I may be wrong, but I think we have another “duh” moment. According to “Brain MRI may lead to early autism detection,” reported by Nicole Ostrow of Bloomberg News, researchers studying 60 children, half diagnosed with mild autism and half without autism, were able to identify autism 94% of the time using magnetic resonance imaging. Specifically, the MRI looked at water diffusion along the brain’s nerve fibers.
The article talks of “the disorder’s biological base,” and objective markers, and early detection.
While there is no doubt that early diagnosis and more objectivity are worthy goals, I have to wonder, if autism is a neurological disorder, and even subjectively, differences in behavior, intellect and communication are readily apparent, isn’t it a given that brain processing will be different? Isn’t this just objective confirmation of what we already know? (and why only 94% success?)
Also, this test does nothing to shed light on the cause of autism. When the article discusses “the disorder’s biological base,” is it suggesting that the differences found in the autistic brain are innate, and thus, the cause of the disorder? Or, is it merely finding changes in the brain caused by some external, environmental insult (which, combined with a genetic disposition of susceptibility to such harm, is what we believe to be the true cause of the disorder)? If it’s the latter, are these differences in brain processing really a “biological base”?
And, another thought, this one regarding ADHD. We’ve always maintained that disorders like ADHD are part of the ASD spectrum (and there are researchers out there who apparently believe likewise). That is, that whatever is causing the ASD epidemic also is causing the ADHD epidemic. It’s just a different degree of effect and a different manifestation. I’ll bet if the same MRI studies were done on kids diagnosed with ADHD, the researchers would find that the ADHD brains also process information differently.
If that’s the case, then you have to wonder. We were always told by Robert’s doctors that ADHD was caused by a brain chemistry imbalance with respect to certain neurotransmitters, and that drugs were the only way to address his issues.
If the ADHD brain, like the autistic brain, processes information differently, is that really the result of a “neurotransmitter imbalance?” And, more to the point, how can messing with those neurotransmitters, as the ADHD meds are theorized to do, really fix the problem?
Just a thought.
Friday, December 3, 2010
Wednesday, December 1, 2010
Autism, Mitochondria, Science & Parents
Came across a very interesting article in the paper today. Delthia Ricks reports in “New angle on autism,” that “[a]utism for some children may be related to defects in the mitochondria.” This “new” finding is reported in the Journal of the American Medical Association.
I write “new” because this theory has been around for a while. In fact, I believe there are practitioners here on Long Island that have been testing for these defects for several years.
And, Ms. Ricks notes that “[f]or years, parents on Long Island and elsewhere have argued their children diagnosed as having autism actually are affected by mitochondrial defects but the scientific work to support their claims have been scarce. . . ‘It always takes the medical and scientific community a long time to catch up with what parents are saying,’” noted Evelyn Ain, an advocate for children with autism.
Yeah, don’t we know that!
Oh, and there was one more quote that I particularly enjoyed. Dr. Eli Hatchwell, while commenting that the findings were “intriguing but not definitive,” stated “I have said it before and I will say it again: There is no single cause of autism.”
Funny, we’ve been saying that for the last ten years!!
But, maybe now that a doctor says it . . .
I write “new” because this theory has been around for a while. In fact, I believe there are practitioners here on Long Island that have been testing for these defects for several years.
And, Ms. Ricks notes that “[f]or years, parents on Long Island and elsewhere have argued their children diagnosed as having autism actually are affected by mitochondrial defects but the scientific work to support their claims have been scarce. . . ‘It always takes the medical and scientific community a long time to catch up with what parents are saying,’” noted Evelyn Ain, an advocate for children with autism.
Yeah, don’t we know that!
Oh, and there was one more quote that I particularly enjoyed. Dr. Eli Hatchwell, while commenting that the findings were “intriguing but not definitive,” stated “I have said it before and I will say it again: There is no single cause of autism.”
Funny, we’ve been saying that for the last ten years!!
But, maybe now that a doctor says it . . .
Wednesday, November 24, 2010
Don't the Needs of the Many Outweigh the Wants of the Few?
Is it just me, or is there something fundamentally wrong when you read in the paper about Long Island school superintendents who are making hundreds of thousands of dollars a year in salaries, pensions and benefits, and then two days later, read in the same paper, that services for special needs children are being cut?
