# mandatory drug use



## theletch1 (Jun 9, 2004)

I heard this reported on the radio while at work last night and wanted to get opinions from folks here. It bothers me that a governmental agency can knock on a parents door and order that parent to medicate a child for a behavioral problem.  This is not a life saving drug, it's a medication that makes the child more compliant to those around him.  For the conspiracy theorists among us...how long until mandatory psychotropic drugs are ordered for the masses?

Dad Investigated for Taking Son Off Meds
ABCNews.com - June 07, 2004 
When Chad Taylor noticed his son was apparently experiencing serious side effects from Ritalin prescribed for attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, he decided to take the boy off the medication. Now, he says he may be accused of child abuse. 

In February, 12-year-old Daniel began displaying some symptoms that his father suspected were related to the use of Ritalin. 

"He was losing weight, wasn't sleeping, wasn't eating," Taylor told ABC News affiliate KOAT-TV in New Mexico. "[He] just wasn't Daniel." 

So Taylor took Daniel off Ritalin, against his doctor's wishes. And though Taylor noticed Daniel was sleeping better and his appetite had returned, his teachers complained about the return of his disruptive behavior. Daniel seemed unable to sit still and was inattentive. His teachers ultimately learned that he was no longer taking Ritalin. 

School officials reported Daniel's parents to New Mexico's Department of Children, Youth and Families.Then a detective and social worker made a home visit. 

"The detective told me if I did not medicate my son, I would be arrested for child abuse and neglect," Taylor said. 

A spokesperson for New Mexico's Department of Children, Youth and Families told KOAT-TV that they could not comment on the case but confirmed that a social worker had visited the Taylors. John Francis, a detective for the Rio Rancho Department of Public Safety, said that Taylor was not threatened but told KOAT-TV that parents could be charged in situations like his. 

"People can be charged with child abuse, child neglect or various other crimes involving a child," he said. 

More Kids on Antidepressants 

Taylor is among many parents facing a dilemma over whether to medicate children who suffer from mental disorders. A recent study by Express Scripts Inc., a medical benefits management company, found antidepressant use increased 49 percent among consumers younger than 18 between 1998 and 2002. Preschoolers up to age 5, the study found, were the fastest-growing users of prescription antidepressants. 

Some parents have been concerned about overmedicating their children and the potential short- and long-term effects of the drugs. Some have wondered whether their children would receive the most benefit from medication or talk therapy. 

Despite these concerns, experts say parents should never take their children off medication without checking with the child's doctor. 

"I would never recommend that anyone take themselves or their children off prescribed medication without first consulting their doctor, particularly if they're taking multiple medications," said Jay Reeve, senior psychologist at the Children's Inpatient Unit at Bradley Hospital in East Providence, R.I.


What Is the Best Approach? 

There has been debate over whether medication is more effective than psychotherapy in treating children and adolescents with serious mental illness. A study sponsored by the National Institute of Mental Health found the antidepressant Prozac helps teenagers battle depression better than talk therapy. But the study also found a combination of the two methods produces the best results. 

Experts agree that a combined medical and psychotherapeutical approach could be the best way to battling depression in teens and adolescents. But the approach depends on the severity of the illness. 

"Medication can be a very helpful component of treatment for children and adolescents with depression, but medication alone is rarely an adequate or sufficient intervention," said Dr. David Fassler, clinical associate professor of psychiatry at the University of Vermont's College of Medicine. 

"It should only be used as part of a comprehensive treatment plan, individualized to the needs of the child and family," he said. "Most children and adolescents tolerate medication well, with minimal side effects. But all children taking medication need to be monitored closely to make sure the symptoms are improving and to identify any potential problems or reactions." 

The Children's Challenge 

Doctors say treating depression in children - especially young children - is difficult because they generally are not able to explain their feelings or give sophisticated answers to questions about their moods. 

Unlike teenagers and adults, they sometimes cannot link events in their lives to their feelings - or at least eloquently explain how an experience affected them. Most often, children lash out, showing signs of trouble either through various kinds of misbehavior or through drawings at school. 

"Generally speaking, the younger a child is, the more difficult it is to diagnose the illness," said Reeve. "It's safe to say the younger you go, the more difficult it is to distinguish one disorder from another." 

Children's general lack of sophistication plays a role in the difficulty in determining whether they suffer from a mental illness and whether they would benefit from medication, psychotherapy or both. Some critics argue that many primary care physicians are not adequately trained in diagnosing illnesses in children. 

"There are so many providers that are dispensing antidepressants to children and teens without appropriate knowledge and skills to administer these medications, as well as without accompanying cognitive-behavior therapy, which is critical in the improvement of depressive symptoms," said Bernadette Melnyk, founder and chairwoman of the National Association of Pediatric Nurse Practictioners' Keep Your Children/Yourself Safe and Secure Campaign. 

She said many doctors do not evaluate children for depression. "In a recent survey of over 600 providers from 24 states across the country, we found that many providers are not screening routinely for depression in children." 

Doctors also sometimes misinterpret behavior that stems from depression as a symptom of attention deficit disorder. 

"Many children with depression also are being misdiagnosed with attention deficit disorder," Melnyk said. "Younger children with depression often present differently than older children. That is, they are most likely hyperactive and restless, versus sad and depressed." 

Do Your Homework 

For parents, mental illness in kids can be frightening, especially if their children are having suicidal thoughts or showing suicidal behavior. In severe cases like these, immediate medical intervention can save lives and a subsequent combined medical and talk therapy could be the best remedy. Still, every case is unique and treatment strategies should fit a child or teen's individual needs. 

But sometimes parents panic when they see what they believe are adverse side effects in their children after they begin taking medication. To avoid any misunderstandings or rash decisions, experts recommend that parents do their homework. Thoroughly research mental diseases and treatments and consult the child's physician about the disease and potential side effects of medication. It also helps to know the qualifications of the child's doctor. 

"Parents need to be advocates for their children," Fassler said. "They need to ask lots of questions, and they need to get as much information as possible about both the diagnosis and the treatment options." 

Meanwhile, Chad Taylor remains convinced that he has made the right decision for Daniel. He says his son is acting like himself again, but officials are continuing to monitor Daniel's case. 

Taylor told KOAT-TV he is not putting Daniel back on Ritalin, no matter what the consequences for himself may be. "Yeah, I'll go to jail for it," he said. "I'll go as long as I have to go." 

To see more on this story, go to http://www.ABCNews.go.com 

Copyright 2004 ABCNEWS.com. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Jun 9, 2004)

Someday, society will learn that not everything is cured by a pill.  Until then, we will continue to hear stories like this.


----------



## loki09789 (Jun 9, 2004)

Kaith Rustaz said:
			
		

> Someday, society will learn that not everything is cured by a pill. Until then, we will continue to hear stories like this.


Once your child as been diagnosed and is eligible for special needs within the school system and such and you have complied with the doctors diagnosis/treatment (whether drugs or what ever) then your actions indicate that your child 'needs' this treatment in order to develop and function in the world to the utmost potential.  Because ADHD/ADD are being considered handicaps in the same category as blindness, downs syndrome.... it falls under the same consideration for child safety.  If the ADHD boy was in a wheel chair or needed insulin and his father refused to provide these things it would be considered abuse/child endangerment.  That is the blanket mentallity that these ADHD/Depression drugs are falling under.

Do I agree? Not in all cases.  Do I think that there are other options than taking the child off the drug entirely?  Sure.  In teacher training ADHD was one of the areas we had to be orientd on.  The drugs are not the 'silver bullet' that the media likes to lead us to believe the medical community is promoting it to be.  Generally, meds are part of a how behavioral management system of token rewards, consitency of environment, self management/regulation training appropriate to the age/developmental level....  but meds are not the ONLY thing that is prescribed by Docs - they also 'recommend' (but can't mandate) that the parents seek training programs on the topic that includes some of the above mentioned things that can help a genetically predisposed impulsive child out.

The father could have consulted with the doctor for an alternative to Rit. (Aderral, Stratera... lots of choices) that might be more balanced for his son.  If he is dead set on keeping his child off drugs, he could seek out schools specifically set up to manage ADHD/ADD children - and have proven to be very successful by really establishing the best environment possible.  The problem is that they are not common and probably very expensive.  Also, the father could (if he hasn't already) seek some of these parenting programs/support networks (some on video and support networks that are set up like this forum) that can help him understand and offer him ideas/options he might not know about.

I would be interested in seeing what the end results are.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Jun 9, 2004)

Clearly, some of these kids need their drugs. Problem is, all the studies I've seen on this say that the kids who really, really need their drugs are a minority of the kids who actually get them.

The problem appears to be a practical one: a) drug companies are pushing the hell out of these drugs for ADD/ADHD (gotta love that free market system!); b) consumers (and I mean consumers, not parents) go in and demand drugs for themselves and for their kids; c) most physicians have no idea how to properly evaluate and prescribe for these kids, and they don't take the time to find out; d) a lot of these drugs require careful monitoring and titrarion of dosages, and most kids don't get it; e) some parents do have irratgional fears that don't get addressed (similarly, ever talked to some yutz who won't have their kids vaccinated?); f) these kids also need lots of behavioral work and psychotherapy, and they don't get it because it's expensive.

Apparently, we have a majority of kids on drugs who don't need them, and of the ones who really, really do need their drugs, the majority are way over-medicated. Lovely.

We also have an enormous population of fat, out-of-shape, whiny kids who never get to go out and run around screaming till they fall in the creek, like kids are supposed to be doing, because we're too lazy, too stupid and too cheap to arrange a society reasonably. Brilliant.

Rule 1: Make sure you find a good physician. Know what you're doing. Demand careful diagnosis, treatment and management...and contemplate the ugly fact that people have apparently got so weird that they actually need to be told such things.


----------



## OUMoose (Jun 9, 2004)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> Apparently, we have a majority of kids on drugs who don't need them, and of the ones who really, really do need their drugs, the majority are way over-medicated. Lovely.



I think you could almost make that a blanket statement across society.  People like to think that their doctor knows exactly what someone needs and exactly how to administer it.  "Well, they went to med school for how long and he/she should just know!"  That's not how things work people.  Don't be afraid to ask questions.  If the doc gets on you about it, it's time to find a new doctor.


----------



## shesulsa (Jun 9, 2004)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> some parents do have irratgional fears that don't get addressed (similarly, ever talked to some yutz who won't have their kids vaccinated?); f) these kids also need lots of behavioral work and psychotherapy, and they don't get it because it's expensive.
> 
> Apparently, we have a majority of kids on drugs who don't need them, and of the ones who really, really do need their drugs, the majority are way over-medicated. Lovely.
> 
> Rule 1: Make sure you find a good physician. Know what you're doing. Demand careful diagnosis, treatment and management...and contemplate the ugly fact that people have apparently got so weird that they actually need to be told such things.


I'm the mom to a special needs kid and would like to speak on some of these issues - first of all, federal law states that a parent must approve of an IEP (individualized education program) or disapprove in writing within a certain time period.  If the meds are included in the IEP, it's a whole different, legal ballgame, especially if the school district was involved in the diagnosis of the child.  Kids like this need a special pediatrician - most pediatricians and internists are not trained to deal with these special cases.  There are alternatives to Ritalin, both pharmaceutical and nutritional, to aid this boy.  What people with developmentally/learning challenged children need is a DEVELOPMENTAL PEDIATRICIAN - they are extremely hard to come by and very expensive and insurance won't pay for certain disorders like, say, autism.  This man needs to find a different doctor for the boy or...dare I say it???  move to another school district or state.

It's much much harder than one might think to get even ADEQUATE care for these kids and most parents who are not independently wealthy live with whatever they can get, stay up at all hours of the night learning how to be medical professionals themselves, travel the globe interviewing professors who have done extensive research that proved helpful but was ignored by the general medical community because it did not involve large drug companies.  It's honestly the biggest challenge I shall ever face as a human - I've been attacked, been through many deaths in my family, lost friends to drug abuse, been through spousal and child and sexual abuse, had a cancer scare, lost 90% of my relatives to it, been divorced, moved far...nothing can compare to this challenge of caring for my son and seeing to it that others don't abuse the privelage of normal intelligence and neurological operating systems.

