else is motivating such a push? Sure. Money.

If vitamins and supplements became subject to regulation, the testing, studies and manufacture of such vitamins and supplements would become prohibitively expensive. Many companies would be forced out of business -- less competition for the drugs made by the pharmaceutical companies and pushed by the medical industry.

Of the companies that remain, the costs of such vitamins and supplements would skyrocket, thereby becoming less attractive than the alternative med/pharm drugs.

Finally, it may actually become cost effective and/or profitable for the med/pharm industry to get in on the vitamin and supplement market big time. With an infrastructure already steeped in regulation, big advertising dollars, and a worldwide distribution network, it may not cost as much for the pharmaceuticals to produce vitamins and supplements, and with the combination of the government's imprimatur supporting such vitamin and supplement content and effectiveness and the inflated costs of such vitamins and supplements, don't you think that "pharmaceutical grade" vitamins and supplements would be a big hit?

Regarding the second question, exactly how effective would such regulation be? Well, with respect to labeling, I'd like everyone to read "Food Politics" by Marion Nestle. You'll discover how the various lobbies in the food industry work the government, its regulator, and its regulations to the point where you can't really tell what's in the box or its healthiness, despite the label!

And, if you follow this blog, I don't need to point out how many "FDA Approved" medicines hurt and even kill people.

But, even on a more basic level, does regulation keep bad stuff out of medicines? Did anyone catch the Johnson & Johnson major recall of children's and infants' Tylenol, Motrin, Zyrtec and Benadryl? See "Medicines for kids recalled," Newsday at A17 (Sunday, May 2, 2010). Seems that the products were recalled
"in consultation with the FDA after discovering manufacturing deficiencies that could affect the quality, purity or potency of the medicines. The FDA said some of the products many not meet required quality standards.... Some of the products affected by the recall may contain a higher concentration of active ingredient than specified; others contain inactive ingredients that may not meet internal testing requirements; and others may contain tiny particles, the FDA said."

What those "tiny particles" are was not disclosed in the article.

Now, I point this out not only to show that even with regulations, bad stuff can get in, but also note, it apparently was the MANUFACTURER that issued the recall -- NOT the government agency that's supposed to regulate the industry.

Feeling a Bit Philosophical Today

2010-03-19T14:25:00.003-04:00

Well, the Boston Marathon is a month away, and I'm deep into the hardest training weeks. I'm following the program pretty closely, but I find myself worrying about my performance.

Truly, not surprising. I can ruin almost anything by worrying about the outcome instead of focusing on the doing. In sports, they call it "choking," and I've done more than my share of that.

So, I'm doing it again. How fast will I run this? Can I break 3 hours (ha, ha, ha)? Did I do enough training? What else can I do before the race? What if it's windy? What should I be eating? Should I get to the gym more? What if I screw this up?

While contemplating this, as well as general life questions -- including taking the Center to the next level, Robert and Katherine's college careers, home renovation plans and the stock market, I found myself wishing that I knew exactly what to do. I wanted to know the future and make the perfect plan.

Then, it hit me.

All of Life is NOT the Outcome -- It's the Process.

I know, I know. You've heard it before. Yes, I've heard it before. Life's a Journey. Enjoy the challenge. It's not whether you win or lose, it's how you play the game (now, I think that does not refer to playing fair -- I think it refers to reveling in the challenge presented and enjoying the experience regardless of the results.)

It's very Zen like.

But, like everything else, you don't actually hear good advice until you're ready to hear that advice.

This simple thought all makes sense, by definition. If you think about "life," it's what we do everyday, from now until ... the outcome (which is the same for everybody . . .). And, what we do is always changing, since our circumstances are continually changing.

We should enjoy it, the change, the movement, the uncertainty, for that is our "life."

I met a gentleman the other day. It was a chance encounter, but we had many interests, beliefs and circumstances in common. I believe we can help each other move forward in this world, although I really don't know if our paths will cross again.

But the encounter gave me hope for, among other things, the plans I have for the future expansion of the Center.

Life's like that, if you keep your eyes open.

I'll be ready for Boston. It'll be what it should be for me -- an extraordinary experience. And, if I surprise myself? All the better.

Poor Doctor Wakefield

2010-02-25T10:45:00.002-05:00

I came across an editorial in Newsday the other day entitled “Vaccination opposition could be putting public at risk” I addressed the vaccine issue in a previous blog, but given this editorial, as well as all the news surrounding the Lancet's decision to retract the publication of Dr. Andrew Wakefield's 1998 study that suggested there might be a link between gastrointestinal issues, autism, and the MMR shot, I feel compelled to weigh in on this issue once again.

I'll try to be brief (for those of you who want a bit more information, please see my November 17 post.)

The article talks about how important is is that everyone get vaccinated, and plays down any possible connection between vaccines and autism. However, it does note that medical community, drug companies and government need to be more open and forthright about vaccines.

The last part, at least, I agree with.

But, once again, the article leaves out all the questions, research, and facts upon which those that believe there is a connection between autism and vaccines rely. For example,

If vaccines/the MMR/thimerosal is so safe, then:

Why did Russia, Denmark, Austria, Japan, Great Britain and all Scandinavian countries ban the use of thimerosal?

Why was the use of thimerosal in animal injections banned in 1991?

Why did the FDA ban the use of thimerosal in over-the-counter products in 1998?

Why, in 1999, did both the United States Public Health Services (“USPHS”) and the American Academy of Pediatrics (“AAP”) call for the removal of thimerosal-containing vaccines “as soon as possible”?

Why did the CDC ask drug companies to voluntarily stop using thimerosal in its vaccines in 2001?

And, speaking of trust,

Why won't the the CDC allow independent researchers full access to its immunization injury database, the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System?

Why was the first government researcher that examined the database paid to move and work overseas – never to give an interview or talk about what he found?

Where is the Swine Flu epidemic that we were warned about?

Where are the reports about vaccines that failed?

Where are the reports about vaccines that hurt the people they were supposed to protect?

We want to trust the government. We want to trust the CDC and the FDA. We want to trust that the vaccines are thoroughly tested and safe.

But,
Does anyone tell us about the connections between the drug companies and the government?

Are we told that it is actually the drug companies that test their own products?

Are we told how the drug companies will finance a bunch of “tests” until they get the results they want?

Are we told about how CDC and FDA workers have nice comfy, high paying jobs waiting for them at the drug companies when they leave government employ?

Does anyone disclose the amount of money drug companies spend on lobbying government officials to MANDATE the use of their vaccines?

And if SCIENCE really proven there is no link between vaccines and autism:

Where are the double-blind study, laboratory results?

Where are the studies that subjected test subjects to the multiple vaccinations given our infants?

Where are the studies that show that such multiple shots and/or all the ingredients in such shots do not cause harm to subjects – especially when administered during the most critical of neurological development?

When speaking of SCIENCE, why don't any of these pro-vaccine articles mention books like “A Shot in the Dark,” or “Evidence of Harm,” or the actual scientific studies demonstrating a possible connection cited within those books?

By the way, did you know that the “science” that “proves” no connection between autism and vaccines is not really science? It is nothing more than epidemiological studies comparing the incidence of whatever the “researchers” defined as “autism” and the administration of vaccines.

In other words, the “science” is nothing more than a statistical comparison.

An accountant could have performed this so-called research.

And, never forget, even assuming these statistical surveys are 100% accurate and not biased, all that is shown is that there is no statistically significant association between vaccines and the rise in ASD's. But, these studies do not take into consideration anyone who may be more susceptible to the vaccines, many do not compare apples to apples (e.g., the frequency, timing, and administration of vaccines as performed here in the United States), and are flawed in terms of their methodology. Statistics are, unfortunately, subject to manipulation. Change a definition, e.g., do you count “speech and language delays” as “ASD”? Do so, and the numbers go up; don't and the numbers go down. What age groups do you include in your study? Pre-three, and the numbers go down. Post-three, and the numbers go up. Did the study group get shots on the day of birth like we do here? Did the study group get multiple shots in one “well visit” to the doctor? Did you take other factors into account, including, but not limited to breast-feeding (affects immune system development), diet (same), and timing of shots (immune systems tend to develop later, so the later the administration of a vaccine, the more chance the body has of dealing with it).

I think you get the idea.

And, please, stop telling us how safe everything is. The “truth” is that no one knows for sure. How many supposedly safe medicines have been recalled? How many supposedly safe procedures have been abandoned? How many times are current medical practices going to be revised in light of “new findings?”

I've said it before, and I'll say it again.

I can't imagine that anyone will ever find “the cause” of this autism epidemic, because, quite frankly, there is probably no, one single cause. It is likely caused by the unfortunate convergence of a myriad of factors.

First, we weaken our immune systems and that of our children through poor diets, poor life styles, and little exercise.

Then, we bombard our children's systems with all sorts of environmental insults during the most critical periods of development, including electromagnetic radiation, pesticides, chemicals, lead, aluminum, pollutants, and, yes, the crap in vaccines.

Then, we do everything possible to disrupt the proper development of the child's neurological system. Too much television, computers, videos, etc. Not enough exercise, sunshine, and real social interaction.

And, let's not forget genetics. Certainly, genetics must play a role for some will be far more sensitive to these conditions.

The truth, as far as I know it, is that thimerosal is not safe, vaccines can be made a lot safer, and it has not been indisputably proven that there is no relationship between our vaccination programs and the rise in the incidence of, among other things, ASD's.

Fish Oil Affects Your Mental State

2010-02-03T10:24:00.003-05:00

Here's a "new" fact that apparently everyone who works in the field of nutrition has known for decades: What you eat not only affects you physically, it also affects you mentally.

"Fish oil pills may be able to save some young people with signs of mental illness from descending into schizophrenia, according to a preliminary but first-of-its-kind study. [Not really -- fish oil's effects on mood and mental state have been addressed before. In particular, fish oil has been found to help with depression and bi-polar]. The Austrian study [of course, not a US study] of 81 patients comes from leaders in the field of youth mental health and adds to evidence suggesting the right intervention might prevent severe mental illness. Though it sounds incredibly simple, fish oil fits one hypothesis for what causes schizophrenia, a possible difference in how the body handles fatty acids." The study's findings appear in February's Archives of General Psychiatry.

For years, we were told that our son's "problems" had absolutely nothing to do with what he was eating. There simply was no connection with the food we ate and our mental health.

Of course, physically, what you ate had a tremendous impact -- your strength, your weight, your physical well-being -- there was never a question about the effect food had on your body from the neck down. But, that all stopped at the top of your neck. Robert's doctors told us, with no reservation whatsoever, that diet and supplements had, and would have, no impact or connection to Robert's mind.

Oh well, guess what? We found out they were all so very wrong so many years ago. Now, the scientific world is catching up to the nutritionists and natural practitioners. (There also was a recent study that addressed the effects of a Mediterranean diet on mood -- I think I discussed that in one of my earlier blogs . . . )

Why is it taking so long? Where's the money in prescribing fish oil? Who is going to spend the money it takes to perform an acceptable study, lobby for its publication, and spread the word?

