Thursday, November 19, 2009
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.
Monday, June 29, 2009
More Bad News About Too Much Television
Just a quick post on a subject touched upon before in this Blog.
Get your kids away from the television! Yet another study shows that too much television interferes with your kids' development. Specifically, too much television interferes with language development -- even if your kids are watching DVDs that are supposed to enhance language and development.
HealthDay News reports that "[t]elevision reduces verbal interaction between parents and infants, which could delay children's language development, says a U.S. study that challenges claims that certain infant-targeted DVDs actually benefit youngsters." Check out: http://dailyhealthtips.vitacost.com/dm?id=F12AC29D617DB539EA57955C82B824C0
The study appears in the June issue of the Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine.
Get your kids away from the television! Yet another study shows that too much television interferes with your kids' development. Specifically, too much television interferes with language development -- even if your kids are watching DVDs that are supposed to enhance language and development.
HealthDay News reports that "[t]elevision reduces verbal interaction between parents and infants, which could delay children's language development, says a U.S. study that challenges claims that certain infant-targeted DVDs actually benefit youngsters." Check out: http://dailyhealthtips.vitacost.com/dm?id=F12AC29D617DB539EA57955C82B824C0
The study appears in the June issue of the Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine.
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, June 23, 2009
A Long Overdue Post
Well, the month of May has come and gone, and what a tough month it was.
Our family experienced injury and loss. We have done much in terms of healing. There is still much to do.
I've been meaning to blog for a while, but have not found the time nor, more importantly for someone like me, the inspiration.
This is a personal blog. If you're looking for something about medications and kids, skip down to the next post. A great story was aired on Good Morning America last week re: the dangers of stimulant medications used to treat ADHD.
This post is about running the Long Island Marathon. It was difficult, emotional, and as it turned out, a perfect reflection of my life.
I'm not sure why I'm writing about it. Who would be interested? I mean, don't most people just wonder why anyone would even want to run a Marathon? What kind of a nut am I?
But, it meant an awful lot to me. Probably far more than it should have, and that's why I'm writing. I often gain a better perspective on events once they're written down.
I've been running, on and off, for years, but never anything more than two or three miles, two to three times a week. That is, when the weather was nice, and I was feeling good. It was the convergence of two events that led to the marathon. First, I saw the movie “Run, Fat Boy, Run!” which climaxed with the main character, an out-of-shape guy who never, ever finished anything, completing a marathon on three weeks training and a sprained ankle just to prove a point to the woman he loved.
Second, a neighbor of mine started some serious running. She threw down the gauntlet when she said, “well, I see you running, and if an old guy like you can do it, so can I.” With that, we began a friendly game of oneupmanship.
I discovered, much to my surprise, that I was handling longer runs pretty easily (“longer” as in, six to eight miles), and a running friend of mine suggested we try a half-marathon together.
“What a great idea!” I thought. “And, while I'm at it, why not try a full marathon. I've got five months to train, and the Long Island Marathon is right in my backyard.”
Ah, Reflection: if I shoot at all, it's always for the stars.
As I trained, the Marathon took on more and more meaning for me. It was no longer just some run. I was putting more and more effort into the training – sacrificing days off, running in the snow and rain in the dead of winter (dreadful time to undertake this, which brings us to the next Reflection: I have really bad timing. We bought our house at the height of the market in the 1980's; we bought our tech stocks right before the bubble burst; we had Robert just when the spike in ASDs began; start a business as the recession hits; the list goes on and on.) I was getting on Tina's nerves as I began to devote more and more attention and energies to this.
Reflection: obsessing over a new project? Yeah, a little bit. It's all or nothing with me. Always has been, always will.
And, I began to need to prove something to myself. Life has been a bit rough lately – not bad in any way (God knows I am exceptionally thankful for everything in my life), but over the past several years, a lot of things have not really gone my way, despite my best efforts. I wanted to prove I could still be successful, to do something exceptionally challenging.
I thought the Marathon might be the key. It was challenging, and most importantly, its outcome was something over which I believed I had control. Or at least, the illusion of control. (We can never be fully in control of anything, can we?)
And you know what? It was really hard – much harder than I had anticipated. When I started to get into the real mileage (15+ mile runs), it wasn't at all easy, but I would get through this.
(I guess it's like a first-time pregnancy for women. Sounds like a wonderful thing to experience, but you really have no idea what you're in for.)
Then the inevitable happened. I raised the bar. I started to push myself harder and harder. There were no “easy” runs. I changed my diet, I became obsessed with the Weather Channel, I combed the Internet for training advice. And, I set myself a goal. Not only was I going to finish the Marathon, I was going to run it fast enough to qualify for the Boston Marathon – anything less, and I would be disappointed.
Ridiculous, I know, but – there it is again, Reflection – always with the highest expectations for myself. I can't seem to do “good enough.” Everything has to be done right. (And, maybe that explains why I often hesitate to take on a new challenge. I'll study it to death before I begin. Will I be able to do it as well as it should be done? I doubt my abilities and think about everything that could go wrong. . .)
