Various Topics on Alternative Medicine

....

"LadyLollipop" <LadyLollipop@insightbb.com> wrote in message
news:qXXee.61476$WI3.15119@attbi_s71...
>
> "Jeff" <kidsdoc2000@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:sXVee.4683$pe3.3045@newsread3.news.atl.earthl ink.net...
>> this was 3 1/2 years ago. Try more modern news next time.
>>
>> Jeff
>
> Pat reply #
> 43480324885809348790324899348932948932483094834934-3249348903493248-93-24884
>
> FACT is , it was 3 1/2 years ago, and it is STILL being prescribed!!!!!!!

Which is a good thing for the kids with ADHD. Because methylphenidate is a
safe drug that really helps these kids.

Jeff

....

<spamtrap@rr.ca.ul.mv> wrote in message
news:9rbo71p8863p7i2gi922oqqei6hi06edng@4ax.com...
>
>
> wow, very frightening and very relevant for anyone taking ritalin.

Only if their pet mice get some.

Ritalin has never been shown to cause liver cancer in humans. And the dose
was 30 x higher than the maximum dose in humans.

Jeff

..e.. ....

On Sat, 07 May 2005 13:13:19 GMT, "Jeff" <kidsdoc2000@hotmail.com>
typical blind, deaf and very, very, very dumb Quack Flack droolings
deleted ...

This idiot has made the ignorant claim that no one has ever been
harmed by 'silicon' (his error) implants. ..

Totally false.

There was probably some VERY good reasons he was never awarded an
unrestricted medical license ... and lies that he is a 'kidsdoc" ...
he NEVER completed a Pediatric residency ... nor had a regular medical
license ... instead ... haunts Usenet with Pro Pharma Propaganda ...




Ritalin and Liver cancer

http://www.preventcancer.com/patient...id/ritalin.htm

American Academy of Pediatrics Guidelines for Treating Behavioral
Disorders in Children with Ritalin Ignores Evidence of Cancer Risks
warns Samuel S. Epstein, M.D.
Chicago, 10/04/01. Based on an industry-funded multi-university trial
on 282 pre-teen children treated with Ritalin for attention
deficit/hyperactivity disorders (ADHD), just published in Pediatrics,
the American Academy of Pediatrics has endorsed the use of the drug.
However, the Academy ignores clear evidence of the drug's cancer risks
of which parents, teachers and school nurses, besides most
pediatricians and psychiatrists, still remain uninformed and unaware.

Some 40 years after the drug was first marketed by Ciba Geigy,
carcinogenicity tests were conducted at the taxpayers expense by the
National Toxicology Program, the results of which were published in
1995. Adult mice were fed Ritalin over a two-year period at dosages
close to those prescribed to children. The mice developed a
statistically significant incidence of liver abnormalities and tumors,
including highly aggressive rare cancers known as hepatoblastomas.
These findings are particularly disturbing as the tests were conducted
on adult, rather than young mice which would be expected to be much
more sensitive to carcinogenic effects. The National Toxicology
Program concluded that Ritalin is a "possible human carcinogen," and
recommended the need for further research. While still insisting that
the drug is safe, the Food and Drug Administration admitted that these
findings signal "carcinogenic potential," and required a statement to
this effect in the drug's package insert. However, these inserts are
not seen by parents or nurses.

The Physicians' Desk Reference admits evidence on the carcinogenicity
of Ritalin, now manufactured by Novartis, qualified by the statement
that "the significance of these results is unknown," apparently not
recognizing that this is more alarming than re***uring. Apart from
cancer risks, there is also suggestive evidence that Ritalin induces
genetic damage in blood cells of Ritalin-treated children.

Concerns on Ritalin's cancer risk are more acute in view of the
millions of children treated annually with the drug and the escalating
incidence of childhood cancer, by some 35% over the last few decades,
quite apart from delayed risks of cancer in adult life. These risks
are compounded by the availability of alternative safe and effective
procedures, notably behavior modification and biofeedback.

There is no justification for prescribing Ritalin, even by highly
qualified pediatricians and psychiatrists, unless parents have been
explicitly informed of the drug's cancer risks. Otherwise, prescribing
Ritalin constitutes unarguable medical malpractice.

CONTACT: Samuel S. Epstein, M.D.

Professor emeritus Environmental & Occupational Medicine

Chairman, Cancer Prevention Coalition

..e.. ....

On Sat, 07 May 2005 13:13:19 GMT, "Jeff" <kidsdoc2000@hotmail.com>
wrote:

>Ritalin has never been shown to cause liver cancer in humans. And the dose
>was 30 x higher than the maximum dose in humans.
>
>Jeff
>


What a despicable Quack Flack Liar this one is:

>Adult mice were fed Ritalin over a two-year period at dosages close to those prescribed to children.

....