One person wrote an editorial in which he was outraged that anyone should have an issue with the superintendents' pay because they "earned it," and the pay simply can't compare to that of private sector CEOs. I think this person is missing the point.
It's not really a matter of "earning it" (although others were quick to point out that city school superintendents', with far more children to account for, don't make nearly as much), and it has nothing to do with the private sector (our taxes pay for their jobs -- it's not a for-profit organization). What is at issue here, what should only really be at issue here, is what's best for our children. If the districts need money -- and remember, it's really our money in the form of ever increasing taxes -- the cuts should NOT come at the expense of our children. The schools, and the superintendents, exist for our children's benefit -- not the other way around.
Or maybe I'm just crazy to think that maybe the needs of the kids should come before those who have "earned it."
One person wrote an editorial in which he was outraged that anyone should have an issue with the superintendents' pay because they "earned it," and the pay simply can't compare to that of private sector CEOs. I think this person is missing the point.
It's not really a matter of "earning it" (although others were quick to point out that city school superintendents', with far more children to account for, don't make nearly as much), and it has nothing to do with the private sector (our taxes pay for their jobs -- it's not a for-profit organization). What is at issue here, what should only really be at issue here, is what's best for our children. If the districts need money -- and remember, it's really our money in the form of ever increasing taxes -- the cuts should NOT come at the expense of our children. The schools, and the superintendents, exist for our children's benefit -- not the other way around.
Or maybe I'm just crazy to think that maybe the needs of the kids should come before those who have "earned it."
Thursday, November 11, 2010
A Response to a Post on Dr. Rory F. Stern's Website
I came across a post entitled "How Do ADD/ADHD Medications Really Work" by Dr. Rory F. Stern. He asked for comments. You all know this subject has been addressed here many times. Here's what I wrote to Dr. Stern.
Wow.
I must admit I was a little upset when I saw the title of this post: “How Do ADD/ADHD Medications Really Work,” because NO ONE really knows how any of these medications work. We’ve all been told about the medical theory underlying ADHD, i.e., that ADHD is the result of a chemical imbalance in the brain involving certain neurotransmitters and that the medications help regulate such neurotransmitters.
However, this is only a THEORY. No one really knows what causes ADHD, and NO ONE really knows how any of these medications actually work. As most of you certainly know, ADHD is a symptom driven diagnosis – if you check off enough behaviors on the Conners sheet in enough environments, you will be diagnosed with ADHD regardless of what is actually causing the behaviors.
If you do the research, you’ll find studies that “prove” inattentiveness and impulsivity can be traced back to many different “causes” -- overexposure to media (including television and video games), poor diets and food allergies, nutrition deficiencies (including essential fatty acids), sensory integrations problems, sleep problems or emotional issues, to name but a few. I noticed that some of the previous posts mention such issues.
But, to Dr. Stern’s credit, he did not try to explain exactly how these medications work, nor did he take a stand on their use. The subject of medication is near and dear to me, and I have blogged about it extensively in the past. While I am certainly not a proponent of medication, I do realize that for some people it is a life changer. I only urge that you try other therapies and approaches, and use medications as a last resort.
Without getting into the gory details, our son was diagnosed with ADHD, borderline ODD, and PDD by the age of 7. We reluctantly tried medications, and unfortunately for our son, he got hit with nearly every side-effect you could get, from wild mood swings, to hyper anxiety, to facial tics. One med led to another, and to another, as his doctors tried to medicate his side-effects away and get his behavior under control.
He was a mess, and the cocktail of ever changing meds was only making him worse. When we mentioned trying alternatives ranging from dietary changes to homeopathy to sensory integration work, we were told by every professional that meds were the only proven therapy and the rest was a waste of time and money. However, our son’s downward spiral on the meds, the doctors’ insistence on more meds, and our desperation drove us to explore the alternatives.
We did, and we have never looked back. It took time and a lot of effort, but by the time our son entered sixth grade, he was completely off all medications and you would never have known there was ever an issue with this child.
