Peter F wrote:
> "Mark Probert" <markprobert at lumbercartel.com> wrote in message
> news:AhQAa.6043$Ah3.1900711 at news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net...>>>John H. wrote:
>>>>>However, keep in mind that IF ADHD is about loss of dopamine volume in
>> the
>>>>synaptic cleft (studies by Volkow on Ritalin impact on DAT tend to
>> suggest
>>>>this), then the toxicity would not be a problem because it is the MAO
>>>degradation of Da that creates the toxic quinones. IF in ADHD this is
>> the
>>>>problem, then the drug is simply restoring synaptic Da to functional
>> levels,
>>>>rather than creating dangerous excesses that occur with amphetamine
>> abuse.
>>>>Also, if toxicity is occurring then the long term administration would
>> be
>>>>leaving disastrous results that could not be hidden, not even by the
>> most
>>>>aggressive drug company.
>>>>>>Having said that, personally I still have reservations about the current
>>>treatment or more pertinently diagnosis of ADHD. Eg. Recently a friend
>> of
>>>>mine took her daughter to a pediatrician who advised (after 5 bloody
>> minutes
>>>>the arrogant shithead) that her daughter has ADHD.
>>>>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.
>>> Someone ought to diagnoze you!
>> If you are lucky it won't be me who does it!
Thank you for your intelligent, well thought out, reply.