As for your opinion on non-vaccinated children - with all due respect, when you have witnessed a child convulse, seize, and stop breathing from having an innoculation administered, you might change your mind...I did.

From a dyphtheria toxoid allergic mother of a vaccine-injured son, partially vaccinated toddler and unvaccinated daughter.


----------



## loki09789 (Jun 9, 2004)

OUMoose said:
			
		

> I think you could almost make that a blanket statement across society. People like to think that their doctor knows exactly what someone needs and exactly how to administer it. "Well, they went to med school for how long and he/she should just know!" That's not how things work people. Don't be afraid to ask questions. If the doc gets on you about it, it's time to find a new doctor.


It isn't the individual doctors as much as the HMO/corporate model of medical practice.  Look at the direct advertising of the drug companies to the patient:  Stratera, Allavert, Rogaine, Livetra, ..... all being marketed to us so we can "ask our doctor if drug 'x' is for you", when we don't have any clue about this stuff.  I agree that we are in charge of our health decisions, but are you going to find a new doctor when he won't prescribe drug 'x' that you want to try because the commercial made it sound so good ("may cause itching, anal leakage, blue tongue, third eye growth.....")?  I don't think that is the flip side of irrationale as well (not saying that you are implying this, just showing that it can get crazy at either end of the spectrum).

I really hope this doesn't turn into another "ism" bashing thread where "all doctors" or "the medical profession/industry as a whole" is an immoral monster leaching off of the common folk.  I think that there are good doctors and good clinicians (doctors who don't deal with patients) out there.  I think there are benefits to the medical structure - but it ain't perfect either.


----------



## MisterMike (Jun 9, 2004)

> As for your opinion on non-vaccinated children - with all due respect, when you have witnessed a child convulse, seize, and stop breathing from having an innoculation administered, you might change your mind...I did.



Good for you! If only the damn state schools didnt mandate chicken pox vaccines     

Someone should tell these people to go pump viruses into their own kids. Of course they are making money off of it all, so why not...


----------



## Taimishu (Jun 9, 2004)

I am afraid I would tell the authorities to take a hike and ask the doctor for alternative drugs/therapy.
There is too much interferance by the powers that be and not enough help. Do as you are told and sod the poor kid. In medicine there is not just the one drug but a variety and alternatives should be tried. When non medical people get involved there is a lot of heavy handed treatment of parents and "we know best" from very minor (usually unmarried, no children) officials.

Parent usually know what is best for there kid and should be left alone to do it.

David


----------



## rmcrobertson (Jun 9, 2004)

First off, all drugs are given on a "calculated risk," basis--are the risks of not medicating much higher than the risks of medicating? No doctor can guarantee individual outcomes for any drug, med or vaccination: they can only tell you what  the  statistical likehood of problems is.

And since you ask, yes, I have seen kids convulse and stop breathing--during the year I worked as a respiratory tech in Children's Hospital, Denver, among other places. 

As long as we're conversing in such a vein, ever taken care of a kid or adult who survived polio? A kid with whooping cough? I have. Mostly, though, they're hard to find. Know why that is?

What I've never even seen, or hardly ever heard of in an American hospital, is a kid dying of, say, diptheria or typhoid. Hm. Why is that, again?

I happen to have been of the generation that got either the Salk or the Sabin vaccine back around 1956 or 1957, about the first  time they appeared. Ya know what? parents and doctors thought it was a frickin' miracle, and they  were right. (They took smallpox vaccinations for granted by then, though I also got one of those.) Try looking up the stats on polio rates in this country around, say, 1940 and you'll understand why. And try checking on the inoculation rates in third world countries, and the infant/child mortality rates. 

Or if that don't float your boat, look up what happens to a devloping fetus exposed to "German" measles--which I had, as a kid, because there were no vaccines.

No doctor can guarantee that a kid will not have a bad reaction to a vaccination. What they CAN guarantee is that if you don't vaccinate 100,000 kids, so maany  will die of this, so many will die of than, and this many will be crippled in one way or another.

it is  irresponbile not to vaccinate your kids. Drugging them into immobility is another question altogether.


----------



## shesulsa (Jun 9, 2004)

"First off, all drugs are given on a "calculated risk," basis--are the risks of not medicating much higher than the risks of medicating? No doctor can guarantee individual outcomes for any drug, med or vaccination: they can only tell you what the statistical likehood of problems is."

Yes, and the "calculated risk" is always quite acceptable - as long as you're on the right side of the "=" sign.

As long as we're conversing in such a vein, ever taken care of a kid or adult who survived polio? A kid with whooping cough? I have. Mostly, though, they're hard to find. Know why that is?

As a matter of fact, my children have all survived whooping cough and yes, I have cared for chilren who survived polio.  And though they are "hard to find", there are children who contract these diseases through their vaccinations.

And since you ask, yes, I have seen kids convulse and stop breathing--during the year I worked as a respiratory tech in Children's Hospital, Denver, among other places.

I asked if you had seen this happen immediately after a child having received an innoculation - whole lot different when your child goes into shock and receives permanent brain damage from a vaccine he might have been allergic to.

What I've never even seen, or hardly ever heard of in an American hospital, is a kid dying of, say, diptheria or typhoid. Hm. Why is that, again?

Clearly, you believe that I am anti-vaccine - that is not the case.  What I AM against is the lack of informed consent, the apathy for the children who DO react to vaccines in a bad way, the ignorance that all vaccines are all good and as long as YOU don't have to deal with the repercussions of the "calculated risk" everything is A-OK.  I'm against the apathy of the Western Medical Community TESTING INFANTS BEFORE THEY ARE INNOCULATED WITH MULTIPLE STRAIN VACCINATIONS IN A SINGLE JAB.  Perhaps if you're really interested in just how apathetic the medical community is toward this, I'll tell you the story of my foot injury and the lack of tetanus toxoid vaccines on the west coast.

I happen to have been of the generation that got either the Salk or the Sabin vaccine back around 1956 or 1957, about the first time they appeared. Ya know what? parents and doctors thought it was a frickin' miracle, and they were right. (They took smallpox vaccinations for granted by then, though I also got one of those.) Try looking up the stats on polio rates in this country around, say, 1940 and you'll understand why. And try checking on the inoculation rates in third world countries, and the infant/child mortality rates. 

ibid

No doctor can guarantee that a kid will not have a bad reaction to a vaccination. What they CAN guarantee is that if you don't vaccinate 100,000 kids, so maany will die of this, so many will die of than, and this many will be crippled in one way or another.

Okay, how about testing for titers?  Inherited immunity?  Immune system intolerance?  Liver toxicity?  Have you ever seen what happens to those kids???  Oh, yeah, they're on the wrong side of that loving "=" sign of calculated risk.

it is irresponbile not to vaccinate your kids. Drugging them into immobility is another question altogether.

No - IT IS IRRESPONSIBLE TO BE A MEMBER OF THE MEDICAL COMMUNITY AND HAVE NO EMPATHY OR CONSIDERATION FOR INFANTS WHO CAN STILL BENEFIT FROM VACCINATIONS WITHOUT HARMFUL EFFECTS IF THEIR DOCTORS, NURSES, P.A.'S WILL ONLY DO WHAT IT TAKES TO FIND OUT ABOUT ALLERGIES, INTOLERANCES, GENETIC MUTATIONS THAT PREVENT THESE CHILDREN FROM BECOMING PRODUCTIVE MEMBERS OF SOCIETY INSTEAD OF DROOLING, PUBLICLY MASTURBATING BURDENS ON THE SOCIAL SECURITY SYSTEM!!!

That said - This boy theletch wrote about has options and he should absolutely look into them.  Western Medicine is good - very good - and if you can tolerate vaccination without brain damage or anaphylaxis, you should absolutely get them (except the chicken pox vaccine...ahem) but it is NOT the only answer.

HWARANG!!


----------



## Phoenix44 (Jun 9, 2004)

You CAN test for titers.  If a child is documented to be immune, s/he does not need additional immunization for admission to school.


----------



## Phoenix44 (Jun 9, 2004)

Oh, and by the way, if you're upset about the corporatizing of health care, remember:  THE PUBLIC DEMANDED IT.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Jun 9, 2004)

Yep. As long as we're slanging, try this: I take some of this to be expressive of ideology among an astonishingly-privileged class of Americans who are altogether unrealistic about what health care costs, and who insist that  THEIR kids get everything, while others get nothing. 

Be realistic: only so much money, only so many services, to go round. Sure, didn't think of testing blood titers--and what's that cost? How many  kids don't get squat, so that the parents with the money and education and clout can get extra? Anybody planning on paying the tax/insurance costs? Nope? That's  funny.

And as long as we're being scientific--got any stats on how reliable those titer analyses are? Any on how many kids per 100,000 fall ill anyway? Comparasions to vaccinated kid populations?

As for informed consent--MY parents were told, way back when. I've known about it forever. Parents sign a consent form; legally, they have to. Shouldn't they read it?

You had a terrible experience, and I am sorry that happened. I am afraid that it does not change the social and financial realities, nor the fact that Americans demand ALL the health care resources, and it would be a hell of a lot fairer to do the cheap vaccinations for EVERYBODY, rather than...well, you get the point.


----------



## loki09789 (Jun 10, 2004)

Phoenix44 said:
			
		

> Oh, and by the way, if you're upset about the corporatizing of health care, remember: THE PUBLIC DEMANDED IT.


NO, the public cried out for better management and better opportunity to medical coverage.  No one said to build an HMO vertical and horizontal Kairetsu/monopolistic/cartel structure that puts specific drug companies in bed with specific medical companies along with specific medical supply companies....


----------



## OULobo (Jun 10, 2004)

I'm always leary when the gov. steps in to people's personal lives. The two most personal things I can think of are what is done in the bedroom and how we raise our children. I know the gov. is just reacting to outrage at the relatively few and overly publicized cases of abuse that happen in the US, but as always they are overcompensating. On top of it all they rely on doctors that don't always know what the problem is and when they do can't decide between them all on what is a good solution. 

I know a lot of doctors as friends and the first thing they tell me when I talk about a possible medical problem to them is, "It could be X, but you should definitly see a specialist." Everyone expects every doctor to have every answer. The problem is that many people pressure their doctors for a medication or a cure all, and refuse to hear that it may be their own behavior that causes thier ill or it may not be an ill at all. My father used to hem and haw that they didn't have a pill to keep his toenails from turing green. The Dr. told him to wear better vented shoes and try to keep oils and solvents off of his feet. Dad refused to do it and still complained that he didn't have a super-pill to turn his nails the right color. How about people who have a viral cold, but insist on having antibiotics, even when they are told it will do no good. 

I don't even want to get into the whole Ridilin thing. Every parent that can't face their own inability or unwillingness to handle their children instantly diagnoses the kid ADHD in their own head because they saw an episode of Dateline or know another child supposedly with it that acts this way, so it must be the case. Doctors loosely diagnose ADHD and prescribe Ridilin to the kid because the parent won't accept that it's bad parenting or lack of attention to the child, and won't leave without the stuff that calmed the neibor's hyper kid down. 

I have a relative who is a nutjob and has ruined her child's life by raising him as a nutjob like her. When she couldn't cope with the behavior that she instilled in him and he started to have problems socially because of the unacceptable habits she taught him, she assumed that he must have ADHD or he was mildly autistic. The doc told her he was fine physically and that she needed to go see a shrink. The shrink told her he was fine, but when she wouldn't believe him he just labeled the kid ADHD and prescribed medication. In my opinion, he was just hyper like all kids and twisted from living with her. Now he's a good little pill popper for life like the pharasutical companies like and mom's happy she has a well behaved little zombie that just got his imagination and energy stolen from him.


----------



## heretic888 (Jun 10, 2004)

*and it would be a hell of a lot fairer to do the cheap vaccinations for EVERYBODY, rather than...well, you get the point.*

The needs of the few outweight the needs of the many??


----------



## shesulsa (Jun 10, 2004)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> Yep. As long as we're slanging, try this: I take some of this to be expressive of ideology among an astonishingly-privileged class of Americans who are altogether unrealistic about what health care costs, and who insist that THEIR kids get everything, while others get nothing.