Over that time, we learned a great deal about meds that the doctors never shared with us. First, nearly all studies show that over the long run, these meds lose their effectiveness. Second, these meds almost always have side-effects (although some may argue that the benefits outweigh the side-effects). Third, while rare, there are some serious issues with these medications that have led some to be banned in other countries. Fourth, the effectiveness of such meds is greatly over sold. You see, it depends on your definition of “effectiveness.” If you define “effectiveness” as having some “effect,” then these meds are very effective. If you define “effectiveness” as satisfactorily alleviating the issues for which the medication is given, you’ll find that these meds aren’t nearly as effective as promised.
In fact, during a Special Education PTA seminar, less than 30% of the parents who tried medications to regulate their children’s behavior thought the meds did what they were supposed to do, and 100%(!!) experienced side-effects. This number was interesting since a psychologist writing on the subject of the effectiveness of psychotropic meds, made a similar distinction, and stated with authority, that such meds had an “effect” 70% of the time, but only really worked about 30% of the time!
So, I was truly shocked to see how many people responded that their children were helped by meds. I was even more shocked by the apparent lack of those who had awful experiences with medications, like we did. I can only say to those who responded by saying that meds were life savers, I am truly glad that you were able to help your children, and be aware how lucky you are!
Wow.
I must admit I was a little upset when I saw the title of this post: “How Do ADD/ADHD Medications Really Work,” because NO ONE really knows how any of these medications work. We’ve all been told about the medical theory underlying ADHD, i.e., that ADHD is the result of a chemical imbalance in the brain involving certain neurotransmitters and that the medications help regulate such neurotransmitters.
However, this is only a THEORY. No one really knows what causes ADHD, and NO ONE really knows how any of these medications actually work. As most of you certainly know, ADHD is a symptom driven diagnosis – if you check off enough behaviors on the Conners sheet in enough environments, you will be diagnosed with ADHD regardless of what is actually causing the behaviors.
If you do the research, you’ll find studies that “prove” inattentiveness and impulsivity can be traced back to many different “causes” -- overexposure to media (including television and video games), poor diets and food allergies, nutrition deficiencies (including essential fatty acids), sensory integrations problems, sleep problems or emotional issues, to name but a few. I noticed that some of the previous posts mention such issues.
But, to Dr. Stern’s credit, he did not try to explain exactly how these medications work, nor did he take a stand on their use. The subject of medication is near and dear to me, and I have blogged about it extensively in the past. While I am certainly not a proponent of medication, I do realize that for some people it is a life changer. I only urge that you try other therapies and approaches, and use medications as a last resort.
Without getting into the gory details, our son was diagnosed with ADHD, borderline ODD, and PDD by the age of 7. We reluctantly tried medications, and unfortunately for our son, he got hit with nearly every side-effect you could get, from wild mood swings, to hyper anxiety, to facial tics. One med led to another, and to another, as his doctors tried to medicate his side-effects away and get his behavior under control.
He was a mess, and the cocktail of ever changing meds was only making him worse. When we mentioned trying alternatives ranging from dietary changes to homeopathy to sensory integration work, we were told by every professional that meds were the only proven therapy and the rest was a waste of time and money. However, our son’s downward spiral on the meds, the doctors’ insistence on more meds, and our desperation drove us to explore the alternatives.
We did, and we have never looked back. It took time and a lot of effort, but by the time our son entered sixth grade, he was completely off all medications and you would never have known there was ever an issue with this child.
Over that time, we learned a great deal about meds that the doctors never shared with us. First, nearly all studies show that over the long run, these meds lose their effectiveness. Second, these meds almost always have side-effects (although some may argue that the benefits outweigh the side-effects). Third, while rare, there are some serious issues with these medications that have led some to be banned in other countries. Fourth, the effectiveness of such meds is greatly over sold. You see, it depends on your definition of “effectiveness.” If you define “effectiveness” as having some “effect,” then these meds are very effective. If you define “effectiveness” as satisfactorily alleviating the issues for which the medication is given, you’ll find that these meds aren’t nearly as effective as promised.
In fact, during a Special Education PTA seminar, less than 30% of the parents who tried medications to regulate their children’s behavior thought the meds did what they were supposed to do, and 100%(!!) experienced side-effects. This number was interesting since a psychologist writing on the subject of the effectiveness of psychotropic meds, made a similar distinction, and stated with authority, that such meds had an “effect” 70% of the time, but only really worked about 30% of the time!