Never forget, drugs make money. And, just in case you're wondering, here's what the article had to say about drug treatments for schizophrenia:

"About 2.4 million Americans have schizophrenia, a disorder treated with antipsychotic medication. Studies have tried antipsychotics in selected young people, but with troubling side effects. Results have been mixed.

For the new study, researchers identified 81 people, ages 13 to 25, with warning signs of psychosis. The people in the study had sought professional help and most were referred by psychiatrists at the Medical University of Vienna, Austria.

Researchers randomly assigned 41 of the patients to take four fish oil pills a day for three months. The daily dose of 1,200 milligrams was about what many people take to get the protective benefits of fish oil for the heart and costs less than 40 cents a day. The rest of the patients received dummy pills.

After one year of monitoring, 2 of 41 patients in the fish oil group, about 5 percent, had become psychotic, completely out of touch with reality. In the placebo group, 11 of 40, about 28 percent, became psychotic."

Probiotics -- Do Doctors Get It?

2010-01-21T18:17:00.005-05:00

Tina, my wife and the Spark Nutrition counselor, is working with a parent whose child has noticeable issues. Let's call this child, "Mary." Part of the regiment she recommended for Mary includes the use of a daily probiotic.

Why would Tina recommend such a thing? Well, first of all, Mary has stomach issues. The probiotic would help with stomach issues.

Also, Mary is prone to colds. Recent research has demonstrated that individuals taking probiotics actually are less prone to colds and flu, and, should they get a cold or flu, their symptoms are less severe and they recover faster.

For these two reasons, alone, the probiotics are important and useful. This is why the addition of probiotics to manufactured food has become such a big selling point.

Finally, there is research connecting possible gut issues, immune system deficiences, and issues ranging anywhere from ADD to ASD. Probiotics are used nearly universally by those treating these disorders through, among other things, diet and nutrition interventions.

But, Mary recently stopped taking probiotics.

Was it because the parent saw no benefit? No.

Was it because Mary had a bad reaction to the probiotic? No.

Was it because there was some issue in the administration of the probiotic? No.

Why? Because Mary's parent was told by the pediatrician that Mary's "red blood count was normal," and therefore Mary "didn't need a probiotic."

What does the red blood count have to do with probitics? Hell if we know. Any consideration of the other reasons a probiotic was suggested? Can't imagine there was. Why tell parents to stop giving their child something that couldn't hurt them and could, and probably was, helping? Can only guess that it was because it wasn't a doctor prescribed "medicine."

We try to help, but how do you overcome the socialization that makes people listen to whatever a doctor says, even if the doctor is discussing a subject about which he has no idea?

Autism and Diet -- Expert Panel Calls for Further Research

2010-01-06T11:41:00.004-05:00

Don't be misled. I came across an article of some importance to those with children with ASD. However, the title of this article, as well as the opening paragraph, are extremely misleading and discouraging. It should be just the opposite.

I am referring to "Evidence lacking for special diets in autism," by Carlak Johnson of The Associated Press.

Mr Johnson reports that, "[a]n expert panel says there's no rigorous evidence that digestive problems are more common in children with autism compared to other children, or that special diets work, contrary to claims by celebrities and vaccine naysayers."

While this is technically a true reading of the panel's report published in the January issue of Pediatrics, the title of the article and the manner in which it is written, paint a very distorted view of the diets that many parents and professionals have found to help children with ASD, the connection between digestive issues and autism, and of course, those who employ such diets and believe there is a connection.

In truth, the article should have been entitled, "Experts call for more research concerning diet and autism."

The first paragraph should have read, "An expert panel has found that more research is needed to determine whether digestive problems are more common in children with autism. The panel also called for more research concerning the effectiveness of special diets now employed by the many concerned parents and professionals who work with children with ASD."

I mean, really, what message is Mr. Johnson trying to send when he compares "an expert panel" that "says there's no rigorous evidence" to the "claims by celebrities and vaccine naysayers"?

And, isn't it odd the way the second part of that sentence reads? It sounds like it says that the panel determined that "special diets" don't work. But, what it really says is that "celebrities and vaccine naysayers" belief that there is "rigorous evidence" supporting the use of special diets is incorrect.

Note the difference: the expert panel never, ever said that special diets don't work. It only said that there is a lack of "rigorous evidence" concerning the effectiveness of such diets, and the panel called for more research on this issue!

Words really do matter.

In fact, a careful reading of the actual report paints a very different picture. In a nutshell, the panel recognizes that (i) ASD children do suffer from gastrointestinal issues - some studies noting the prevalence of such issues to be as high as "70% or higher" in that population; (ii) there is evidence that these children have a more prevalent occurrence of food sensitivities and food allergies; and (iii) it is very important that these issues be treated since they may be the cause of many of the behavioral problems these children exhibit. The reason the study was undertaken in the first place was to determine whether there was an "evidence-based" diagnostic and treatment regime for gastrointestinal problems presented by ASD children!

And, while not finding well-structured studies that demonstrate that special diets help these children, the panel acknowledged the anecdotal evidence supporting such diets and called for more research in this area.

Specifically, the report found the following pertinent points:

1. The panel acknowledged that more research is needed on the prevalence of gastrointestinal issues and ASD: "The prevalence of gastrointestinal abnormalities in individuals with ASDs is incompletely understood" with "the reported prevalence of gastrointestinal symptoms in children with ASDs has ranged from 9% to 70% or higher." Furthermore, while "[m]ost of these studies had 1 or more methodologic limitations . . . the preponderance of data were consistent with the likelihood of a high prevalence of gastrointestinal symptoms and disorders associated with ASDs."

2. A specific gastrointestinal issue, i.e., "autistic enterocolitis" has not been indisputably established. The report does not state that "autistic enterocolitis" does not exist. Instead, it merely states that the study that "suggested" its existence is flawed, and therefore, in the panel's opinion, the existence of "autistic enterocolitis" has not been established.

3. At least one study found that 43% of children with ASDs have a problem with "altered intestinal permeability." However, the panel believes the "[e]vidence for abnormal gastrointestinal permeability in individuals with ASDs is limited," and that "[p]rospective studies should be performed to determine the role of abnormal permeability in neuropsychiatric manifestations of ASDs."

4. Nutritional deficiencies are presented by ASD children. "Nutritional deficiencies have been reported in patients with ASDs, which is not surprising because of the narrow food preferences of many affected individuals and/or purported therapeutic diets that might be nutritionally inadequate. In a study of 36 children with ASDs, regardless of unrestricted or restricted diet, essential amino acid deficiencies consistent with poor protein nutrition occurred more frequently than in age- and gender-matched controls."

5. There is evidence that at least some ASD children do respond to dietary interventions. However, the panel believes that more data is needed before dietary modifications can be routinely recommended. "Anecdotal reports have suggested that there may be a subgroup of individuals with ASDs who respond to dietary intervention. Additional data are needed before pediatricians and other professionals can recommend specific dietary modifications. Dietary modifications such as removal of milk for symptoms of lactose intolerance may be approached empirically, as with any other pediatric patient with consistent symptoms. The data on the value of specific diets being effective in the treatment of individuals with ASDs are difficult to assess. Many dietary modifications are believed to have a beneficial outcome, although placebo effects are likely to be high in this setting. The few studies in the literature are difficult to interpret without adequate control groups.

"Many parents and care providers have observed and reported improvements in problem behaviors with nutritional or medical interventions. Some of these therapies are based on purely observational reports; many are based on studies that may have reached erroneous conclusions because of recruitment bias, lack of validated or standardized outcomes, or inadequate controls. . . . Anecdotal reports that restricted diets may ameliorate symptoms of ASDs in some children have not been supported or refuted in the scientific literature, but these data do not address the possibility that there exists a subgroup of individuals who may respond to such diets."

6. While not endorsing a "gluten-free" or "casein-free" ("GFCF") diet, the panel does recognize that in at least one study, parents of ASD children who undertook these special diets "reported positive subjective clinical changes while their child was on the GFCF diet." Moreover, the panel does not explicitly discourage the use of such diets.

"Few studies have examined the effects of a casein-free diet, a gluten-free diet, or combined GFCF diet on the behavior of individuals with ASDs. To our knowledge, only 1 double-blind placebo controlled study has been published to date. In this double-blind crossover trial of GFCF or typical diet in 15 children with ASDs, there were no differences in measures of severity of ASD symptoms, communication, social responsiveness, and urinary peptide levels after 12 weeks. Nevertheless, after being informed of the results, 9 parents wanted to continue the diet and reported positive subjective clinical changes while their child was on the GFCF diet. . . . Parents need information to help plan a balanced diet within the restrictions imposed by the chosen diet. Given the real hardships associated with implementation of a strict GFCF diet, additional studies are needed to assess risk factors and possible markers that identify individuals who might benefit from these diets."

7. The panel recognized that immune problems have been reported in ASD children, and that research exists that suggest such problems may impact neurodevelopment. However, the panel notes that a direct relationship between immune dysfunction and ASD needs to be proven.

"There has been research to suggest that immune responses can influence neurodevelopment and that significant immunologic alterations may play a key pathogenic role in some individuals with ASDs. We are now able to accurately define immune status in individuals with ASDs. Well-defined studies are needed using larger sample sets and age- and geographically matched controls, with extensive immune analysis, to determine the precise relationship of immune dysfunction to clinical symptoms."

8. Moreover, there are preliminary findings that suggest a relationship between gastrointestinal inflammation and gastrointestinal symptoms associated with ASDs. Additional investigation into such a relationship is needed. "A few studies have suggested a relationship between gastrointestinal inflammation and gastrointestinal symptoms associated with ASDs. The gastrointestinal tract is the largest immune organ in the body, containing up to 80% of Ig-producing cells in the body. . . . These studies suggest an underlying chronic inflammatory process in some individuals with ASDs and co-occurring gastrointestinal disturbances. . . . These findings should be considered preliminary and will require confirmation."

9. Gut flora, health and disease are significantly related. Additional research concerning the relationship between gut flora and ASDs must be performed. "The microbiological ecosystem of the gut is complex and poorly understood but likely plays a significant role in both health and disease. Few researchers, however, have attempted to critically examine the relationship of gut microflora to ASDs. Future studies will require molecular approaches aimed at identification and quantification of microbial species. If an association is identified, it may lead to novel treatment trials."

In summary, the panel noted, [a]ccrual of new knowledge will advance our approach to the management of ASDs and co-occurring medical conditions. Recognition that problem behaviors might indicate an underlying medical condition will facilitate diagnosis and treatment and ultimately improve the quality of life for many persons with ASDs. This expert panel has addressed considerations in the diagnostic evaluation of gastrointestinal symptoms in individuals with ASDs that may lead to effective treatment options, with the hope that patients will have better access to enlightened care."

"Enlightened care." I like the sound of that.

More "Good" News About Cell Phones . . .

2009-12-31T12:49:00.003-05:00

I'm pretty sure I've mentioned the problems with electromagnetic radiation (like that generated by high voltage towers, cell phones and microwave ovens) at some point in these blogs. Seems that there is research that demonstrates that electromagnetic radiation ("EMR") makes the blood brain barrier more permeable than it was meant to be. While none of these studies talked about autism, one must remember the theory that toxins that enter the brain may have some relationship to autism spectrum disorder. It's not too much of a stretch to think that if the blood brain barrier has been compromised, potential substances and/or toxins that might never have reached the brain are now getting in and causing damage.

