[RANT] Giving Mind Control Drugs to Children

At 6:17 PM 7/6/96, Alan Olsen wrote:


>With these sort of tools, we are conditioning our children that it is OK if
>someone filters their information before they see it. (Without even knowing
>the *KIND* of information being filtered, because even *THAT* level of
>knowledge is harmful and/or proprietary.) That it is OK for some parental
>figure to eliminate all the "nasty" and "awful" information before someone
>can hurt themselves with it.  That itt is OK to prevent others from viewing
>information to complex for their childlike minds.
>
>We are becoming a nation of the babysat.  Anything that our nannys deem
>harmful is hidden away in the bedrooms of the parental units.  And maybe it
>is harmful.  They have to scan through it all day long and look what kind of
>self-righous pricks they have become!

The doublethink and hypocrisy of modern society is astounding.

A friend of mine has an 8-year-old son, whom he has custody of on weekends.
Sometimes his son wants to have his friend stay over Saturday, as kids like
to do.

When the mother (a single mother, as this is California) drops her son off
with my friend (also single, of course), she includes several "Ritalin"
capsules with instructions on how to dose her son with this
depressant/behavior modification drug.

My friend ignores these Ritalins, which upsets the Mom greatly the next day
when she realizes her son has not been given the tranks that are also known
as "Mother's little helpers."

I've been over visiting my friend to see some of this. The Ritalin-sodden
kid arrives like a zombie. When the Ritalin wears off, he's rambunctuous,
but all kids are. My friend Paul has had to discipline him a bit to keep
him from--as the psychobabbles would say--"acting out." This discipline
sets him straight, but it's not something his New Age "supermom" would ever
think of doing. Hence the kid throws temper tantrums, acts out, calls her
"You fucking asshole" (remember, he's only 8 or so), and so on. So she
cranks up his dose of Ritalin and he's zoned out for a while. Frankly, I
think telling the kid that if throws a tantrum he'll get punished for it is
a whole lot more normal--ever notice that a dog smacks her puppies when
they get out of line, or that a cat swats her kittens the same way? It
establishes the rules of the game.

(No, I'm not talking about "child abuse," the sadistic beltings and
lashings which some parents give. However, here in Kalifornia it is
essentially illegal for parents to use corporal punishment. Heavy doses of
drugs are, after all, the California way!)

"Just say no to drugs!" is the mantra of these doublethinkers, as they dose
their kids at school and at home with tranquilizers and behavior
modification drugs. The kids grow up thinking pills are the answer to
everything.

Also in California, the public schools dispense these mind control drugs to
a growing fraction of the school population. Apparently this has become the
largest part of the job of "school nurses." I believe parents are involved
in this dosing regimen, but I would not be surprised if this changes. After
all, such medical procedures as abortion are now handled "discreetly" by
the school nurses, without any requirement that the parent be notified.
Whatever one thinks of abortion, this is surely a strange state of affairs,
where the public school system is taking on such a role and is actively
deceiving a parent.

The connection with the themes of our list is that this linguistic
doublethink is what allows Big Brother's control of our communications and
private files to be called by the relatively benign name of "escrow."

--Tim

Boycott "Big Brother Inside" software!
We got computers, we're tapping phone lines, we know that that ain't allowed.
---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:----
Timothy C. May              | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money,
tcmay@got.net  408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero
W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA  | knowledge, reputations, information markets,
Licensed Ontologist         | black markets, collapse of governments.
"National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway."

> At 6:17 PM 7/6/96, Alan Olsen wrote:
> >With these sort of tools, we are conditioning our children that it is OK if
> >someone filters their information before they see it. (Without even knowing
> >the *KIND* of information being filtered, because even *THAT* level of
> >knowledge is harmful and/or proprietary.) That it is OK for some parental
> >figure to eliminate all the "nasty" and "awful" information before someone
> >can hurt themselves with it.  That itt is OK to prevent others from viewing
> >information to complex for their childlike minds.

What annoys me to NO END is the laws that require that children under 
age of 13 (?) must always be under parental supervision. These laws 
even say that leaving children unsupervised is child abuse.

Well, i can grant that there are dangers associated with leaving
children alone. But being constantly supervised is way worse. It is
like being in jail.

igor

tcmay@got.net (Timothy C. May) writes:

 > The doublethink and hypocrisy of modern society is
 > astounding.

 > When the mother (a single mother, as this is California)
 > drops her son off with my friend (also single, of course),
 > she includes several "Ritalin" capsules with instructions on
 > how to dose her son with this depressant/behavior
 > modification drug.

 > My friend ignores these Ritalins, which upsets the Mom
 > greatly the next day when she realizes her son has not been
 > given the tranks that are also known as "Mother's little
 > helpers."

This, of course, is justified by the psychiatric profession's
invention of dozens of bogus diseases, syndromes, and disorders
for children.  These are not caused by any organic pathology, of
course, but are instead defined solely by the child belonging to
the upper five percent of those exhibiting perfectly normal
behaviors which annoy people who have money to hire
psychiatrists.  For kids, that's parents and teachers, and the
afflicted population jumps to ten percent if you happen to be a
kid unlucky enough to be under the care of Mormons.

