A new study now guesstimates that 1 in 53 cases of ASD may be linked to obesity during pregnancy.
First thought on this -- isn't it entirely possible that obesity during pregnancy is indicative of an unhealthy lifestyle? Isn't it also likely that an unhealthy lifestyle, in and of itself, could cause issues for a developing fetus?
Second thought -- doesn't obesity during pregnancy mean that mom is probably not eating right? On this note, research indicates that prenatal nutrition and nutrition during the first few months of pregnancy has a direct impact on the occurrence of ASDs. See Rebecca Schmidt, Robin Hansen, et al., “Prenatal Vitamins, One-carbon Metabolism Gene Variants, and Risk for Autism,” Epidemiology Vol.22:4 (July 2011)). Moreover, this research showed that women who took prenatal vitamins three months prior to conceiving and during the first month of pregnancy had a statistically significant lower chance of having a child with ASD.
Third thought -- if obesity does contribute to the issue, then seeing a good nutritionist isn't just a luxury.
Nutrition DOES matter! Tina can help . . .
Showing posts with label add adhd medications alternative therapies nutrition spark development. Show all posts
Showing posts with label add adhd medications alternative therapies nutrition spark development. Show all posts
Thursday, June 14, 2012
Friday, May 18, 2012
I Know Who The Batman Is!
It's no secret. Anyone who has seen my office or the pictures from our Spark Halloween parties knows I'm a big fan of Batman. While obsessive (and probably a bit psychotic), I have always been amazed by the characters drive and resolve. He has overcome a tragic incident, turning the inevitable hurt, feelings of helplessness, and (unjustified) guilt caused by that incident into a crusade. With no "superpowers," he has pushed himself to learn, train and practice the skills he needs to fight his battles -- to insure that what happened to him would not happen to anyone else, to do what the "established authorities" could not. And, he undertook this extreme dedication, in the shadows, -- away from the spotlight, although he truly has no need to do so.
But, it wasn't until the other day that I discovered his true identity. No, it's not Bruce Wayne. The real Batman is . . .
my wife, Tina.
How did I come upon this revelation? As we often do, Tina and I were discussing the progress of the kids at Spark, and lamenting about the poor state of understanding that exists with respect to the causes and treatments of ASDs, and how lucky we were to figure out how to help Robert. That, of course, turned into thoughts about how wrongly we were led by those originally treating Robert all those years ago, how Robert suffered because of it, and how Robert's problems were probably preventable in the first place.
At that point, Tina turned to me and said, "I still feel so guilty about what happened to him."
To which I replied, "How can you feel 'guilty'? We had a limited knowledge base, and we did everything that all the doctors told us to do. We did everything we were supposed to do for Robert. Feel bad for what happened, even feel angry about what happened, but how can you feel guilty?"
"I just do," she said.
And then it hit me. Tina is The Batman!
A life changing, tragic incident -- our first born, our son, diagnosed with ADHD, ODD and PDD. Hurt, helplessness and unjustified guilt over the incident and all that befell Robert because of it. An obsessive quest for knowledge -- never giving up hope that we could really help Robert -- all the searching, all the research, all the time and effort to find the approaches that would work. Even going back to school for her Masters in Nutrition Counseling -- pregnant with our third child -- because she realized how important and potentially life changing such interventions could be for others. Researching nearly everyday, and taking on the crusade for kids like Robert. To do, what the "established authorities" cannot.
And she, too, works in the "shadows" -- or, as I like to call it, "Spark Development" -- even though Robert is completely fine now.
So, why does she do it? Because, Tina is The Batman.
But, it wasn't until the other day that I discovered his true identity. No, it's not Bruce Wayne. The real Batman is . . .
my wife, Tina.
How did I come upon this revelation? As we often do, Tina and I were discussing the progress of the kids at Spark, and lamenting about the poor state of understanding that exists with respect to the causes and treatments of ASDs, and how lucky we were to figure out how to help Robert. That, of course, turned into thoughts about how wrongly we were led by those originally treating Robert all those years ago, how Robert suffered because of it, and how Robert's problems were probably preventable in the first place.
At that point, Tina turned to me and said, "I still feel so guilty about what happened to him."
To which I replied, "How can you feel 'guilty'? We had a limited knowledge base, and we did everything that all the doctors told us to do. We did everything we were supposed to do for Robert. Feel bad for what happened, even feel angry about what happened, but how can you feel guilty?"
"I just do," she said.
And then it hit me. Tina is The Batman!
A life changing, tragic incident -- our first born, our son, diagnosed with ADHD, ODD and PDD. Hurt, helplessness and unjustified guilt over the incident and all that befell Robert because of it. An obsessive quest for knowledge -- never giving up hope that we could really help Robert -- all the searching, all the research, all the time and effort to find the approaches that would work. Even going back to school for her Masters in Nutrition Counseling -- pregnant with our third child -- because she realized how important and potentially life changing such interventions could be for others. Researching nearly everyday, and taking on the crusade for kids like Robert. To do, what the "established authorities" cannot.