Oh, I think I'm very realistic as to what my child gets and does not get...we are not privileged by any means...my husband is a laborer and is the sole bread winner for a family of five, thank you very much.  



			
				rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> Be realistic: only so much money, only so many services, to go round. Sure, didn't think of testing blood titers--and what's that cost? How many kids don't get squat, so that the parents with the money and education and clout can get extra? Anybody planning on paying the tax/insurance costs? Nope? That's funny.


Okay, I'll make you a deal...I'll find out how many people are registered as having been injured/killed by vaccines and need some level of care for the rest of their lives, how much that costs the social security system per year, and how much a titer test costs per average number babies born per year, calculate it out and see what I find out for my state (Washington)....you do the same for yours, assuming we're not in the same state.  I will provide the sources for my information and you provide yours and we can both verify each other's numbers.  I know it will cost the government about $60,000 per year for a full-time caregiver for my son, let alone his medical care, food stamps and housing.  Then, there's the law enforcement cost issues, etc.

I would gladly have sold myself on the street to raise the money for a titers panel, liver panel, immune panel and allergy test for my son if I had the slightest suspicion that what happened to him was a possiblity.



			
				rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> And as long as we're being scientific--got any stats on how reliable those titer analyses are? Any on how many kids per 100,000 fall ill anyway? Comparasions to vaccinated kid populations?


Not yet, but I can get it (see previous paragraph)...will you?



			
				rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> As for informed consent--MY parents were told, way back when. I've known about it forever. Parents sign a consent form; legally, they have to. Shouldn't they read it?


Absolutely, as did I...however what happened my kid happens every day and it wasn't on the list.  In fact, I was supposed to take him to the emergency room if he demonstrated a fever over 101, exhibited odd behavior, refusal to eat, etcetera.  I took him to the ER twice with a fever over 105, convulsions, explosive diarrhea, vomiting, refusal to nurse long, posturing.  They told me it was a normal reaction to vaccines.  Bulls**t - I am the poster child for vaccinations - never had these reactions and was never told this was a possibility (not on the contract I had to sign).



			
				rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> You had a terrible experience, and I am sorry that happened. I am afraid that it does not change the social and financial realities, nor the fact that Americans demand ALL the health care resources, and it would be a hell of a lot fairer to do the cheap vaccinations for EVERYBODY, rather than...well, you get the point.


Of course, vaccination should be available to everyone at the lowest cost possible - SAFE vaccination.  It's the responsible thing to do.  Especially if they are federally mandated, which they are (topic=mandated medication), you're Orwellian in your thinking...shoot them all and let God sort them out.

I'll have my figures in one week.  You?


----------



## rmcrobertson (Jun 10, 2004)

OK, fair enough, and again what happened to your son was an atrocity--one which apparently has as much to do with the crappy ER care and medical system that has resulted from a decade or so of, "privitization."

However, I have three questions: first, why do nearly all the sites that discuss titering focus on veterinary medicine? And second, if the titers are secondary to exposure--are you arguing for letting stuff like polio run around so kids can be exposed? And third--apparently the titer tests are no guarantee at all of immunity, either?

Thanks for the info; I hadn't know about the titers.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Jun 10, 2004)

This is from the CDC website; they also have some info on the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program.

Publications > Fact Sheets > General
What Would Happen If We Stopped Vaccinations?
At a glance: In the U.S., vaccines have reduced or eliminated many infectious diseases that once routinely killed or harmed many infants, children, and adults. However, the viruses and bacteria that cause vaccine-preventable disease and death still exist and can be passed on to people who are not protected by vaccines. Vaccine-preventable diseases have many social and economic costs: sick children miss school and can cause parents to lose time from work. These diseases also result in doctor's visits, hospitalizations, and even premature deaths.


 Figures and statistics updated August 2003 
Polio* |* Measles* |* Type b (Hib) Meningitis* |* Hepatitis B** Pertussis (whooping cough) |* Rubella (german measles)* Varicella (chickenpox) *|* Diphtheria* | Tetanus (lockjaw) | Mumps

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Polio

Polio virus causes acute paralysis that can lead to permanent physical disability and even death. Before polio vaccine was available, 13,000 to 20,000 cases of paralytic polio were reported each year in the United States. These annual epidemics of polio often left thousands of victims--mostly children--in braces, crutches, wheelchairs, and iron lungs. The effects were life-long.

Development of polio vaccines and implementation of polio immunization programs have eliminated paralytic polio caused by wild polio viruses in the U.S. and the entire Western hemisphere.

In 1999, as a result of global immunization efforts to eradicate the disease, there were about 2,883 documented cases of polio in the world. In 1994, wild polio virus was imported to Canada from India, but high vaccination levels prevented it from spreading in the population.
Measles

Before measles immunization was available, nearly everyone in the U.S. got measles. An average of 450 measles-associated deaths were reported each year between 1953 and 1963.

In the U.S., up to 20 percent of persons with measles are hospitalized. Seventeen percent of measles cases have had one or more complications, such as ear infections, pneumonia, or diarrhea. Pneumonia is present in about six percent of cases and accounts for most of the measles deaths. Although less common, some persons with measles develop encephalitis (swelling of the lining of the brain), resulting in brain damage.*

As many as three of every 1,000 persons with measles will die in the U.S. In the developing world, the rate is much higher, with death occurring in about one of every 100 persons with measles.

Measles is one of the most infectious diseases in the world and is frequently imported into the U.S. In the period 1997-2000, most cases were associated with international visitors or U.S. residents who were exposed to the measles virus while traveling abroad. More than 90 percent of people who are not immune will get measles if they are exposed to the virus.

According to the World Health Organization (WHO), nearly 900,000 measles-related deaths occurred among persons in developing countries in 1999. In populations that are not immune to measles, measles spreads rapidly. If vaccinations were stopped, each year about 2.7 million measles deaths worldwide could be expected.

In the U.S., widespread use of measles vaccine has led to a greater than 99 percent reduction in measles compared with the pre-vaccine era. If we stopped immunization, measles would increase to pre-vaccine levels.

Top
Haemophilus Influenzae Type b (Hib) Meningitis 

Before Hib vaccine became available, Hib was the most common cause of bacterial meningitis in U.S. infants and children. Before the vaccine was developed, there were approximately 20,000 invasive Hib cases annually. Approximately two-thirds of the 20,000 cases were meningitis, and one-third were other life-threatening invasive Hib diseases such as bacteria in the blood, pneumonia, or inflammation of the epiglottis. About one of every 200 U.S. children under 5 years of age got an invasive Hib disease. Hib meningitis once killed 600 children each year and left many survivors with deafness, seizures, or mental retardation.

Since introduction of conjugate Hib vaccine in December 1987, the incidence of Hib has declined by 98 percent. From 1994-1998, fewer than 10 fatal cases of invasive Hib disease were reported each year.

This preventable disease was a common, devastating illness as recently as 1990; now, most pediatricians just finishing training have never seen a case. If we were to stop immunization, we would likely soon return to the pre-vaccine numbers of invasive Hib disease cases and deaths.

Top
Pertussis (Whooping Cough) 

Since the early 1980s, reported pertussis cases have been increasing, with peaks every 3-4 years; however, the number of reported cases remains much lower than levels seen in the pre-vaccine era. Compared with pertussis cases in other age groups, infants who are 6 months old or younger with pertussis experience the highest rate of hospitalization, pneumonia, seizures, Encephalopathy (a degenerative disease of the brain) and death. From 1990 to 1996, 57 persons died from pertussis; 49 of these were less than six months old.

Before pertussis immunizations were available, nearly all children developed whooping cough. In the U.S., prior to pertussis immunization, between 150,000 and 260,000 cases of pertussis were reported each year, with up to 9,000 pertussis-related deaths.

Pertussis can be a severe illness, resulting in prolonged coughing spells that can last for many weeks. These spells can make it difficult for a child to eat, drink, and breathe. Because vomiting often occurs after a coughing spell, infants may lose weight and become dehydrated. In infants, it can also cause pneumonia and lead to brain damage, seizures, and mental retardation.

The newer pertussis vaccine (acellular or DTaP) that has been available for use in the United States since 1991 and has been recommended for exclusive use since 1998. These vaccines are effective and associated with fewer mild and moderate adverse reactions when compared with the older (whole-cell DTP) vaccines.

During the 1970s, widespread concerns about the safety of the older pertussis vaccine led to a rapid fall in immunization levels in the United Kingdom. More than 100,000 cases and 36 deaths due to pertussis were reported during an epidemic in the mid 1970s. In Japan, pertussis vaccination coverage fell from 80 percent in 1974 to 20 percent in 1979. An epidemic occurred in 1979, resulted in more than 13,000 cases and 41 deaths.

Pertussis cases occur throughout the world. If we stopped pertussis immunizations in the U.S., we would experience a massive resurgence of pertussis disease. A recent study* found that, in eight countries where immunization coverage was reduced, incidence rates of pertussis surged to 10 to 100 times the rates in countries where vaccination rates were sustained.*

*Reference for study: Gangarosa EJ, et al. Impact of anti-vaccine movements on pertussis control: the untold story. Lancet 1998;351:356-61.
Rubella (German Measles) 

While rubella is usually mild in children and adults, up to 90 percent of infants born to mothers infected with rubella during the first trimester of pregnancy will develop congenital rubella syndrome (CRS), resulting in heart defects, cataracts, mental retardation, and deafness.

In 1964-1965, before rubella immunization was used routinely in the U.S., there was an epidemic of rubella that resulted in an estimated 20,000 infants born with CRS, with 2,100 neonatal deaths and 11,250 miscarriages. Of the 20,000 infants born with CRS, 11,600 were deaf, 3,580 were blind, and 1,800 were mentally retarded.

Due to the widespread use of rubella vaccine, only six CRS cases were provisionally reported in the U.S. in 2000. Because many developing countries do not include rubella in the childhood immunization schedule, many of these cases occurred in foreign-born adults. Since 1996, greater than 50 percent of the reported rubella cases have been among adults. Since 1999, there have been 40 pregnant women infected with rubella....

I dunno. Looks worth it to me.


----------



## Taimishu (Jun 10, 2004)

Hey I thought the point of this post was government ordering parents to give kids medication if it is needed or if it causes side effects or not.
Where does vaccination come into this? as last I looked it is not compulsory, at least in the uk, and I believe not in the states.
The point is petty officials telling parents they have to medicate their kids or be prosecuted. If it was for a life threatening illness, yes, but otherwise they should butt out.

David


----------



## OULobo (Jun 10, 2004)

Taimishu said:
			
		

> Hey I thought the point of this post was government ordering parents to give kids medication if it is needed or if it causes side effects or not.
> Where does vaccination come into this? as last I looked it is not compulsory, at least in the uk, and I believe not in the states.
> The point is petty officials telling parents they have to medicate their kids or be prosecuted. If it was for a life threatening illness, yes, but otherwise they should butt out.
> 
> David



I agree, but I think the US/State gov. looks at it like not letting or making your kid go to school. The so-called condition makes the child less responsive to his educators, and do, if it is not controlled, it unnecessarily limits his ability to learn. Remember, "no child left behind", yeah right.


----------



## theletch1 (Jun 10, 2004)

OULobo said:
			
		

> I agree, but I think the US/State gov. looks at it like not letting or making your kid go to school. The so-called condition makes the child less responsive to his educators, and do, if it is not controlled, it unnecessarily limits his ability to learn. Remember, "no child left behind", yeah right.


This sort of over-reacting by members of the DSS has been going on a lot longer than the "no child left behind" initiative.  Back in the seventies my punishments were handed out by parents that had control of their home and their children.  By the eighties I was hearing things from parents along the lines of "I can't spank my kids or social services will get me."  I think what began as "inhibits his ability to learn" became "inhibits the teachers ability to teach" became "inhibits the parents ability to not be parents".  As happens far too often, what was created to aid has been corrupted and then mandated.


----------



## shesulsa (Jun 10, 2004)

I apologize for my part in taking this thread off-topic.

I still agree that the DSS has way too much power here - this child should not be forced to take medicine that adversely affects his health for the convenience of teachers and in the interest of his learning.  I really think this guy needs to do whatever he can to find a decent doctor (environmental M.D.?), nutritionist or developmental pediatrician (if at all possible) to help him out with this.  If that's not possible, move.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Jun 10, 2004)

Vaccination is indeed mandatory, if you want you kid to attend a public school--with darn good reason, I think.

