Is anyone aware of anything hearbal, or more natural, or at least safer then the stuff currently on the market? My son has been on adderall for about 4 years, and we are now starting to see some long term effects. His blood preasure isn't high yet, but it is creeping up. He hardly sleeps, and hardly eats. He has dark circles under his eyes. We tried stratera, and that just didn't work at all. So please if you have any info on anything please let me know.
Jme

There are "natural" remedies that won't do anything to help ADD, and there are "natural" remedies that could kill you, but no, there are no "natural" products out there that will actually work that are safer than the medications available. Well, I suppose one could chew on raw coca leaf...after all, cocaine is a natural substance found in that plant. I'm obviously not serious about that, so don't try it.

If someone is not sleeping or eating, then you need to be talking to the doctor. Dosages might be too high, or perhaps there are other medications that the doctor could try. Perhaps the doctor might decide to lower the overall dosage, or lower the evening dosage, or maye he might try to schedule the dosing in such a way that it gets out of his system earlier. Or he might decide that medications just aren't the best option for your son.

Regardless, there isn't much that you're going to find as an alternative form of medication. "natural" or "herbal" remedies aren't going to help ADD. They are unregulated by the FDA, they are not required to undergo the vigorous safety testing that prescription medications are, there is little or no oversight over their manufacture, sale, ingredients, or use. There aren't even any real scientific studies showing that they are effective. I'm sure you will find websites out there that make claims of their effectiveness and safety...most of these sites will also coincidentally be selling these products as well.

Well, there are "natural" remedies that won't do anything to help, and there are "natural" remedies that could kill him, but no, there are no "natural" products out there that will actually work that are safer than the medications available. Well, I suppose he could chew on raw coca leaf...after all, cocaine is a natural substance found in that plant. I'm obviously not serious about that, so don't try it.

Lithium is a nutrient. Lithium is used to treat bipolar disorder. To say that nothing natural actually works on cognition does not make sense to me. There is something that is in our diet in small amounts that is found in nature and has been STUDIED and acts like a drug. Lithium is a mineral that in high enough doses acts just as effectively as a drug. Actually lithium in lower doses has fewer side effects than the prescription drug form. Lithium is natural and it is effective.

Both poor appetite and trouble sleeping can be an indication of a zinc deficiency. This is something that you can test for youself. Simply buy some Zinc Status in a health food store. It basically tells you your zinc status immediately.

This product works because low zinc levels cause a loss of taste. (Zinc Status is a liquid form of zinc that has a metallic taste. A deficiency will cause the person to taste nothing. This product does work. It should cost you less than $20.)

Zinc is not only involved in taste and smell sensation, but also in the ability to digest protien. Zinc is important when ever there is any kind of eating problem. (I have a zinc deficiency which is treated now. I have a much better overall appetite now than I did my whole life.) The body needs zinc to produce melatonin. Zinc can help with sleep problems.

I mention this to give you an idea if a nutritional approach may be worth a try. You would need to consult an experienced professional for treatment or just do lots and lots of research if you do discover a zinc deficiency.

To say that nothing natural actually works on cognition does not make sense to me.
You misunderstand. This is why I put "natural" in quotation marks. I wasn't saying that there aren't naturally occuring chemicals that can help some people, I was saying that supplements which are marketed as a "natural cure for ADD" are almost universally worthless. Certainly if there is a dietary deficiency, adding the deficient chemical will help, but there is no data to show that ADD is caused by any kind of dietary deficiencies. With Lithium, you are correct, it is useful in treating bipolar disorder. Lithium is unique in that it is effective in treating a disorder and is also so simple that it cannot be synthesized and is only available in natural form. Many naturally occuring chemicals act as drugs, since cocaine, morphine, and cannabis are all natural sustances. The issue isn't whether a natural sustance can act as a drug, but whether there exist natural substances which are effective at treating ADD. The answer so far has consistently been "no."

No one has decided that there is major money to be made from "natural" or herbal or homeopathic supplements, so no one is funding the studies that are being done on the hugely profitable chemical and synthetic drugs. Homeopathic drugs are regulated, although I agree that natural and herbal supplements are not.

I've been taking Omega 3 (fish oil) supplements for a few months and can really see a difference. Would taking a prescription drug help even more? Possibly. But I don't have health insurance to pay for those expensive drugs. I recently added a combination of magnesium, zinc and calcium, don't know how much those are helping. Sometimes with me I can only tell if I stop taking something how much worse I feel then, so I know it has been doing some good.

The issue isn't whether a natural sustance can act as a drug, but whether there exist natural substances which are effective at treating ADD. The answer so far has consistently been "no."
I don't think anyone could actually know this with any certainity: That nothing natural can treat ADD. To say that anyone could review ALL the literature on ALL natural therapies would be impossible unless they worked as a professional researcher in this particular field. BUt even as a professional there would be a limit to their speciality, and the term natural emcompasses many types of therapies such as herbs, nutritional supplements, homeopathic remedies, etc. No professional could have the time to be knowledgable on all natural therapies. I don't see how anyone could have read ALL this literature on all these therapies.

Saying that nothing natural or holistic works is not stating a fact that can be supported realistically by someone who is not a professional medical researcher.

My point is that people are expressing an opinion but confusing it as fact when they make that statement about nothing natural works. I wish people would simply make the distinction between opinion and documented facts.

I don't think anyone could actually know this with any certainity: That nothing natural can treat ADD.
Correct but irrelevent. What I was trying to say is that there does not currently exist any good researched evidence to show that anything other than certain medication or certain types of behavioral therapy are successful at treating ADD.




To say that anyone could review ALL the literature on ALL natural therapies would be impossible unless they worked as a professional researcher in this particular field. BUt even as a professional there would be a limit to their speciality, and the term natural emcompasses many types of therapies such as herbs, nutritional supplements, homeopathic remedies, etc. No professional could have the time to be knowledgable on all natural therapies. I don't see how anyone could have read ALL this literature on all these therapies.