Recently, there was a study out of Europe that found that constant exposure to cell phones adversely affects bone density.

Now, the state of Maine is considering requiring that cell phones carry warnings that they might cause brain cancer. In an article entitled Maine to consider cell phone cancer warning, Glenn Adams reports that

"A Maine legislator wants to make the state the first to require cell phones to carry warnings that they can cause brain cancer. . . .

The now-ubiquitous devices carry such warnings in some countries, though no U.S. states require them, according to the National Conference of State Legislators. A similar effort is afoot in San Francisco. . . .

Maine Rep. Andrea Boland, D-Sanford, said numerous studies point to the cancer risk, and she has persuaded legislative leaders to allow her proposal to come up for discussion during the 2010 session that begins in January, a session usually reserved for emergency and governors' bills. . . .

While there's been no long-term studies on cell phones and cancer, some scientists suggest erring on the side of caution.

Last year, Dr. Ronald B. Herberman, director emeritus of the University of Pittsburgh Cancer Institute, sent a memo to about 3,000 faculty and staff members warning of risks based on early, unpublished data [what did this research say, and why is it unpublished??]. He said that children should use the phones only for emergencies because their brains were still developing and that adults should keep the phone away from the head and use a speakerphone or a wireless headset.

Herberman, who says scientific conclusions often take too long, is one of numerous doctors and researchers who have endorsed an August report by retired electronics engineer L. Lloyd Morgan. The report highlights a study that found significantly increased risk of brain tumors from 10 or more years of cell phone or cordless phone use.

Also, the BioInitiative Working Group, an international group of scientists, notes that many countries have issued warnings and that the European Parliament has passed a resolution calling for governmental action to address concerns over health risks from mobile phone use.

But the National Cancer Institute said studies thus far have turned up mixed and inconsistent results [which obviously means that some studies do show that cell phones cause harm], noting that cell phones did not come into widespread use in the United States until the 1990s.

'Although research has not consistently demonstrated a link between cellular telephone use and cancer [again, by definition, that means that some research HAS shown a link between cellular telephone use and cancer], scientists still caution that further surveillance is needed before conclusions can be drawn,' according to the Cancer Institute's Web site."

This is pretty scary stuff. There is obviously research that shows a link between cell phones/cordless phones and cancer -- by the way, why haven't we heard about any of this? -- and even the scientist and researchers are worried.

And, we wonder why so many children are diagnosed with ASD today. It's not just the diagnostic criteria. We, as a society, have created this problem over the past three decades. It's the way we eat, what we eat, the chemicals, pesticides and toxins to which we expose ourselves. It's the way we live and raise our children.

Isn't it obvious? We really need to put our children's development, safety, and happiness before convenience, efficacy and economics.

Well, It's Been Over a Week . . .

2009-12-24T14:18:00.002-05:00

Well, it's been over a week and I'm still on track with both my marathon training and my blogging.

I have to admit that I did miss one day of training, but it wasn't my fault (don't I sound like a five year old?). There was this little bit of snow, and I had to spend a little while digging out. My oldest son went to work, so he was no help.

My youngest son offered to help, but for a price. He wanted five dollars to clear a path down the sidewalk. Recognizing a bargain when I see one, I jumped all over the deal. (I was tempted to squeeze a little more work out of him for the same price, you know, "throw in the walkway to the front door, and you got yourself a deal," but I didn't want to take advantage.)

I walked off to buy some coffee for Tina. When I came back, I found three feet of sidewalk cleared, and an exhausted young man panting, "I don't want to do this anymore . . ."

So, I finished it all off, packed up my gear to go to the gym to hit the treadmill, and guess what? The gym was closed. What nerve! I made the effort to come and they didn't even bother to show up. Don't these people know I've got some training to do?

Wishing everyone a Blessed Christmas and A Most Wonderful, Happy and Joyous New Year.
Rob

CDC finds spike in Autism rate -- DUH!

2009-12-19T16:30:00.003-05:00

In an article entitled, "CDC finds 1 of 110 U.S. kids is on autism spectrum," Delthia Ricks reports that "[a]n estimated 1 in 110 children in the United States has an autism spectrum disorder, according to a new government analysis. The rate amounts to a 57 percent increase in the developmental disorder since federal investigators' last assessment in 2002.

If the new rate is correct, then 1 percent of the nation's children now have any one of the conditions that are classified as autism. . . .

The report revealed once again that there is a higher prevalence of autism in boys than girls. The new data also show a fivefold increase of autism in boys, whose rate of autism by gender is 1 in 70. The rate for girls, the CDC found, is 1 in 315.

The CDC's last prevalence study was in 2002 when it concluded the rate of autism was 1 in 150."

[By the way, did I mentioned that I did a SEPTA presentation many months ago at which I stated that the then estimated number of cases (1 in 150) was low, and that based upon reports I had read, the number could be upwards of one in 90? One of the parents at the meeting nearly took my head off when I said this. Unfortunately, my information was correct.]

The article then repeats the old debate about whether the increase is due to a genuine increase in the number of those afflicted or just "more" or "better" diagnosis of the disorder.

This is the same ridiculous debate that followed the 2002 study. The claim, initially, by the medical community, was that the increased numbers were the result of both a more inclusive change in the definition of "autism" and better diagnosis of the issue. It had nothing to do with any kind of environmental insult (for example, thimerosal containing vaccines).

However, those weak attempts to downplay the increased incidence of autism did not stand up to scrutiny, and soon the CDC admitted that there must be some environmental factor that was responsible, at least in part, for the dramatically increased numbers.

Still, there is NOTHING in this latest article that talks about any environmental changes over the past decade that might be linked to the new numbers.

You know what I find really interesting? The focus of the study was children who were 8 by the close of 2006. That means that even if manufacturers really did voluntarily stop using thimerosal in their vaccines in 2001, these kids were all fully exposed.

ADHD, Lead Exposure & Smoking -- "Shocking New Findings?"

2009-12-16T11:04:00.002-05:00

My sister directed this AOL article to me: "Smoking, Lead Exposure Increase ADHD Risk," by Stephanie Booth.

In it, is the not surprising conclusion that children, exposed in utero, to tobacco smoke and/or lead, had a statistically higher risk of being diagnosed with ADHD. Specifically, "children exposed prenatally to tobacco smoke had a 2.4-fold increased likelihood of ADHD diagnosis. Those whose blood showed what researchers categorized as high lead levels were 2.3 times more likely to have ADHD. Exposure to both lead and prenatal tobacco triggered what head researcher Tanya Froehlich, M.D., a developmental and behavioral pediatric specialist and assistant professor of pediatrics at Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center,called an alarming 'synergistic effect.' Children in this category had eight times the risk of being diagnosed with ADHD."

I say these "findings" are "not surprising" because, as I've been saying for many years, everything from a ADD (and even speech and language delays that eventually lead to further diagnoses) to full blown autism are probably caused by the same thing ? a genetic predisposition to harm and an exposure to one or more environmental insults. The only thing that varies is the severity and manifestation of harm.

Throw in societal "insults," e.g., over exposure to television, video games, computers (both in terms of content, format & presentation, and the devices themselves), and poor eating and nutrition, and you have a perfect recipe for brain and nervous system development problems.

I think it interesting that science can find links to ADHD and ASD etc., but they can't find "the cause." Why? Well, if you want my humble opinion, no one will ever find "the cause" because there probably is no single cause. The combination of factors ? exposure to environmental insults, the timing of that exposure, the extent of that exposure, the nutrition/eating habits of the mother and child (before, during and after pregnancy (if breast feeding), breast feeding habits, vaccination issues (timing, content, number), exposure to smoking, lead, mercury, airplane fuel, electromagnetic radiation, etc., childrearing practices, and media exposure. The list goes on and on.

Who could possibly device a test for all these things and the infinite combinations possible? And, note, the combinations are worse than the sum of the parts.

Worse, and I hate to say it, who really wants the truth? I mean, what happens if someone definitively proves that vaccines really do cause harm? Or overprescription of antibiotics? Or exposure to cell phones, microwaves, Wi-Fi? Or too many video games? Or that fast food, convenience foods, genetically engineered foods, baby formula, is actually harmful?

Can we, as a society, deal with the economic impact of such findings? Are you ready to give up your cell phone?

So, instead of pouring resources into the Sisyphean Task of finding "the cause," why not focus on prevention and treatment. Admit that there is potential danger out there. Take steps to minimize the risks these children face. And, figure out a way to reverse the damage.

Boston Marathon

2009-12-14T22:50:00.000-05:00

I didn't think I'd run another marathon, but today starts my official training for the 2010 Boston Marathon.

Why am I doing this?

Partially because I can. What I mean is, I'm allowed to run the Boston Marathon. You see, you have to qualify for Boston, and somehow, I managed to do so this year when I ran the Long Island Marathon. (Why did I run a marathon in the first place? See my 6/23/09 post). It was gruelling, and I didn't think I'd ever want to run another one, but some things happened to change my mind.

First, a lot of real runners, when they heard I qualified for Boston, told me I HAD to go.

That, alone, wasn't enough to convince me.

I ran a couple of more races -- much shorter races -- and, I managed to take home a second place and third place medal. Yeah for me!

Not bad for an old man. I'm actually having more success running now than when I ran track in high school. . . .

Then I read a couple of books -- Chi Running by Danny and Katherine Dreyer, and Run Fast by Hal Higdon. I realized that I had been severely over-training. Me, over-training, imagine that . . . .

Anyway, I got a hold of a Hal Higdon marathon running plan (Advanced version -- why completely stop torturing myself?). Liked what I saw. Tried it out. And, you know what? Not so bad.

I also, somehow, managed to forget the pain of training for, and running, the Long Island Marathon.

But most importantly, I still feel like I have something to prove to myself. I really want to do this.

So, here we go again. One workout down -- 89 to go.

Motivation

2009-12-14T09:07:00.002-05:00

How do you motivate a child that refuses to be motivated?

What is wrong with my daughter?

I work with all sorts of kids whose parents tell me that their kids will never do that which I ask, and yet, time and again, we get them to work. And work hard.

Why can't I do that with my own kids?

When Robert was young, it was tough to get him to listen, but he had an excuse or two. So did Tina and I. Much of Robert's issues was simply beyond anything Tina and I could handle.

When things got better for Robert, it was still tough to get him to do everything we asked, but at least he tried. While he never really pushed hard to excel in school (Whenever I told him he had to study more, he would tell me he did study. I said there's a difference between studying and studying more.), he did manage to get by and do reasonably well.

We weren't that worried about him, though. When he was interested in something, he worked hard at it and did well. We saw him do that with fencing, and guitar, and bass, and his band, and his artwork.

He even got into his first choice college.

Enter my daughter, Katherine, now a senior in high school.

What can I say about Kat? She's a beautiful, talented, gifted, carefree, underachieving, social butterfly. Unfortunately, she is the daughter of two average, overachieving, high strung perfection seeking homebodies.