To me the problem with Ritalin/overdosing kids stems from this stuff: a) a whack medical system, whack because it's interested in profits and technology, not medical care and people; b) lazy, overworked doctors; c) lazy, overworked parents; d) the culture of  narcissism and the quick fix for everything; e) too many poor kids, and kids growing up in sterile suburbs; f) the shift to urban life over the last two-three generations; g) drug ads from drug companies; h) the growing intolerance of difference in human behavior; i) a grossly-underfunded, overloaded educational system increasingly run by corporate heads and Education majors.

Was there anybody I missed offending, there? Just lemme know, and I'll get right on it...


----------



## Phoenix44 (Jun 10, 2004)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> How many kids don't get squat, so that the parents with the money and education and clout can get extra?
> 
> And as long as we're being scientific--got any stats on how reliable those titer analyses are? Any on how many kids per 100,000 fall ill anyway? Comparasions to vaccinated kid populations?


It's not the parents, it's the SENIORS. Seniors are the wealthiest segment of the population, yet they gobble up most of our nation's healthcare dollars--and mostly in the last 6 months of life.  You are correct in your impression that children are the poorest segment of our population, and may lack healthcare so that the seniors can get theirs.  Vaccinations, however, are free from the various state Departments of Health.  That's right, you DON'T have to pay a private doctor for vaccinations.

You can get VERY reliable statistics on the relative risk of immunization vs disease.  I'd suggest you check the CDC, NIH, WHO, or American Academy of Pediatrics.  It is these data which determine which vaccinations are required.  For example, the last case of smallpox was in the '70s, so the risk of vaccination is greater than the risk of disease.  That's why we no longer immunize the whole population for smallpox.  (Yet)


----------



## rmcrobertson (Jun 10, 2004)

Actually, it's the two opposite ends of the spectrum--the extremely old and the extremely young--who chew up the health care dollars.

I continue to insist that a) if we really were going to go for the greatest good for the greatest number, we ought to deny things like double-lung transplants and PET scans, and plow the money into vaccinations, maternal care, and Head Start, and b) none of this applies to me, because I need to have WHATEVER keeps me alive.


----------



## loki09789 (Jun 10, 2004)

Phoenix44 said:
			
		

> It's not the parents, it's the SENIORS. Seniors are the wealthiest segment of the population, yet they gobble up most of our nation's healthcare dollars--and mostly in the last 6 months of life. You are correct in your impression that children are the poorest segment of our population, and may lack healthcare so that the seniors can get theirs. Vaccinations, however, are free from the various state Departments of Health. That's right, you DON'T have to pay a private doctor for vaccinations.
> 
> You can get VERY reliable statistics on the relative risk of immunization vs disease. I'd suggest you check the CDC, NIH, WHO, or American Academy of Pediatrics. It is these data which determine which vaccinations are required. For example, the last case of smallpox was in the '70s, so the risk of vaccination is greater than the risk of disease. That's why we no longer immunize the whole population for smallpox. (Yet)


Of course children are 'poor' because they don't WORK or earn a living or vote or.... I hope what you are trying to say is that they are the most poorly medically funded by need and that Seniors are the most medically funded by need sector....

I heard somewhere that the measure of a civilization is how it treats its elderly and handicap.... it ain't perfect, but I would say that we are doing better than other countries, comparatively considered by population and ratios.

I think the point is discussion about the idea that you can be charged for child endangerment/abuse/neglect for refusing to provide your child with a prescribed drug.  As I said, if you went to the doctor, filled out the prescription and have acknowledged the doctors prescribed treatment, you could be put under the microscope.

As far as the 'lousy parenting' commentary:  I would say that it is more about uneducated parenting or basing parental decisions on how it will reflect on the parent instead of how it will benefit the child.  Acknowledging a diagnosis of ADD/ADHD can feel like you have failed your child through parenting skills or genetics or both, hard to deal with.  How many times have you seen a child throwing a tantrum in a store/be unruly at church or what ever and decided that the parent just doesn't know how to deal with that child and get caught saying/thinking "if that was my kid, I would....".  on the training program videos, they show a mother with an ADHD child.  The kid is flopping around and throwing a tantrum in the mall.  Is she a bad parent because she doesn't raise her voice, yell, yank at the kid... or is she behaving in the exact way that will reduce the emotional agitation that the child is experiencing?  If the child doesn't respond as quickly as we think he/she should, does that mean that she isn't doing her job?

How is it possible to know what is best for your child when you don't understand the physiological and developmental problems that your child is dealing with?  How can you be a lousy parent at the same time that you 'know best' what your child needs?  We have training programs and licensing for so many things, but parenting is a huge responsibility with NO formal grooming program to prepare people for it.  I don't suggest that we require parenting licensure, but it is ironic that we assume that some guy/girl with no better than a high school degree will 'know what is best' for a child, but are unqualified to be a sales rep because they don't have a college degree....

The media and the generally uninformed public are fond of accusing parents and doctors of falling into the 'silver bullet' mentallity of medication.  When you are on the inside and it is your child, you are offered (or at least should be by responsible medical professionals - of which make up the majority) the 'system' of management and care techniques that include meds, but isn't left to the drug.


I think, like many things, there is a real problem with instant gratification and easy solutions when it comes to these issues.  The 'problem' IMO isn't the medical industry as much as families/parents who allow themselves to think that the drugs will be the answer/treat the child with guilty consciences because they feel that the childs condition is somehow their fault.  The absolute worst is when parents/guardians treat children as if they are choosing to be 'special needs' and are doing it just be a pain....


----------



## Phoenix44 (Jun 11, 2004)

loki09789 said:
			
		

> Of course children are 'poor' because they don't WORK or earn a living or vote or.... I hope what you are trying to say is that they are the most poorly medically funded by need and that Seniors are the most medically funded by need sector....


No that's not what I was trying to say, although some of what you say is true.  What I meant was that children are the MOST likely to be living in poverty, and seniors are the LEAST likely.  That's probably in part because Social Security and Medicare provides a safety net the rest of us don't have.  I love it when a senior says, "I'm on a fixed income."  I think "Wow, that's great! For the past 5 years, I've been on a declining income, and I have no health insurance or employee benefits."

I also agree with you that while some kids have ADHD, some kids are just spoiled brats--a fact which our society seems reluctant to accept.  We're all familiar with the brat running around a restaurant irritating the patrons while his or her parents just smile and beam, because "Isn't she adorable?"

However, I work with kids, and kids with ADHD are just qualititatively different.  They don't just throw tantrums--they are simply unable to sit still or follow a line of thought.  Their brain structure may be different as well.  But I agree that it's easier for a parent to say, "My child has a focus problem," than "My kid's a spoiled brat."


----------



## loki09789 (Jun 11, 2004)

Phoenix44 said:
			
		

> No that's not what I was trying to say, although some of what you say is true. What I meant was that children are the MOST likely to be living in poverty, and seniors are the LEAST likely. That's probably in part because Social Security and Medicare provides a safety net the rest of us don't have. I love it when a senior says, "I'm on a fixed income." I think "Wow, that's great! For the past 5 years, I've been on a declining income, and I have no health insurance or employee benefits."
> 
> I also agree with you that while some kids have ADHD, some kids are just spoiled brats--a fact which our society seems reluctant to accept. We're all familiar with the brat running around a restaurant irritating the patrons while his or her parents just smile and beam, because "Isn't she adorable?"
> 
> However, I work with kids, and kids with ADHD are just qualititatively different. They don't just throw tantrums--they are simply unable to sit still or follow a line of thought. Their brain structure may be different as well. But I agree that it's easier for a parent to say, "My child has a focus problem," than "My kid's a spoiled brat."


Not even going to touch the agism and misdirected frustration of your current employment/healt coverage state (which I sincerely hope changes for the better).  As far as ADD/ADHD though it is an impulse control problem that starts with an underdevelopment of the part of the brain that controls judgement that can be complicated by either a lack of effective adult/parental supervision (two income family with a latch key kid, single parent with little or no way of establishing consistent supervision...truly dysfunctional adult models...).  The degree of the problem is dependent on how severe either or both of these areas are.

Actually my point was that it is HARDER for parents to accept a diagnosis or even seek one when there is something that they can't seem to 'parent' away about their child that is severe enough to affect social interaction or academics.  It is easier to say that 'he is different', or 'I was just like that' or even worse accuse teachers (it is true in some cases though) of wanting the child to be drugged so that his/her class runs smoother than to accept the responsibility of taking action.  As a parent I understand the desire to say that I am the one who does for my child.  It sucks having to hand over that care provider position to someone else (teachers, doctors....) and I tend to micro manage and make assumptions because of that.  Now, as  a teacher, I understand that I am not the only one (thank god because I was feeling really stupid....).

I think, to put a side spin on my previous point, the extended childhood of our current times is part of the problem as well.  We have 19 year olds, legally adults, who have the accountability, maturity and 'poor me' mentallity of 13 year olds in our 'civilized' culture when at 13 in 'primitive' cultures you will probably find more adult qualities than in our legally voting 19 year old.  This is partially necessary because of the higher volume of 'cultural collateral' that is needed to be productive (mainly technology and systems knowledge), but I think it is partially due to the "don't hurt my baby" mentallity that children are to be protected from everything - including failing on their own merits.  If kids are not allowed to fail, fall down, and experience losing they will never learn how to assess what to do better the next time.

Failure has become the demon to be feared.  I say that, within reason and practical safety, kids should be allowed to fail on their own merits, otherwise how can they really 'earn their rewards' at the other end of the spectrum of experience.


----------



## OULobo (Jun 11, 2004)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> Vaccination is indeed mandatory, if you want you kid to attend a public school--with darn good reason, I think.
> 
> To me the problem with Ritalin/overdosing kids stems from this stuff: a) a whack medical system, whack because it's interested in profits and technology, not medical care and people; b) lazy, overworked doctors; c) lazy, overworked parents; d) the culture of  narcissism and the quick fix for everything; e) too many poor kids, and kids growing up in sterile suburbs; f) the shift to urban life over the last two-three generations; g) drug ads from drug companies; h) the growing intolerance of difference in human behavior; i) a grossly-underfunded, overloaded educational system increasingly run by corporate heads and Education majors.
> 
> Was there anybody I missed offending, there? Just lemme know, and I'll get right on it...




Good recap, those are some of the most greivous problems that parents and children face now.



			
				loki09789 said:
			
		

> I heard somewhere that the measure of a civilization is how it treats its elderly and handicap....



I always heard it was how it treats it's criminals.



			
				loki09789 said:
			
		

> Acknowledging a diagnosis of ADD/ADHD can feel like you have failed your child through parenting skills or genetics or both, hard to deal with. How many times have you seen a child throwing a tantrum in a store/be unruly at church or what ever and decided that the parent just doesn't know how to deal with that child and get caught saying/thinking "if that was my kid, I would....". on the training program videos, they show a mother with an ADHD child. The kid is flopping around and throwing a tantrum in the mall. Is she a bad parent because she doesn't raise her voice, yell, yank at the kid... or is she behaving in the exact way that will reduce the emotional agitation that the child is experiencing? If the child doesn't respond as quickly as we think he/she should, does that mean that she isn't doing her job?



Many parents now, don't care about how good a parent they are being or refuse to see anything they do as a failure. Instead they seek some excuse, the most available and least blaming being an unforseen and unavoidable handicap, like ADHD. That takes all the blame off the parent and acts as a "get out of jail free card" for all the improper parenting. The doctors don't want to fight a parent that is persistant and insistant that their child has ADHD (despite the parent's lack of expertise and the parent's skewed viewpoint). 

The example you give of the child and the fit is usually reserved for autism, as they are usually uncommunacative, but I guess it could happen often with severe ADHD.

You are so right on target with the whole "silver bullet" / "one pill cureall" mentality of today's society.


----------



## OULobo (Jun 11, 2004)

loki09789 said:
			
		

> I say that, within reason and practical safety, kids should be allowed to fail on their own merits, otherwise how can they really 'earn their rewards' at the other end of the spectrum of experience.




