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.
Monday, March 16, 2009
Wednesday, March 4, 2009
How NOT to diagnose ADD
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.
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.
Friday, February 13, 2009
Do you think the pharmaceutical companies have something to do with it?
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 . . .
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 . . .
Monday, February 9, 2009
Drugs for Everyone
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.
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.
Saturday, February 7, 2009
On the subject of MEDICATIONS
I wrote this piece a little while back. While the information is a bit dated, based on my recent conversations with parents at the center, it is important information that is still applicable today. (Also, it serves as a good introduction for forthcoming blogs.)
Anyone who has had experience with any of the medications typically prescribed for ADD/ADHD is well aware of the fact that these medications have side-effects. In fact, at two separate SEPTA meetings at which I was fortunate enough to speak, ONE HUNDRED (100!) PERCENT of all parents whose children who had tried medications indicated that their child had some sort of side-effect.
So much for the “rare” occurrence of such issues.
Some of the more common side-effects are weight loss, sleep disturbance, tics, mood swings, and “rebound.”
However, far greater problems are being discovered in connection with the use of many of these drugs. Adderall XR, Concerta, Ritalin, Strattera and almost all antidepressants, drugs commonly prescribed for children and adults diagnosed with ADD/ADHD, have come under new fire. Researchers have warned that each of these drugs may carry additional, and very serious, side-effects ranging from depression and suicidal thoughts to stroke, cancer and death.
Adderall XR was pulled off the market in Canada after reports linked the use of the drug to a dozen strokes and twenty sudden deaths. Fourteen of the sudden deaths and two of the strokes were suffered by children.
Researchers at the University of Texas and the M.D. Anderson Cancer Center have found chromosome damage in twelve children that used Ritalin for three months. The chromosome damage was similar to that caused by known cancer-causing drugs.
After reviewing recent relevant studies and psychiatric reports, the Food and Drug Administration warns of suicidal thinking and behavior in children who have taken Strattera and antidepressants. The same concerns, as well as hallucinations and violent behavior, were expressed in connection with Concerta,
Similarly, after reviewing relevant scientific studies, Britain’s Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency concluded that there was “no solid evidence that the benefits outweigh the possible side effects” of antidepressant use by individuals under the age of 18. (American researchers were quick to fire back with a study of their own that concluded the risks associated with depression outweighed any potential harm caused by antidepressants.)
Also, on a personal note, I have to wonder just how “effective” these medications truly are. If one defines “effective” as having an effect, well, yeah, the meds are very effective. However, if one defines “effective” as having the expected and, more importantly, DESIRED, effect, then, I gotta tell you, I'm not so sure the meds are all they're cracked up to be.
Again, at the SEPTA meeting where I spoke, even though 100% of the parents noted side-effects, LESS THAN ONE IN THREE felt the meds were producing desirable results! (And, in general, I rarely meet any parent who doesn't complain about the meds – maybe it's the business I'm in.)
Maybe that's why there is so much experimenting with different meds and amounts and combinations on our kids. Maybe it's also why these “effective, safe and tested” meds are constantly being replaced by “new and improved” drugs developed to replace the old.
Now, I understand why parents resort to medication. We tried them, too. If there is nothing else, and your child is suffering, and the teachers and doctors are all telling you that this is the right thing to do, with all the requisite assurances, what choice do you feel you have?
Just know, that there are alternatives. Like anything else, there is a chance that these alternatives won't work completely, but hey, I can almost guarantee a better than one in three chance that they will – and all without side-effects!
Sources:
The Associated Press
LancasterOnline.com
New York Times
Newsday
Anyone who has had experience with any of the medications typically prescribed for ADD/ADHD is well aware of the fact that these medications have side-effects. In fact, at two separate SEPTA meetings at which I was fortunate enough to speak, ONE HUNDRED (100!) PERCENT of all parents whose children who had tried medications indicated that their child had some sort of side-effect.
So much for the “rare” occurrence of such issues.
Some of the more common side-effects are weight loss, sleep disturbance, tics, mood swings, and “rebound.”
However, far greater problems are being discovered in connection with the use of many of these drugs. Adderall XR, Concerta, Ritalin, Strattera and almost all antidepressants, drugs commonly prescribed for children and adults diagnosed with ADD/ADHD, have come under new fire. Researchers have warned that each of these drugs may carry additional, and very serious, side-effects ranging from depression and suicidal thoughts to stroke, cancer and death.
Adderall XR was pulled off the market in Canada after reports linked the use of the drug to a dozen strokes and twenty sudden deaths. Fourteen of the sudden deaths and two of the strokes were suffered by children.