"Ilena Rose" <ilena@NOSPAMMINhotmail.com> wrote in message
news:m2mp7191j6rcbn64qvvl7jvekfckob3kmr@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 07 May 2005 13:13:19 GMT, "Jeff" <kidsdoc2000@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>Ritalin has never been shown to cause liver cancer in humans. And the dose
>>was 30 x higher than the maximum dose in humans.
>>
>>Jeff
>>
>
>
> What a despicable Quack Flack Liar this one is:
>
>>Adult mice were fed Ritalin over a two-year period at dosages close to
>>those prescribed to children.

I read the actual information, not this quacks interpretation. I don't
consider 30x higher to be "dosages close to those prescribed to children."

Jeff

..v.. ..ig..

In article <1115446974.614516.67240@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups. com>,
Pace Sanders <pacesanders@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>David Wright wrote:
>
>> >Thanks for your comment Jeff but I suspect there are still some out
>> >there who are not aware of the carcinogenicity of Ritalin.
>>
>> Like you, for example. I could only find two studies on the subject,
>> both in rats or mice. The conclusion was that there was little
>> evidence of carcinogenicity from methylphenidate,and in some cases it
>> actually seemed to *reduce* the instance of tumors.
>
>"a little evidence of carcinogenicity" is enough for me.

You can find a *little* evidence that just about anything is
carcinogenic. However, initial tests often seem to show things that
later turn out not to be true. In any case, this was in mice and
rats, which are often poor models for what happens in humans.

-- David Wright :: alphabeta at prodigy.net
These are my opinions only, but they're almost always correct.
"His staff loves to say Bush is a man who doesn't know the
meaning of the word 'quit.' Well, apparently he's not all
that conversant with the word 'shame' either." (Will Durst)

.... ..obe..

Timmy, I read the entire study, and this article ignores 99% of it. Fer
instance, the article leaves out the lack of epidemiological evidence that
the effect is reproduced in humans (there is no proof that it is) and, that
the same study also showed that the incidence of certain types of breast
tumors actually decreased.

Do not rely on journalism for your medical information.

Read the original for yourself. This issue has been hashed, rehashed and
re-re-hashed in mkh, and mha so that it is very old news.

BTW, I wonder why you did not bother to crosspost it to asad, where people
who know this study inside and out, hang out?



"Tim Campbell" <timcall@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:1115432577.671769.135920@f14g2000cwb.googlegr oups.com...
>
> http://www.preventcancer.com/patient...id/ritalin.htm
>
> American Academy of Pediatrics Guidelines for Treating Behavioral
> Disorders in Children with Ritalin Ignores Evidence of Cancer Risks
> warns Samuel S. Epstein, M.D.
>
> Chicago, 10/04/01. Based on an industry-funded multi-university trial
> on
> 282 pre-teen children treated with Ritalin for attention
> deficit/hyperactivity disorders (ADHD), just published in Pediatrics,
> the American Academy of Pediatrics has endorsed the use of the drug.
> However, the Academy ignores clear evidence of the drug's cancer risks
> of which parents, teachers and school nurses, besides most
> pediatricians
> and psychiatrists, still remain uninformed and unaware.
>
> Some 40 years after the drug was first marketed by Ciba Geigy,
> carcinogenicity tests were conducted at the taxpayers expense by the
> National Toxicology Program, the results of which were published in
> 1995. Adult mice were fed Ritalin over a two-year period at dosages
> close to those prescribed to children. The mice developed a
> statistically significant incidence of liver abnormalities and tumors,
> including highly aggressive rare cancers known as hepatoblastomas.
> These
> findings are particularly disturbing as the tests were conducted on
> adult, rather than young mice which would be expected to be much more
> sensitive to carcinogenic effects. The National Toxicology Program
> concluded that Ritalin is a "possible human carcinogen," and
> recommended
> the need for further research. While still insisting that the drug is
> safe, the Food and Drug Administration admitted that these findings
> signal "carcinogenic potential," and required a statement to this
> effect
> in the drug's package insert. However, these inserts are not seen by
> parents or nurses.
>
> The Physicians' Desk Reference admits evidence on the carcinogenicity
> of
> Ritalin, now manufactured by Novartis, qualified by the statement that
> "the significance of these results is unknown," apparently not
> recognizing that this is more alarming than re***uring. Apart from
> cancer risks, there is also suggestive evidence that Ritalin induces
> genetic damage in blood cells of Ritalin-treated children.
>
> Concerns on Ritalin's cancer risk are more acute in view of the
> millions
> of children treated annually with the drug and the escalating incidence
>
> of childhood cancer, by some 35% over the last few decades, quite apart
>
> from delayed risks of cancer in adult life. These risks are compounded
> by the availability of alternative safe and effective procedures,
> notably behavior modification and biofeedback.
>
> There is no justification for prescribing Ritalin, even by highly
> qualified pediatricians and psychiatrists, unless parents have been
> explicitly informed of the drug's cancer risks. Otherwise, prescribing
> Ritalin constitutes unarguable medical malpractice.
>
> CONTACT: Samuel S. Epstein, M.D.
>
> Professor emeritus Environmental & Occupational Medicine
>
> Chairman, Cancer Prevention Coalition
>
> c/o University of Illinois at Chicago
>
> School of Public Health, M/C 922
>
> 2121 W. Taylor Street
>
> Chicago, IL 60612
>
> phone 312-996-2297, fax 312-413-9898
>
> email epstein@uic.edu
>

.... ..obe..