I learned that really well in college.  :uhyeah:


----------



## loki09789 (Jun 11, 2004)

OULobo said:
			
		

> I always heard it was how it treats it's criminals.
> 
> The example you give of the child and the fit is usually reserved for autism, as they are usually uncommunacative, but I guess it could happen often with severe ADHD.
> 
> You are so right on target with the whole "silver bullet" / "one pill cureall" mentality of today's society.


Considering in the US, through the Corrections System inmates are fed dietarily sound meals planned by hired experts, provided with educational and spiritual opportunities, recieve medical coverage, can develop a trade skill if college isn't their thing, are required to maintain health and hygiene standards (to the point that the entire facilities are maintained better than most people's homes) and that they are even allowed to participate in sports/recreational activites we aren't doing too bad there either.  There is corruption/abuse/inequity for sure, but compare our corrections system to most other countries and we are treating criminals pretty well.

The example was directly from the video on ADD/ADHD and was an example of how token reward systems work when dealing with kids with it.  If it had been just something I saw in the mall chances are I would be right there with the rest of the world because part of my reaction would be "lady, just grab the kid by the arm and walk him out of here.  If he can't behave, he doesn't deserve to be here - teach that kid some manners..." We all have that reaction at times, but I have had to learn to remember that I live in a country of civil liberties and for good or ill, she can parent how ever she sees fit as long as she isn't endangering her child (or at least gets caught).

I remember reading essays and articles from earlier eras that expressed the same mentallity relative to their own time.  "Everyone wants it easy", "No one wants to take the time to do it right the first time"... and all that.  I guess all I can do is take charge of my own life and my actions and hope for the best....I still think it is true for our age though.


----------



## loki09789 (Jun 11, 2004)

OULobo said:
			
		

> I learned that really well in college. :uhyeah:


Unfortunately, I had to learn that in the service....MUCH STRESS.  I remember my DI once saying to me "Martin, you are all effort and no skill...DROP!"  I did a lot of push ups and pull ups.


----------



## OULobo (Jun 11, 2004)

loki09789 said:
			
		

> Unfortunately, I had to learn that in the service....MUCH STRESS.  I remember my DI once saying to me "Martin, you are all effort and no skill...DROP!"  I did a lot of push ups and pull ups.



Ha, I did a lot of inner contemplation, mostly on how to hide the grades from my parents and mostly over a frosty beverage to ease the sting of failure. 

OT - You're right on the with the criminals thing though. I think if we do base our civility on how we treat our criminals, then we are far above most of the rest of the world. I think the same is true of our elderly and handicapped. I have also heard the "A civilization can be measured in how it treats. . ." used with it's homeless and it's teachers. Those are the areas where we need some work.


----------



## Phoenix44 (Jun 11, 2004)

loki09789 said:
			
		

> Not even going to touch the agism and misdirected frustration of your current employment/healt coverage state (which I sincerely hope changes for the better)


loki, that is not "ageism." Unfortunately IT'S FACT, documented by the Bureau of Labor Statistics. The most recent data indicate that the median wealth of young families, with heads of household <35 years old (ie homes with little kids) is $5,786.  With heads of households ages 55-64 wealth is $91,481--that remains stable until around age 74, then drops to about $77,654.  I didn't make this up:  seniors ARE the wealthiest segment of the population.  I also didn't invent the term "Selfish Seniors" to indicate those who vote increasing benefits for themselves at the expense of children.  It is generational warfare.

Having said that, I thank you for your good wishes.


----------



## loki09789 (Jun 13, 2004)

Phoenix44 said:
			
		

> loki, that is not "ageism." Unfortunately IT'S FACT, documented by the Bureau of Labor Statistics. The most recent data indicate that the median wealth of young families, with heads of household <35 years old (ie homes with little kids) is $5,786. With heads of households ages 55-64 wealth is $91,481--that remains stable until around age 74, then drops to about $77,654. I didn't make this up: seniors ARE the wealthiest segment of the population. I also didn't invent the term "Selfish Seniors" to indicate those who vote increasing benefits for themselves at the expense of children. It is generational warfare.
> 
> Having said that, I thank you for your good wishes.


Well, they worked their entire lives, earned the promotions, degrees and wage increases/retirements..... with the degree driven market of our current situation anyone under the age of 35 (this includes me) will not have the clout, pedigree or the connections by in large to command that statistic.  Also, This age group is FAR more likely to have to worry about coverage and health benefits for small children than someone our grand parents age.  I don't begrudge my father his income, retirement or the healt benefits he earned along the way.  He worked hard for that - I saw it everyday, but didn't appreciate it until I had a son of my own.

Be careful of stats btw, how many of those under 35'ers are minimum wage/laborer/part time and other low paying/low training requirement jobs skewing the comparison you are trying to make?  THere are probably far fewer McDonalds counter workers at the senior end of the income spectrum messing with the statistical curve/average.   It might be more honest to compare benefits/income coverage of career/job descriptions instead of the ages.  I can understand why you should be earning a higher wage if you are working in your degree field than someone pumping gas, but why should there be such a disparity in health coverage provided by your employer?  That is more a more reasonable inequity to me.

I call it agism because the comparison isn't reasonable or fair.


----------



## Rich Parsons (Jun 14, 2004)

Phoenix44 said:
			
		

> loki, that is not "ageism." Unfortunately IT'S FACT, documented by the Bureau of Labor Statistics. The most recent data indicate that the median wealth of young families, with heads of household <35 years old (ie homes with little kids) is $5,786.  With heads of households ages 55-64 wealth is $91,481--that remains stable until around age 74, then drops to about $77,654.  I didn't make this up:  seniors ARE the wealthiest segment of the population.  I also didn't invent the term "Selfish Seniors" to indicate those who vote increasing benefits for themselves at the expense of children.  It is generational warfare.
> 
> Having said that, I thank you for your good wishes.



Phoenix44,

Could you send me a PM with the link, this sounds interesting to me for more private reading.

I would like to see the 35 to 54 ranges as well, and see how the numbers are calculated, all the boring reading and calculations in stuff .

As to the average, I agree with Paul M. about skewing, yet, it only raises another issue. I think the skewing is also skewed by directors and VP's and such who are still working at this age.

Thanks

 :asian:


----------



## MA-Caver (Jun 14, 2004)

I am replying late to this topic, because life just gets in the way sometimes. But I hope I am staying on topic in regards to the kids on ritalin subject and not vaccinations or the other stuff that seemingly strayed. 



> Taylor told KOAT-TV he is not putting Daniel back on Ritalin, no matter what the consequences for himself may be. "Yeah, I'll go to jail for it," he said. "I'll go as long as I have to go."


One part of me says "good for him", another part says "well...that's not the brightest idea because now he's just deprived his son of his father and the state can put the kid right back on ritalin and dad (or mom) isn't around to stop them."



> *loki09789 wrote:* <snip>The father could have consulted with the doctor for an alternative to Rit. (Aderral, Stratera... lots of choices) that might be more balanced for his son. If he is dead set on keeping his child off drugs, he could seek out schools specifically set up to manage ADHD/ADD children...


Ok but how do we KNOW for 100% sure that a child has ADHD or ADD? Do we really understand exactly what those two are. Or are they just a pseudonym  for parental laziness and inattentiveness?



> *rmcrobertson wrote:*  Clearly, some of these kids need their drugs. Problem is, all the studies I've seen on this say that the kids who really, really need their drugs are a minority of the kids who actually get them.



That's been my thought for a long time. Far too many kids are misdiagnosed and don't need it. I won't deny that ADD/ADHD does exist... it's just not as frequent as doctors/teachers/psychologist think it is.



> *rmcrobertson wrote:* The problem appears to be a practical one: a) drug companies are pushing the hell out of these drugs for ADD/ADHD (gotta love that free market system!); b) consumers (and I mean consumers, not parents) go in and demand drugs for themselves and for their kids; c) most physicians have no idea how to properly evaluate and prescribe for these kids, and they don't take the time to find out; d) a lot of these drugs require careful monitoring and titrarion of dosages, and most kids don't get it; e) some parents do have irratgional fears that don't get addressed (similarly, ever talked to some yutz who won't have their kids vaccinated?); f) these kids also need lots of behavioral work and psychotherapy, and they don't get it because it's expensive.


Exactly because it's expensive. Pharmaceutical companies make billions off their products. Example, when I was bitten by a rattlesnake a couple of years ago, the pharmacy bill alone was $16K. I was given anti-venom, ONE shot of morphine (2 mgs), some antibiotics and lord knows what else. It's highly doubtful that they (the pharmaceutical companies) will reduce the flow of income because it's bad for their customers. On another discussion board, one poster is a doctor who said that he receives weekly at least a dozen incentives to "push a particular drug", these incentives range from free dinners at high-dollar resturant (via coupons), to thousands of bonus miles on commerical airlines, to paid vacations at various resorts. To qualify he fills out an order form for X number of "free-samples." The incentives are shipped right along with the samples. That is kinda scary when you think about it. By the way, the doc basically quit the mainstream and went into private practice and is prescribing alternative meds...natural meds... that says something doesn't it?? 



> *rmcrobertson wrote:*  Apparently, we have a majority of kids on drugs who don't need them, and of the ones who really, really do need their drugs, the majority are way over-medicated. Lovely. We also have an enormous population of fat, out-of-shape, whiny kids who never get to go out and run around screaming till they fall in the creek, like kids are supposed to be doing, because we're too lazy, too stupid and too cheap to arrange a society reasonably. Brilliant.



Yes, the sarcasm is noted here. I remember seeing kids very hyperactive, overweight, whiny kids, and others causing problems/disruptions in class (heh, I was one of them :uhyeah: ), in my various schools (60's and 70's), there weren't many but they were there.   Were these kids ADHD or were they just... kids?



> *OULobo wrote:* I don't even want to get into the whole Ridilin thing. Every parent that can't face their own inability or unwillingness to handle their children instantly diagnoses the kid ADHD in their own head because they saw an episode of Dateline or know another child supposedly with it that acts this way, so it must be the case. Doctors loosely diagnose ADHD and prescribe Ridilin to the kid because the parent won't accept that it's bad parenting or lack of attention to the child, and won't leave without the stuff that calmed the neighbor's hyper kid down.


Yeah, adults...be it teachers or parents not wanting to deal with the stress of a screaming kid find it a lot easier to allow the docs to prescribe the "kid-stone" drug. It's better for the docs to make the quick diagnosis so that he can see as many patients in a day as possible (more money).  
Am hoping that folks reading this are aware of what Ritalin is (mostly) made of?? It's a type of amphetamine. Something to think about. Pre-puberty kids can't handle the intense adrendealin rush created by amphetamines and it over-loads/shocks their system so much that they're really in a stupor. Thus calm, placid and generally "a good kid."  It's a small wonder that the suicide rate for kids on these meds is abnormally high. The docs say..."well it's time to take them off the ritalin" ... probably because as the kids' hormones start changing and going into effect, the amphetamines will have their (usual) effect of it's street name... SPEED! and the kids being taken off the drug go into a deep depression because they're addicted and their bodies are crying for more but they aren't getting it...so suicide.



> *loki09789 wrote:* I remember reading essays and articles from earlier eras that expressed the same mentallity relative to their own time. "Everyone wants it easy", "No one wants to take the time to do it right the first time"... and all that. I guess all I can do is take charge of my own life and my actions and hope for the best....I still think it is true for our age though.


Right, nobody wants to take the time or the effort. What's also sad/scary/trouble-some is there's an outcry against it...but that's all it is... an outcry. What exactly is going on up there on the hill(s)? Lawmakers aren't doing investigations...at least none known publically anyway. Are they receiving the same incentives from the same pharmaceutical companies? Is it called hush/ignore money? 



> *theletch1 wrote:* <snip>For the conspiracy theorists among us...how long until mandatory psychotropic drugs are ordered for the masses?



Yes, how long indeed? A people controlled are a people unable to protest. It's so subtle folks. It doesn't even look like a conspiracy does it?


----------



## Phoenix44 (Jun 14, 2004)

I personally no longer get too excited about the problems in the US medical system--because I don't think it can hold up this way much longer.