Researchers at the University of Texas and the M.D. Anderson Cancer Center have found chromosome damage in twelve children that used Ritalin for three months. The chromosome damage was similar to that caused by known cancer-causing drugs.
After reviewing recent relevant studies and psychiatric reports, the Food and Drug Administration warns of suicidal thinking and behavior in children who have taken Strattera and antidepressants. The same concerns, as well as hallucinations and violent behavior, were expressed in connection with Concerta,
Similarly, after reviewing relevant scientific studies, Britain’s Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency concluded that there was “no solid evidence that the benefits outweigh the possible side effects” of antidepressant use by individuals under the age of 18. (American researchers were quick to fire back with a study of their own that concluded the risks associated with depression outweighed any potential harm caused by antidepressants.)
Also, on a personal note, I have to wonder just how “effective” these medications truly are. If one defines “effective” as having an effect, well, yeah, the meds are very effective. However, if one defines “effective” as having the expected and, more importantly, DESIRED, effect, then, I gotta tell you, I'm not so sure the meds are all they're cracked up to be.
Again, at the SEPTA meeting where I spoke, even though 100% of the parents noted side-effects, LESS THAN ONE IN THREE felt the meds were producing desirable results! (And, in general, I rarely meet any parent who doesn't complain about the meds – maybe it's the business I'm in.)
Maybe that's why there is so much experimenting with different meds and amounts and combinations on our kids. Maybe it's also why these “effective, safe and tested” meds are constantly being replaced by “new and improved” drugs developed to replace the old.
Now, I understand why parents resort to medication. We tried them, too. If there is nothing else, and your child is suffering, and the teachers and doctors are all telling you that this is the right thing to do, with all the requisite assurances, what choice do you feel you have?
Just know, that there are alternatives. Like anything else, there is a chance that these alternatives won't work completely, but hey, I can almost guarantee a better than one in three chance that they will – and all without side-effects!
Sources:
The Associated Press
LancasterOnline.com
New York Times
Newsday
Saturday, January 24, 2009
Don't Touch That Dial . . . Literally.
How sweet! Little Timmy is watching his favorite cartoons. My, but he is mesmerized. He hardly ever looks away from the set, and although I called him three times to dinner, he is glued to the TV, eyes wide open, mouth slightly agape, a small bit of drool creeping down his chin. . . .
There’s no getting around it. Televisions, computers, video games, and electronic devices of every make and kind are part of our lives. Knowledge of these devices, both in terms of operation and content, is almost mandatory if one wants to successfully interact and function in today’s world. But, everything in moderation! There are serious, documented problems experienced by those who overdo the electronic stuff. In fact, the American Academy of
Pediatrics (“AAP”) recommends that television (and similar activities) be avoided entirely by children under the age of two and that total television time for older children be limited to one to two hours per day. Citing to the fact that “research on early brain development shows that babies and toddlers have a critical need for direct interactions with parents and other significant care givers . . . for healthy brain growth and the development of appropriate social, emotional, and cognitive skills,” the AAP states that exposure of such young children to television should be avoided.
Increased daily television viewing has been associated with poor sleep habits, behavior problems, obesity, poor eating habits, decreased physical activity and fitness, and poor school performance.
Even more alarming is the link between aggressive behavior and a child’s exposure to violent television images. On average, a young viewer is exposed to more than 14,000 sexual references each year, and by the time a child has finished elementary school, he has seen approximately 8,000 murders!
Physically, television and computer over use can lead to dizziness, nausea, seizures, and negatively impact visual processing and cognitive development. Televisions and computer monitors are two dimensional, stationary devises that literally lock the eye in one place, do not offer the eyes different points of convergence, and cause tremendous eyestrain. In addition, television viewing and computer use takes time from other forms of play that develop a child’s three-dimensional skills, depth perception and focusing abilities. It can even distort eye growth and cause muscle and nerve injury.
Television/video/computers also may be responsible for “miswiring” the brain’s visual attention system. A baby’s eyes will instinctively lock onto the rapidly changing television images – images that change every five or six seconds. Known as the “orienting response,” it is a human’s natural and instinctive response to any sudden or novel stimulus. Thus, these ever changing images demand the child’s constant attention on a biological level. Even babies at six to eight weeks attend to television. If a child gets used to viewing an ever-changing panorama of images, when the child is not watching television, the child will start moving his head and eyes around in an attempt to recreate the flow of rapid-fire images!
Indeed, some experts believe television may even be addictive.
Perhaps this is why ADHD children can watch television for hours but not be able to maintain eye contact for ten seconds! A biologically based addiction, television may be wiring children’s brains to seek out ever changing images all the time. However, in real life, images don’t change that rapidly. But, if that is what the brain has come to demand, then the child will replicate the sensation by moving his head and eyes and attention constantly.