"Tim Campbell" <timcall@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:1115434912.285292.42760@z14g2000cwz.googlegro ups.com...
>
> Jeff wrote:
> > this was 3 1/2 years ago. Try more modern news next time.
> >
> > Jeff
>
> Thanks for your comment Jeff but I suspect there are still some out
> there who are not aware of the carcinogenicity of Ritalin.

True. There are those of us who read the actual study and know that there is
no carcinogenicity in humans. Just specially bred mice.

..v.. ..ig..

<newsgroups trimmed to relevant groups>

In article <x73fe.4809$pe3.3053@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink. net>,
Jeff <kidsdoc2000@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>"LadyLollipop" <LadyLollipop@insightbb.com> wrote in message
>news:w8Yee.61498$WI3.18364@attbi_s71...
>>
>> "David Wright" <wright@l1000.prodigy.net> wrote in message
>> news:E_Wee.1554$Ig5.706@newssvr31.news.prodigy.com ...
>>> In article <1115434912.285292.42760@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups. com>,
>>> Tim Campbell <timcall@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>Jeff wrote:
>>>>> this was 3 1/2 years ago. Try more modern news next time.
>>>>>
>>>>> Jeff
>>>>
>>>>Thanks for your comment Jeff but I suspect there are still some out
>>>>there who are not aware of the carcinogenicity of Ritalin.
>>>
>>> Like you, for example. I could only find two studies on the subject,
>>> both in rats or mice. The conclusion was that there was little
>>> evidence of carcinogenicity from methylphenidate,and in some cases it
>>> actually seemed to *reduce* the instance of tumors.
>>>
>>> -- David Wright :: alphabeta at prodigy.net
>>> These are my opinions only, but they're almost always correct.
>>
>> INCORRECT

Not in this case. Read on.

>> http://www.pharma.us.novartis.com/pr...ritalin-sr.pdf
>
>According to this, the dose was 30 times higher than the maximum dose, based
>on the weight of the mice.
>
>There is no evidence that this occurs in humans.
>
>Jeff
>
>> http://au.geocities.com/neville222/m25ritalin.html
>>
>> http://www.rxlist.com/cgi/generic/methphen_wcp.htm
>>
>> http://www.ritalindeath.com/Package%20insert.htm

This is merely another example of the complete and utter idiocy of
Jan. All of those URLs simply cite the same information (about the
same couple of rat and mouse studies on methylphendiate). Jan is
such a cretin that she doesn't even realize this. (What you get if
you follow any of those URLs pretty much the package insert info. And
the carcinogenicity studies are the same ones I found via PubMed. All
two of them.)

-- David Wright :: alphabeta at prodigy.net
These are my opinions only, but they're almost always correct.
"His staff loves to say Bush is a man who doesn't know the
meaning of the word 'quit.' Well, apparently he's not all
that conversant with the word 'shame' either." (Will Durst)

.... ..obe..

"LadyLollipop" <LadyLollipop@insightbb.com> wrote in message
news:w8Yee.61498$WI3.18364@attbi_s71...
>
> "David Wright" <wright@l1000.prodigy.net> wrote in message
> news:E_Wee.1554$Ig5.706@newssvr31.news.prodigy.com ...
> > In article <1115434912.285292.42760@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups. com>,
> > Tim Campbell <timcall@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> >>
> >>Jeff wrote:
> >>> this was 3 1/2 years ago. Try more modern news next time.
> >>>
> >>> Jeff
> >>
> >>Thanks for your comment Jeff but I suspect there are still some out
> >>there who are not aware of the carcinogenicity of Ritalin.
> >
> > Like you, for example. I could only find two studies on the subject,
> > both in rats or mice. The conclusion was that there was little
> > evidence of carcinogenicity from methylphenidate,and in some cases it
> > actually seemed to *reduce* the instance of tumors.
> >
> > -- David Wright :: alphabeta at prodigy.net
> > These are my opinions only, but they're almost always correct.
>
> INCORRECT

Actually, very correct. I read both studies that David reference, in their
entirety, and what he said is *exactly* correct.

>
> http://www.pharma.us.novartis.com/pr...ritalin-sr.pdf

On page 4 it points out that the daily dose used in the study was approx. 60
mg/kg/day which is 30 times the MAXIMUM recommended daily dose. Since MPH is
rapidly cleared from the system, there is no possibility of a ***ulative
effect.

These are the F A C T S from a website that you posted as authorative and
supporting your claim that David is incorrect. Actually they prove you
wrong, and prove him wRIGHT.