Refuse to go to a crappy public school and you are suffering from
"School Phobia." Don't jump to follow the orders of the nearest
adult, or disagree with an adult, and its "Oppositional-Defiant"
Disorder.  Not to mention the plethora of ADD/ADDH nonsense that
is used to label any kid who is bored to tears by eight hours a
day of political indoctrination from the NEA and AFT.

Drugs for the poor, and therapy for the rich who can afford it,
are of course the way the psychiatric profession offers to "cure"
these invented maladies.  And since every population of children
will have an upper five percent (ten percent, for Mormons), a
neverending supply of patients is assured.

 > This discipline sets him straight, but it's not something
 > his New Age "supermom" would ever think of doing. Hence the
 > kid throws temper tantrums, acts out, calls her "You fucking
 > asshole" (remember, he's only 8 or so), and so on. So she
 > cranks up his dose of Ritalin and he's zoned out for a
 > while.

Actually, I think calling someone who force-feeds you a
mind-numbing drug "A Fucking Asshole" is, to borrow one of Tim's
favorite words, "Unremarkable." :)

This Soviet-style "Medicalization of Dissent", while applied
primarily to children today, historically has been done by the
psychiatric profession on behalf of anyone who could write their
name on a large check. It wasn't too long ago that they even had
an official mental disorder whose symptoms were "an abnormal
desire for freedom" on the part of a Black man.  Slave owners
must have been just as happy with that as Ritalin-dispensing
parents and teachers are today.

 > The connection with the themes of our list is that this
 > linguistic doublethink is what allows Big Brother's control
 > of our communications and private files to be called by the
 > relatively benign name of "escrow."

Indeed.

--
     Mike Duvos         $    PGP 2.6 Public Key available     $
     mpd@netcom.com     $    via Finger.                      $

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

On Sat, 6 Jul 1996, Mike Duvos wrote:

> This, of course, is justified by the psychiatric profession's
> invention of dozens of bogus diseases, syndromes, and disorders
> for children.  These are not caused by any organic pathology, of
> course, but are instead defined solely by the child belonging to
> the upper five percent of those exhibiting perfectly normal
> behaviors which annoy people who have money to hire
> psychiatrists.  For kids, that's parents and teachers, and the
> afflicted population jumps to ten percent if you happen to be a
> kid unlucky enough to be under the care of Mormons.

While the psychiatric profession has invented many bogus diseases, that does
not mean that the profession has no credibility.  Remember that psychology is
little more than philosophy.  Abnormal behavior patterns don't necessarily mean
that a child has a disorder or disease.  However, if the child experiences
physical symptoms, then a chemical imbalance in the brain is not that
farfetched.

> 
> Refuse to go to a crappy public school and you are suffering from
> "School Phobia." Don't jump to follow the orders of the nearest
> adult, or disagree with an adult, and its "Oppositional-Defiant"
> Disorder.  Not to mention the plethora of ADD/ADDH nonsense that
> is used to label any kid who is bored to tears by eight hours a
> day of political indoctrination from the NEA and AFT.

First of all, a child is considered to have "school phobia" when the child
refuses to go to school and also has severe anxiety attacks, vomiting, and
nausea.  It's a lot more than refusing to go to a "crappy public school."
Attention Deficit Disorder is hardly nonsense; it's a disorder found to be
partly hereditary and strongly linked with clinical depression.

[...]
> 
> Actually, I think calling someone who force-feeds you a
> mind-numbing drug "A Fucking Asshole" is, to borrow one of Tim's
> favorite words, "Unremarkable." :)
> 
> This Soviet-style "Medicalization of Dissent", while applied
> primarily to children today, historically has been done by the
> psychiatric profession on behalf of anyone who could write their
> name on a large check. It wasn't too long ago that they even had
> an official mental disorder whose symptoms were "an abnormal
> desire for freedom" on the part of a Black man.  Slave owners
> must have been just as happy with that as Ritalin-dispensing
> parents and teachers are today.
> 
>  > The connection with the themes of our list is that this
>  > linguistic doublethink is what allows Big Brother's control
>  > of our communications and private files to be called by the
>  > relatively benign name of "escrow."
> 
> Indeed.

I do agree that Ritalin, like Prozac, is being used inappropriately as a sort
of cure-all drug.  And I also agree that inventing malodies for anything
undesirable to society has Orwellian implications.  Everyone who doesn't agree
with the State is obviously mentally ill and must be "cured."

There are real illnesses, and there are fake ones.  Just because the psychiatic
profession does attribute certain behavior to some non-existent illness doesn't
mean there is any reason to not believe in any psychological maladies.  There
are many severe and very painfull illnesses such as depression,
schizophrenia, obsessive-compulsive disorder, and multiple personality
disorder.  There are also psychological disorders such as anorexia, phobias,
and mood disorders.  It's surprising to me that people consider the Unabomber
"insane" but yet do not believe that many very real mental illnesses and
disorders exist.