So, I was truly shocked to see how many people responded that their children were helped by meds. I was even more shocked by the apparent lack of those who had awful experiences with medications, like we did. I can only say to those who responded by saying that meds were life savers, I am truly glad that you were able to help your children, and be aware how lucky you are!
Friday, November 5, 2010
Tuesday, October 19, 2010
Some More TV News
Can you stand one more blog about television?
An article posted at http://www.themedguru.com/20101011/newsfeature/long-hours-watching-tv-can-harm-child-s-mental-health-study-86140882.html by Silky Chandvani (10/11/10), cites a study that indicates that long hours of screen exposure at an early age might lead to psychological problems.
The study examined 1000 children, all around 10 years of age. Two measuring devises were used. The first was a questionnaire that covered: television viewing time, emotional difficulties, conduct problems, hyperactivity or inattention, friendships, and problems relating to peer groups. The second was an activity monitor that recorded the children’s sedentary time and moderate physical activity over a week’s period.
What did the researchers find?
The children who sat in front of a screen for more than two hours a day scored low on the questionnaires, regardless of how much physical activity in which they otherwise engaged. In addition, these children ran a 60% higher risk of developing psychological problems than those who racked up fewer viewing hours.
The study was published in the November edition of “Pediatrics” and was supported by the World Cancer Research Fund and the National Prevention Research Initiative.
Need I say more?
An article posted at http://www.themedguru.com/20101011/newsfeature/long-hours-watching-tv-can-harm-child-s-mental-health-study-86140882.html by Silky Chandvani (10/11/10), cites a study that indicates that long hours of screen exposure at an early age might lead to psychological problems.
The study examined 1000 children, all around 10 years of age. Two measuring devises were used. The first was a questionnaire that covered: television viewing time, emotional difficulties, conduct problems, hyperactivity or inattention, friendships, and problems relating to peer groups. The second was an activity monitor that recorded the children’s sedentary time and moderate physical activity over a week’s period.
What did the researchers find?
The children who sat in front of a screen for more than two hours a day scored low on the questionnaires, regardless of how much physical activity in which they otherwise engaged. In addition, these children ran a 60% higher risk of developing psychological problems than those who racked up fewer viewing hours.
The study was published in the November edition of “Pediatrics” and was supported by the World Cancer Research Fund and the National Prevention Research Initiative.
Need I say more?
Monday, October 4, 2010
The Warnings Keep Coming, But Is Anybody Listening?
Got a few things to talk about this week. The theme? We keep getting warned about potential issues with medications, the political underpinnings of health care, and dangers regarding products we use and consume, but the warnings are side-notes, buried in the back of the paper, confined to the pages on health books generally dismissed by the mainstream medical community, and on the web – if you know where to look. But, if you’re reading this, then you might want to know a couple of things. In no particular order:
When a new client joins our Center, we always ask if they ever (a) suffered from any form of chronic infection, such as ear infections, sinus infections, etc.; and (b) took antibiotics for extended periods of time. You’d be surprised to learn that the majority of our students answer these questions with a resounding “Yes!”
We ask for two main reasons. First, chronic infections often are a sign of a food allergy (or, if you prefer, a food “aversion”). Simply put, the student is eating something that is triggering an immune response and making them sick. But, food allergies are not the point of this blog -- that’s a whole ‘nother story.
It is the second reason that I’d like to address here. For years, we have known that antibiotics can wreak havoc on the digestive system. This can negatively impact the student’s immune system, since the vast majority (70% to 80%, depending on your reference source) resides in the digestive system. Your immune system, of course, has a direct impact on your overall health, but it also has a major impact on your mood and behavior.
Surprise, surprise. While everyone knows that antibiotic use can upset your stomach, a new study reveals that “repeatedly taking [antibiotics] can trigger long-lasting changes in all those good germs that live in your gut, raising questions about lingering ill effects.” Newsday, 9/14/10 at A33. The article noted that three healthy adults who had not used antibiotics in at least the past year where given low, five-day courses of the antibiotic Cipro, six months apart. The researchers found that the “bacterial diversity” of those three individuals “plummeted as a third to half of the volunteers’ original germ species were nearly wiped out, though other species moved in.”
How could this not affect your immune system?