She's gifted in math. She's got a great eye with the camera. She has a beautiful voice and took to piano and violin with surprising ease. She's strong and coordinated. And, she can bake (best chocolate chip cookies I ever had!)

Does she do any of these things? No.

Is she excelling in school? No. Most mornings, I have to threaten her with grounding just to get her to class on time.

Also, one more call from a teacher or one more progress report about missing assignments or homework, and she's really in for it.

Is she looking for a college? If she is, she's doing it very secretly.

How does she spend her time? Hanging with her friends, Dunkin Donuts, cell phone, TV and an Ipod.

We talk, we urge, we argue, we yell. She tells us that "it's just the way she is." School's not that important to her. She doesn't understand why we're so upset.

She's killing us.

But, maybe she has a point.

She is having fun, and she does seem happy, and man, does she have a lot of friends. In fact, she brings all her friends together. She's their focal point.

She looks at us, and sees the stress. Raising three kids, keeping the house together, both of us working, Tina with two jobs, me hustling to keep the business going. We hardly ever go out. Always fixing, always cleaning. Kat tells us we should go do something "romantic" (usually when we're telling her to do some chores).

I'm not complaining. I think I have a great life, and God knows I've been blessed, but sometimes I wish I could just turn off my mind sometimes. I'm always worried about what needs to be done. I always have two or three lists going. Nothing I undertake is ever just "good enough."

Maybe Kat has a point.

I was pretty miserable in high school. All honors, AP classes, and sports. I went to practice right after school, and then to the library for a couple of hours. Dinner, a little more work, and then bed.

I did graduate as the class Valedictorian. Not that it got me much of anything, but I'm sure it helped with my college applications.

And, I did well in college. Worked all the time because I was convinced I got in by accident. I was miserable for two years, but I did maintain a 4.0 for my first three semesters at Brown. . .

I had a disastrous end to my second year -- lots of personal issues, and an absolutely killer final exam schedule, and I lost the 4.0. But, it made me think. Maybe I was working too hard. Maybe I should take it easy and enjoy the college experience more.

I did. My grades went down a bit (I still managed to graduate magna cum laude), but I had a lot more fun. And friends, too!

Maybe Kat has a point.

I'm worried for her in a way. I want her to do well. I want her to go to college and enjoy it. I want her to do well in life.

But, in another way, I am supremely confident in her. She is simply too bright and too strong to let life pass her by.

I know one day she will find her passion. I would love to be there when it happens.

Another Long Delayed Post -- and a promise . . .

2009-12-13T11:11:00.000-05:00

Well, it's been a while since I blogged about anything. There are a couple of reasons for this. First, I'm not sure that anyone is actually reading these things. Yes, I know that at least one person out there is following this blog, and whoever you are, a sincere "THANK YOU!"

But, much to my chagrin, I learned that even my dear wife, Tina, doesn't read my blog.

We were watching "Julie & Julia" (or is it "Julia & Julie"?) last night, and she turns to me and says, "you should blog for your business." To which I replied tersely, "I do."

"Oh," she said, "how do I find it?"

Ah, it's nice to know she cares.

Second, I feel like I must sound like a broken record. "Vaccines are bad." "The pharmaceutical companies are bad." "Meds are bad." "Nutrition is good." "Exercise is good." Blah, blah, blah.

Doesn't everybody know this already? And, if you don't, why would you listen to me?

Finally, this is all a bit discouraging. I LOVE my job. I love working with the kids. I love the creative process of designing and refining programs. I love writing. I love learning about this stuff. I love my staff, and the families with whom I work. I love seeing the progress my kids make.

Tina and I saved our son, Robert. I wrote a book about it. It is a good book that was almost published -- twice. But, both deals never fully materialized.

I wrote children's stories. I almost had a top-notch New York Agent represent me. But, that fell through, too.

I have a tremendous program that works. My kids get better!!

I thought that if I built a better mouse trap, the world would beat a path to my door.

I did. The world didn't.

I have discovered an ugly truth about business. It's not what you sell, it's how you sell it.

Ridiculous products, marketed correctly, sell. Pet rocks? Ginsu knives that can cut a can? Snuggies -- you know, the robe you put on backwards?

But, even the best products, marketed poorly, fail. Beta Max anyone?

Unfortunately, I am not a good salesman. I know this. I am an educator. Tina says I'm an advocate. I know my stuff. I am honest. I don't promise people miracles -- although sometimes miracles do happen . . .

That brings us to today. I've got a great program, but not nearly enough students. I like to write, but I've got no publisher. I've got things to say, but no one to say them to. I want to learn more, but who will teach me?

I am truly not sure what to do. But as Willie Mays said, no matter how good or bad things are, you just gotta keep on swinging.

So, I'll keep going.

And, I promise to start blogging regularly. At least once a week, even if I've got nothing to say.

Let's see where this leads . . .

PS For those interested in some good stuff on healthly living, nutrition, and natural medicine, check out Dr. Mercola's site www. mercola.com.

Till next time, be well.

Spark Halloween Party October 30, 2009

2009-11-19T11:34:00.000-05:00

Vaccines = Big Money

2009-11-19T09:38:00.001-05:00

Not to harp on a point (yeah, I know I sound like a broken record), but the articles and ridiculousness just keep coming.

Government mandated health care for all, and we hear cries of “Socialism!” The medical industry goes into an uproar - “What about patient choice!” The pharmaceutical companies complain - well, we know why they complain . . .

But, when the government mandates/recommends vaccinations, what happens?

Oh, you know.

In a pair of articles recently published in Newsday, the ugly truth is made obscenely apparent.

Vaccines are seen as a critical path to growth for drugmakers, as
slowing prescription medicine sales and intensifying generic
competition put pressure on company bottom lines.

FDA panel backs Pfizer's enhanced vaccine for kids, November 18, 2009 by Matthew Perrone, The Associated Press.

You name it, the pharmaceutical industry is working on a vaccine
to prevent it. . . . Vaccines are no longer a sleepy, low-profit
niche in a booming drug industry. Today, they're starting to give
ailing pharmaceutical makers a shot in the arm. The lure of big
profits . . . and growing government support have been drawing in
new companies. . . .

Vaccines are viewed now as a crucial path to growth, as drugmakers
look for ways to bolster slowing prescription medicine sales amid
intensifying generic competition and government pressure to cut
down prices under the federal health overhaul. . . .

While prescription drug sales are forecast to rise by a third in
five years, vaccine sales should double, from $19 billion last
year to $39 billion in 2013. . .

The government's list of recommended vaccines for children has more
than doubled since 1985 to 17. It now also calls for a half-dozen
vaccines for everyone over 18 and up to four more for some adults.

Vaccine business booming, November 19, 2009 by Linda A. Johnson, The Associated Press.

So, when you hear the rhetoric about “saving lives,” and “caring for people,” just remember that the pharmaceutical companies weren't even interested in the vaccine game until it became profitable for them to do so.

“Socialism??” This is the best form of capitalism, ever! Have the government force you to buy their products. Hey, what are good lobbyists for anyway?

Oh, and let's not forget. The pharmaceutical companies wouldn't even manufacture vaccines until the government promised that they would not be held liable for any damages that their products might cause.

Then everyone wonders why there is so much distrust when it comes to mandated vaccination programs. . . .

Vaccines -- What's the "Truth"?

2009-11-17T11:46:00.000-05:00

We create our own reality, for what is real to each of us is dependent upon our beliefs.

And, what we believe is many times quite different for each of us.

Advertisers, politicians, special interest groups, lobbyists – anyone who has the money and time and access to the media knows this. What we read or are told, and indeed, what we are given access to read and hear, undoubtedly shapes our beliefs, and therefore, our reality.

The truth, to the extent there is such a thing, and that it can, in fact, be known, often is a casualty of self-promotion, advertising and advocacy.

Why start this blog so philosophically? Just a note about vaccinations.

I always was hesitant to weigh in on this subject. The fact is, I am not anti-vaccination. I am, however, deeply disturbed by the lack of candor and caution and humility of the pharmaceutical industry, and to a lesser extent, the medical industry.

The truth, as far as I know it, is that thimerosal is not safe, vaccines can be made a lot safer, and it has not been indisputably proven that there is no relationship between our vaccination programs and the rise in the incidence of, among other things, autism spectrum disorders (“ASD's”).

Quite frankly, I really didn't want to get into this. But, recent articles about the Swine Flu vaccine, thimerosal, and autism prompts this particular blog.
I would like to believe that vaccines are perfectly safe. And, there is no doubt that government and pharmaceutical companies are doing everything possible to convince us that vaccines are safe and an absolutely necessity. (Did anyone catch the “Private Practice” episode that showed a mother watch her unvaccinated child die right before her eyes of measles? See the part where one doctor physically restrains the mother while the pediatrician gives a measles vaccination to the mom's other son against her wishes? Lovely scare tactics, don't you think?)

Sure, there have been studies. But, what are those studies? NONE of the government studies actually tests thimerosal or vaccines as administered in the lab. The “studies” are epidemiological – that is, statistical surveys that, even assuming 100% accuracy and no bias, shows only that there is no statistically significant association between vaccines and the rise in ASD's. But, these studies do not take into consideration anyone who may be more susceptible to the vaccines, many do not compare apples to apples (e.g., the frequency, timing, and administration of vaccines as performed here in the United States), and are flawed in terms of their methodology. Statistics are, unfortunately, subject to manipulation. Change a definition, e.g., do you count “speech and language delays” as “ASD”? Do so, and the numbers go up; don't and the numbers go down. What age groups do you include in your study? Pre-three, and the numbers go down. Post-three, and the numbers go up. Did the study group get shots on the day of birth like we do here? Did the study group get multiple shots in one “well visit” to the doctor? Did you take other factors into account, including, but not limited to breast-feeding (affects immune system development), diet (same), and timing of shots (immune systems tend to develop later, so the later the administration of a vaccine, the more chance the body has of dealing with it).

I think you get the idea.

At the risk of oversimplification, there are four causal theories underlying the hypothesis that vaccines and autism are related.

The first rests on the proposition that all vaccines are harmful because they weaken the immune system and “seed” the body with “pro-virus” material. For example, though rare, the oral polio vaccine can cause polio; the Urabe AM9 mumps vaccine has been linked to meningitis; genetic material from the measles virus has been found in the cerebrospinal fluid of children who reportedly experienced “autistic regression” after receiving the Measles, Mumps, Rubella vaccine (“MMR”); and the vaccine Menactra (bacterial meningitis protection) was under investigation after 5 teenagers who received the vaccine came down with Guillain Barre syndrome (a neurological disorder).

The second theory is that certain vaccines such as the diphtheria, pertussis, tetanus (“DPT”) vaccine (in particular, pertussis) and the MMR, are harmful. The DPT has been arguably linked to Sudden Infant Death Syndrome, convulsions, autism and death. The MMR is argued to cause major gastrointestinal disorders, immune dysfunction, convulsions and autism. Some believe the three components of the MMR interfere with each other, such that administration of the MMR as a whole, or even as separate components – if not spaced far enough apart (some researchers suggest a one year separation) -- could result in a suppressed immune system. Noting a high prevalence of recurrent medical problems in autistic children, including ear infections, sinus problems and upper respiratory illness, some researchers theorize that these children’s “immune abnormalities” predispose them to adversely react to a variety of environmental insults with autism being a possible result.