- -- Mark

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
markm@voicenet.com              | finger -l for PGP key 0xe3bf2169
http://www.voicenet.com/~markm/ | d61734f2800486ae6f79bfeb70f95348
"Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four.  If that
is granted, all else follows."  --George Orwell, _1984_


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.3
Charset: noconv

iQCVAwUBMd8rRLZc+sv5siulAQGw4gQAmCLWrkz1Cql7tpPXypzfoGRS6PL2cjIQ
TDa+Q/htq1OV5PjKYo7a06jfMQbpoR+fLmXHi9dc4DOVNfSeExXSEc5Y1RLu7ZvH
lLAmKdefLUZ7BuYAWgPxSYCHzWk9hEqK4A7Vj2rhpDQ7r9TpplQ3otkf0mZyul5X
EIIdF1jGfEY=
=GIrL
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

"Mark M." <markm@voicenet.com> writes:

 > While the psychiatric profession has invented many bogus
 > diseases, that does not mean that the profession has no
 > credibility. Remember that psychology is little more than
 > philosophy.  Abnormal behavior patterns don't necessarily
 > mean that a child has a disorder or disease.  However, if
 > the child experiences physical symptoms, then a chemical
 > imbalance in the brain is not that farfetched.

There are, of course, real mental illnesses with underlying
pathology, like schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, and clinical
depression.

I'm not sure the existence of genuine mental illness makes the
psychiatric profession credible, however, when they are all too
willing to climb in bed with the latest political fad.

Recall those "experts" during World War I who explained with
prefect seriousness to the American public that the reason the
Germans' heads fit so well into those pointy helmets was that
their brains were missing the part that distinguished right from
wrong.

Adolescent Psychiatric Imprisonment and Insurance Fraud are a
multi-million dollar well-organized business in the United
States, and talk shows are filled with women who split into 1,000
different personalities, some of them alien visitors, after being
traumatized by some sexual oddity.

 > First of all, a child is considered to have "school phobia"
 > when the child refuses to go to school and also has severe
 > anxiety attacks, vomiting, and nausea.

Goodness gracious, you make these people sound almost reasonable.
I remember last year one local TV station did a piece on "school
phobia", and the wonderful drugs that could be used to treat it.
The kid profiled simply didn't like school, and refused to attend
it, and the list of symptoms given to help parents recognize the
disorder were entirely attendance related.

Of course, with enough Mellaril in your system, you can probably
put up with just about anything.

 > Attention Deficit Disorder is hardly nonsense; it's a
 > disorder found to be partly hereditary and strongly linked
 > with clinical depression.

ADD people are simply the upper 5-10% of the population with
regard to behavioral traits which make learning more difficult.
Of course such things can be hereditary and of course people who
can't live up to expectations placed upon them sometimes get
clinically depressed.

The thing to remember here is that we are looking at things which
show continuous normal variation in any population, like height
and hatsize, and the people who are being labeled and treated
here are hardly some huge number of standard deviations away from
the norm.

 > There are real illnesses, and there are fake ones.  Just
 > because the psychiatic profession does attribute certain
 > behavior to some non-existent illness doesn't mean there is
 > any reason to not believe in any psychological maladies.

Which of course is not the issue here.  No one has stated that
legitimate mental illness does not exist, merely that the
profession has a tendency to use creative imagination where a
market or political pressure exists.

 > It's surprising to me that people consider the Unabomber
 > "insane" but yet do not believe that many very real mental
 > illnesses and disorders exist.

Insanity is a legal term which by its very construction, is an
almost impossible set of criteria to meet.  It has nothing to do
with any scientific definition of mental illness.  You can be
completely bonkers and carrying on meaningful conversations with
wall ornaments, and the government will be more than happy to fry
you in the electric chair.

--
     Mike Duvos         $    PGP 2.6 Public Key available     $
     mpd@netcom.com     $    via Finger.                      $

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

This will be my last comment on this thread.

On Sun, 7 Jul 1996, Mike Duvos wrote:

> Goodness gracious, you make these people sound almost reasonable.
> I remember last year one local TV station did a piece on "school
> phobia", and the wonderful drugs that could be used to treat it.
> The kid profiled simply didn't like school, and refused to attend
> it, and the list of symptoms given to help parents recognize the
> disorder were entirely attendance related.

Then the list of symptoms given was incorrect.  The list I got was from
_Living with Fear_ by Isaac M. Marks, M.D.

> ADD people are simply the upper 5-10% of the population with
> regard to behavioral traits which make learning more difficult.
> Of course such things can be hereditary and of course people who
> can't live up to expectations placed upon them sometimes get
> clinically depressed.
> 
> The thing to remember here is that we are looking at things which
> show continuous normal variation in any population, like height
> and hatsize, and the people who are being labeled and treated
> here are hardly some huge number of standard deviations away from
> the norm.