Saying that nothing natural or holistic works is not stating a fact that can be supported realistically by someone who is not a professional medical researcher.
Uh-huh. Well, I suppose the medical research that I do isn't in this particular field, so you're almost correct on a narrow technical ground. That being said, this is really just a thinly veiled attempt to obfuscate the issue. I don't need to read every study on every natural treatment. I only need to read studies on ADD, which evaluate possible treatment options. I don't need to read a study on whether a particular natural substance treats erectile disfunction or constipation.


My point is that people are expressing an opinion but confusing it as fact when they make that statement about nothing natural works. I wish people would simply make the distinction between opinion and documented facts.
I wish that people would understand the distinction between evidence-based research and opinion. What I was stating was not an opinion, except in the broadest sense that I should have allowed the slim possibility that there existed a paper pulished somewhere in the past few days that I was not aware of.

Speaking of documented facts, do you have any of these documented facts to show that a particular natural treatment works for ADD? Otherwise all you have is opinion as well. If you have a study which shows this, please post it and I will read over it and if necessary retract my statement. Otherwise, all you have is not only opinion, but a fairly insulting post as well.

No one has decided that there is major money to be made from "natural" or herbal or homeopathic supplements, so no one is funding the studies that are being done on the hugely profitable chemical and synthetic drugs. Homeopathic drugs are regulated, although I agree that natural and herbal supplements are not.
Au contraire. There is actually a lot of money being made in these fields. The reason why there aren't many studies on them is twofold: Partly it is due to the lack of regulation or requirements that they do so, and partly it is due to the fact that the studies which have been done so far have shown little evidence that they work.

Homeopathic remedies, by the way, aren't really regulated. They're allowed to be sold due to the fact that they contain nothing but water, and you don't need to regulate water.

Au contraire. There is actually a lot of money being made in these fields. The reason why there aren't many studies on them is twofold: Partly it is due to the lack of regulation or requirements that they do so, and partly it is due to the fact that the studies which have been done so far have shown little evidence that they work.

Homeopathic remedies, by the way, aren't really regulated. They're allowed to be sold due to the fact that they contain nothing but water, and you don't need to regulate water.
That's an eyeopener if it's true. Can you tell me where to find information about homeopathic remedies being "nothing but water"?

Homeopathic solutions consist of a solution of water mixed with some sort of toxic chemical. The water solution is then diluted to the point that it is physically impossible for any of the original chemical to exist in the solution. Of course, your tap water is pretty much the same, as it most likely once contained toxic chemicals that have now een filtered out and diluted. The only difference is that homeopathic remedies, I'm not making this up, have been "vigorously shaken."

If you don't believe me, go into any major drugstore chain, like CVS or Rite-Aid or whatever, and look at the packaging for a homeopathic remedy. It will actually say on the ox "This medication is homeopathic and therefore contains no active ingredients." Good thing too, since those original chemicals are usually toxic things like nux vomica or ****nic.

Homeopathic solutions consist of a solution of water mixed with some sort of toxic chemical. The water solution is then diluted to the point that it is physically impossible for any of the original chemical to exist in the solution. Of course, your tap water is pretty much the same, as it most likely once contained toxic chemicals that have now een filtered out and diluted. The only difference is that homeopathic remedies, I'm not making this up, have been "vigorously shaken."

If you don't believe me, go into any major drugstore chain, like CVS or Rite-Aid or whatever, and look at the packaging for a homeopathic remedy. It will actually say on the ox "This medication is homeopathic and therefore contains no active ingredients." Good thing too, since those original chemicals are usually toxic things like nux vomica or ****nic.
NOT all homeopathic remedies contain toxic substances. Many contain substances that are very common, like sodium chloride. But what is the point of saying those substances are toxic but then diluted so there is no toxicity left to them? Is there a point you are trying to make?

You seem to be arguing about something you don't know anything about. Can you post something that shows proof that homeopathic remedies are just like tap water? That statement is your opinion, and it seems to me to be one that is based on no knowledge of the subject.

"Otherwise, all you have is not only opinion, but a fairly insulting post as well."
If you are insulted then that is your problem. I don't take responsibility for other people's feelings, but do take responsibility for my behavior. So, please don't speak about your feelings to me because I can't change them for you. (I can change my behavior though) And, yes, your feelings are not relevent at all.

What is so insulting? You seem to offer your opinion as if it were fact and claim that I have to support my information with facts. I can't post my opinion, but you seem to think that you can "claim" your opinion as some authority on this subject. Where did you support your claims? (I can tell that you haven't really studied much about homeopathy.)

Quote:
I don't think anyone could actually know this with any certainity: That nothing natural can treat ADD.
Correct but irrelevent.

"I wish that people would understand the distinction between evidence-based research and opinion. What I was stating was not an opinion, except in the broadest sense that I should have allowed the slim possibility that there existed a paper pulished somewhere in the past few days that I was not aware of."

Is it NOT your opinion or is it not relevent? I think you just argued the same thing two different ways!

If the other poster has any questions on homeopathy I would be happy to share my knowledge in another thread or a PM. But I don't think it may help to go off on that topic here.

I've gotta agree that it's very doubtful that ALL homeopathic remedies contain some "toxic chemical." Can you point me in the direction of the information you're drawing your conclusion on?

NOT all homeopathic remedies contain toxic substances. Oh dear lord. You missed the point of the post: homeopathic remedies contain no substances.

Can you post something that shows proof that homeopathic remedies are just like tap water?You could do the math yourself. At 24X, Avogadro's number would make it impossible for any of the original chemical to remain in the solution. Surely you know Avogadro's number, the number of molecules found in one Mole of a material.

There are very few scientific studies on the matter, mostly because it's a waste of money. There is no evidence to demonstrate why material that has been diluted beyond the point at which there would be any remaining sustance would be effective. For homeopathy to work, everything that is known about modern medicine would have to be wrong. Everything.