NO ONE should profit from the public and private health care dollar except the doctor, nurse, or other health care provider.  These people deserve to be paid for their services.  Drug companies deserve a REASONABLE, not exorbitant, payment for drugs.

Our current health care system siphons off money for CEOs, stockholders, and armies of clerical personnel and reviewers.  And multiply this HUNDREDS (maybe thousands) of times for each and every insurer and managed care organization.  Meanwhile, doctors are paid less for a complete consultation than a manicurist gets for a pedicure, and asthmatics are denied appropriate medications because some HMO thinks the inhaler isn't "medically necessary."

Stephen Wiggins, founder and former CEO of Oxford Health Plans, quit under allegations of financial and managerial problems.  He was awarded a $9 MILLION severance package (which was eventually challenged).  $9 million in health care money!!!  How much Hepatitis vaccine could THAT pay for?  And that's just ONE insurer.


----------



## loki09789 (Jun 14, 2004)

MACaver said:
			
		

> Ok but how do we KNOW for 100% sure that a child has ADHD or ADD? Do we really understand exactly what those two are. Or are they just a pseudonym for parental laziness and inattentiveness?


They are not pseudonyms for parental laziness and inattentiveness (qualify that to say that at least in the clinical/medical community ), there is clinical information to explain the physiological differences between a normal range of development and an ADHD/ADD type of development in a person's brain.  The problem is that, like many medical terms, what currently is called ADHD/ADD has had many other names through history.

Another thing to consider is, if you were to compare driving a car to child rearing for the sake of analogy, if your child is more of a factory model car to represent the 'norm' range of development then the holes in parenting skills won't be so apparent.  If your child is more of a high strung dragster or race car (not to imply superiority to the 'norm' but as example of 'out of the norm') that requires a more skilled touch, then the fact that your parenting skills are limited to folk levels of instruction (what you learn by watching your parents, others but not based on actual research and formal education) will become VERY apparent.

It takes more training/understanding/emotional control and a lot more personal awareness to raise an ADHD/ADD child and it takes some personal coping/preparation to deal with the internal experience as well because the children with a handicap need more.  

The real 'miracle' is when parents of misdiagnosed children get the training and improve their parenting skills and the child suddenly is 'cured' of ADD/ADHD....which only leads to the mythical status/invalidity of how real ADHD is.

There is a clear prejudice/non acceptance for mental/developmental handicaps in the general public because ADD/ADHD/Clinical depression.... aren't as physically obvious as blindness, paralysis....  The general attitude I have come across is "there isn't anything wrong with those kids except for bad parenting and a swat across the bottom wouldn't cure."  Though I agree that parenting skills need to be as passionately developed as some of us pursue our martial arts training, I don't think that ignoring the reality of ADD/ADHD and other mental handicaps helps.  It leads to some serious false expectations of what these kids are and are not capable of and can really increase the negative self image that can come with knowing you are different.  

I deal with these kids everyday and they know they are different.  Their self perception/esteem depends quite a bit on how the world treats them and their condition.  I constantly tell them that they are different (but even the 'normal' people are), but it isn't an excuse to quit, lower your life goals or to be bad.  I also tell them that the meds are a helper, but not an excuse either.  They are ultimately in charge of themselves.  They may take longer, have to work harder in some areas than other kids, but they can be as accomplished as anyone else.  I even cite how, after scientists have poured over bios of these people, some of the most successful people are folks who have channelled their 'handicap' into success like Einstein, Hawkings... and others who (though not in all cases ADD/ADHD) presented the same poor behavior, boredom, creativity... they just needed the right venue to express it in so they could shine.


----------



## Nightingale (Jun 14, 2004)

when I was teaching, we had a student at another catholic school die of the measels. Because the parents thought the vaccines were linked to autism.  So, they didn't get their kids vaccinated, and the kid died of measels.

I've done my research on the vaccine/autism link, and I believe there is one, and many researchers conclude, that, while there is a link, its due to the plethora of vaccines given at one time, plus a succeptibility to develop autism.  The most common age for diagnosing autism is age 2.  Many children develop normally until age 2, when they are given vaccines, and they become autistic.  Approximately 40% of parents of autistic children believe vaccines are the culprit.  

Interesting factoids:  Most vaccines contain mercury.  It's very interesting that the symptoms for autism and the symptoms for mercury poisoning are virtually identical...

When I have kids, they will get ONE vaccine at a time, even if I have to bring them back to the doc every three months so they can get all their shots.  The most often accused vaccine is the MMR (measels, mumps, rubella).  Some doctors are now offering this vaccine in three different shots, spread out over a longer period of time.  This seems like a better option.

Every parent needs to make their own choice about HOW to vaccinate their kids.  NOT whether.  Kids must be vaccinated.  Otherwise, we'll have people dying of polio, measels, mumps, etc.  These diseases are under control at this time, and we need to keep them that way.


----------



## Phoenix44 (Jun 14, 2004)

Nightingale said:
			
		

> Many children develop normally until age 2, when they are given vaccines, and they become autistic.


Really? The first vaccine is usually given at age 2 MONTHS, and the primary series of all the vaccines (Diphtheria, Tetanus, Pertussis, Hepatitis B, Hemophilus, Measles, Mumps, Rubella) is COMPLETED by age 18 months.


----------



## Nightingale (Jun 14, 2004)

What I meant was that autism was normally diagnosed around age 2, AFTER the vaccine cycle was completed.  Autism begins as a regressive disease. It's gradual.  The child develops normally for a while, and then begins to have minor problems which get worse and worse... a child does not go from normal to suddenly majorly autistic.  It happens over time, and many people believe it is triggered by a particular vaccine.

Autism, MMR and "60 Minutes" 

A Perspective by Dr. Edward Yazbak
The following is an article written by Dr. Edward Yazabak in 2000.

The "60 Minutes" program on MMR vaccine was an excellent awareness-raising report on the debate surrounding regressive autism and its explosion. 

First, my background: I am trained in infectious diseases and pediatrics. 

During my training I personally cared for children and adults with serious and complicated contagious illnesses. I subsequently &#8220;really&#8221; practiced pediatrics and was a school physician for 34 years. I personally administered my own vaccines and enforced every Health Department mandate. I also informed myself thoroughly about regressive or late onset autism. Because of research I am now conducting, I strongly suspect that there is an autism-vaccine connection.

The following crucial facts were unfortunately not discussed in the 60 Minutes piece: 

The measles virus was isolated from the gut wall of children with autism. It was further identified by very precise PCR techniques by O&#8217;Leary, and was confirmed to be of vaccine origin by Kawashima and his group. 
Sixty new cases with autistic enterocolitis were reported by Wakefield in the September 2000 issue of the "American Journal of Gastroenterology." 
Children with autism have statistically significant co-existing high titers of MMR and Myelin Basic Protein antibodies. 

The authorities like to repeat that Wakefield&#8217;s findings have not been duplicated by other researchers. This may be true for the case of children with autism but only because no one has tried to. Indeed after seeing the onslaught of attacks on Dr. Wakefield because of his research, it is unlikely that anyone would want to. Sabra et al at Georgetown University, however, have described identical ileal lymphoid nodular hyperplasia in the guts of children with ADHD. 

Thousands of parents believe that the MMR vaccine has contributed to their children&#8217;s autism. They have pictures and videos to prove the &#8216;before&#8217; and &#8216;after.&#8217; They speak of the MMR being the only new event in their child&#8217;s life in that period between normal development and autistic regression. They point out their children&#8217;s marked immune system dysfunction, something with which they were not born. These parents certainly did not acquire their conviction from reading about the twelve cases reported in Dr. Wakefield&#8217;s first paper. Nor would they simply be looking for a scapegoat. Please remember, and always remember, their children were normal and their disease is acquired. 

Regardless of how often the authorities attest that the MMR vaccine is safe, an increasing number of parents here and in Europe are refusing to believe them. Safety trials not looking beyond 3 weeks post-vaccination convince no one. Equally alarming to the parents is the fact that the infectious disease specialists and epidemiologists who make decisions and mandate vaccines have little knowledge of autism and its immune etiology. 

It is inevitable that the present intransigent and unbending attitude of the vaccine authorities will lead to measles, mumps and rubella outbreaks. When these diseases return, and they will, the authorities-- and the authorities alone-- will have to be held responsible. There is no reasonable justification to tell a parent who is adamant about not using MMR but who is willing to return three times for the monovalent vaccines, that they are simply not available and/or illegal. Dr. Wakefield only asked that more research be done into the triple live-virus vaccine. To intimate that his research will cause epidemics is a flagrant distortion of the truth. 

It took us a long time to perfect the single (monovalent) mumps, measles and rubella vaccines. Most pediatricians and parents trusted them. Epidemics stopped and few adverse vaccine reactions were reported.

When the MMR vaccine was licensed in 1971 and became available shortly thereafter, many pediatricians refused to use it and continued vaccinating with the monovalent products at 3-6 months intervals. These pediatricians were concerned with the potential decreased efficacy and increased side effects of the combination. Many of us were also aware that no long-term safety studies of the MMR vaccine were available, on going or contemplated. 

Two things happened simultaneously in the late seventies to change things dramatically: 
HMOs arrived on the scene and cut down the number of &#8220;regular check-ups&#8221; 
The State Health Departments started providing the vaccines free of charge to the practicing pediatricians and GPs. The Health Departments made it clear that it was cheaper to buy and easier to store and distribute the 3 in 1 vaccine and, on that basis, simply mandated its use. Pediatricians had no choice but to comply. 

To say that we are not sure the parents will bring the child back for subsequent shots is false. Certainly this argument could be made in a third world country but certainly not in the West. Any &#8220;practicing&#8221; pediatrician knows that a parent is much more likely to keep a doctor&#8217;s appointment if a vaccine is due. 

Sponsored Links
Thimerosal Litigation
Autism & Mercury Poisoning Claims due to Thimerosal Vaccinations
www.Thimerosal-Legal.com

Autism
Discover the underlying cause of fungal yeast infections.
http://www.candidafree.net

Toddlers w/ Autism or PDD
Vocabulary Builder videos can help your child learn to speak.
www.babybumblebee.com
One must be cautious not to insult parents&#8217; intelligence. 

Secondly, to say that added injections will cause pain and discomfort to the child is ridiculous. I believe that the pain caused by an aqueous injection administered sub-cutaneously by an experienced health professional does not even come close to the living hell of Autism. 

Interestingly, the only people who raise these two arguments are members of vaccine boards and committees and rarely treat patients. Wouldn&#8217;t it be more appropriate to have the parents make that important choice if they have such marked reservations? After all it is their child. As well, it seems hypocritical to mention pain when the vaccine authorities are introducing new vaccines of questionable efficacy and safety all the time. 

It was intimated on "60 Minutes" that a multitude of studies involving large populations has proved that the MMR vaccine was perfectly safe and did not cause autism. THIS IS NOT TRUE. There is NO long-term safety research proving that MMR does not cause autism. There is a sole epidemiological study by Taylor et al, often publicized as proving decisively that autism did not increase in the UK after 1988, when MMR was introduced with great fanfare. This study was financed and ordered by The Medicines Control Agency and The Public Health Laboratory Service. 

A noted British statistician whose specialty is medical research, looked carefully at the Taylor study. He wrote: &#8220;A myth is being created that the Taylor et al study shows that MMR is not triggering autism. The evidence presented in their Lancet paper is [in fact] consistent with the MMR triggering a substantial proportion of autism cases in this North London population. The study does not find evidence to support an association between MMR and autism onset because of a flaw in the study design. This does not mean that such an association does not exist.&#8221; 

The reason for this expert&#8217;s comments is that the &#8220;case series design&#8221; used in the Taylor study is well known to be statistically unsatisfactory for chronic conditions and inadequate for a small sample (293 confirmed cases). Even the authors of the study themselves alluded to its methodological problems.


At times, while figures clearly demonstrate an increase in autism, this fact is denied in the written text. At others, contradictions are evident: 
&#8220;There is uncertainty about whether the prevalence of autism is increasing,&#8221; immediately followed by: &#8220;Our study is consistent with an increase in the incidence of autism in recent birth cohorts.&#8221; 
"For age at first parental concern, no significant temporal clustering was seen for cases of core autism and atypical autism, with the exception of a single interval within 6 months of MMR vaccine associated with a peak in reported age of parental concern at 18 months,&#8221; and &#8220;Our results do not support the hypothesis that MMR vaccination is causally related to autism." 