That still doesn't mean it isn't a disorder.  People with ADD _want_ to get
better and be able to concentrate more.  Drugs such as ritalin help them do
just this.  Dyslexia is also something that is a normal variation.  Somehow,
since it isn't psychologically related, no one would object if a drug was
discovered that could cure it and was administered to children with dyslexia.
Many people with ADD do not want to act the way they do, so it doesn't make
sense to not treat it as a disorder.

> 
>  > There are real illnesses, and there are fake ones.  Just
>  > because the psychiatic profession does attribute certain
>  > behavior to some non-existent illness doesn't mean there is
>  > any reason to not believe in any psychological maladies.
> 
> Which of course is not the issue here.  No one has stated that
> legitimate mental illness does not exist, merely that the
> profession has a tendency to use creative imagination where a
> market or political pressure exists.

Who decides which mental illnesses or disorder are legitimate?  I think both
school phobia and ADD are disorders that can be treated if the person with
the disorder is willing to be treated.  You are, of course, free to believe
that these disorders are illegitimate, but the millions of people afflicted
with these would tend to disagree.

> 
>  > It's surprising to me that people consider the Unabomber
>  > "insane" but yet do not believe that many very real mental
>  > illnesses and disorders exist.
> 
> Insanity is a legal term which by its very construction, is an
> almost impossible set of criteria to meet.  It has nothing to do
> with any scientific definition of mental illness.  You can be
> completely bonkers and carrying on meaningful conversations with
> wall ornaments, and the government will be more than happy to fry
> you in the electric chair.

People who use the term to describe people who are abnormal don't know that.
The word "sane" comes from the same root as "sanitary" which means clean or
disease-free.  Hence, insane means ill.  It is true that the legal term
"insane" is different from the scientific term "mentally ill", most people
use insane as a diminutive term for someone they believe to be abnormal.

- -- Mark

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
markm@voicenet.com              | finger -l for PGP key 0xe3bf2169
http://www.voicenet.com/~markm/ | d61734f2800486ae6f79bfeb70f95348
"Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four.  If that
is granted, all else follows."  --George Orwell, _1984_


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.3
Charset: noconv

iQCVAwUBMeAExbZc+sv5siulAQHVeAQAhrXpJLpvvjGJC1eU7zckqHROBsPEmc2Y
d5f1URfKOp4bxiL48vrGqiCzX3GSEgZ8XabvPPDa4NK14mvyF6D2ReILAtfGpDOw
CG71cMZVOq8PXjJlTBN8Z4TQ0m4D+duA//eCqhJUiLgGOdznPcNY4ZOl9FWxf2gh
78d6Bbv4fjg=
=cpBT
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

> tcmay@got.net (Timothy C. May) writes:
> The doublethink and hypocrisy of modern society is
> astounding.
> 
> When the mother (a single mother, as this is California)
> drops her son off with my friend (also single, of course),
> she includes several "Ritalin" capsules with instructions on
> how to dose her son with this depressant/behavior
> modification drug.
> 
> My friend ignores these Ritalins, which upsets the Mom
> greatly the next day when she realizes her son has not been
> given the tranks that are also known as "Mother's little
> helpers."

Ritalin is not a tranquilizer or anything like a tranquilizer. It is
an amphetamine -- it is a close chemical analog to speed and could
only be characterized as a tranquilizer by someone without any
knowledge of the drug or its effects. Most people would become very
"up" on the stuff, but it has a paradoxical, completely reverse effect
on some people who have problems with their dopamine/norephinepherine
(sorry, I may have the spellings wrong) systems in their brains that
cause them to have difficulty focusing or to become hyperactive -- it
calms and focuses such children and adults.

The support newsgroup on Usenet for people with ADD discusses this in
detail.

Most people would have no particular urge to stop a child with
diabetes from taking her insulin. Your friend seems to have the sick
idea that they know better than the child's parents whether the child
should be taking their meds or not, simply because the medication is
for a "mental" problem. This isn't your friend's child. Its someone
else's child. They have no right to make such decisions.

Oh, and by the way, Ritalin has never been known in slang as "mother's
little helper". That would be a tranquilizer taken by the mother to
help her get through her own day.

Perry

Perry Writes:

> Most people would have no particular urge to stop a child with
> diabetes from taking her insulin. Your friend seems to have the sick
> idea that they know better than the child's parents whether the child
> should be taking their meds or not, simply because the medication is
> for a "mental" problem. This isn't your friend's child. Its someone
> else's child. They have no right to make such decisions.

Since diabetes has an organic cause, this analogy with syndromes and
disorders defined solely by behavioral percentages fails.

A better model might be height, which follows a basically continuous
distribution once outliers due to functional endocrine problems are
eliminated. 

We could, of course, define a "vertical deficit disorder" (VDD) which
10% of the population have by definition, and for which the treatment
would be synthetic human growth hormone given regularly during the
growing years. 

People with VDD would probably want to be taller, and be as successful
as their peers at important things like basketball.  The specified 
treatment would certainly demonstrate effectiveness in accomplishing
this goal.  People with VDD would argue that their disease was real, 
since it was hereditary, and could be measured with complex scientific
instrumentation, like PET^H^H^HYardsticks.

