"Mark Probert" <markprobert at lumbercartel.com> wrote in message
news:AhQAa.6043$Ah3.1900711 at news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net...
>> Generalization from one occurrence is never a good idea.
>> The Surgeon Genral's 1999 or 2000 report on psychaitric problems
> addressed the over/under diagnosis issue, and it cam edown on the side
> of underdiagnosis. There is ample evidence that incorrect diagnosis is
> occurring, but, when I took a look at the ADHD-diagnosis picture from a
> broad point of view over more than a decade, I came to the conclusion
> that there is substantial undrdiagnosis, especially of younger ADD
> girls. I recall recent studies which back this up.
Younger girls because they probably manifest ADHD via excessive talking much
more than excessive activity. Under diagnosis is not the issue here(I never
raised that qtn, straw man), incorrect diagnosis is potentially very
dangerous precisely because of long term neurotoxicity concerns. I do not
think paedictricians should be making these decisions, child psychiatrists.
Additionally testing needs to move beyond the subjective stage. As the West
Aus study showed there are many other options available then just
>> This beautiful kid is
> > more sane and stable than many adults I know! Here in Aus, the West
> > Australian government commissioned a large study on parent training in
> > helping ADHD children and cognitive therapy for the kids. The results
> > marked reduction in drug requirements. Now that's me on my high horse, I
> > really have a problem with this current trend towards prescribing
> > children with psychoactive drugs.
> > By the way, even chronic stress with reduce DAT activity.
> > Parkinson's. Yes, must lose many cells but subtle testing can reveal
> > even in the relatives of some Parkinson's patients (and schizophrenics)
> > can detect slight cognitive changes leaning in the same direction. There
> > probably is no ideal level here, more a matter of balance between
> > elements. As such, raw comparisons against a base line re one agent can
> > very misleading. I think, who bloody knows. This stuff is too bloody
> > Just for once, I wish I could say, "It's really quite straightforward!"
> > John H.
> > "BilZ0r" <BilZ0r at TAKETHISOUThotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:Xns9387A73E786D6BilZ0rhotmailcom at 22.214.171.124...> >
> >>anon <anon at no.com> wrote in news:BAF6F73D.5FB%anon at no.com:
> >>>Does this neurotoxicity occur at doses used to treat ADHD?
> >>Possibly (Probably in my opinion though). Neurotoxicity can be seen at
> >>2mg/kg in babbons, so thats the equivalant of a 70mg dose in a human
> >>The average does (I believe, Im not a pharmacist) for ADHD is around
> >>of methamphetamine. So I don't know whether a 30mg dose can creat
> >>neurotoxicity. They didn't try giving the babbons anything lower than
> >>2mg/kg but im guessing they would have found much smaller doses to be
> >>Whether this neurotoxicity has any behaviour consequence is another
> >>story. The babbon study showed a ~40% reduction in dopamine transport
> >>protein after the 2mg/kg dose, but what is it, you have to have a 75%
> >>reduction in dopaminergic cell bodys before the symptomes of parkinson
> >>are visable...