By far, however, the Taylor study&#8217;s most serious problem was to look only at children born after 1987. This effectively excluded all children born in 1986-87 and initially vaccinated in 1988 or later. It also excluded all 2&#8211;5 year old children previously non- or partially immunized and who received MMR boosters in 1988 or later. More importantly, this design flaw added all excluded children to the opposite group. 

Last but not least, Dr. Taylor has repeatedly refused to let anyone see his raw data, in the hopes of replicating his findings, thus becoming probably the first author in the history of the "Lancet" to do so. 

In sum, the &#8216;authorities&#8217; need to get away from rhetoric. They must look at and commission real science to support their claims. Until the safety of the MMR vaccine is proved conclusively, it will be wise to allow parents a choice between the single vaccines and the trivalent MMR. All of us who have been touched by the autism epidemic appreciate the efforts put forth by CBS and "60 Minutes." We hope that numerous and more balanced, informative programs will follow.


----------



## shesulsa (Jun 14, 2004)

Thank you for posting that, Kris.

For the record, I think my son was injured from his first two rounds of vaccines received at 2 months and 4 months.  After that, he had no more immunizations...interestingly, he has been exposed to measles many times, but never developed the disease...but no doctor I can find will test him for titers because they want me to just give him the shot since, as they so delicately put it, "the damage is already done."

I don't think John developed autism overnight - there were some factors that did seem as though they developed overnight - the one that grabbed me was one day I could hug and cuddle him and tickle him, etcetera...literally, the next day, he couldn't bear to be even near anyone.  Other symptoms such as acting deaf, lack of imitation, word loss developed earlier.  I do have pictures of my son at 8 weeks looking at me in the eyes and grinning and laughing, he responded to sound, tracked objects with his eyes, however, after the innoculations, he no longer did those things.  Obvious milestones were met, though such as crawling, walking, sitting up, pulling up, etcetera...so it's hard for me to say what is and isn't true when it comes to other parents' opinions that the autism hit overnight.

I do know that the amount of tin in my son's urine is extremely high which means he is not dumping mercury as most people do...which would affect the bile production, which would affect food digestion, which would affect gut peptides, which would leave certain proteins and fats in a state which mimics opiates, which cross the blood-brain barrier in the intestines and cause the gut to "leak", which affects the brain chemistry, which affects development, which affects behavior.

So you all know, autism is probably not caused by one thing alone (my humble opinion), and it probably has a lot to do with susceptibility to certain ingredients in vaccines, medications, and could also just develop independently.  And autism also is diagnosed behaviorally - there is no known genetic marker, though there are some definite leanings right now.

In my son's case, I don't think he only has autism, he definately has some cerebral palsy, indicated by hypotonia and hypoflexivity, certain muscular difficulties.  I definitely believe he was vaccine-damaged.

I don't think medication should be federally mandated for several reasons...I've already stated my case about the boy with ADHD that this thread originated with and I've stated my case about this...I do owe some figures to the thread, though and will provide those as soon as I can.
If I knew I could safely vaccinate all my children without them becoming permanently damaged, I would do it in a heartbeat.  So...allergists?  Immunologists?  Developmental Pediatricians?  Are you out there?  Cuz the ones within a 300 mile radius of me won't walk down that path with me.  If you truly believe in protecting my children against disease and death and disorder, point me in the right direction - the safe vaccination direction.

Thank you.


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Jun 14, 2004)

> The general attitude I have come across is "there isn't anything wrong with those kids except for bad parenting and a swat across the bottom wouldn't cure." Though I agree that parenting skills need to be as passionately developed as some of us pursue our martial arts training, I don't think that ignoring the reality of ADD/ADHD and other mental handicaps helps. It leads to some serious false expectations of what these kids are and are not capable of and can really increase the negative self image that can come with knowing you are different.



Excellent post, and I couldn't agree more.

I deal with a large number of these kids.  So far Autism seems to have explosively outpaced ADD/ADHD.  

I think the two were confused for awhile (and still are).  Children in the autism spectrum are often misdiagnosed as ADD/ADHD.  

The original post had to do with the government requiring the administration of certain drugs.  Without certain meds, a child facing these issues can become suicidally depressed.  Parents that ignore the meds can place the child at risk.  

That said, there is a point where the government has to back off.  In the case mentioned in the original post, this seems to be one of those times.  The rights of the parent in this instant would seem to be paramount.  If the risk to the child isn't a "clear and present danger", I'd argue that enforced medication would be a bad move on the part of the state.  I'd also argue that in this case and future cases the courts would likely take that stance.

Yet what if the child were bi-polar?  A battery of meds might be needed to keep him/her from suicide.  Would the state then be justified in enforcing such medication?  Or do we allow the family its autonomy?  And if the child dies a suicide?  I suppose at that point one could argue that the state can not be responsible for diagnosing and treating all depressed children.  It could lead to the slippery slope of the state deciding that we ALL need to be medicated for whatever ills the state determines we suffer from.  

That likely won't happen.  I suspect we will task the family with bearing the responsibility and burden of guilt for their neglect.


Regards,


Steve


----------



## Phoenix44 (Jun 15, 2004)

OK, let me play the Devil's Advocate.  Suppose a child's behavior without medication is so disruptive--screaming, badgering other kids, kicking teachers, running around the school hallways, hanging off the stairways--that he cannot be taught in a classroom.  (I'm not making up this scenario, I witnessed it in a school).  So, not only is he making it impossible for other kids to learn, but he cannot learn either.  And of course, if you remove him from school, he also cannot learn. Not to mention the physical danger to himself and others because of his behavior.

Medicate or not?


----------



## OULobo (Jun 15, 2004)

Phoenix44 said:
			
		

> OK, let me play the Devil's Advocate.  Suppose a child's behavior without medication is so disruptive--screaming, badgering other kids, kicking teachers, running around the school hallways, hanging off the stairways--that he cannot be taught in a classroom.  (I'm not making up this scenario, I witnessed it in a school).  So, not only is he making it impossible for other kids to learn, but he cannot learn either.  And of course, if you remove him from school, he also cannot learn. Not to mention the physical danger to himself and others because of his behavior.
> 
> Medicate or not?



Not if it causes lack of appitite, sleep or other damaging side effects. Now you are talking about sacrificing the child's health for it's chance at schooling that no one can garuntee with be effective on him anyway. Look into alternative options like, home schooling, specilized education options, ect. Special cases need special care.


----------



## OUMoose (Jun 15, 2004)

Phoenix44 said:
			
		

> OK, let me play the Devil's Advocate.  Suppose a child's behavior without medication is so disruptive--screaming, badgering other kids, kicking teachers, running around the school hallways, hanging off the stairways--that he cannot be taught in a classroom.  (I'm not making up this scenario, I witnessed it in a school).  So, not only is he making it impossible for other kids to learn, but he cannot learn either.  And of course, if you remove him from school, he also cannot learn. Not to mention the physical danger to himself and others because of his behavior.
> 
> Medicate or not?



My mother has taught special education for almost 20 years now, and has seen many children like this (I've even helped at the school).  Some children do have a specific medical problem, and some medication would help, but not the painfully obvious overmedication that is almost the norm anymore.  Yes, in this case, a special type of schooling would probably be necessary, and hopefully the child would grow out of it.  Most of them I've seen like this are under 2nd grade, but I have heard of cases all the way till around 5th or 6th grade.  Since I've only had direct exposure to the youngins, though, that's what I'll stick to.


----------



## loki09789 (Jun 15, 2004)

Phoenix44 said:
			
		

> OK, let me play the Devil's Advocate. Suppose a child's behavior without medication is so disruptive--screaming, badgering other kids, kicking teachers, running around the school hallways, hanging off the stairways--that he cannot be taught in a classroom. (I'm not making up this scenario, I witnessed it in a school). So, not only is he making it impossible for other kids to learn, but he cannot learn either. And of course, if you remove him from school, he also cannot learn. Not to mention the physical danger to himself and others because of his behavior.
> 
> Medicate or not?


That is a parents decision, whether to use meds. THe school can only say that the child will not be allowed back into a mainstream classroom after a series of reports and such about this kind of behavior.  Remember, even in the original post it was mentioned, that meds are NOT the only answer but part of a management system.  The school can only recommend that a child would benefit from a different learning environment (separated classes, assigned special ed. teacher, alternate school entirely...) but the funding for such costs that the school will incur comes from classifying the child special education....

The rub is whether the state has the right to charge a parent with child endangerment if, after having the child classified and acknowledging that these extra helpers (including meds) are needed to give the child an equal and fair learning opportunity, the parent refused to provide any one of them to the child.  If the school were to refuse to provide special teachers, extra test taking time, ... they could be in big trouble.  School systems are regarded as guardian/parents of children (in locus parenti) and can be held accountable, why not the parent?

Seeking alternatives, finding different ways are fine with me.  Flat out refusing with no other safety net is just not moral or right.  There are lots of meds that might have been better.  THere are schools that are specifically designed for kids with special needs....

Again, what if a parent took away his kids wheel chair or colostomy bag (sp?) without seeking or intending to provide an alternative?


----------



## Phoenix44 (Jun 15, 2004)

loki09789 said:
			
		

> Remember, even in the original post it was mentioned, that meds are NOT the only answer but part of a management system.





> If the school were to refuse to provide special teachers, extra test taking time, ... they could be in big trouble.





> There are schools that are specifically designed for kids with special needs....


Well, in this case, the school is part of a system with a very well defined and funded special ed program, but this child is in no position to benefit from extended test time, special ed teachers, resource room, barrier free school or any other "learning" environment I can think of, because his behavior will prevent him from learning, and may be the cause of harm to himself and others.



> Again, what if a parent took away his kids wheel chair or colostomy bag (sp?) without seeking or intending to provide an alternative?


Exactly.  I'm not saying it's an easy decision--hey, I have kids, too.  But for some kids the meds work, and even the kids will tell so.

I'm not talking about the spoiled brat with overindulgent parents...I'm talking about kids with serious learning and behavior disorders, which we are beginning to learn have an organic basis.


----------



## shesulsa (Jun 15, 2004)

"The rub is whether the state has the right to charge a parent with child endangerment if, after having the child classified and acknowledging that these extra helpers (including meds) are needed to give the child an equal and fair learning opportunity, the parent refused to provide any one of them to the child. If the school were to refuse to provide special teachers, extra test taking time, ... they could be in big trouble. School systems are regarded as guardian/parents of children (in locus parenti) and can be held accountable, why not the parent?"

Sure - give the school the authority to mandate meds...then when the child has serious health problems because of the meds, will the school be charged with child endangerment? no...

"Seeking alternatives, finding different ways are fine with me. Flat out refusing with no other safety net is just not moral or right. There are lots of meds that might have been better. THere are schools that are specifically designed for kids with special needs...."

I still find it interesting that everyone thinks it's a simple as taking a pill....it's just not. There are side effects to these medications, interactions with simple cold medications, there's depression to deal with since they know they're different (usually, they do)...the alternatives are EXTREMELY hard to come by - if the school isn't cooperative (and it sounds like this school isn't), and the parent and school can't agree to placement, the next step is mediation which is usually just a head-butting contest to see who is going to outlast who, then it goes on to "fair trial" where the parents RARELY win and the school gets their way anyway which is THEIR opinion of what is appropriate for the child - not necessarily BEST - just APPROPRIATE...and that is a broad term given they have too much power. And what is best for this child will be lost in red tape.

Just curious - does anyone else on this thread besides me have a challenged child?


----------



## rmcrobertson (Jun 15, 2004)

1. Children need to be vaccinated. 

2. Most of the theories about autism being caused by vaccination appear to be--yes, they've checked--flat out untrue. 

3. The fact that we overmedicate is simply one more symptom of the extent to which, as a society, we are too cheap and too misdirected to spend the money and put in the time that kids--and schools--need. 

If you think I'm woofin', remember that we could in fact ensure that every kid in this country has enough to eat, a decent education, and a decent start in life. Instead, we vote and vote and vote to cut taxes.