The next argument is that components of vaccines, especially, thimerosal -- a preservative used in the manufacture of vaccines since the 1930’s -- cause ASD’s.
Thimerosal is 49.6% MERCURY by weight -- one of the most dangerous neurotoxins known. In the body, thimerosal breaks down into ethylmercury. (Methylmercury is the form we worry about in fish.)

Finally, there is the theory that the aggregate effect of multiple vaccines results in harm with thimerosal and the MMR acting as a “one-two punch.” The body’s immune system is severely compromised by exposure to mercury. Once weakened, the system cannot handle the introduction of the MMR’s hefty combination of live viruses specifically designed to actively stimulate the immune system. The child’s systems break down under the stress, and so begins the downward spiral in health.

Truth (there's that word again) be told, there really is another side to the vaccine story. Here are some FACTS that the government, the media, and the doctors never seem to discuss:

1. Russia, Denmark, Austria, Japan, Great Britain and all Scandinavian countries banned thimerosal’s use.
2. In 1982, the FDA proposed banning thimerosal in over-the-counter products – a ban that went into effect in 1998. In 1991, thimerosal was banned from use in animal injections.
3. In 1999, recognizing (a) that thimerosal might harm infants and (b) the importance of avoiding any type of mercury exposure, both the United States Public Health Services (“USPHS”) and the American Academy of Pediatrics (“AAP”) called for the removal of thimerosal-containing vaccines “as soon as possible.”
4. Single dose vials of vaccine do not require a preservative. Thus, thimerosal is NOT essential. Moreover, thimerosal is not 100% effective (Chiron’s Fluvirin vaccine, contaminated with serratia bacteria during 2004, used thimerosal).
5. Ethylmercury crosses the blood-brain barrier and stays in the brain longer than methylmercury, and “the mechanism” and low dose toxicity of ethyl- and methylmercury are “similar.”
7. Many infants received mercury via injection in amounts tens, if not hundreds, of times in excess of federal limits for such exposure, before the age of two – the most critical period of neurological development.
8. Certain symptoms associated with autism are similar to symptoms experienced by individuals who suffered mercury poisoning.
9. The incidence of ASD’s has risen dramatically during, and in proportion to, the United States Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (“CDC”) addition of more and more thimerosal-containing vaccines to the mandatory vaccination list.
10. An early study by a member of the CDC seemed to indicate a link between the administration of thimerosal-containing vaccines and the incidence of ASD’s. Certain subsequent studies also purportedly found such a link.
11. Many autistic children are deficient in natural “chelators” that clear the body of heavy metals.
12. Testosterone inhibits the effectiveness of natural chelators while estrogen enhances it, thus, providing a possible explanation for why ASD’s tend to appear more in boys.
13. Mice with autoimmune sensitivity treated with thimerosal in amounts equivalent to that given to human infants through vaccinations and administered at developmental stages that coincided with the development stages at which infants received such vaccinations, experienced “significant” physical and behavioral changes.
14. The CDC only asked U.S. manufacturers to voluntarily stop using thimerosal in children’s vaccines in 2001.
15. With no recall, thimerosal is still in vaccines shipped overseas, may still be in vaccines on doctors’ shelves, and is still used in Rhogam shots and flu vaccines.
16. Vaccines also contain a myriad of other potentially dangerous ingredients. Among other things, aluminum compounds and/or Squalene are used as “adjuvants” designed to heighten the vaccine’s capacity to produce antibodies. Even formaldehyde is listed as a popular ingredient. There is no dispute that such materials can be poisonous.
17. When is just a little bit of poison okay? Especially when it is injected directly into the body of an infant, thereby bypassing one of the biggest defenses the body has of protecting itself from toxins – that is, the digestive system?
18. Expose a nerve cell to thimerosal in the lab and watch it disintegrate before your very eyes.

I must imagine that the reason no one has proven what causes autism is because there is probably no, one single cause. Genetics must certainly play a role. There are other toxins in the environment that can compromise the immune system – just read one that shows a link between household pesticides and autoimmune disease.

Sociological factors also may play a role (too much video/computers/television, electromagnetic radiation, dietary habits, sleep patterns, early sensory development have all been mentioned as contributing factors).

Here's my question. If there is even a chance that vaccines contributed to this mess, why, oh why, hasn't the government stepped in to make the whole process safer? (No one expects to get into a car accident, yet you take the precaution of putting on a seat belt. Cars have a myriad of safety features built in “just in case.”) Why is the government forcing/scaring people into vaccination? Why is there such a push for more and more vaccinations?

And, please, stop telling us how safe everything is. The “truth” is that no one knows for sure. How many supposedly safe medicines have been recalled? How many supposedly safe procedures have been abandoned? How many times are current medical practices going to be revised in light of “new findings?”

We need to be a bit more humble, a bit more cautious, and a bit more honest about our motivations.

Too Young for Flu Vaccine??

2009-08-22T12:23:00.000-04:00

A quick little note about vaccines.

As you know, I have not really weighed in on the issue of a possible autism-vaccine link. Without going into detail, while I am not anti-vaccine, I do believe that there is credible evidence of a possible link between autism spectrum disorder and the number, type and frequency with which vaccines are given to infants. See, e.g., “Evidence of Harm,” by David Kirby; “Deadly Immunity,” by Robert F. Kennedy.

I also believe that if there is any possibility of such a link, that steps can, and should be taken, to lessen any potential danger. Remove the unnecessary, and potentially harmful ingredients from the vaccines. Lessen the number of vaccines (do we really need a vaccine for diarrhea?). Take the infant's weight into consideration when dosing. Spread the shots out over time and look for any adverse reactions.

And finally, don't give any shots until the child's immune system has had a chance to develop. Some suggest two years, others say definitely not for at least six months. But the government, medical and pharmaceutical industries won't hear of any of this.

So, along comes an article in the paper entitled, “Measure urges flu vaccine for parents.” The thrust of the article? Parents and caretakers of children should be immunized to create a “cocoon effect.” That is, “[w]hen babies are surrounded by adults who cannot catch and transmit influenza, the susceptible newborn is protected.”

Why is the newborn susceptible?

Here's the kick in the head, and I quote:
“Babies under 6 months of age are too young – and their immune systems too fragile – to undergo flu vaccination.”

WHAT ABOUT ALL THE OTHER VACCINATIONS THAT THESE KIDS ROUTINELY GET BEFORE THE AGE OF SIX MONTHS???

I just don't get it...

And on a related, “I don't get it” point. In another article in the same paper it was suggested that flu shots for pregnant women should be a priority.

Now, I understand that not everything the mother is exposed to becomes something that the fetus is exposed to, and clearly, the mother's immune system protects the fetus – to some extent, but really, if an infant is too young and fragile, is a fetus really that less susceptible?

Is anyone thinking . . .

Should Kids Take Vitamins? A Response.

2009-08-19T14:25:00.001-04:00

Came across a simply awful article in the July issue of Queens Family Magazine by Laura J. Varoscak entitled “Healthy Kids Take Vitamins – but should they?” Just from the title of the article, you know where this one is heading.

Let me highlight some of my favorite points made by the author:

-- Children whose diet consists of “fistfuls of Cheerios or Mac-n-Cheese” apparently are adequately nourished.

-- The “vitamin industry” (i) disseminates false information regarding nutrition; (ii) plays upon parents’ fears by “target[ing] worried parents looking for a magic pill;” and (iii) “succeed[s] in luring innocent parents to buy their fraudulent cure-alls by bombarding them with medical terms that cannot be supported by scientific evidence or undocumented ‘success stories.’”

-- Parents with concerns about “deficiencies” should “always consult” a pediatrician who can “screen individual children and determine whether . . . supplements are needed and in what dosage.”

-- Vitamins can be harmful, and should a pediatrician recommend a vitamin, parents must be careful because “[u]nlike medications, dietary supplements are not held to any set of federal standards.”

-- “Replacing a proven effective drug like Ritalin with a ‘natural’ dietary supplement may cause more damage than good.”

-- The best source of nutrition for “healthy” children is the Food Guide Pyramid.

-- “No research exists which proves supplements can lead to improved health.”

-- “Dr. William Sears, a pediatric practitioner for over 30 years, recommends a multivitamin containing the following ingredients: omega-3 fats, calcium, iron, zinc, and vitamins C and E.” Emphasis added.

-- “While it is true that vitamins and minerals are essential . . . a diet consisting of a variety of wholesome foods, not pills, is the safest and most effective way to maintain good health.”

Let’s just start with the most obvious two problems of this article:

First, what do you mean by “healthy”? If healthy is defined as “not nutritionally deficient in any way,” then, duh, of course you don’t need any vitamins. You don’t give cough syrup to a kid who doesn’t have a cough (oh, wait a minute, you don’t give cough syrup to kids anymore . . . but, more on this later).

More importantly, how many kids really are “nutritionally” sound? Certainly not one whose diet consists of “fistfuls of Cheerios or Mac-n-Cheese.”

Second, how can we be told that kids don’t need vitamins and that vitamins may be harmful, and then be told, in almost the same breath, that the experienced and oft-quoted pediatrician Dr. William Sears recommends a vitamin?

But, there are more problems with this article, and I must guess that they stem from a prejudice in favor of the medical/pharmaceutical industries. Let’s go point by point.

It is not doubt true that certain producers/sellers of vitamins are less than truthful in their claims, and that some will try to sell their products by making concerned parents feel that their products are needed. But, is that any reason not to trust every single vitamin maker out there and disregard vitamins all together?

I mean, how is this any different from any other product being sold on the market today? EVEN FOOD itself!

Are not the people who make diet food playing upon the fears and insecurities of those who feel fat (whether these people are “fat” is also subject to question – who decides and how – the fashion industry? the athletic clubs? Weight Watchers?)

Do you need a cigarette to be cool?

Do Nike sneakers make you faster, jump higher or “just like Mike?”

Also, if you really want to get into this, is anyone worse at playing upon your fears, pushing “magic pills” and “bombarding [us] with medical terms” than the pharmaceutical industry??

Legs shake at night? You have Restless Leg Syndrome or “RLS” – talk to your doctor about this pill. High cholesterol? Talk to your doctor about this pill. Sexual Dysfunction? Depression? Allergies? Attention problems? Talk to your doctor about this pill, that pill and the other.

Funny, how except in the most fleeting, dismissive way possible (if at all), do the ads for these drugs suggest exercise, better diet, or lifestyle changes.

And, for every one vitamin ad, how many more pharmaceutical television commercials, radio commercials, full page magazine and newspaper ads, promotional mailings, press releases and DVD’s sent right to your door are we hit with? Who's bombarding whom here?

And who gets the government to mandate taking their products??

I’ll bet the “vitamin industry” only wishes it had the financial and political power wielded by the pharmaceutical giants.

Speaking of the pharmaceutical giants, exactly how safe are the products they sell – you, know, the ones that have gotten government approval?

While it is true that overdoses of certain vitamins can be harmful (another duh moment – by definition, isn’t that why it’s called an “overdose”?), the fact is that the same can be said of nearly every single prescription and over the counter drug out there. Hell, you can even overdose on food and drink!

