`http://www.sciencedaily.com/upi/index.php?feed=Science&article=UPI-1-20070718-08314600-bc-us-ritalin.xml
Pediatric Ritalin may affect young brains
NEW YORK, July 18 (UPI) -- U.S. medical researchers have discovered use of the attention deficit hyperactivity disorder drug Ritalin by young children might affect their brains.
The Weill Cornell Medical College animal study is among the first to investigate the effects of Ritalin (methylphenidate) on the neurochemistry of the developing brain.
Between 2 percent and 18 percent of U.S. children are thought to be affected by ADHD and Ritalin -- a stimulant similar to amphetamine and cocaine -- remains one of the most prescribed drugs for the behavioral disorder.
"The changes we saw in the brains of treated rats occurred in areas strongly linked to higher executive functioning, addiction and appetite, social relationships and stress, said Professor Teresa Milner, the study's lead author. "These alterations gradually disappeared over time once the rats no longer received the drug."
The scientists said their findings suggest physicians should be careful in their diagnosis of ADHD before prescribing Ritalin. That's because Ritalin might be helpful in battling the disorder but harmful if given to youngsters with healthy brain chemistry.
The research appears in the Journal of Neuroscience.
Copyright 2007 by United Press International. All Rights Reserved.
14 comments:
Time for you to learn some math.
NB's population is abouy 750,000.
9.3% are between 0 and 14 years old according to demographics.
That is around 70,000 but newborns aren't prescribed ritalin, so I'll reduce that to 65,000.
The Canadian Medical Association reported in one study that 5.3% of students report medical use of Ritalin.
So that's around 3500 "kids" on Ritalin prescriptions.
Then you go and state "thousands of kids on Ritalin are screwed for life." Really? Prove it. I know 3 adults on Ritalin who are successful, self-sufficient members of society, have children and are good parents. How are those three people "screwed"? They aren't.
Back up your fanatical accusations.
http://oldmaison.blogspot.com/2005/09/bernard-richard-hats-off-to-bernard.html
That post has no proof of anything. In fact, you posted a line, "From the over 40,000 kids who are forced on Ritalin in New Brunswick," which is flat out lying.
I can make up numbers too - I could say that there are 100,000 welfare recipients in the province and that 80,000 are drug addicts and alcoholics. I'd be obviously wrong but I could lie and say it anyway, just like you're lying by saying 40,000 of 65,000 kids are on Ritalin.
they never had Ritalin back in the 1800's how did they survive... salmonella
Suomynona How many children do you have and they ever been forced onto these different mind altering drugs by school or by some drug peddling pediatrician! Ever watch what happens to these kids afterward? It should be a crime to give these medications to a growing mind! I know more than 3 adults who are completely messed up from growing up with this garbage in thier bodies and have gone on to much heavier drug use!
Ritalin is so close to speed it unreal and quite a few kids take it just to get high!!
Maybe the doctors should start going back to basics like good whole foods,clean water and many other sound practices but no they are driven by big pharma and big profits None of these companies give flying fig about your safety as they keep putting drugs on the market with more side effects and deaths then they say whoops we made a mistake so sue us! Do You know what 70.000 of these newborns get not long after birth is a Hep B shot ask yourself why? Do You know whats in these shots and how they are cultured?? If you did you wouldnt give it to a newborn and another thing Hep B is a sexually transmitted disease!! Its all about profits,BIG PROFITS!
If there are 3500 children on Ritalin its 3500 too many!
It does little to show your honesty on topics like this when you post a headline that says "The Thousands of kids forced on Ritalin in NB are screwed for life" then post the article that says The alterations gradually disappeared over time once the use of the drug was stopped. It is obvious that in these tests as conducted so far are not "for life" at all. That is not to say anyone should be taking medication they do not require. It would be a nice change though to see as much blame placed on the many parents out there that push just as hard on Doctors to put their kids on these drugs as a "convenience" for themselves. They are out there I have met more than a few.
I totally agree with 10:33 am. I know many parents who ask the doctor for Ritalin to "calm the kid down" when in fact, he (usually) or she, is merely an active child.
My child was accused by a teacher of being ADHD - didn't know she had an MD as well. My child is in grade 7, gets straight A's and B's in immersion, is very active in sports and loves physical activity. He is anormal, active busy young child (almost 13 years old). Both is father and I are active and busy individuals. It is all too easy to provide a lebal and excuse behaviours instead of being a prent or teacher and dealing with them. Not all kids who move 2 times in a minute are ADHD. It becomes an excuse for everything (no offence Charles but you use it as an excuse for your behaviours).
As the earlier person wrote, how did the parents and teachers deal with this before Ritalin. Good old fashioned discipline can go a long way some times. Take away the computer, tv and games and spend some quality time with yoru children, learning about who they ar e, not just medicating them for your convenience.