However, here's a study from the British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=15801940&query_hl=29

CONCLUSIONS: In this study there was no effect over placebo for self treatment with one of three self selected, ultramolecular homeopathic medicines in preventing childhood URTI. This can be due to the lack of effect of the highly diluted homeopathic medicines or the process of selection and type of medicines.Here's an article on quackwatch written by an MD:
http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/homeo.html


Cecil Adams also did an excellent deunking of homeopathy:
http://www.straightdope.com/columns/000225.html

now, have you any evidence whatsoever to show that homeopathy is effective? Can you even show that it could theoretically have some effect?

I can tell that you haven't really studied much about homeopathyYou're right, in my job we're ethically required to endorse only evidence-based medicine.

Quote:
I don't think anyone could actually know this with any certainity: That nothing natural can treat ADD.
Correct but irrelevent.

"I wish that people would understand the distinction between evidence-based research and opinion. What I was stating was not an opinion, except in the broadest sense that I should have allowed the slim possibility that there existed a paper pulished somewhere in the past few days that I was not aware of."

Is it NOT your opinion or is it not relevent? I think you just argued the same thing two different ways! I think that you may be having difficulty comprehending what I was writing. It is always possible that there may be some paper out there in some obscure journal somewhere that I have not read. This is completely irrelevent to the question, however, as it does nothing to improve your argument. That there may be some piece of evidence out there means nothing. If you have evidence to show me, I will consider it. I cannot by definition consider hypothetical evidence which may or may not exist.

If you have any evidence for your claims, then please show them. Edited by Admin.

You seem to offer your opinion as if it were fact and claim that I have to support my information with facts. I can't post my opinion, but you seem to think that you can "claim" your opinion as some authority on this subject. It is not an opinion to state that I have seen no evidence for the effectiveness of any herbal remedy in the treatment of ADD. It is not opinion to state that no one else in the medical field with whom I have discussed this is aware of any such evidence. The statement "I have not seen X" is not an opinion. The statement "I am not aware that X exists" is not an opinion. If you feel that I am in error, then please correct me Edited by Admin.

Do you understand how scientific medical research works? (hint: you're not going to get very far if your only response is that I don't)

I have to laugh when people call homeopathic remedies "magic water" and then say but that stuff isn't regulated. Why should the FDA regulate something that people insist on calling "magic water?"

Homeopathy does provings. This is when they give people a remedy that they don't know what the remedy is made from. This is how then find out about a new substance. They have lots and lots of people take this remedy everyday for about a month, I think. These people have to write down in a journal every symptom they experience while taking this remedy. I mean everything, like the dreams they might have if they seem to change, the food cravings they get, any kind of changes in their preferences too, like if they need to sleep less or any change in appetite, sex drive, anything that changes at all. And from all those people they can see what symptoms are the more common ones and those that are less common. This is how they figure out what this remedy will treat. (Most remedies have a long list of symptoms that it treats.) What it causes it will cure is the basic idea.

It would be harmful to have people do provings of drugs, but people feel that homeopathy should be treated like drugs are. If it doesn't have the same action on the body then that doesn't make any sense to me. And homeopathy does not work like drugs or even herbs. Those dilutions basically stimulate the body into thinking that it has this (sometimes toxic) substance and the body HEALS ITSELF. So, to say that homeopathy should go through studies is showing nothing but ignorance about this medicine and how it works.

I have a book on toxicology that shows that the toxicity of most substances is what that homeopathic remedy will treat. (Not always the case but most times what something causes it will cure in diluted strength.) Taking something like salt will cure the exact same symptoms that some people will get from too much salt. (Natrium muraticum is latin for sodium choloride. Another thing about homeopathy that can put people off, most names are in latin so that people won't confuse the remedies for the crude substance.)

So natrium muraticum can help with high blood pressure. Taking too much salt can cause high blood pressure for some, but taking a diluted form of it will have the exact opposite effect. And, the great part about homeopathy is that it stimulates the body's own healing response. NO SIDE EFFECTS WHATSOEVER. There is nothing like that in western medicine.

Homeopathy is great for injuries because if you have a broken bone there isn't anything widely available to stimulate the healing of that broken bone. (There are products that use electricity I think to stimulate some type of healing of bones but that is not cheap, and I think only used in special situations.) But homeopathy is great for bruises, stings, bug bites, all sorts of everyday common minor complaints.

It is a fact that one reason why the AMA formed was to blacklist anyone who had anything to homeopathy. During the civil war there were actually more medical schools in the US teaching homeopathy than allopathic medicine.

Homeopathic remedies are required by law to be stocked in all pharmacies in France. Many countries use homeopathy more than we do in this country. It is cheap, completely safe and effective in treating many, many conditions.

But to treat anything chronic or serious does require the care of a homeopath.

One explanation I read some months ago was that the process of diluting the substance seems to change the molecular structure of the water, I think it said. Something about how the water molecules group together changes too. So even though no molecules of sodium chloride may remain in that dose that water is nothing like tap water or anything you could make by adding a tiny amount of salt to.

And not all doses have nothing left of the original substance. I believe the dose 6c, for example, does actually contain some of the crude substance in very small quantities. Zicam does contain some zinc because that is diluted less using a different scale, the dose being 3X.

It is known with very good certainty that there are no herbal remedies which approach theraputic levels of relief for ADHD. There are a number of things which can help, but the most effective ADHD medications are stimulants. It's a medical fact, period.

Oh, and some trivia about lithium. They used to give metallic lithium to manic depressives. It caused some pretty nasty effects. Manucaturing it into lithium carbonate eases the bad effects significantly. Yes, "natural" lithium worked, but tends to harm the patient.. "manufacured" lithium carbonate is a superuior medication and a lot less pernicious. In either case, metallic lithium does not occur naturally. It has to be refined. It is not a "natural" substance in that regard...

ME :D

I don't think anyone could actually know this with any certainity: That nothing natural can treat ADD. To say that anyone could review ALL the literature on ALL natural therapies would be impossible unless they worked as a professional researcher in this particular field. BUt even as a professional there would be a limit to their speciality, and the term natural emcompasses many types of therapies such as herbs, nutritional supplements, homeopathic remedies, etc. No professional could have the time to be knowledgable on all natural therapies. I don't see how anyone could have read ALL this literature on all these therapies.