Nonetheless, reputable scientists usually only perscribe HGH for persons
many standard deviations away from the norm, or who have medical disorders
which interfere with normal production of the substance.  Any doctor who
started handing out perscriptions to everyone in the shortest 10%
of the population would probably be up on malpractice charges posthaste. 

Amphetamines have demonstrated themselves to be a tricky medication even
for psychological disorders for which they were once considered 
appropriate.  ADD and its treatment plays very well into a society that
seems to feel that each and every one of life's misfortunes must be
given a name and called a disease. 

Of course, no amount of reason will disuade the True Believers from
embracing yet another disease model, and we shouldn't expect that it 
would.  But I think it is clear to many people that the forced medication
of children for the convenience of those who take care of them is
getting a bit out of control.

Mike Duvos writes:
> Perry Writes:
> 
> > Most people would have no particular urge to stop a child with
> > diabetes from taking her insulin. Your friend seems to have the sick
> > idea that they know better than the child's parents whether the child
> > should be taking their meds or not, simply because the medication is
> > for a "mental" problem. This isn't your friend's child. Its someone
> > else's child. They have no right to make such decisions.
> 
> Since diabetes has an organic cause, this analogy with syndromes and
> disorders defined solely by behavioral percentages fails.

'fraid not. ADD has an organic cause, and can be detected
with reproduceable biological tests.

Admittedly, ADD is nonfatal, and I will agree that the analogy breaks
down there. I will also agree that it may be overdiagnosed -- that is,
misdiagnosed by sloppy practitioners. That does not mean it isn't real.

> A better model might be height, which follows a basically continuous
> distribution once outliers due to functional endocrine problems are
> eliminated. 
> 
> We could, of course, define a "vertical deficit disorder" (VDD) which
> 10% of the population have by definition, and for which the treatment
> would be synthetic human growth hormone given regularly during the
> growing years. 

Why eliminate the people with endocrine problems? You need not invent
a new syndrome. The folks with severe deficits of growth hormone are
an actual group, and are a perfectly fine group to give growth
hormones to. Now, you are correct that some people might abuse those
hormones, and some lazy doctors might diagnose a statistical outlier
as someone suffering from dwarfism. However, that doesn't mean that
growth hormone isn't needed for the people whom you choose to dismiss
in your first paragraph as though they were not a valid place to draw
the analogy.

> Of course, no amount of reason will disuade the True Believers from
> embracing yet another disease model, and we shouldn't expect that it 
> would.  But I think it is clear to many people that the forced medication
> of children for the convenience of those who take care of them is
> getting a bit out of control.

Has it occurred to you that many of the children in question are happy
being medicated, as are many adults? In any case, who are you to tell
other people what's good for them?

Perry

On Tue, 9 Jul 1996, Perry E. Metzger wrote:
> 
> Has it occurred to you that many of the children in question are happy
> being medicated, as are many adults? In any case, who are you to tell
> other people what's good for them?

     This might be a little out of context, but:

     I'd be willing to bet that about 75% of the people on this planet
would be happy being meidicated, and at least 50% get that way on a 
regular basis. The real question is, is it a good idea to teach kids that
drugs are the best answer to a problem? 

     Again and again I will state that I do believe that ADD is a problem, 
but I'd bet that at least half the time you are medicating the kids because
the parents have the problem. 


Petro, Christopher C.
petro@suba.com <prefered for any non-list stuff>
snow@crash.suba.com

"Perry E. Metzger" <perry@piermont.com> writes:

 > Why eliminate the people with endocrine problems? You need
 > not invent a new syndrome. The folks with severe deficits of
 > growth hormone are an actual group, and are a perfectly fine
 > group to give growth hormones to.

The point was that the group with endocrine problems was an
appropriate group to give growth hormone to, whereas the shortest
10% of the population was not.

Similarly while there might very well be some disorder of
cognition for which amphetamines would be appropriate medication,
prescribing them on the basis of which 10% of the population
performs least well in the traditional "cells and bells" school
environment is not it.

The fact that some claim to be able to demonstrate ADD by
"repeatable biological tests" carries no more weight than the
ability to repeatably demonstrate that a person is short of
stature by "repeatable tape measure tests."

 > However, that doesn't mean that growth hormone isn't needed
 > for the people whom you choose to dismiss in your first
 > paragraph as though they were not a valid place to draw the
 > analogy.

There is a difference between giving medication for a verifiable
organic problem, like insulin for diabetes, or growth hormone for
a pituitary defect, and giving it to the 10% shortest, or the 10%
most likely to call their teachers bleep words.

 > Has it occurred to you that many of the children in
 > question are happy being medicated, as are many adults? In
 > any case, who are you to tell other people what's good for
 > them?

Again, to return to the height analogy, doctors have to throw
short parents seeking human growth hormone for their perfectly
healthy short children off their doorsteps every day.

Same goes for patients seeking antibiotics inappropriate for
their illnesses, and countless other things.

The price of giving the patient (or the patient's parents)
everything they want is disease-resistant microorganisms, a
country where everyone is over six feet tall, and classrooms full
of obedient citizen-units in Soma-induced trances.