While there is no doubt that a discriminating viewer can find a great deal of educational content via television and computers, how much a child actually learns from educational television and educational software is debatable. Moreover, the instant gratification/blur of images makes it even more difficult to teach students using “old-fashioned” techniques like reading.
So, do your children a favor. Turn off the electronic devices, and re-introduce them to sunshine, exercise and a good book.
Sources
American Academy of Pediatrics, Media Education, Pediatrics, Vol. 104, No. 2 (Aug. 1999).
AAP Discourages Television for Very Young Children, Press Release (Aug. 2, 1999).
AAP Addresses TV Programming for Children Under Age 2, Press Release (Undated).
Beam, Cris, Babes in TV Land, american baby (Apr. 2000).
Failure to Connect: How Computers Affect Our Children’s Minds and What We Can Do About It, by Jane Healy, Ph.D., Simon & Schuster (1998).
Fast Food Nation, by Eric Schlosser, Perennial (2002).
Kubey, Robert, Csikszentmihalyi, “Television Addiction is no mere metaphor,” Scientific American (Feb. 2002).
Owens, Judith MD, MPH, Maxim, Rolanda, MD, et al., Television-viewing Habits and Sleep Disturbance in School Children, Pediatrics, Vol. 104, No. 3 (Sept. 1999).
What’s Going on in there? How the Brain and Mind Develop in the First Five Years of Life, by Dr. Lise Eliot, Ph.D., Bantam (1999).
There’s no getting around it. Televisions, computers, video games, and electronic devices of every make and kind are part of our lives. Knowledge of these devices, both in terms of operation and content, is almost mandatory if one wants to successfully interact and function in today’s world. But, everything in moderation! There are serious, documented problems experienced by those who overdo the electronic stuff. In fact, the American Academy of
Pediatrics (“AAP”) recommends that television (and similar activities) be avoided entirely by children under the age of two and that total television time for older children be limited to one to two hours per day. Citing to the fact that “research on early brain development shows that babies and toddlers have a critical need for direct interactions with parents and other significant care givers . . . for healthy brain growth and the development of appropriate social, emotional, and cognitive skills,” the AAP states that exposure of such young children to television should be avoided.
Increased daily television viewing has been associated with poor sleep habits, behavior problems, obesity, poor eating habits, decreased physical activity and fitness, and poor school performance.
Even more alarming is the link between aggressive behavior and a child’s exposure to violent television images. On average, a young viewer is exposed to more than 14,000 sexual references each year, and by the time a child has finished elementary school, he has seen approximately 8,000 murders!
Physically, television and computer over use can lead to dizziness, nausea, seizures, and negatively impact visual processing and cognitive development. Televisions and computer monitors are two dimensional, stationary devises that literally lock the eye in one place, do not offer the eyes different points of convergence, and cause tremendous eyestrain. In addition, television viewing and computer use takes time from other forms of play that develop a child’s three-dimensional skills, depth perception and focusing abilities. It can even distort eye growth and cause muscle and nerve injury.
Television/video/computers also may be responsible for “miswiring” the brain’s visual attention system. A baby’s eyes will instinctively lock onto the rapidly changing television images – images that change every five or six seconds. Known as the “orienting response,” it is a human’s natural and instinctive response to any sudden or novel stimulus. Thus, these ever changing images demand the child’s constant attention on a biological level. Even babies at six to eight weeks attend to television. If a child gets used to viewing an ever-changing panorama of images, when the child is not watching television, the child will start moving his head and eyes around in an attempt to recreate the flow of rapid-fire images!
Indeed, some experts believe television may even be addictive.
Perhaps this is why ADHD children can watch television for hours but not be able to maintain eye contact for ten seconds! A biologically based addiction, television may be wiring children’s brains to seek out ever changing images all the time. However, in real life, images don’t change that rapidly. But, if that is what the brain has come to demand, then the child will replicate the sensation by moving his head and eyes and attention constantly.
While there is no doubt that a discriminating viewer can find a great deal of educational content via television and computers, how much a child actually learns from educational television and educational software is debatable. Moreover, the instant gratification/blur of images makes it even more difficult to teach students using “old-fashioned” techniques like reading.
So, do your children a favor. Turn off the electronic devices, and re-introduce them to sunshine, exercise and a good book.
Sources
American Academy of Pediatrics, Media Education, Pediatrics, Vol. 104, No. 2 (Aug. 1999).
AAP Discourages Television for Very Young Children, Press Release (Aug. 2, 1999).
AAP Addresses TV Programming for Children Under Age 2, Press Release (Undated).