Saying that nothing natural or holistic works is not stating a fact that can be supported realistically by someone who is not a professional medical researcher.

My point is that people are expressing an opinion but confusing it as fact when they make that statement about nothing natural works. I wish people would simply make the distinction between opinion and documented facts.

So, to say that homeopathy should go through studies is showing nothing but ignorance about this medicine and how it works. Uh-huh. You know, I was interviewing a medical researcher the other day, as we're intending to have him speak at a medical conference that I'm working on for this summer. He was discussing his research findings regarding clinical practices, and how he'd found a result that was contrary to what many physicians considered conventional wisdom. A colleague of mine's initial response was to ask him about his research methods and how he had reached this conclusion. It wasn't that she didn't trust him, it wasn't that she thought he was incorrect, after all, he came to us from a highly regarded institution. However, he was making a claim that we knew some doctors might question, and we needed to ensure that he had dotted all his Is and crossed all his Ts.

The point of this anecdote is to explain to you that even if you're right, even if you're speaking with people who admire your work, you still have to do the studies and show the proof. Saying that it can't be done via normal studies is just trying to avoid the same standards of evidence that apply to all health issues. Even if you want to do those "provings," you could still take a group of people with a given condition, divide them up, and compare those given a homeopathic remedy with those given a placebo. Oh, wait, I linked to a study that did just that in a prior post.

Eidted by Admin

But homeopathy is great for bruises, stings, bug bites, all sorts of everyday common minor complaints. Yes, because these are all conditions which will go away within a day or two regardless of what you use. Ok, I have...or will have in a few hours, several bruises on my leg and torso from a fight earlier tonight (the kind in a ring, not like a barfight or something like that). I know from experience that regardless of whether I take an Advil, or an Adderall for that matter, or a homeopathic remedy, or nothing at all, the bruises will go away in a day or two at most. The common cold is another good example. Regardless of whether you take zinc or other homeopathic remedies, or you take Sudafed, or you just sit around freebasing crack, the cold will most likely go away in 5-7 days.

It is a fact that one reason why the AMA formed was to blacklist anyone who had anything to homeopathy.Oh yeah, that's their main goal. They don't actually care about finding a cure for cancer or a vaccine for Avian Flu or better methods for treating and preventing heart disease, Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, Diabetes, etc. They're not devoting their entire lives to trying to alleviate pain and suffering and prolonging peoples lives or anything.

During the civil war there were actually more medical schools in the US teaching homeopathy than allopathic medicine.
Ah yes, back when they did surgery without anaesthetic or antibiotics. Modern medicine has come a long way since then edited by Admin.

One explanation I read some months ago was that the process of diluting the substance seems to change the molecular structure of the water, I think it said. Something about how the water molecules group together changes too. citation? Does this study exist? If it does, how do I know you're correctly representing it here For that matter, how do I know whether their conclusions were correct, since I can't see their methodology. The molecular structure of water is H2O. It is always H2O. The only methods in which the molecular structure of water is changed involve either adding energy to the water to electrolyze it and break it into its constituents, or add a catalyst which creates a reaction...which often results in a large flame or even an explosion.

So even though no molecules of sodium chloride may remain in that dose that water is nothing like tap water or anything you could make by adding a tiny amount of salt to. Except that tap water once contained a whole bunch of chemicals that have all een diluted out. It was once in the oceans and rivers with all kinds of chemicals. If homeopathy were correct, why shouldn't every drink of tap water provide the same effect.

Hmmm, this all reminds me a bit of the way chiropractic was looked at by the medical profession only a decade or two ago. Nowadays doctors are beginning to see that there are many ways to help people beyond writing a prescription for a drug. This is a good thing.

Hmmm, this all reminds me a bit of the way chiropractic was looked at by the medical profession only a decade or two ago. Nowadays doctors are beginning to see that there are many ways to help people beyond writing a prescription for a drug. This is a good thing.
Ermmm, dunno which medical professions your talking about, but as far as I know, the only change in our opinion of chiropractic is that we've gone from thinking of it as crap to thinking of it as expensive, dangerous crap.

And for the record, the medical profession is actually embracing clinical pharmacology (the technical term for using drug treatments) more, not less. Of course, this depends on the condition, but there are many good reasons for using a pharmacological treatment in many cases. It is safer and less invasive than a surgical procedure, its clinical effectiveness is easier to determine, it can be more easily standardized for patients, patient compliance is often better, and it's cheaper. The final point is no small matter. It does no good to offer a patient a treatment that he won't or can't pay for. Of course, for each individual condition, there are other reasons for preferring a pharmacological option. With ADD, for instance, it has been shown to be the most effective treatment...there's some discussion in another thread over whether evidence shows behavioral therapy to be useless or merely far inferior to meds, but the evidence is quite clear that medication is the most effective treatment.

Look, your sentiments may feel emotionally comforting, but medicine isn't about what feels right, it's about what good published evidence shows.

Hmmm, this all reminds me a bit of the way chiropractic was looked at by the medical profession only a decade or two ago. As far as I can tell, the vast majority of chiropractic "medicine" continues to be considered bunk.

The few chiropractors that are respected are those that stick to skeletal-musculature and don't pretend to be treating something else.

Ermmm, dunno which medical professions your talking about, but as far as I know, the only change in our opinion of chiropractic is that we've gone from thinking of it as crap to thinking of it as expensive, dangerous crap.

And for the record, the medical profession is actually embracing clinical pharmacology (the technical term for using drug treatments) more, not less. Of course, this depends on the condition, but there are many good reasons for using a pharmacological treatment in many cases. It is safer and less invasive than a surgical procedure, its clinical effectiveness is easier to determine, it can be more easily standardized for patients, patient compliance is often better, and it's cheaper. The final point is no small matter. It does no good to offer a patient a treatment that he won't or can't pay for. Of course, for each individual condition, there are other reasons for preferring a pharmacological option. With ADD, for instance, it has been shown to be the most effective treatment...there's some discussion in another thread over whether evidence shows behavioral therapy to be useless or merely far inferior to meds, but the evidence is quite clear that medication is the most effective treatment.