Of course, in the days leading up to the race, I grew nervous. I should have trained more -- more miles, more days running. More practice races – longer runs. Reflection: I NEVER feel like I've done enough.
But, I simply could not allow myself to fail – again.
“Again.” When did I add that word to the sentence? Then I understood why this stupid run meant so much to me.
I was good through high school – all honors, class valedictorian. I got into my first choice college. But, then, things didn't quite go as well as I had hoped. Yes, I graduated magna cum laude, and the school was ranked number one in the country at the time, but, I didn't make any of the sports teams, and I dropped out of the honors' program. Success?
From there, I got into a prestigious law school, but not my number one choice. Success?
I got a job in Midtown Manhattan at a very good law firm, and while according to my reviews, I was a good lawyer, I discovered that I didn't love the job. And, when Robert started having problems, I put family before work, and my “career” suffered. I did not move up the ranks as others did, and soon was behind everyone in my starting class. Suffice it to say, I don't look back to my life as a lawyer as a “success.”
No wonder that when presented with the opportunity to change careers and engage in something that I found infinitely more interesting and rewarding (i.e., working with children like my son), I jumped at the opportunity. And, as always, threw myself 110% into the job. However, I worked for a boss who managed to run an effective, successful business into the ground. I lost money, and I lost time. I stuck it out for a long time – too long – waiting for it to turn around. It didn't.
I was severely disappointed. That venture was not a success.
I left and helped create a development and learning program that was even better. My new company got our program into three schools as a pilot with the promise of more funding and more schools to come. But despite great results, the funding never materialized (hell, the schools couldn't even afford to pay their own staff), and once again, circumstances seemed to conspire against me. That venture was not a success.
So, I decided to give it one last try. I would open my own center – I would do it right, do it my way.
My illusion of control.
Which brings us to today. Spark Development is in its fifth year – an accomplishment in and of itself. We have helped dozens of families, and they willingly and enthusiastically sing the praises of our program to anyone who will listen. Surely, that's the whole point of this venture – to help others who experienced the same problems, pain and obstacles that presented with children like my son.
The fact is, the program is better than ever. There has never been so much science supporting our approach. There have never been better, nor faster, results for our students.
And yet, I don't have multiple centers, Tina still needs to hold down a job at the hospital. Between the recession, the banks, and the issues many of my clientèle and would-be clientèle must face on a daily basis, this business is not making me financial secure.
Success?
And, so I heap even more significance on the outcome of the Marathon. How can my ability to run 26.2 miles have any bearing whatsoever on my sense of self-worth? I don't have an answer to that, but it did.
I ran the Marathon in 3 hours, 27 minutes, and qualified for the Boston Marathon by four minutes.
I did it. I did not fail.
And, in a moment of peace and insight, I realize that I am confusing my sense of satisfaction with an outcome with what it means to be “successful.” Hell, what is “success” anyway?
We have three healthy, beautiful, happy children. I love my family dearly, and we want for nothing. We have developed a business and a program that saved my son and dozens of other like him, I am passionate about what I do, and the business continues despite the worst of business-related circumstances.
So, maybe, just maybe, I have been “succeeding” all along.
Our family experienced injury and loss. We have done much in terms of healing. There is still much to do.
I've been meaning to blog for a while, but have not found the time nor, more importantly for someone like me, the inspiration.
This is a personal blog. If you're looking for something about medications and kids, skip down to the next post. A great story was aired on Good Morning America last week re: the dangers of stimulant medications used to treat ADHD.
This post is about running the Long Island Marathon. It was difficult, emotional, and as it turned out, a perfect reflection of my life.
I'm not sure why I'm writing about it. Who would be interested? I mean, don't most people just wonder why anyone would even want to run a Marathon? What kind of a nut am I?
But, it meant an awful lot to me. Probably far more than it should have, and that's why I'm writing. I often gain a better perspective on events once they're written down.
I've been running, on and off, for years, but never anything more than two or three miles, two to three times a week. That is, when the weather was nice, and I was feeling good. It was the convergence of two events that led to the marathon. First, I saw the movie “Run, Fat Boy, Run!” which climaxed with the main character, an out-of-shape guy who never, ever finished anything, completing a marathon on three weeks training and a sprained ankle just to prove a point to the woman he loved.
Second, a neighbor of mine started some serious running. She threw down the gauntlet when she said, “well, I see you running, and if an old guy like you can do it, so can I.” With that, we began a friendly game of oneupmanship.
I discovered, much to my surprise, that I was handling longer runs pretty easily (“longer” as in, six to eight miles), and a running friend of mine suggested we try a half-marathon together.
“What a great idea!” I thought. “And, while I'm at it, why not try a full marathon. I've got five months to train, and the Long Island Marathon is right in my backyard.”
Ah, Reflection: if I shoot at all, it's always for the stars.