Did you hear? The Food Pyramid may be “so politically influenced that it is ineffective.” (check out Newsday, 10/4/10 at A23). “This year, the meat lobby has opposed strict warnings on sodium that could cast a negative light on lunch meats. The milk lobby has contested warnings to cut back on added sugars, lest chocolate- and strawberry-flavored milk fall from favor.” Really? You don’t say. And, here I thought the Food Pyramid was a totally objective, science-based guide to eating healthy . . .
So who says Frankenfood is bad for you? Well, a lot of people, actually. According to “This Supermarket ‘Health Food’ Killed These Baby Rats in Three Weeks,” written By Jeffrey Smith and Posted By Dr. Mercola on October 4, 2010, Biologist Arpad Pusztai; Irina Ermakova, a senior scientist at the Russian National Academy of Sciences; Embryologist Andrés Carrasco; Epidemiologist Judy Carman; prominent virologist Terje Traavik; and Ohio State University plant ecologist Allison Snow. In one way or another, these researchers and scientists proved that genetically modified foods can be quite harmful. But, each and every one of these individuals was put through a trial by fire. Some were fired from their positions, others had research funding withdrawn, some had their research blocked, and some were even subject to baseless rumors attacking their credibility. See http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2010/10/04/watch-out-there-are-more-problems-with-genetically-modified-foods-than-youre-allowed-to-know.aspx.
Really, if we can’t trust the companies that are genetically mutilating our food, who can we trust?
When a new client joins our Center, we always ask if they ever (a) suffered from any form of chronic infection, such as ear infections, sinus infections, etc.; and (b) took antibiotics for extended periods of time. You’d be surprised to learn that the majority of our students answer these questions with a resounding “Yes!”
We ask for two main reasons. First, chronic infections often are a sign of a food allergy (or, if you prefer, a food “aversion”). Simply put, the student is eating something that is triggering an immune response and making them sick. But, food allergies are not the point of this blog -- that’s a whole ‘nother story.
It is the second reason that I’d like to address here. For years, we have known that antibiotics can wreak havoc on the digestive system. This can negatively impact the student’s immune system, since the vast majority (70% to 80%, depending on your reference source) resides in the digestive system. Your immune system, of course, has a direct impact on your overall health, but it also has a major impact on your mood and behavior.
Surprise, surprise. While everyone knows that antibiotic use can upset your stomach, a new study reveals that “repeatedly taking [antibiotics] can trigger long-lasting changes in all those good germs that live in your gut, raising questions about lingering ill effects.” Newsday, 9/14/10 at A33. The article noted that three healthy adults who had not used antibiotics in at least the past year where given low, five-day courses of the antibiotic Cipro, six months apart. The researchers found that the “bacterial diversity” of those three individuals “plummeted as a third to half of the volunteers’ original germ species were nearly wiped out, though other species moved in.”
How could this not affect your immune system?
Did you hear? The Food Pyramid may be “so politically influenced that it is ineffective.” (check out Newsday, 10/4/10 at A23). “This year, the meat lobby has opposed strict warnings on sodium that could cast a negative light on lunch meats. The milk lobby has contested warnings to cut back on added sugars, lest chocolate- and strawberry-flavored milk fall from favor.” Really? You don’t say. And, here I thought the Food Pyramid was a totally objective, science-based guide to eating healthy . . .
So who says Frankenfood is bad for you? Well, a lot of people, actually. According to “This Supermarket ‘Health Food’ Killed These Baby Rats in Three Weeks,” written By Jeffrey Smith and Posted By Dr. Mercola on October 4, 2010, Biologist Arpad Pusztai; Irina Ermakova, a senior scientist at the Russian National Academy of Sciences; Embryologist Andrés Carrasco; Epidemiologist Judy Carman; prominent virologist Terje Traavik; and Ohio State University plant ecologist Allison Snow. In one way or another, these researchers and scientists proved that genetically modified foods can be quite harmful. But, each and every one of these individuals was put through a trial by fire. Some were fired from their positions, others had research funding withdrawn, some had their research blocked, and some were even subject to baseless rumors attacking their credibility. See http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2010/10/04/watch-out-there-are-more-problems-with-genetically-modified-foods-than-youre-allowed-to-know.aspx.
Really, if we can’t trust the companies that are genetically mutilating our food, who can we trust?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