Look, your sentiments may feel emotionally comforting, but medicine isn't about what feels right, it's about what good published evidence shows.

Yes, doctors are writing more prescriptions than ever. They're still treating the symptoms instead of the whole person. But they are incorporating more holistic approaches as well, giving referrals to accupunturists and accupressurists, and even (gasp) sometimes to chiropractors.

I don't agree that "the evidence is quite clear that medication (alone) is the most effective treatment", a combination of PILLS AND SKILLS is far more effective than drugs alone.

I believe it's your sentiments and emotions that are showing here, not mine. Edited by Admin.

I can recognize that my attitude has nothing to do with any objective discussion. (Just like my feelings and my beliefs have nothing to do with this discussion.) :eyebrow: Well, I for one would like to know when you're going to get to the actual discussion. All I've seen is uproar over Hyperion's viewpoint, which is nearly entirely based on reason....

Ad hominem! It doesn't promote one's arguments!

:eek::eek:


:eyebrow: Well, I for one would like to know when you're going to get to the actual discussion. All I've seen is uproar over Hyperion's viewpoint, which is nearly entirely based on reason....


You are expressing your perception when you say that all you see is an uproar. Can you back up that perception with specifics? (What specific language makes you think there is an uproar? Please SHOW me how my responses lack objectivitiy here.)

Are you telling me how I feel (I'm in an uproar)? How would you know that?

And what is the discussion then? I did respond to another post about how this poster believes that these studies are wasting resources but keeps on insisting on these studies. Is that not the discussion? You said that poster's viewpoint is NEARLY entirely based on reason.

I don't see it that way. Can you clarify that for me. There is no reasoning in claiming that resources are wasted. What resources, where and by whom? I think this statement is based only on the poster's imagination. Or, is there a study to show this? Where is the reasoning? Can you supply any facts? I don't see any facts supporting that.

Perhaps YOU could explain the reasoning behind wanting studies on natural remedies but also believing that these studies are wasting resources. That is a contradiction to me.

I think that expressing your irrational beliefs is off topic. It isn't helpful or interesting for me to read about someone else's feelings, irrational beliefs, and attitudes (sacrasm) when they make an argument. Those types of responses are off topic for me and serve no purpose at all but to confuse the issue. Do you disagree?

First you say that you would like to discuss this topic but make the claim that I am the one getting in an uproar. Is that how you think you are keeping to the discussion? It's OK for you to discuss my responses (as off topic) but if I kindly ask someone to not post about their feelings, I am the one getting off topic. Is that what you mean by getting in an uproar? I simply asked that the discussion be about objective statements and not feelings or beliefs.

Hyperion wrote: Do you write your reports using your beliefs, attitudes or feelings? I would think that you don't. So, you can be objective in those reports (I would hope) so I would kindly ask you to be objective in your posts. Is that asking for too much?and
Look, your sentiments may feel emotionally comforting, but medicine isn't about what feels right, it's about what good published evidence shows. But posts on a discussion board are not scientific reports. Most of us who post here are not scientists. We're (hopefully) well-rounded people who combine our sentiments with what we've learned (from reading or talking to others or our own experiences). Yes, I think it's asking too much to expect every post and every poster to be completely objective. It's silly to accuse others of being "emotional" because they don't agree with you, shows a decided lack of self-esteem.

Hyperion wrote: and

It's silly to accuse others of being "emotional" because they don't agree with you, shows a decided lack of self-esteem.
My statements were not directed at the poster (the person). My statements were more like "that statement is your belief (or your opinion). I never "called" anyone anything, and certainly not "emotional." But correct me if I am wrong and do show proof, please.

There is a difference between identifying someone's specific comments for what they are (beliefs or opinions) and calling someone a label (emotional) based on some behavior they demostrate.

"You are not your actions and your actions are not you."

Are you familiar with REBT? I use it and recognize sometimes people are upset about something because of their irrational beliefs. So, a person's beliefs are not part of the topic. And, may in fact, be part of the problem.

To illustrate a point from REBT: Yes, I think it's asking too much to expect every post and every poster to be completely objective. This statement - if I had actually made it - would be an irrational belief. REBT says that exprecting anything at all to happen ALL of the time is unrealistic and irrational. This type of thinking is referred to as extreme thinking.

Nothing in life is ever so consitent EVERY single time. I believe that I simply asked for objectivity. ("Is that too much to expect." Is a rhetorical question and not an indication of my expectations.) There is a difference between asking for something and expecting to get it EVERY single time. So if I had expressed myself like that then I would refrain it to be a request which is basically how REBT works in changing irrational beliefs into rational beliefs. (Refraining your perspective.) It is rational and healthy, I think, to ask for what you want. Otherwise you will never get it. But, yes, expecting it all the time is unhealthy.

Oh good, you recognize that it's not rational (or healthy) to expect every post to be (completely) objective. I'm afraid that wasn't clear to me from reading your post.


I think you walked a very fine line in saying my beliefs (opinions) are based on emotions rather than fact. And again (in case you missed it before) just because my opinions (beliefs) don't agree with yours doesn't necessarily mean that I'm wrong and you're right. It may mean one of us knows something that the other doesn't know, or it may mean that we've had different experiences regarding the issue at hand.


Now, could we please get back to the topic?

Hyperion wrote: and

But posts on a discussion board are not scientific reports. Most of us who post here are not scientists. We're (hopefully) well-rounded people who combine our sentiments with what we've learned (from reading or talking to others or our own experiences). Yes, I think it's asking too much to expect every post and every poster to be completely objective. It's silly to accuse others of being "emotional" because they don't agree with you, shows a decided lack of self-esteem.Lunacie,

First, Hyperion didn't write the first quote.

Second, I did not accuse you of being "emotional", and I think many on the boards here would be of the opinion that my self-esteem is just fine.

What I said was that Hyperion's arguments are based on reason and the arguments put forth by Ortho & yourself (mostly ortho) do not address the issue. Instead, in your post #21 and in every post made by Orthomolecular, you've attacked Hyperion.