As I trained, the Marathon took on more and more meaning for me. It was no longer just some run. I was putting more and more effort into the training – sacrificing days off, running in the snow and rain in the dead of winter (dreadful time to undertake this, which brings us to the next Reflection: I have really bad timing. We bought our house at the height of the market in the 1980's; we bought our tech stocks right before the bubble burst; we had Robert just when the spike in ASDs began; start a business as the recession hits; the list goes on and on.) I was getting on Tina's nerves as I began to devote more and more attention and energies to this.
Reflection: obsessing over a new project? Yeah, a little bit. It's all or nothing with me. Always has been, always will.
And, I began to need to prove something to myself. Life has been a bit rough lately – not bad in any way (God knows I am exceptionally thankful for everything in my life), but over the past several years, a lot of things have not really gone my way, despite my best efforts. I wanted to prove I could still be successful, to do something exceptionally challenging.
I thought the Marathon might be the key. It was challenging, and most importantly, its outcome was something over which I believed I had control. Or at least, the illusion of control. (We can never be fully in control of anything, can we?)
And you know what? It was really hard – much harder than I had anticipated. When I started to get into the real mileage (15+ mile runs), it wasn't at all easy, but I would get through this.
(I guess it's like a first-time pregnancy for women. Sounds like a wonderful thing to experience, but you really have no idea what you're in for.)
Then the inevitable happened. I raised the bar. I started to push myself harder and harder. There were no “easy” runs. I changed my diet, I became obsessed with the Weather Channel, I combed the Internet for training advice. And, I set myself a goal. Not only was I going to finish the Marathon, I was going to run it fast enough to qualify for the Boston Marathon – anything less, and I would be disappointed.
Ridiculous, I know, but – there it is again, Reflection – always with the highest expectations for myself. I can't seem to do “good enough.” Everything has to be done right. (And, maybe that explains why I often hesitate to take on a new challenge. I'll study it to death before I begin. Will I be able to do it as well as it should be done? I doubt my abilities and think about everything that could go wrong. . .)
Of course, in the days leading up to the race, I grew nervous. I should have trained more -- more miles, more days running. More practice races – longer runs. Reflection: I NEVER feel like I've done enough.
But, I simply could not allow myself to fail – again.
“Again.” When did I add that word to the sentence? Then I understood why this stupid run meant so much to me.
I was good through high school – all honors, class valedictorian. I got into my first choice college. But, then, things didn't quite go as well as I had hoped. Yes, I graduated magna cum laude, and the school was ranked number one in the country at the time, but, I didn't make any of the sports teams, and I dropped out of the honors' program. Success?
From there, I got into a prestigious law school, but not my number one choice. Success?
I got a job in Midtown Manhattan at a very good law firm, and while according to my reviews, I was a good lawyer, I discovered that I didn't love the job. And, when Robert started having problems, I put family before work, and my “career” suffered. I did not move up the ranks as others did, and soon was behind everyone in my starting class. Suffice it to say, I don't look back to my life as a lawyer as a “success.”
No wonder that when presented with the opportunity to change careers and engage in something that I found infinitely more interesting and rewarding (i.e., working with children like my son), I jumped at the opportunity. And, as always, threw myself 110% into the job. However, I worked for a boss who managed to run an effective, successful business into the ground. I lost money, and I lost time. I stuck it out for a long time – too long – waiting for it to turn around. It didn't.
I was severely disappointed. That venture was not a success.
I left and helped create a development and learning program that was even better. My new company got our program into three schools as a pilot with the promise of more funding and more schools to come. But despite great results, the funding never materialized (hell, the schools couldn't even afford to pay their own staff), and once again, circumstances seemed to conspire against me. That venture was not a success.
So, I decided to give it one last try. I would open my own center – I would do it right, do it my way.
My illusion of control.
Which brings us to today. Spark Development is in its fifth year – an accomplishment in and of itself. We have helped dozens of families, and they willingly and enthusiastically sing the praises of our program to anyone who will listen. Surely, that's the whole point of this venture – to help others who experienced the same problems, pain and obstacles that presented with children like my son.
The fact is, the program is better than ever. There has never been so much science supporting our approach. There have never been better, nor faster, results for our students.
And yet, I don't have multiple centers, Tina still needs to hold down a job at the hospital. Between the recession, the banks, and the issues many of my clientèle and would-be clientèle must face on a daily basis, this business is not making me financial secure.
Success?
And, so I heap even more significance on the outcome of the Marathon. How can my ability to run 26.2 miles have any bearing whatsoever on my sense of self-worth? I don't have an answer to that, but it did.
I ran the Marathon in 3 hours, 27 minutes, and qualified for the Boston Marathon by four minutes.
I did it. I did not fail.
And, in a moment of peace and insight, I realize that I am confusing my sense of satisfaction with an outcome with what it means to be “successful.” Hell, what is “success” anyway?
We have three healthy, beautiful, happy children. I love my family dearly, and we want for nothing. We have developed a business and a program that saved my son and dozens of other like him, I am passionate about what I do, and the business continues despite the worst of business-related circumstances.
So, maybe, just maybe, I have been “succeeding” all along.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