Moreover, if the author was attempting to somehow equate the safety of vitamins and supplements with medications like Ritalin, you’ve just got to be kidding. Even taken properly, under a doctor’s supervision, these unbelievable powerful, psychotropic drugs are dangerous. And, they all have side-effects. See the previous posts about the dangers of these medications.

I gotta be honest with you. I’ve never heard of anyone suffering from taking a multivitamin. I can't say the same about Ritalin.

Government approval does not make a drug safe nor prove its efficacy. Let’s see. DES was approved for pregnant women, but it caused cervical cancer. There was a vaccine for Swine Flu back in the mid- 1970's, but that caused a nerve disorder and killed more people than the Swine Flu itself. Vioxx was approved, but it’s off the market now. Seems it killed some people. Adderall XR was pulled from the market in Canada for a while because of health concerns. You can’t give your kids cough medicine anymore because it’s too dangerous.

Do I really need to continue?

And speaking of Adderall and Ritalin, believe it or not, there are effective, alternative treatments for attention issues. Do they work with every child diagnosed with ADD? No, but then neither does Ritalin. So, exactly how can trying a “'natural’ dietary supplement … cause more damage than good” especially when studies have shown that supplements can improve your health?

A few examples:
Children who received fatty acid supplementation demonstrated “significant improvements . . . in reading, spelling, and behavior” (“The Oxford-Durham Study: A Randomized, Controlled Trial of Dietary Supplementation With Fatty Acids in Children With Developmental Coordination Disorder,” Pediatrics, Vol. 115, No. 5, May 2005);
Children diagnosed with ADHD show a “significant decrease of hyperactivity” when receiving magnesium supplementation (“The effects of magnesium physiological supplementation on hyperactivity in children with ADHD”);
Supplementation with probiotics is a “safe effective way to reduce fever, rhinorrhea, and cough incidence and duration and antibiotic prescription incidence as well as the number of missed school days attributable to illness for children 3 to 5 years of age (“Probiotic Effects on Cold and Influenza-Like Symptom Incidence and Duration in Children,” Pediatrics, Vol. 124, No. 2, August 2009).

Next, your child's pediatrician should know about any supplements you want to give your child. You don't want to run into any issues regarding allergies/adverse reactions, drug prescriptions and/or problems with any other medical actions the doctor might recommend. However, what makes doctors the “go-to-experts” with respect to nutrition and supplementation? I'll tell you right now, a nutritionist knows far more about diet and supplements than most doctors. While there are some exceptions, the fact is that doctors simply are not traditionally trained in this area.

Last but not least, the bit about healthy eating. Yes, I agree that in a perfect world, we all should get our vitamins and minerals from eating a variety of wholesome foods, not pills. However, eating most of the food now produced and sold in the market, and worse still, using the Food Guide Pyramid as your guide, is simply not going to supply your body with what it truly needs.

First, read “In Defense of Food,” by Michael Pollan. You'll discover that as a result of the way food is grown, processed, and shipped, the food we eat is severely deficient in the vitamins, minerals and essential fats that we need.

Moreover, take a glance at “Food Politics,” by Marian Nestle, and you'll learn what an absolute joke the Food Guide Pyramid is -- unless of course, you think lobbyists and politicians fearful of losing their office should be telling you what you should eat.

The True "Effectiveness" of Medications

2009-07-17T12:56:00.000-04:00

Just a note about the supposed "effectiveness" of the psychotropic drugs used to treat issues like ADD or ADHD.

It has been my experience that the vast majority of parents with whom I have had the privilege or working and who have tried medications on their children, have found that such medications do not work as they had hoped. I would guess that less than 10% feel the meds do (or did) that which they were supposed to do. Moreover, nearly 100% of those parents informed me that their children had experienced some sort of negative side-effect from those meds.

Now, don't get me wrong. In talking to these parents, it was clear that the meds had some sort of noticeable effect almost all the time; the question was whether the effect was that for which the parents had hoped.

I always had found this curious since every doctor that prescribed such medications (including the ones that treated my son, Robert) stated in no uncertain terms that such meds were "highly" effective, "perfectly" safe, and that side-effects were "rare." (From previous posts, I think you already know what I think about the "perfectly" safe claim....)

I chalked up the numbers I heard to what I supposed were the more "unique" experiences of the parents that sought my services.

However, in a completely unscientific manner, I put my experience, assumptions, and the doctors' statements to a test.

During a SEPTA presentation, I asked the parents how many of them had tried meds on their kids. 17 couples raised their hands. I then asked how many of those 17 experienced no side-effects. Not a single hand went up. 100% of those parents' children had some sort of side-effect from the meds.

Then I asked how many parents were satisfied with the effects of the meds -- not whether they were happy that their kids were on meds -- but, whether they thought the meds did what the meds were supposed to do. Four hands went up.

Four. Four out of 17, less than 24%.

I repeated this experiment at another meeting, except this time the audience was decidedly in favor of the traditional, medical approach to the treatment of attention and behavior issues. Needless to say, my talk about sensory integration, nutrition and cognitive work was not particularly well received. In fact, after explaining the wonderful success we had with a non-medication based approach for Robert, one parent (whose job it seemed was to question every single statement I made that night) looked at me, shook her head, and said with a clear note of disdain, "well, that might have worked for your child."

Despite the obvious bias, I asked my meds questions. And, here's what I found:
100% of the children whose parents tried meds experienced some sort of side-effect.

Less than 50% of those parents thought the meds were truly effective.

So, if we take the numbers so far: less than 10%, less than 24%, even less than 50%, are psychotropic meds really "very effective"?

But, wait, there's more.

Lauren Slater, psychologist and author of Opening Skinner's Box, writes about an individual suffering from OCD who did not respond to any of the psychotropic drugs prescribed for him. "[B]ut," she notes, "he's not among the minority in his lack of response, despite what the industry would lead us to think."

"The statistics drug companies and many psychopharmacologists like to quote are that seventy percent of people who try medication will get better, and thirty percent won't.... If we look closer though, a diffent sort of story emerges. It's true that roughly seventy percent of people who take medication will respond, but in reality only thirty percent will respond robustly; the rest experience only minimum or moderate relief, and of the total patient population, some estimate that up to sixty percent will develop a drug tolerance that makes their mediciation eventually useless."

On the subject of side-effects, Slater writes that drugs cannot target with single- minded specificity -- even though we are told by the doctors that meds used to treat things such as ADHD target/affect only one or two very specific neurotransmitters (a strange boast, in any event, given the fact that there are tons of different neurotransmitters, and doctors will be the first to admit that no one really understands or knows how these medications really work!).

As Slater puts it, "Drugs are like oil spills; they leak everywhere...."

So, maybe, just maybe, my very unscientific surveys really do reflect reality. At a minimimum, I think it's fair to say that these psychotropic medications aren't nearly as effective or safe as we are led to believe.

By the way, I get way better results at my center -- just ask my parents. And, guess what? The only side-effects my kids suffer from are better health, stronger bodies, and new friends.

More Bad News About Too Much Television

2009-06-29T09:49:00.000-04:00

Just a quick post on a subject touched upon before in this Blog.

Get your kids away from the television! Yet another study shows that too much television interferes with your kids' development. Specifically, too much television interferes with language development -- even if your kids are watching DVDs that are supposed to enhance language and development.

HealthDay News reports that "[t]elevision reduces verbal interaction between parents and infants, which could delay children's language development, says a U.S. study that challenges claims that certain infant-targeted DVDs actually benefit youngsters." Check out: http://dailyhealthtips.vitacost.com/dm?id=F12AC29D617DB539EA57955C82B824C0

The study appears in the June issue of the Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine.

Unexplained Sudden Death and ADHD Meds

2009-06-24T10:45:00.000-04:00

On June 15th, Good Morning America aired a piece regarding possible dangers associated with many of the drugs used in connection with ADHD. “ADHD Drugs Linked to Sudden Death” (http://abcnews.go.com/Health/MindMoodNews/story?id=7829005&page=1) reports about a study that has found a link between children taking stimulant medication and sudden unexplained death.

Specifically, the piece notes:

"In the study of 564 children and teens who died suddenly, researchers led by Madelyn Gould of the New York State Psychiatric Institute and Columbia University in New York City found that that those who died suddenly were 7.4 times more likely than not to have been taking the stimulant medications. The results of the study are reported online in The American Journal of Psychiatry."

This piece appears, in stark contrast, to a news report on ABC News that aired just about one year ago (June 13, 2008 to be exact (http://abcnews.go.com/video/playerIndex?id=5015268)) that reported on the American Heart Association's recommendation that all children be screened for potential heart problems prior to the administration of these drugs, and the American Academy of Pediatrics' (“AAP”) disagreement with such a suggestion and denial of any possible link between these drugs and heart problems. In what I can only deem a pro-medication report, the anchor person states that the AAP is fearful that any such required screening might pose a “A barrier to [children] getting on these important medications.” (emphasis mine).

This was followed by a discussion with a doctor who stated that while, on the one hand, she always takes a full history prior to administration of these drugs, such testing is not always necessary.

Are you kidding? Once again, the ridiculousness of the medical world staggers the mind. Chances are, you're not going to get into a car accident when you drive. However, we all put on seat belts. Why? Just in case.

These are our children. If there any possibility that there is some connection between these drugs and death (and now we know there is – correction, now it has been confirmed that there is), why wouldn't you run a few tests first?

Why? Because the anchor hit it right on the nose. You might be justifiably scared of these drugs, decide not to give them to your kids, and then the how would the pharmaceutical companies survive?

Unfortunately, none of this should come as a surprise. Problems, side-effects and dangers associated with these medications is nothing new. See my February 7, 2009 Post.

Please, remember, there are alternatives.

Use of these medications should only be an absolute last resort.

A Long Overdue Post

2009-06-23T11:29:00.000-04:00

Well, the month of May has come and gone, and what a tough month it was.

Our family experienced injury and loss. We have done much in terms of healing. There is still much to do.

I've been meaning to blog for a while, but have not found the time nor, more importantly for someone like me, the inspiration.

This is a personal blog. If you're looking for something about medications and kids, skip down to the next post. A great story was aired on Good Morning America last week re: the dangers of stimulant medications used to treat ADHD.

This post is about running the Long Island Marathon. It was difficult, emotional, and as it turned out, a perfect reflection of my life.

I'm not sure why I'm writing about it. Who would be interested? I mean, don't most people just wonder why anyone would even want to run a Marathon? What kind of a nut am I?

But, it meant an awful lot to me. Probably far more than it should have, and that's why I'm writing. I often gain a better perspective on events once they're written down.

I've been running, on and off, for years, but never anything more than two or three miles, two to three times a week. That is, when the weather was nice, and I was feeling good. It was the convergence of two events that led to the marathon. First, I saw the movie “Run, Fat Boy, Run!” which climaxed with the main character, an out-of-shape guy who never, ever finished anything, completing a marathon on three weeks training and a sprained ankle just to prove a point to the woman he loved.

Second, a neighbor of mine started some serious running. She threw down the gauntlet when she said, “well, I see you running, and if an old guy like you can do it, so can I.” With that, we began a friendly game of oneupmanship.