Whether you've intended to do so or not, you employed a classic avoidance tactic used by pseudoscientists in attempts to derail the opposition.

Sorry, I got a bit confused with all the quotes being copied about who actually said what. I know you weren't calling me "emotional", sorry that wasn't clear.

What one person sees as a reasonable opinion may not jive at all with another's personal experiences. I did feel that Hyperion was needlessly dismissive of any opinion that didn't jive with his own. Sorry if I made the problem any bigger, I'm apparently not able to discuss the issue with someone who is isn't interested in hearing any information that doesn't agree with his own opinion so I'll say 'buh bye' to this thread now.

My statements were not directed at the poster (the person). My statements were more like "that statement is your belief (or your opinion). I never "called" anyone anything, and certainly not "emotional." But correct me if I am wrong and do show proof, please.

There is a difference between identifying someone's specific comments for what they are (beliefs or opinions) and calling someone a label (emotional) based on some behavior they demostrate.
Sticks and stones have little to do with it.

You do not have to "label" a person to target them in your discussion rather than the issue.

For the record, I haven't made even one sarcastic comment. If you think I have, read it again, because I've been as direct as a person can be.

This is not an appropriate forum for selling; it's a place where people can go to get accurate information and support. How can we trust the information is accurate? It's quite simple: back it up with evidence and draw logical conclusions from that evidence.

The "OMG...." thread is a prime example of how possible it is to debate ambiguous information with reason and open minds.

A couple of things:

First off, I used sarcasm to highlight was I felt were two ridiculous assertions: the idea that the reason people in the medical field don't understand homeopathy is because it uses Latin, and the ludicrous assertion that the AMA was founded to destroy homeopathy.

I don't agree that "the evidence is quite clear that medication (alone) is the most effective treatment", a combination of PILLS AND SKILLS is far more effective than drugs alone.

I believe it's your sentiments and emotions that are showing here, not mine. It's not my sentiments or emotions at all, actually. I was referring to a particular study called the MTA. It was conducted by the National Institute of Mental Health, which is one of the National Institutes of Health, part of the federal Department of Health and Human Services. It is the single largest study ever conducted by that institute, involving subjects in at least six different cities in two different countries. When I said that that medication was the most effective treatment, I was referring to that study. You may feel free to dispute that study if you have evidence to show otherwise, but my assertion was certainly not based on sentiment or emotion.

Oh, and for the record, I do not work for a pharmaceutical company and have never received money or other benefits from a pharmaceutical company.

Edited by Admin.

You demostrate to me an irrational belief that because you are a professional your opinion carries more weight here. That is why I think you seem to confuse your opinion with a fact.

It was argued that that statement was true but not relevent. (You can't claim that nothing works because it is humanly impossible to know that.) I interpret that statement as someone who isn't willing to face the truth but simply wants to deny it. Can you explain why it is not relevent. Because this goes to the heart of the matter.

One simple practical suggestion would be to qualify your opinion and limit it to what you know and have read. To say that NOTHING works or exists, etc., is extreme thinking. It is not healthy and does not help the discussion.

You present yourself as someone whose job it is to make decisions based soley on hard cold facts or scientific data but I see you getting off the topic, specifically when it comes to your beliefs, attitudes and feelings. To express an attitude like sacrasm means you are mixing your personal issues (feelings, belief or attitudes) into the topic. That flies in the face of making a decision based soley on hard cold facts.

I don't editorialize on your comments. I responded to Hyperion's questions regarding the food allergies / sensitivities (below) and think that was a clear demonstration of not knowing about this subject. I did not "tell" you what I thought about your knowledge on this subject. I simply responded with facts and "showed" you that you did not seem to me to know anything about this.(You may interpret this differently, but my point is I didn't make a catty remark to you about that.) I recognise how I could lose sight of the topic by getting into personal issues and I avoid going there.

If this were the case, we'd see regular cycles of symptoms coinciding with certain meals, and we'd see regular patterns of symptoms coinciding with, for instance, school lunches on weekdays vs. home lunch on the weekend.

That is not a valid point. Additives are in lots of foods and gluten is in lots foods, for example. It doesn't work that way and I thought that was pretty common knowledge. It can take some time to have a reaction to a food. You don't seem aware of these facts, but I didn't feel the need to point that out ABOUT YOU. I simply stated the facts.
I think you may try to use your professional experience to argue the science and put people like me at a disadvantage. You want to argue on YOUR level but you are not what this forum is for and about. This is NOT a forum for professionals, so you may think you can use your professional exprerience but how is that reasonable and helpful to others who are not professional.

You should not expect me and others to have access to reports in professional journals. That is unreasonable. So insisting on these studies is putting non-professionals at a disadvantage. That is not a reasonable request to keep making on a forum for non-professionals.

REBT says that you create these disturbances (get yourself upset basically) by almost always escalating your desires into assumed needs, your preferences with demands and insistences, and your normal wishes into absolute dictates.

You do not have to "label" a person to target them in your discussion rather than the issue. I can comment on their remarks to me. I believe I limited my comments to their remarks only and did not make it about them. But "show" me if I did something else. I honestly don't "see" your point. But you seem to be doing that to me now with this comment. Are your referring to something I said (please make that clear) or to "me" now? You have made accusations before about personal attacks. That seems OK for you do but I don't go there. (Show me how I do that!) You don't seem capable of making that distinction; I think you are doing what you try to blame me for. Boundaries, please be respectful of personal boundaries, that is all I am asking for.

I said the use of latin terms in homeopathy is another thing that puts people off when they go to learn it. Your are trying to put words in my mouth with that comment of yours. The rest of that post is about someone else's comments, not mine. But that is not the only sacrasm you used. Taking your meds according to your horoscope was not, in my opinion, making any point at all. Please stick to the facts and keep things objective.

The post about "ADD being a crutch" speaks to this issue too. The post about "ADD is not real" and mothers who feel people seem to judge them for putting their kids on meds is again that same issue: Beliefs. You respect my beliefs and I will respect yours.