Beam, Cris, Babes in TV Land, american baby (Apr. 2000).
Failure to Connect: How Computers Affect Our Children’s Minds and What We Can Do About It, by Jane Healy, Ph.D., Simon & Schuster (1998).
Fast Food Nation, by Eric Schlosser, Perennial (2002).
Kubey, Robert, Csikszentmihalyi, “Television Addiction is no mere metaphor,” Scientific American (Feb. 2002).
Owens, Judith MD, MPH, Maxim, Rolanda, MD, et al., Television-viewing Habits and Sleep Disturbance in School Children, Pediatrics, Vol. 104, No. 3 (Sept. 1999).
What’s Going on in there? How the Brain and Mind Develop in the First Five Years of Life, by Dr. Lise Eliot, Ph.D., Bantam (1999).
Saturday, January 17, 2009
Finnish Study Questions Long-Term Effectiveness of ADHD Medications
The article is a bit dated, but it’s a MUST READ! Written by Melissa Healy of the Los Angeles Times and printed in Newsday this past year, the title says it all:
“ADHD Studies Raise Questions On Drug Treatments”
In the article, Ms. Healy cites a series of studies following 457 Finnish children from birth to ages 16 to 18, noting that ”the studies raise provocative questions about the long-term effects of treating those symptoms with medication.”
The studies compared 188 Finnish teens considered to have "probable or definite ADHD" and 103 youths with conduct disorder - behavior that fell short of ADHD but put them at higher risk for similar problems – to a group of Finnish teens with no ADHD diagnosis.
Researchers found the following: “the can't-sit-still kids - the stereotype of the ‘ADHD generation’ - were most likely to mature out of the disease. Among those with persistent ADHD, . . . half have problems with cognitive skills that are key to success in adulthood, but half have no such deficits.”
But, here’s the amazing part:
The researchers found that
“By the time [the ADHD children reach] their late teens, those who receive drugs for attention problems seem to fare about the same as those who do not.”
This finding seems to lend support to the idea that some children do actually grow out of ADHD. See “ADHD Kids Can Get Better,” Krista Mahr, Time.com.
So, as one of the authors of the study eloquently put it, "This begs the question: Are current treatments really leading to improved outcome over time?"
And, finally, UCLA neuroscientist Robert Bilder said the studies suggest ADHD might best be treated by “shoring up weaknesses in underlying cognitive skills.”
For more about the long-term problems of using drugs to treat ADHD, check out "Talking Back To Ritalin," by Dr. Peter Breggin. For a wonderful discussion of non-medication, neurological approaches to treating attention and learning issues, see "The Mislabeled Child," by Drs. Brock and Fernette Eide. In fact, Drs. Brock and Fernette Eide describe in great detail, many of the theories and approached utilized at Spark Development!
Neither Dr. Bilder nor Drs. Brock and Fernette Eide received any remuneration from Spark Development.
“ADHD Studies Raise Questions On Drug Treatments”
In the article, Ms. Healy cites a series of studies following 457 Finnish children from birth to ages 16 to 18, noting that ”the studies raise provocative questions about the long-term effects of treating those symptoms with medication.”
The studies compared 188 Finnish teens considered to have "probable or definite ADHD" and 103 youths with conduct disorder - behavior that fell short of ADHD but put them at higher risk for similar problems – to a group of Finnish teens with no ADHD diagnosis.
Researchers found the following: “the can't-sit-still kids - the stereotype of the ‘ADHD generation’ - were most likely to mature out of the disease. Among those with persistent ADHD, . . . half have problems with cognitive skills that are key to success in adulthood, but half have no such deficits.”
But, here’s the amazing part:
The researchers found that
“By the time [the ADHD children reach] their late teens, those who receive drugs for attention problems seem to fare about the same as those who do not.”
This finding seems to lend support to the idea that some children do actually grow out of ADHD. See “ADHD Kids Can Get Better,” Krista Mahr, Time.com.
So, as one of the authors of the study eloquently put it, "This begs the question: Are current treatments really leading to improved outcome over time?"
And, finally, UCLA neuroscientist Robert Bilder said the studies suggest ADHD might best be treated by “shoring up weaknesses in underlying cognitive skills.”
For more about the long-term problems of using drugs to treat ADHD, check out "Talking Back To Ritalin," by Dr. Peter Breggin. For a wonderful discussion of non-medication, neurological approaches to treating attention and learning issues, see "The Mislabeled Child," by Drs. Brock and Fernette Eide. In fact, Drs. Brock and Fernette Eide describe in great detail, many of the theories and approached utilized at Spark Development!
Neither Dr. Bilder nor Drs. Brock and Fernette Eide received any remuneration from Spark Development.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