I discovered, much to my surprise, that I was handling longer runs pretty easily (“longer” as in, six to eight miles), and a running friend of mine suggested we try a half-marathon together.

“What a great idea!” I thought. “And, while I'm at it, why not try a full marathon. I've got five months to train, and the Long Island Marathon is right in my backyard.”

Ah, Reflection: if I shoot at all, it's always for the stars.

As I trained, the Marathon took on more and more meaning for me. It was no longer just some run. I was putting more and more effort into the training – sacrificing days off, running in the snow and rain in the dead of winter (dreadful time to undertake this, which brings us to the next Reflection: I have really bad timing. We bought our house at the height of the market in the 1980's; we bought our tech stocks right before the bubble burst; we had Robert just when the spike in ASDs began; start a business as the recession hits; the list goes on and on.) I was getting on Tina's nerves as I began to devote more and more attention and energies to this.

Reflection: obsessing over a new project? Yeah, a little bit. It's all or nothing with me. Always has been, always will.

And, I began to need to prove something to myself. Life has been a bit rough lately – not bad in any way (God knows I am exceptionally thankful for everything in my life), but over the past several years, a lot of things have not really gone my way, despite my best efforts. I wanted to prove I could still be successful, to do something exceptionally challenging.

I thought the Marathon might be the key. It was challenging, and most importantly, its outcome was something over which I believed I had control. Or at least, the illusion of control. (We can never be fully in control of anything, can we?)

And you know what? It was really hard – much harder than I had anticipated. When I started to get into the real mileage (15+ mile runs), it wasn't at all easy, but I would get through this.

(I guess it's like a first-time pregnancy for women. Sounds like a wonderful thing to experience, but you really have no idea what you're in for.)

Then the inevitable happened. I raised the bar. I started to push myself harder and harder. There were no “easy” runs. I changed my diet, I became obsessed with the Weather Channel, I combed the Internet for training advice. And, I set myself a goal. Not only was I going to finish the Marathon, I was going to run it fast enough to qualify for the Boston Marathon – anything less, and I would be disappointed.

Ridiculous, I know, but – there it is again, Reflection – always with the highest expectations for myself. I can't seem to do “good enough.” Everything has to be done right. (And, maybe that explains why I often hesitate to take on a new challenge. I'll study it to death before I begin. Will I be able to do it as well as it should be done? I doubt my abilities and think about everything that could go wrong. . .)

Of course, in the days leading up to the race, I grew nervous. I should have trained more -- more miles, more days running. More practice races – longer runs. Reflection: I NEVER feel like I've done enough.

But, I simply could not allow myself to fail – again.

“Again.” When did I add that word to the sentence? Then I understood why this stupid run meant so much to me.

I was good through high school – all honors, class valedictorian. I got into my first choice college. But, then, things didn't quite go as well as I had hoped. Yes, I graduated magna cum laude, and the school was ranked number one in the country at the time, but, I didn't make any of the sports teams, and I dropped out of the honors' program. Success?

From there, I got into a prestigious law school, but not my number one choice. Success?

I got a job in Midtown Manhattan at a very good law firm, and while according to my reviews, I was a good lawyer, I discovered that I didn't love the job. And, when Robert started having problems, I put family before work, and my “career” suffered. I did not move up the ranks as others did, and soon was behind everyone in my starting class. Suffice it to say, I don't look back to my life as a lawyer as a “success.”

No wonder that when presented with the opportunity to change careers and engage in something that I found infinitely more interesting and rewarding (i.e., working with children like my son), I jumped at the opportunity. And, as always, threw myself 110% into the job. However, I worked for a boss who managed to run an effective, successful business into the ground. I lost money, and I lost time. I stuck it out for a long time – too long – waiting for it to turn around. It didn't.

I was severely disappointed. That venture was not a success.

I left and helped create a development and learning program that was even better. My new company got our program into three schools as a pilot with the promise of more funding and more schools to come. But despite great results, the funding never materialized (hell, the schools couldn't even afford to pay their own staff), and once again, circumstances seemed to conspire against me. That venture was not a success.

So, I decided to give it one last try. I would open my own center – I would do it right, do it my way.

My illusion of control.

Which brings us to today. Spark Development is in its fifth year – an accomplishment in and of itself. We have helped dozens of families, and they willingly and enthusiastically sing the praises of our program to anyone who will listen. Surely, that's the whole point of this venture – to help others who experienced the same problems, pain and obstacles that presented with children like my son.

The fact is, the program is better than ever. There has never been so much science supporting our approach. There have never been better, nor faster, results for our students.

And yet, I don't have multiple centers, Tina still needs to hold down a job at the hospital. Between the recession, the banks, and the issues many of my clientèle and would-be clientèle must face on a daily basis, this business is not making me financial secure.

Success?

And, so I heap even more significance on the outcome of the Marathon. How can my ability to run 26.2 miles have any bearing whatsoever on my sense of self-worth? I don't have an answer to that, but it did.

I ran the Marathon in 3 hours, 27 minutes, and qualified for the Boston Marathon by four minutes.

I did it. I did not fail.

And, in a moment of peace and insight, I realize that I am confusing my sense of satisfaction with an outcome with what it means to be “successful.” Hell, what is “success” anyway?

We have three healthy, beautiful, happy children. I love my family dearly, and we want for nothing. We have developed a business and a program that saved my son and dozens of other like him, I am passionate about what I do, and the business continues despite the worst of business-related circumstances.

So, maybe, just maybe, I have been “succeeding” all along.

Swine Flu Vaccine -- Really?

2009-04-28T14:32:00.001-04:00

To those of you who actually follow this blog, I must apologize. It has been some time since I last posted. You see, enrollment is up at the center and with more kids coming more often, I find myself much busier working with the kids than ever before.

Add that I'm (i) managing my son's AA baseball team (really, how does the league expect to teach 2d and 3d graders how to play a real game of baseball with pitching and stealing? I'm trying, but I think I'm seeing the effects of too much television and video games . . . ); (ii) assistant coaching my son's soccer team (I usually handle the defense); and (iii) oh yeah, training for the Long Island Marathon (but that will be over this Sunday -- wish me luck!). It's been hard to find some spare time.

However, something has come up that just demands a blog. It has to do with swine flu and the problem with vaccines and government mandates thereof.

Delthia Ricks writes in a Newsday article entitled "Scientists face questions on swine flu vaccine" that "[t]he current seasonal [flu] vaccine would have no effect against swine flu, which has triggered 28 confirmed cases in New York and 20 others scattered among four other states, said Dr. Richard Besser, acting director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention."

So, when presented with the actual flu strain that is present -- the one that is scaring everyone -- the greatest "threat" -- the flu vaccination program that the government has been expanding and pushing upon us is INEFFECTIVE.

That's, unfortunately the first problem with a lot of the vaccines that are being pushed by the pharmaceutical companies and the government these days. They just don't, and can't, provide promised protection. Too many strains, too many variations, too many mutations. No crystal balls.

But wait, there's more.

Ricks reports that "Dr. Anne Schuchat, director of the CDC's national immunization center, said the agency is considering three major options for [a fall flu] vaccine," but the course of action to be taken "depend[s] on the behavior of the virus. But Besser and other public health experts said that no one is certain what the H1N1 swine strain is doing."

So, there may be some options regarding a swine flu vaccine for fall (a bit late, don't you think?), but those options depend on the virus, which is completely unpredictable. In other words, no one can really know what to do regarding a possible vaccine program.

Moreover, "Donna Cary, spokeswoman for Sonofi-Pasteur in Swiftwater, Pa., the leading vaccine manufacturer in the United States, said several preliminary steps must be taken before a [swine flu] vaccine is licensed. 'The FDA would have to approve it before the vaccine could be administered in the United States,' she said Monday. 'There would have to be some kind of quality testing to make sure we have something that won't make people sick.'"

And, now comes the kicker. As many of you know, vaccines are not as safe as many people think. There are side-effects, and controversial ingredients, and theories that vaccines may cause any thing from the diseases they are designed to protect against, to autism, to death. Did you know that swine flu vaccine is no exception?

Did I say swine flu vaccine? But, I thought there was no swine flu vaccine. It's months away and subject to government regulation for safety. Interesting. Here are some FACTS that the Ricks article doesn't bother to mention.

We experienced a swine flu epidemic scare before ? in the mid-1970's. Surely, if swine flu presents such a danger, wouldn't we have a vaccine against it somewhere or at least ready to be manufactured?

Well, the fact is that there WAS a vaccine that was used to "protect" humans from the 1976 version of swine flu. "However, it caused serious side effects, including an estimated 500 cases of Guillain-Barr? syndrome [a paralyzing nerve disease]. There were more deaths from the vaccine than the outbreak." http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/8021958.stm

The facts of the 1976 swine flu are pretty straightforward. As reported in The Trentorian (http://capitalcentury.com/1976.html) and The New York Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/23/weekinreview/23pollack.html?_r=1)
and summarized at http://www.wired.com/science/discoveries/news/2008/03/dayintech_0324):

"In 1976, then President Gerald Ford ordered a nationwide vaccination program to prevent a swine-flu epidemic, acting on the advice of medical experts who believed they were dealing with a virus potentially as deadly as the one that caused the?1918 Spanish influenza pandemic.

Fearing another plague, the nation's health officials urged Ford to authorize a mass inoculation program aimed at reaching every man, woman and child. He did, to the tune of $135 million ($500 million in today's money).

Mass vaccinations started in October, but within weeks reports started coming in of people developing Guillain-Barr? syndrome . . . right after taking the shot. Within two months, 500 people were affected, and more than 30 died. Amid a rising uproar and growing public reluctance to risk the shot, federal officials abruptly canceled the program Dec. 16.

In the end, 40 million Americans were inoculated, and there was no epidemic."
Don't you think that information like this should be shared?

Once again, all I can say is "Wow."

Told you so . . .

2009-03-24T08:18:00.001-04:00

Just a little follow up to the "Drugs for Everybody" post. In that post, we talked about an article entitled, Feed brain with pills, published in Newsday, where so-called experts stated that “’[w]e should welcome” the idea of allowing otherwise healthy people to take powerful, psychotropic, Class II narcotics in the hopes of “improving our brain function.” That sentiment appeared in an opinion article published in the journal Nature.

Now, in an article entitled "'Smart Drug' Might Be Addictive, Experts Say," also published in Newsday, it turns out that one of the drugs that the above-noted Nature opinion article was pushing - Provigil (also known by its generic name, Modafinil) - causes "changes in the brain's pleasure center, very much like potentially habit-forming classic stimulants."

The Newsday article goes on to state that "Modafinil once was thought to be safer than conventional stimulants because it was believed that it did not engage the brain's dopamine system, which is linked with addiction. Studies in mice and monkeys have suggested otherwise. The new study [in the Journal of the American Medical Association] is the first human evidence that a typical dose of modafinil affects dopamine as much as a dose of Ritalin, a controlled substance with clear potential for dependence."

"It would be wonderful if one could take a drug and be smarter, faster or have more energy," said Dr. Nora Volkow, director of the National Institute on Drug Abuse, who led the study with a team that included several members of Brookhaven National Laboratory. "We currently have nothing that has those benefits without side effects."