But to shut down some post and not even hear what someone has to say about what they tried is not respecting other people's beliefs. Just like saying ADD is not real is not accepting that people can have two different veiws, two different beliefs about this condition. The problem is simply blurting out your beliefs when they contradict someone else's is being disrespectful of that person's beliefs. (And insisting on data that non-professionals have access is being unreasonable.) And posting your opinion as a fact is misleading.

Same issue with medicatiing kids or not, everyone has their own opinion, but to get up in someone's face about YOUR beliefs when it is not RELEVENT is not showing respect for other people's beliefs. And, yes that is a real personal boundary violation.

Show me where I butt my opinion in posts where it may not be appropriate. I believe that I haven't done that here. I respect your beliefs but I don't see you giving me the same respect back.

everyone has access to studies and research, especially with the internet.

http://scholar.google.com/

And some opinions may be based on personal experience or on collected stories from others. I've read some very helpful books that weren't written by experts or researchers or scientists, they were collections of personal experiences, what life was like with a certain condition, what worked for those folks and what didn't, how to find a good doctor or a good therapist, etc.

Otherwise intelligent individuals may also become stupid when their rational thought is derailed by strong opinions or rigid beliefs.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stupidity

Respect (excerpts, link below to full article)
When you replace rigid beliefs with preferences, it is a compromise in the true sense of the word. This is because preferences offer you the ability to live life from a middle ground, a place of balance. Rigid beliefs are of the head and cause you to react and lose your center. You know that when one of your "buttons" is pushed, ‘centered’ is the last way you would describe yourself. You can only ever feel centered when the mind is open enough to listen to "gut" and heart feelings.

You know what it feels like to listen to your intuition and act on it. When this happens, you have shifted your focus from outcome and expectation, to trusting. You are then ‘present,’ in "what is" and able to ‘go with the flow.’ This is a description of spontaneous heart-felt actions.

When you adhere to rigid beliefs you are always focused on outcome. You have no alternative but to react. These reactions are emotional and caused because the head is blocking your heart energy. There is no way in which you can experience peace, or any sense of being centered. Your true nature expresses itself from the heart, and you are in conflict with it. Rigid beliefs and rigid preferences are the antithesis of your true nature, because they deny the heart. In so doing, you inhibit your natural ability to act compassionately.

When true preferences are questioned, you respond from the heart because the mind does not "boot up" all its rigid expectations. When this happens, you offer others a choice of how they act. This act, of giving others a choice, is itself one of compassion.

http://www.parama.com/html/body_breakrespect.html

It is just a belief if you don't have enough facts to justify your conclusion. Voting in an election is a great example of just how many people make up their minds without really studying the facts. If you said, "I voted for Candidate X because she is a great leader," that is a belief you're stating, and not necessarily knowledge. What makes her a great leader? Can you cite some concrete examples? If you can't come up with valid proof for your statement, it's just a belief.

It is just a belief if it demeans you or others based on a judgment. Erroneous stereotypes about different groups of people fall into this category. Believing all young people are hoodlums or all older people are cantankerous are examples of throwing members of a group into the same proverbial pot.

http://www.lifeandcareercoaching.com/beliefs.html


http://hinduwebsite.com/selfdevt/maturity.asp

Boundaries

12. Study a variety of philosophies and note aspects of each that you appreciate. Everyone builds their own philosophical belief system. Never force yourself to accept beliefs that don't feel right. Beliefs develop over time after much contemplation and life experience. You are free to choose your beliefs.

13. Learn how to listen to others without trying to change their beliefs. Learn how to start friendly discussions with strangers and new acquaintances.

http://surrealist.org/betrayalofthespirit/boundaries.html

It was argued that that statement was true but not relevent. (You can't claim that nothing works because it is humanly impossible to know that.) I interpret that statement as someone who isn't willing to face the truth but simply wants to deny it. Can you explain why it is not relevent. Because this goes to the heart of the matter.
Because it stems from a logical fallacy called the "G_d of the gaps" argument. There very well might be evidence out there which would support your point. On the other hand, there might not be. You can't simply take that gap in knowledge and unilaterally assert that such a gap must contain information to support your belief. It is irrelevent that there might be information of which I'm not aware. If that information existed, it would certainly be relevent, but the possibility of its existence is irrelevent. If I ran an experiment, I could raise the theoretical possibility that the results were altered by invisible leprechauns. If found, those leprechauns would be relevent, but until then, the possibility that those invisible leprechauns might exist remains irrelevent.


You present yourself as someone whose job it is to make decisions based soley on hard cold facts or scientific data but I see you getting off the topic, specifically when it comes to your beliefs, attitudes and feelings. To express an attitude like sacrasm means you are mixing your personal issues (feelings, belief or attitudes) into the topic. That flies in the face of making a decision based soley on hard cold facts.
I'm human. Deal.

That is not a valid point. Additives are in lots of foods and gluten is in lots foods, for example. It doesn't work that way and I thought that was pretty common knowledge. It can take some time to have a reaction to a food. You don't seem aware of these facts, but I didn't feel the need to point that out ABOUT YOU. I simply stated the facts.
I'm fully aware of those facts. There would still be have to be a correlation between diet and symptoms at some point, such as when larger dietary changes occured due to, say, moving off to college, moving to a different geographic area with different dietary habits, or dieting for health or sport reasons.

Furthermore, if there is no possible method for finding correlations between diet and symptoms, then how would one go about providing the very evidence to validate your argument?

I think you may try to use your professional experience to argue the science and put people like me at a disadvantage. You want to argue on YOUR level but you are not what this forum is for and about. This is NOT a forum for professionals, so you may think you can use your professional exprerience but how is that reasonable and helpful to others who are not professional.

You should not expect me and others to have access to reports in professional journals. That is unreasonable. So insisting on these studies is putting non-professionals at a disadvantage. That is not a reasonable request to keep making on a forum for non-professionals.
This is a forum whose main goals are support and education regarding Attention Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder. Disseminating scientific evidence regarding the disorder, and helping to make that evidence accessible to people of all walks of life is one very good method for doing that. A lot of people come in here looking for advice for themselves or their families. They may not understand why their doctor recommended a certain treatment, or they might want to know what treatment options exist before they ask their doctor. They might be taking a particular medication and want to know if a particular annoying but non-threatening side effect (sex drive issues or constipation) is something that anyone else has experienced.