--
     Mike Duvos         $    PGP 2.6 Public Key available     $
     mpd@netcom.com     $    via Finger.                      $

Mike Duvos writes:
> Similarly while there might very well be some disorder of
> cognition for which amphetamines would be appropriate medication,
> prescribing them on the basis of which 10% of the population
> performs least well in the traditional "cells and bells" school
> environment is not it.

Fine, lets say that you are right, and that some number of children
could use Ritalin. Is it your opinion that Tim May is qualified to
diagnose children who do and don't need it? He appears to be claiming
that he can.

I will note, of course, that your contention about percentages and the
likelyhood that something is a disease doesn't really wash very
well. By your lights, then, heart disease couldn't be a "real" illness
given that a lot more than 10% of the population suffers from it to
one extent or another. Of course, we could simply redefine dying of a
heart attack as "normal" and then we could be done.

Sure, its possible that ADD is grotesquely overdiagnosed. Maybe its
possible that 10% of the population has it and that most of them
barely make it through life. Maybe its something in between. How do
you know? Have you done any studies? Have you even read the scientific
literature?

> The fact that some claim to be able to demonstrate ADD by
> "repeatable biological tests" carries no more weight than the
> ability to repeatably demonstrate that a person is short of
> stature by "repeatable tape measure tests."
>
> There is a difference between giving medication for a verifiable
> organic problem, like insulin for diabetes, or growth hormone for
> a pituitary defect, and giving it to the 10% shortest, or the 10%
> most likely to call their teachers bleep words.

How about giving people with hypertension blood pressure medication? I
mean, they are just "out of the norm", right? I mean, there is a
continuum of blood presures, yes? Why should we give the people at the
top of the spectrum medications, just because high blood pressures are
associated with vascular accidents?

I suppose you don't understand what it might be like for someone to be
unable to do their work no matter how heavy the threat against them if
they don't, and no matter how easy it is. There are people out there
who can't get themselves to pay a phone bill or throw out the
newspapers for months on end -- they just can't get themselves to
dance around into the task no matter how hard they try, no matter how
great the threat (job loss, etc) to them is. Perhaps you would call
such a person "crazy". After all, you reason, YOU never had any
trouble doing any of those things. Maybe they are just complete fakers
-- they just need a kick in the ass, right. Well, fine. Many such
people, given a small dose of Ritalin, miraculously recover from their
"crazyness", or their "faking" or whatever it is. They start paying
their bills, writing the overdue reports at the office, listening in
school, etc. They cease to play incessantly with fidget toys and they
get on with their lives. Maybe you would prefer to "help" them by not
letting them get medication. Maybe its "unnatural". Could you explain
to me, however, how you are making their lives better by not giving
them their meds? I mean, what concretely is better about their lives?

>  > Has it occurred to you that many of the children in
>  > question are happy being medicated, as are many adults? In
>  > any case, who are you to tell other people what's good for
>  > them?
> 
> Again, to return to the height analogy, doctors have to throw
> short parents seeking human growth hormone[...]

You miss the point. You spoke of involuntarily medicated kids. Most of
the kids aren't involuntarily medicated.

> The price of giving the patient (or the patient's parents)
> everything they want is [...] classrooms full of obedient
> citizen-units in Soma-induced trances.

Ritalin does not induce a zombie-like trance, as the numerous people
on this mailing list who take it can tell you.

Perry

On Tue, 9 Jul 1996, Perry E. Metzger wrote:
> likelyhood that something is a disease doesn't really wash very
> well. By your lights, then, heart disease couldn't be a "real" illness
> given that a lot more than 10% of the population suffers from it to
> one extent or another. Of course, we could simply redefine dying of a
> heart attack as "normal" and then we could be done.

     A heart attack is (or used to be) a normal way of dying.

     Dying is natural. It is even (in some cases, and from certain 
perspectives) desirable. 

     So are dreamers, so are doers. Poets, Priests and Garbage collectors.
The problem is that in this society parents don't want (largely, painting 
with a BIG BIG brush and painting over some people) dreamers or garbage 
collectors, poets or artists. They want CPA's and Programmers, attentive
little students, of course the kids nature has nothing to do with it.

     Remember a year or so an add for Joop Jeans? A "Yuppie" looking woman
with a baby on a leash (like a dog collar and leash) with the words
"A child, the ultimate pet". That seems to be the position that many parents 
seem to be taking these days. They don't have kids, they have prize 
pedegree Children. These children are expected to behave without training, to
follow rules without being disiplined (funny how that word keeps popping up
in these posts) and to perform in the 90th percentile in everything. 
 
      On the other end we have growing pool of warm bodies whose parents are 
just barely warm bodies. They aren't taking prozac and ritilan to get thru
school, with them it is coke, crack, pot, horse and alcohol. Their parents 
are barely even aware of their existance. 

     IMO both of these are from the same mentality, the attitude of a child 
as a cute little pet. 