But, here's the best part . . .
"One author of [the Nature opinion letter], brain scientist Martha Farah of the University of Pennsylvania, said the new study "goes to show that we need a little caution and a little humility when we're messing around with our brain chemistry."

Really?? Did you just think of that? For how many years have drugs like Ritalin been pushed on our kids, and it's just NOW that you experts think some "caution and humility" are in order?

Wow.

Heal Thyself!

2009-03-16T09:59:00.000-04:00

Came across two interesting articles about "natural cures". The first was a post about vitamin supplements that appear to prevent noise-induced hearing loss.

"According to researchers, . . . it may be possible to create a pill that protects against noise-induced and even age-related hearing loss in humans."

My immediate thought was, "Uh-oh. A new med for 'NIHLD' ('noise-induced hearing loss disorder'(not a real disorder, I just made that up (or did I?))).

Cynicism (as one psychologist so eloquently put it, "the world is always warped by the lens we are looking through")? No, there was an earlier article that reported our auditory systems can actually adjust themselves to filter out damaging noises to which they are repeatedly exposed in order to prevent long-term damage. (This, by the way, offers fascinating support for auditory training programs like The Listening Program ()(Yeah, I know it's a plug, but it's a good plug)). Anyway, the article then went on to suggest that this finding would point to new treatments for hearing loss prevention. I expected to then read about auditory training programs, and the like, but no, the excitement was about using this research to create new "MEDICATIONS"!

But, much to my surprise, the "pill" the latest article was talking about was not medication related at all. It was about natural supplements!

"Two studies found that giving supplements containing antioxidants [beta carotene and vitamins C and E] and the mineral magnesium to test animals before they were exposed to a loud noise prevented both temporary and permanent hearing loss.

In the first study, vitamin supplements protected guinea pigs exposed to four hours of 110-decibel noise, similar to levels reached at a rock concert. In the second study, vitamin supplements prevented hearing loss in mice exposed to a single loud noise. . . . Previous research showed that antioxidants can also protect hearing days after exposure to loud noise.

What is appealing about this vitamin 'cocktail' is that previous studies in humans, including those demonstrating successful use of these supplements in protecting eye health, have shown that supplements of these particular vitamins are safe for long-term use,' according to University of Florida researcher Colleen Le Prell, senior author of the studies.

Cool!

The second article appeared today in Newsday, and was about fighting (dare I say, "curing") peanut allergies. What was done? Under close medical supervision, incredibly minute amounts of peanut/peanut flour were given to allergic children over time [WARNING: DO NOT DO THIS AT HOME! There's no way to dice a peanut as small as the treatment doses required!]. Eventually, over several years, the children's bodies learned to tolerate peanuts.

So, basically the doctors helped these children's bodies to "heal themselves" without resort to medication.

This, by the way, is what much of the nutrition intervention practiced by our nutrition counselor, Tina Stevens, BS, MS clinical nutrition, is all about (yeah, yeah, another plug. Shoot me.)

Heal the gut, heal the immune system. Strengthen the body, and what was once troublesome may not present trouble anymore.

Of course, because doctors were involved, the peanut treatment gets a neat name: "oral immunotherapy".

I kid you not.

How NOT to diagnose ADD

2009-03-04T10:12:00.001-05:00

Got a call from a mom the other day. Concerned that her son might have ADD, she brought him to the family pediatrician. However, the doctor said he could not diagnose ADD with certainty. Instead, Mom told me the doctor said, "he would prescribe the ADD medication, and if it worked [?], then they would know for sure her son had ADD."

My jaw dropped into my lap. This is so wrong, that in my humble opinion, it borders on malpractice.

First, how on Earth can you prescribe a powerful, psychotropic drug to a child without having at least a reasonable certainty that the child suffers from the disorder which that drug is supposed to treat? These are serious drugs with serious known side-effects we're talking about!

Imagine fearing you had cancer, and you seek a diagnosis from your doctor. Your doctor says he can't tell for sure whether you have cancer, but, he'll start you on chemotherapy. If it works -- whatever that means -- then you'll know you had cancer.

Sound right to you?

Second, using drugs to diagnose ADD was rejected as an approach over a decade ago! The fact of the matter is, when given in prescription appropriate doses, these drugs have the SAME effect on "normal" folks as they do on those with ADD. Thus, the drugs "work" no matter to whom they are given.

Finally, has this mom's doctor not read anything about these drugs being abused on college campuses by students seeking an edge? If these students are using these drugs to enhance their attention and studying skills, how can you possibly use them as a diagnostic tool?

When did the prescription of these drugs become so commonplace, so automatic, so nonchalant, that we forget that there are dangers attached to the practice? That it is not "normal" to need these drugs? That we are doing no more than putting these poor children into a drug-induced state?

Again, I understand the use of medications. When you've tried everything else, and nothing is working, and you are desperate for your child to have a happy, successful life. I get it. I've been there. I've done that.

But, it is a last resort! One taken after very careful consideration. You would think a doctor would know that.

Do you think the pharmaceutical companies have something to do with it?

2009-02-13T13:41:00.000-05:00

I came across an article entitled “Drugmakers draw criticism for pushing fibromyalgia” in Newsday, distributed by the Associated Press. While the article was about fibromyalgia, I couldn’t help but think otherwise.
WASHINGTON - Two drugmakers spent hundreds of millions of dollars last year to raise awareness of a murky illness, helping boost sales of pills recently approved as treatments and drowning out unresolved questions . . . .   Key components of the industry-funded buzz over the pain-and-fatigue ailment fibromyalgia are grants, more than $6 million donated by drugmakers Eli Lilly and Pfizer in the first three quarters of 2008, to nonprofit groups for medical conferences and educational campaigns, an Associated Press analysis found.    . . . Fibromyalgia draws skepticism for several reasons. The cause is unknown. There are no tests to confirm a diagnosis. Many patients also fit the criteria for chronic fatigue syndrome and other pain ailments.   Experts don't doubt the patients are in pain. They differ on what to call it and how to treat it.   Many doctors and patients say the drugmakers are educating the medical establishment about a misunderstood illness. But critics say the companies are hyping fibromyalgia along with their treatments, and that the grant-making is a textbook example of how drugmakers unduly influence doctors and patients.   "I think the purpose of most pharmaceutical company efforts is to do a little disease-mongering and to have people use their drugs," said Dr. Frederick Wolfe.
Couldn’t you just sub in any number of so-called childhood psychiatric disorders wherever it says “fibromyalgia”? I mean, there is no denying that the pharmaceutical companies “spent hundreds of millions of dollars” to “raise awareness” of these disorders. Just look at their full page ads in magazines, full length, prime time commercials, and the videos, CDs and mailings that are sent directly to consumers about these “disorders.” Equally true is the fact that such direct to consumer advertising helps increase sales of the pharmaceutical companies’ products.
There is also no denying that drug companies have contributed lots of monies to “nonprofit groups” to “educate” people about these disorders. CHADD (a national nonprofit group that deals with attention deficit disorder) immediately comes to mind. That organization alone had has received hundreds and hundreds of thousands of dollars from the makers of Ritalin.
Similarly, the cause of childhood psychiatric disorders is unknown; there are no biological tests to confirm a diagnosis – only observation and questionnaires; many patients diagnosed with a particular disorder also fit the criteria for other disorders or other conditions. Experts don’t doubt that the patients are experiencing difficulties, but many experts disagree on what exactly is wrong and how best to treat it.
We are talking about a billion dollar industry, after all.
It just makes you wonder . . .

Drugs for Everyone

2009-02-09T13:48:00.000-05:00

Okay, so now we’re going to start medicating “healthy” people because "’[t]his takes prevention to a whole new level, . . . appl[ying] to patients who we now wouldn't have any evidence to treat,’ said Dr. W. Douglas Weaver, a Detroit cardiologist and president of the American College of Cardiology.”

Yes, you read that correctly. In an article entitled Cholesterol drug Crestor cuts deaths, heart attacks in healthy people; could see wider use, by Marilynn Marchione, and reported in Newsday, it is suggested that we medicate otherwise healthy people with Crestor (manufactured by AstraZeneca) in order to prevent possible heart attacks when the risk for such attacks is nearly non-existent.

Of course, I’m all for taking care of people, and certainly do not want anyone to suffer from a heart attack, however . . .
“[S]ome doctors urged caution. Crestor gave clear benefit in the study, but so few heart attacks and deaths occurred among these low-risk people that treating everyone like them in the United States could cost up to $9 billion a year — ‘a difficult sell,’ one expert said. About 120 people would have to take Crestor for two years to prevent a single heart attack, stroke or death, said Stanford University cardiologist Dr. Mark Hlatky.” (Emphasis added.)

Also, consider that:
1. AstraZeneca paid for the study, and the study’s authors have consulted for the company and other statin makers.
2. More people in the Crestor group saw blood-sugar levels rise or were newly diagnosed with diabetes.
3. Crestor also has the highest rate among statins of a rare but serious muscle problem.

Where does something like this stop? Should we start giving Vioxx to healthy people to prevent arthritis? (Oh wait, Vioxx isn’t on the market anymore . . .) Or let’s give Diethylstilbestrol (DES) to pregnant women to prevent miscarriages and avoid other pregnancy problems. (Oh wait, doctors did that and it turned out to be a really, really bad idea . . .) I know, let’s all take Aricept to prevent Alzheimer’s. (what could possibly go wrong?)

Call me crazy, but wouldn’t eating right, getting enough sleep, and exercising get the same, or even better, results at a cost substantially less than nine (9) billion dollars and without the dangerous side-effects?

But, it gets better.

In an article entitled, Feed brain with pills, published in Newsday, so-called experts stated that “’[w]e should welcome” the idea of allowing otherwise healthy people to take powerful, psychotropic, Class II narcotics in the hopes of “improving our brain function.” This sentiment appears in an opinion article published in the journal Nature (note the irony).

Perhaps even more disturbing is the comment that using such drugs is “no more morally objectionable than eating right or getting a good night’s sleep.”

I kid you not!

OUTRAGEOUS. There is simply no other word for this.

When did exposing otherwise healthy people to dangerous, mind-altering drugs become “okay?” In fact, according to the "experts," it is not only “okay” but it should be equated to eating right, getting a good night’s sleep and, one must presume, exercising. Wow.

Let’s see. Eating right, getting enough sleep and exercising are healthy, free, non-addictive (although, sometimes exercising can be addicting – in a good way), and have no side-effects other than improving brain function, improving mood, slowing aging, preventing heart disease, fighting obesity and improving the immune system.

Drugs like Ritalin help people sustain attention. They also carry with them the risks of, among other things, heightened anxiety, radical mood swings, growth inhibition, sleep problems, addiction, strokes, sudden death, and possible chromosomal changes. On the other hand, prescribing these drugs for otherwise healthy people opens up a brand new, multi-billion dollar market for the pharmaceutical companies and most likely extra fees for the doctors who get to write so many more prescriptions for such medications.

Yeah, the two approaches can obviously be equated.

Note that two of the authors of the Nature article consult for pharmaceutical companies.