And sometimes people post questions because they read something somewhere advocating an herbal remedy or some other remedy, and their doctor dismissed it without taking the time to fully explain why he did so. If they ask that question here, people will respond with answers, especially people with the knowledge or experience to summarize the existing scientific evidence.

Taking your meds according to your horoscope was not, in my opinion, making any point at all. Please stick to the facts and keep things objective.
Actually, it wasn't sarcastic. It made a very important point: we must limit our conclusions to those actions which we can observe. I can observe that taking my medication alleviates my symptoms. I can then do a trial whereby I use some sort of objective standard (perhaps "how many pages of Medicaid regulations can I write in an hour) and compare it with or without medication. I could then find some more broad-based objective criteria (such as a symptom rating scale, perhaps), and run a study whereby I test a large number of patients on and off medication (and with a placebo control group, of course). In this manner, I can base conclusions off of specific observations and limit it to a specific observed cause. It remains possible that astrological influences are still at work in all of those experiments, but as there remains no method by which I could make testable observations which would prove or disprove that hypothesis, it remains irrelevent. This is actually tied to the G_d of the gaps fallacy that I mentioned earlier.


But to shut down some post and not even hear what someone has to say about what they tried is not respecting other people's beliefs. Just like saying ADD is not real is not accepting that people can have two different veiws, two different beliefs about this condition. The problem is simply blurting out your beliefs when they contradict someone else's is being disrespectful of that person's beliefs. (And insisting on data that non-professionals have access is being unreasonable.) And posting your opinion as a fact is misleading.

Contrary to what you may believe from watching "Crossfire" or other similar media portrayals, sometimes there aren't two sides to an issue. On many well-established scientific issues, there simply aren't two sides. There aren't two sides to the question of whether or not the Earth is round, or whether it orbits the sun (although I suppose that there are technically two sides to the question of Schroedinger's Cat).

I also don't really see two sides here, either. A question was asked regarding whether there existed any herbal remedies which would treat ADD. I responded that there didn't seem to be any scientific evidence showing that any of these treatments worked. So far, I fail to see any counterpoint being made. Asserting that I don't know what I'm talking about, or that it's just my opinion, or that I may be wrong is not making any valid counterpoint. Now, if you were to assert "remedy X works, and here are my reasons for believing so," then that would be a logical counterpoint. It doesn't mean that I'd agree with it, but it would at least be something to discuss. You've mentioned natural remedies for other conditions, and there certainly are some conditions for which a natural remedy, or a chemical derived from a natural remedy might be effective. I was recently reading the weblog of an oncological surgeon who mentioned that some chemotherapy drugs were derived from naturally occuring plant and fungi chemicals. Researchers scoured the globe for any chemical that other organisms used that could kill certain cell types, found a few that would work against carcinogenic cells, isolated them in the lab, found methods for synthesizing them, and in some cases also tweaked the chemicals a bit to make them more effective, or safer, or easier to administer.

For that matter, amphetamine is synthesized from ephedrine, which is a naturally occuring plant substance from the plant Ephedra sinica. However, ephedrine simply doesn't have the right profile for ADD treatment. In order to generate enough reverse catecholamine uptake in the correct regions of the brain, one would have to take a dose of ephedrine that would be very unsafe due to its peripheral effects. Its dosage curve with regards to cardiovascular effects is just all wrong. On the other hand, amphetamine manages to effect the brain just fine without causing serious cardiovascular effects in most patients.

Dr. Amen has a book called Change Your Brain Change your LIfe. He covers some of the "natural" remedies for stuff but he also stresses that you should still consult a doctor especially when using the stuff on children.

This is one of the things he has to say about it.

"A word of caution: without looking through the lens of brain systems, some of these interventions clearly make things worse. Just because something is natural does not mean it's innocuous. Here's an example. Seven-year-old Justin was brought to see me by his mother. He had symptoms of ADD (short attention span, restlessness, and impulse control problems) along with temper problems. A month before I met Justin his mother read a magazine article on St. John's Wort. It said that it helped with mood and temper problems. She gave it to her son. Within a week Justin's behavior was much worse. He was more hyperactive, angrier, and he started to have dreams of decomposing bodies. When she stopped the St. John's Wort his symptoms lessened." (http://amenclinics.com/bp/articles.php?articleID=10)

I don't think we want to forget the intent is to find something helpful for our children without being harmful. It really isn't accomplished by using them as guina pigs just because we have a certain "philosophy". I would hope that whether using prescribed medication or herbal we would stop and see what the research says.

While looking for articles this afternoon, I found studies that said no difference was found between the homopathic group and placebo group but both groups improved slightly, leaving more questions. In amoungst the studies and publications was one by some dr that went to great lengths to name studies supporting her case against ritalin but when it came to what she was proposing as better she offered no evidence for that being true.

You could make the case that eating rocks is bad for you but to turn and say therefore eating dirt is good ,is hardly scientific.

Yes, the goal is hopefully to find something that will help anyone, child or adult, to deal with the problems associated with ADD/ADHD. And yes, it would be best to do that without using anyone for a 'lab rat'. However, there is a great deal of trial and error involved in doctor's attempting to learn which medicine, and at what dosage, will work for each individual. It would be lovely indeed, if we could get the diagnosis and the doctor could then say, "Here, take these pills at this dosage and you'll feel this much better in this many days."

I've certainly gotten the impression in my time on this forum that therapy is good, meds are best, and alternatives are crap. Some alternatives may have been proven to be crap, but many have not been tested as thoroughly as pharmaceutical drugs, so there is still the chance that some of them could be beneficial.

http://www.cps.ca/english/statements/PP/pp02-03.pdf

If you read far enough it addresses the melatonin issue.

Oooh. Interesting reading. Thank you for sharing that link.