> How about giving people with hypertension blood pressure medication? I
> mean, they are just "out of the norm", right? I mean, there is a
> continuum of blood presures, yes? Why should we give the people at the
> top of the spectrum medications, just because high blood pressures are
> associated with vascular accidents?

     What causes this hypertension? Maybe rather than medicating you  
should eliminate the CAUSE of the problem.

     Of course that is more work than just taking a pill. 

> I suppose you don't understand what it might be like for someone to be
> unable to do their work no matter how heavy the threat against them if
> they don't, and no matter how easy it is. There are people out there
> who can't get themselves to pay a phone bill or throw out the
> newspapers for months on end -- they just can't get themselves to

     Actually, I would. 

> You miss the point. You spoke of involuntarily medicated kids. Most of
> the kids aren't involuntarily medicated.

     I would worry more about a kid who _wants_ speed than one who doesn't. 

     Correct me if I am wrong, but aren't children more sensative to 
chemicals than adults?

> > The price of giving the patient (or the patient's parents)
> > everything they want is [...] classrooms full of obedient
> > citizen-units in Soma-induced trances.
> Ritalin does not induce a zombie-like trance, as the numerous people
> on this mailing list who take it can tell you.

     No, the responces indicated that it turned you into a person happy 
to focus on and perform repitive tasks hour after hour. Machine-like 
trance instead of Zombie. Great. 

Petro, Christopher C.
petro@suba.com <prefered for any non-list stuff>
snow@crash.suba.com

"Perry E. Metzger" <perry@piermont.com> writes:

 > Fine, lets say that you are right, and that some number of
 > children could use Ritalin. Is it your opinion that Tim May
 > is qualified to diagnose children who do and don't need it?
 > He appears to be claiming that he can.

I believe he is claiming that children are being overmedicated
for the purposes of controlling their behavior, and that the hard
scientific justification for this practice is lacking.

 > I will note, of course, that your contention about
 > percentages and the likelyhood that something is a disease
 > doesn't really wash very well. By your lights, then, heart
 > disease couldn't be a "real" illness given that a lot more
 > than 10% of the population suffers from it to one extent or
 > another. Of course, we could simply redefine dying of a
 > heart attack as "normal" and then we could be done.

Again, I said that one should NEVER define a disease solely by
percentages and subjective behavioral observations.  Not that 10%
was some sort of dividing point in doing so.

Again, no one would try and define heart disease by the
subjective observations of suddenly dropping dead, or of claiming
chest pain.  You would be lumping lots of diseases into one and
learning nothing about their etiology.

[snip]

 > How about giving people with hypertension blood pressure
 > medication? I mean, they are just "out of the norm", right?
 > I mean, there is a continuum of blood presures, yes? Why
 > should we give the people at the top of the spectrum
 > medications, just because high blood pressures are
 > associated with vascular accidents?

Sorry, Perry.  It is perfectly normal for blood pressure to vary
all over the range for which medication is given.  Some people
need medication, others are just hyper because they hate going to
the doctor, or because the elevator was broken and they just ran
up several flights of stairs.

Some of these people have vascular damage.  Others do not.

Again, we don't simply measure blood pressure and give pills to
the people who fall in the top X%.  Pressure anomalies have many
many causes, and doctors do complete workups and a differential
diagnosis, based on the best models of disease processes they
have available, before prescribing medication.

 > I suppose you don't understand what it might be like for
 > someone to be unable to do their work no matter how heavy
 > the threat against them if they don't, and no matter how
 > easy it is.

Such people may need to find more interesting work.  There is
such a thing as being bored out of ones skull, you know.

 > There are people out there who can't get themselves to pay a
 > phone bill or throw out the newspapers for months on end --
 > they just can't get themselves to dance around into the task
 > no matter how hard they try, no matter how great the threat
 > (job loss, etc) to them is.

 > Many such people, given a small dose of Ritalin,
 > miraculously recover from their "crazyness", or their
 > "faking" or whatever it is. They start paying their bills,
 > writing the overdue reports at the office, listening in
 > school, etc.

Some people would make the same claim for small doses of opiates.
Or small doses of benzodiazepines, or phenothiazines, or ethanol.

Ritalin was developed because there were political problems with
medicating people for performance-related problems with
methamphetamines while trying to conduct a loud and noisy War on
Drugs(TM).

 > They cease to play incessantly with fidget toys and they get
 > on with their lives. Maybe you would prefer to "help" them
 > by not letting them get medication. Maybe its "unnatural".
 > Could you explain to me, however, how you are making their
 > lives better by not giving them their meds? I mean, what
 > concretely is better about their lives?

If someone has some sort of cognitive disability which can be
diagnosed and for which treatment with medication is appropriate,
I have no problem with that.  But vague claims that "Johnny won't
sit still" hardly constitute such a workup.

 > You miss the point. You spoke of involuntarily medicated
 > kids. Most of the kids aren't involuntarily medicated.

Let's see.  At the beginning of this message, you were
questioning Tim's qualifications to suggest kids were
overmedicated.  Now you are telling us that the kids are
qualified to give informed consent to the very same thing.