Here's the dirty secret: all this stuff costs money. Until we're willing to ante up and sit down and plan rationally--we actually have lunatics turning back Head Start funds for poor kids because it's, "against God's will," to have pre-school breakfasts, for cryin' out loud!--we will not change anything.

Most of the stuff in K-12 education that everybody quite properly complains about--including the stupid waste--comes out of trying to do everything on the cheap.


----------



## shesulsa (Jun 15, 2004)

Sigh.



			
				rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> 1. Children need to be vaccinated.


SAFELY vaccinated.



			
				rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> 2. Most of the theories about autism being caused by vaccination appear to be--yes, they've checked--flat out untrue.


I never said that I thought vaccines cause autism...and those studies saying it isn't true are done by the manufacturers, mostly...and the only independent study ever done proved that mercury toxicity is the likely factor.



			
				rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> 3. The fact that we overmedicate is simply one more symptom of the extent to which, as a society, we are too cheap and too misdirected to spend the money and put in the time that kids--and schools--need.
> 
> If you think I'm woofin', remember that we could in fact ensure that every kid in this country has enough to eat, a decent education, and a decent start in life. Instead, we vote and vote and vote to cut taxes.
> 
> ...


Points on which we agree.


----------



## Phoenix44 (Jun 15, 2004)

shesulsa [color=darkorchid said:
			
		

> - if the school isn't cooperative (and it sounds like this school isn't)[/color]


Actually, the school IS cooperative.  Full time RN on staff, school psychologist, social worker, and a well organized special ed system.  The parent is not cooperative.  "Forgets" to give medicaton in the morning, and the child is completely out of control.  I didn't exaggerate when I said he runs around the school, screams, attacks people, and hangs from the stairways.

I picked an extreme--but not rare--example, because he made such an impression on me.  Remember, in the inner city, we're dealing with the crack babies of a few years ago.  Now they're in school.  I'm not referring to the kids who need smaller classes, less distraction, and extended test time.  I'm talking about the kids who disrupt the smaller, special ed classes.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Jun 15, 2004)

"...and those studies saying it isn't true are done by the manufacturers, mostly...and the only independent study ever done proved that mercury toxicity is the likely factor..."

I am sorry, but this simply isn't accurate. Please take a look at the Internet sources: major studies were done in Denmark on MMR vaccines and autism, and showed no link; no study I've see in the last four-five years has demonstrated any correclation, let alone causation.

Another such study came out last month: same conclusion, no link. You might want to check the CDC website on this.


----------



## shesulsa (Jun 15, 2004)

You know, sir, you're really beginning to tick me off.  I have read studies translated into English for me on vaccinations - I've been reading about vaccination studies - both sides - every day for the last fourteen years.  You clearly are slanted to mass, mandatory, indescriminate vaccination which borderlines on fascism.

Look, you're entitled to your ignorant opinion, but you need to understand that my opinion, having had experience in this realm, carries more weight than yours.  You may be a "black belt" on this board and you may or may not outrank me in arts, but I clearly hold higher consideration than you in these matters.  You clearly buy all the B.S. you're fed by government agencies that are supposed to be there to protect you...whether you want to be protected or not.

Studies - bottom line - don't mean s**t.  Statistics don't mean s**t.  What does, is the Hyppocratic oath - FIRST DO NO HARM.  And your suggestion, that all children need to get shot up with whatever anyone has to offer without regard to their unique health situation, indicates your lack of value on human life and dignity.

How about my tetanus shot - should it be federally mandated?  If it were, it would kill me.  I recently stepped on a filty upholstery needle, and it jammed, eye-first, into my foot.  I react to the dyphtheria toxoid in DPT and DT shots.  Hospitals are supposed to carry Tt, right?  So is the health department right?  Guess what?  No one in Washington State nor Oregon State nor Northern California had my dyphtheria-free tetanus toxoid available.  The reason I got from them is that it is so rarely needed without the dyph they just don't stock it anymore and it's good for only a few months.  But the ER nurse said she sees it often and most people like me just do without the shot period...got that?   They risk tetanus.  Now, since you're so friggin' knowledgable about these things, I'm sure you know that tetanus is very, very bad to get and difficult to treat.  My doctor, whom I hire to help me stay healthy, told me I was just going to have to either risk tetanus or get the Dt shot - anaphylaxis, that is.  So they all shrugged and sent me on my way - except one doctor.  That one doctor (out of, what, thousands?) prescribed me the TT vaccine.  I went to an independent pharmacy who phoned the manufacturer who was MORE than willing to ship it by Federal Express.  I paid $155 dollars for a 10-dose vial and $35 dollars for overnight shipping and got my shot by the same doctor right at the 72 hour deadline.  The remaining doses I donated to the county health department who said they desperately needed them "for all those people who can't take the dyph."  "Many of them?" says I.  "Oh, you wouldn't believe it," says she.

When my doctor - whom I pay lots of money to help me stay healthy - told me to risk the unmentionable - he actually had the nerve to tell me I needed to get my already-vaccine-damaged son ... vaccinated for High School.  The same people who were willing to let me risk serious illness and possible death are hounding me to shoot up my kid with live measles.  SCREW THEM.

Don't insult me by pushing your ignorant opinion when you clearly don't know what you're really talking about - you just know what you've been told.

Now - could we have a moderator move the vaccine debate to an independent thread?  I hate to continue this discussion here when the initial thread was on mandated meds for an ADHD child.  Thank you.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Jun 15, 2004)

Well, and you HAVE offended me. 

I apologize, I only looked at the CDC website and checked out the Denmark studies, etc. 

The revealing thing is what you wrote is that the studies and the stats don't mean nothing. OK, fine: you've just heaved the science out the window, and you're left with personal experience, books, and those guys on TV who tell you that AIDS is a big fat fake, and you can cure aging with anti-oxidants. regrettably, the science cannot guarantee results, only probabilities: that's what science is.

Vaccinations are one of the few things the medical establishment does RIGHT, and you're arguing against them. Fine. Your privilege, and I am terribly sorry about your son.


I guarantee that for every story you tell, I can dig up around three zillion concerning kids and moms dying in, say, India for want of basic medical care like vaccines.
However, the facts are that vaccinations are the best way we have to protect the overwhelming majority of the public. 

I note that you did not wish to discuss either a) paying for all the screenings, b) going back to the Good Old Days cited by the CDC.

As for the assertion that I Am AN Ignorant Tool of The Government, well, wow. That sure fits with other things I've wrotten on this thread.

I will shaddup on this now, as I do not care for further insults, or to risk further annoying someone with your level of horrible personal experience.


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Jun 15, 2004)

While I'm not sure Shesulsa's level of vitriol was an appropriate response to RMCRobertson's post (still I found something admirable in its crafting and intensity), it was an understandable reaction given her experiences.  

I work with a large number of children with autism whose parents express similar frustration in dealing with the authorities.  Many of them believe, as Shesulsa does, that the MMR vaccine (and perhaps others) damaged their children. With a 275% increase in autism over the last decade, one can't blame them for believing it.  Some environmental influence is causing this...and the powers that be don't seem to have the answers...or want to give them

RMC, you have to understand what parents like her go through.  Parenting a child with autism is extremely taxing.  Then dealing with improperly trained teachers, facing school administrators that don't want to provide legally mandated resources for these children...this wears a parent down.

The frustration Shesulsa expresses towards physicians is new to me...and I like to think that this isn't universal and that the physicians in our town have a better grasp of the situation.  A number of them have kids with autism, so that might be the case.

It is a digression...but government mandated vaccines come in another form.  The military's compulsory vaccinations.  The recent rash of suicides among soldiers serving in Iraq and Afghanistan is being attributed to a the administration of an anti-malarial drug.  "Gulf War Syndrome" has also been blamed on vaccinations...neither allegation has yet born fruit.  Bottom line: People are getting awfully leery of needles, and taking umbrage when the government mandates they take a shot.


Regards,


Steve


----------



## Phoenix44 (Jun 15, 2004)

hardheadjarhead said:
			
		

> With a 275% increase in autism over the last decade,


Citation, please?


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Jun 15, 2004)

Here you go, Phoenix.  I "Googled" it, having forgotten my original source.

Missouri alone has had an 850% increase in incidences:

http://www.vaccinationnews.com/DailyNews/2003/February/AutismIncreases17.htm

http://www.iom.edu/Object.File/Master/7/505/0.pdf

http://autism.about.com/od/autismexplosion/

http://autism.about.com/b/a/068588.htm

http://www.addtreatment.com/SUB8.htm


I stopped after awhile, as there was so much stuff on this.  The first two or so indicate the dramatic increase.  The others talk more peripherally on the subject.

Regards,


Steve

Some others....

http://www.protectingourhealth.org/press/2003/2003-0101-RH-autism.htm

http://www.protectingourhealth.org/newscience/learning/2003/2003-0101yeargin-allsoppetal.htm


----------



## loki09789 (Jun 15, 2004)

Phoenix44 said:
			
		

> Actually, the school IS cooperative. Full time RN on staff, school psychologist, social worker, and a well organized special ed system. The parent is not cooperative. "Forgets" to give medicaton in the morning, and the child is completely out of control. I didn't exaggerate when I said he runs around the school, screams, attacks people, and hangs from the stairways.
> 
> I picked an extreme--but not rare--example, because he made such an impression on me. Remember, in the inner city, we're dealing with the crack babies of a few years ago. Now they're in school. I'm not referring to the kids who need smaller classes, less distraction, and extended test time. I'm talking about the kids who disrupt the smaller, special ed classes.


Speaking as a teacher, if you are really divulging this kind of information, regardless of whether it is in little trickles with no names mentioned, you really are on the verge of being extremely unprofessional.  These details, if they are any more specific can be put together with your bio info to accurately figure out who you are describing if anyone who knows you is reading this stuff.  Even if they aren't, this is an internationally accessable forum.  I would change my tact quickly.


----------



## Phoenix44 (Jun 16, 2004)

loki09789 said:
			
		

> you really are on the verge of being extremely unprofessional.


Thank you for your concern about my "professionality."  However, I have not revealed my profession, geographic location, names, ages, nor anything else that could even REMOTELY identify anybody or anyplace.  The behavior pattern and dynamics I described, however extreme, are far from rare.  Sorry to say it is unfortunately common, and I've seen it more than once in more than one place.  And the school features are also common.  I also could have changed the details of the history, and in fact, I could have invented the entire scenario for the purpose of, as I mentioned, "playing the Devil's Advocate."

I will tell you, however, that I've been in my "profession" long enough, and I've never been accused of being unprofessional by anyone in real life, so it's real interesting to be the recipient of this accusation by someone who doesn't even know me.

Thanks again.


----------



## loki09789 (Jun 16, 2004)

Phoenix44 said:
			
		

> Thank you for your concern about my "professionality." However, I have not revealed my profession, geographic location, names, ages, nor anything else that could even REMOTELY identify anybody or anyplace. The behavior pattern and dynamics I described, however extreme, are far from rare. Sorry to say it is unfortunately common, and I've seen it more than once in more than one place. And the school features are also common. I also could have changed the details of the history, and in fact, I could have invented the entire scenario for the purpose of, as I mentioned, "playing the Devil's Advocate."
> 
> I will tell you, however, that I've been in my "profession" long enough, and I've never been accused of being unprofessional by anyone in real life, so it's real interesting to be the recipient of this accusation by someone who doesn't even know me.
> 
> Thanks again.


If you are the child advocate you seem to be then you will understand my critical eye of how many details, specifics you seem to be implying about someone elses kids.  My concern isn't for your professionalism as much as it a plea to that professionalism to remember that this info is confidential.

If you are purely being hypothetical, or this is a fictitious situation that is a composite of many specifics then I apologize.  Even playing devil's advocate, specifics are specifics.  Shesulsa has chosen to openly speak about her own child, these other 'details' you are using aren't really yours.

If you know what to look for, meaning someone who knows you - even distantly, if you see enough 'unclassified' material you can make 'classified' conclusions (as I learned it in the military way back when).

I don't mean to insult, but how would you feel if you saw details that pointed directly to your child being discussed like this by someone who is entrusted with the welfare of your child?


----------