And she, too, works in the "shadows" -- or, as I like to call it, "Spark Development" -- even though Robert is completely fine now.
So, why does she do it? Because, Tina is The Batman.
Tuesday, May 1, 2012
One in 88
The numbers just keep going up and up and up.
No sooner do we hear about a dramatic increase in the number of children diagnosed with ADHD, but the CDC now says that one (1) in eight-eight (88) children now have ASD.
We can continue to quibble about why there is such a staggering increase in these numbers, and exactly what is causing such disorders (of course, from past posts, you surely know where we stand on these issues), but what about turning our attention to how best to treat these disorders?
How about some research into the effectiveness of different therapies (other than just meds)?
How about some insurance coverage for such therapies?
We know for a fact, as do the parents we serve, that life for these children can be dramatically improved -- through, among other things, sensory work, cognitive work, behavior management, and diet and nutrition -- all healthy forms of interventions designed to work on skill deficits and biological issues associated with ASDs (including ADHD).
But, most of all, these kids and their families need acceptance. We, as a society, undoubtedly have contributed to these problems. Instead of trying to pin the blame on genetics or parental age or obesity (see next post), we seriously need to turn our attention to helping those affected.
No sooner do we hear about a dramatic increase in the number of children diagnosed with ADHD, but the CDC now says that one (1) in eight-eight (88) children now have ASD.
We can continue to quibble about why there is such a staggering increase in these numbers, and exactly what is causing such disorders (of course, from past posts, you surely know where we stand on these issues), but what about turning our attention to how best to treat these disorders?
How about some research into the effectiveness of different therapies (other than just meds)?
How about some insurance coverage for such therapies?
We know for a fact, as do the parents we serve, that life for these children can be dramatically improved -- through, among other things, sensory work, cognitive work, behavior management, and diet and nutrition -- all healthy forms of interventions designed to work on skill deficits and biological issues associated with ASDs (including ADHD).
But, most of all, these kids and their families need acceptance. We, as a society, undoubtedly have contributed to these problems. Instead of trying to pin the blame on genetics or parental age or obesity (see next post), we seriously need to turn our attention to helping those affected.
Thursday, February 16, 2012
"New" Research Indicates that Fish Oil May Be Beneficial To Mental Health
I'm sorry for sounding like a broken record, but, when i read an article like "Fish Oil's Mental Health Link,
" (Newsday 2/16/12 At A14), I have to wonder exactly how deeply buried in the sand are the heads of those in the "mainstream" science world.
"There is some preliminary data that suggests [fish oil] has success in treating a variety of psychiatric disorders, but we're just beginning to do a lot of the formal studies," states Dr. Barbara Cornblatt of the Feinstein Institute for the Medical Research.
Funny, the nutritionist that worked with Robert some fifteen (15) years ago knew all this. And, what about the Lancet article that looked at the effect of essential fatty acids (fish oil) on cognitive development that was written in 1998? Indeed, there are many article about the benefits of fish oil and mental health and abilities.
Indeed, if anyone is truly interested, I invite you to contact Tina Stevens, our nutrition consultant, at the center.
" (Newsday 2/16/12 At A14), I have to wonder exactly how deeply buried in the sand are the heads of those in the "mainstream" science world.
"There is some preliminary data that suggests [fish oil] has success in treating a variety of psychiatric disorders, but we're just beginning to do a lot of the formal studies," states Dr. Barbara Cornblatt of the Feinstein Institute for the Medical Research.
Funny, the nutritionist that worked with Robert some fifteen (15) years ago knew all this. And, what about the Lancet article that looked at the effect of essential fatty acids (fish oil) on cognitive development that was written in 1998? Indeed, there are many article about the benefits of fish oil and mental health and abilities.
Indeed, if anyone is truly interested, I invite you to contact Tina Stevens, our nutrition consultant, at the center.
Thursday, August 11, 2011
The Importance Of Nutrition
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 . . .).
Tuesday, December 21, 2010
Adult ADHD
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?
Thursday, November 11, 2010
A Response to a Post on Dr. Rory F. Stern's Website
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!
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!
Tuesday, May 18, 2010
Pesticides and ADHD -- What's next?
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.
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.
Wednesday, February 3, 2010
Fish Oil Affects Your Mental State
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."
"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."
Thursday, January 21, 2010
Probiotics -- Do Doctors Get It?
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?
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?
Wednesday, August 19, 2009
Should Kids Take Vitamins? A Response.
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.
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.
Friday, July 17, 2009
The True "Effectiveness" of Medications
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.
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.
Wednesday, June 24, 2009
Unexplained Sudden Death and ADHD Meds
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.
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.
Tuesday, March 24, 2009
Told you so . . .
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.
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.
Monday, March 16, 2009
Heal Thyself!
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.
"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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