To clear it up, Charles says they are screwed for life not because of the drugs effects (necessarily) but because they are labelled as having a mental illness, which makes it hard to find work. And just because it wore off on rats doesn't mean anything about humans-guess what..we aren't rats.
The long term effects come from all kinds of things, how much the dosage is, at what stage of development the child is, etc. A report a while ago from a doctor said that ritalin should be heavily curtailed as it is having the opposite effect as the one intended. But none of this ever even makes it into the paper or the legislature.
To clear it up, Charles says they are screwed for life not because of the drugs effects (necessarily) but because they are labelled as having a mental illness, which makes it hard to find work. And just because it wore off on rats doesn't mean anything about humans-guess what..we aren't rats.
He's still wrong and so are you. Anybody I know who has ADHD certainly had no problem finding work and are making over $40,000 per year. If a person goes into a job interview and quickly tells the potential employers "I have ADHD, I take Ritalin." then the only thing the employer will think is "What is wrong with this person that they're telling me this irrelevant information in an interview?" - it would be like saying "I am missing my big toe on my right foot." or "I own 100 dogs." in an interview - they're going to think you're weird for bringing it up when there's no need to, as though you're begging for special treatment right off the bat.
I do not have children on Ritalin but there are some parents with children who genuinely DO need medical treatement for ADHD to function. Ritalin is overprescribed - that's a fact, but it's idiotic to say that it should be banned completely if it does work for some families with competent physicians paying close attention to an officially diagnosed child, not just lazy parents begging for drugs for their hyper kid.
The minute a child takes that first pill? He or she are done social wise.
The New Brunswick Human Rights Decision was very clear a few years ago.
If you take or took ritalin? You'll be labell as close to mental retardation.
If you're lucky to find a job? You will be paid a lower amount than the rest of the employees for doing the same amount of word.
After the decision came out? The Irvings began to screen employees for ADHD!!!
Very sad story indeed but what do you expect when I had as a case worker convicted thief Carl White???
This have set up a huge precedent in this province.
So? Remember??? The minute your child take that very first pill?
Le Party est tout fini!!
charlie never mind the naysayers on this issue,, You know your right along with Mr. Richard and a few of our great politicians.
I'm from Saint John N.B. and I can tell you that your right on the money when it comes to labeling those who have or had ADHD as far as Employment with some companies or corporations.
In the last couple of weeks I know of two people one female as well as a male individual have been let down because they had to admit previous use of Ritalin.
So keep hammering at this.
To hold up a report of the negative effects of Ritalin on children in one breath and then dismiss the very same report when it happens to say something you don't agree with ..(the effects wear off) seems just a bit disingenuous don't you think? It might be best if you let Charles speak for himself. Its a shame that this cause has shifted from the advocating for a responsible use of a prescription drug and better understanding of children's problems to just another reason to bash the Irving's, the government and to make personal excuses. It is also telling I have only heard the use of Ritalin by children compared to "retardation" in this place.
Where are the discussions about proper and more accurate diagnosis? The discussions of the roles of schools. teachers, government and the parents themselves? This sensationalist nonsense actually hurts more than it helps.
You have to admit Charles is a bit of a 'sensationalist'. That's why he still allows posters, because then it gets discussed from different angles.
Every person is different and every experience is different. Setting up a hypothetical interview doesn't make sense. Companies take stuff like this seriously as drug use plays a big part in work.
What charles means by them taking one pill and being 'tout fini' is anyone's guess. I seriously doubt every single person who has ever taken ritalin suffers, but that they are labelled is true. That when an employer asks whether they are on any medication or have taken any drugs is a real issue.
And of course jobs have competition, so if you have the choice between two candidates, one of which has a mental disorder and is taking drugs for it, and the other doesn't, who would you hire?
But as for discussion, it has been discussed numerous times but its not like this is the legislature, nobody here can do anything about the policies.
For the discussion though, the AMA says it takes six months and almost a hundred grand to accurate diagnose ADHD. They must be put in different learning environments, their diet must be changed, different allergens ruled out, etc., etc. Is that being done? We don't know, I seriously doubt it, but nobody here has said what the process is.
If its not accurately diagnosed, then obviously those are problems from the outset which only get worse over time, and you can listen to Charles interview with a native lady whose child was on ritalin for more on that.
But so far nobody in the press is talking about it, so if Charles wants to be senstational, I say more power to him, at least its being discussed and isn't yet another picture of a beach or a dog.
And of course jobs have competition, so if you have the choice between two candidates, one of which has a mental disorder and is taking drugs for it, and the other doesn't, who would you hire?
Depends on the mental disorder. If someone has depression or bipolar disorder or schizophrenia or is a psychopath and was equally qualified with someone else who didn't have it, yes, I'd hire the other person. As for ADHD, I'd tend to lean towards hiring that person over the person without it. Adults with ADHD are not "close to mental retardation" like Charles loves to say. It's as though he *wants* to be labelled that way and with his behaviour, he is getting what he wants.
Post a Comment