Hardly consistant, even for you Perry.

 > Ritalin does not induce a zombie-like trance, as the
 > numerous people on this mailing list who take it can tell
 > you.

I think you need to cut your dose in half. :)

Seriously, though, the really dumb thing in all of this is the
constant pretending that drugs both do and don't have the ability
to enhance performance.  We vascilate between "Drugs are never
the solution" and "Take this pill twice a day with a glass of
water."  This is a very mixed message indeed.

One of the brightest guys I ever knew was a PhD Computer
Scientist who was flying on cocaine 24 hours a day.  His output
was phenomenal, but I doubt he will be reading this message. He
looked like a concentration camp inmate 10 years ago, and I doubt
that he is alive today.

TANSSAAFL, IMHO.

Mike Duvos writes:
>  > They cease to play incessantly with fidget toys and they get
>  > on with their lives. Maybe you would prefer to "help" them
>  > by not letting them get medication. Maybe its "unnatural".
>  > Could you explain to me, however, how you are making their
>  > lives better by not giving them their meds? I mean, what
>  > concretely is better about their lives?
> 
> If someone has some sort of cognitive disability which can be
> diagnosed and for which treatment with medication is appropriate,
> I have no problem with that.  But vague claims that "Johnny won't
> sit still" hardly constitute such a workup.

You are dodging the point. There are lots of people for whom it is
easily demonstrated that a small dose of Ritalin makes a dramatic
change in their quality of life. The scientific studies are numerous,
and unless you are prepared to tell me what flaws you find in the
studies you have not even examined, I do not see that you have
evidence backing your opinion. Given that there are people who are
demonstrably helped in their lives by Ritalin, could you explain to me
why it is that they should not be taking the medication? Please back
your statement up with documentation published in a refereed journal
or conference paper -- not with Mike Duvos' off the cuff opinion based
on his years as a computer professional.

>  > You miss the point. You spoke of involuntarily medicated
>  > kids. Most of the kids aren't involuntarily medicated.
> 
> Let's see.  At the beginning of this message, you were
> questioning Tim's qualifications to suggest kids were
> overmedicated.  Now you are telling us that the kids are
> qualified to give informed consent to the very same thing.
> 
> Hardly consistant, even for you Perry.

Totally consistant. It is a person's own business, not a third party's
business, to decide what they should be ingesting and when. Tim is
supposedly a libertarian and supposedly opposed to drug laws that
prohibit people from taking what they want when they want, or,
presumably, deciding for their children what they should be
consuming. He also supposedly thinks that people should keep their
nose out of the personal choices made by others, and gets downright
cantakerous when anyone voices the least opinion about how he runs his
life. However, if a family, with the willing consent of their child,
decides to make a choice about how to best watch out for the welfare
of their own child, Tim sanctimoniously chimes in, along with the rest
of the peanut gallery.

I mean, Tim would be offended if anyone told him what to take, but he
feels perfectly happy telling other people how to run THEIR lives.

So, yes, I'm consistant. Its my business, and mine alone, if I shoot
morphine, or take Penicillin, or decide to do none of these
things. I may choose to consult with a doctor about my condition on
the premise that he is a qualified professional and can render me an
educated opinion. Tim's opinion is, however, neither educated nor
wanted. He should mind his own business with the zealous rage he
applies to those who attempt to mind his business.

I'm consistant. Tim, and possibly you, are hypocrites.

> Seriously, though, the really dumb thing in all of this is the
> constant pretending that drugs both do and don't have the ability
> to enhance performance.  We vascilate between "Drugs are never
> the solution" and "Take this pill twice a day with a glass of
> water."  This is a very mixed message indeed.

You don't hear me giving it, do you?

Drugs are wonderful things at times. A dose of morphine a few times a
day can make the difference between unbearable pain and being able to
function. A tablet of common aspirin can utterly change your day from
an experience filled with headache to a productive and happy one. A
dose of any one of several antidepressants can take people who have
repeatedly attempted suicide and at the very least give them enough
time to work out their problems and learn to deal with life.

Of course, drugs can also be damaging. One tablet of Tylenol is not so
bad. 100 destroy your liver. An occassional drink rarely hurts. Being
falling down drunk at all times is unlikely to improve your life.

Drugs are sometimes of use, sometimes not of use. Any use has to be
evaluated by the person contemplating taking the drug. Any mixed
message does not originate from me.

Perry

"Perry E. Metzger" <perry@piermont.com> writes:

 > Of course, drugs can also be damaging. One tablet of
 > Tylenol is not so bad. 100 destroy your liver. An
 > occassional drink rarely hurts. Being falling down drunk at
 > all times is unlikely to improve your life.

I will never take Tylenol.

Acetaminophen is an interesting compound.  It is a potent
hepatotoxin, but is broken down "just in time" by liver enzymes
when it is taken in small quantities.  Hence it usually doesn't
kill you.

The Catch-22 here is that people whose livers are impaired for
various reasons may not be able to metabolize it before it does
its damage, and their livers may be destroyed.  These people may
not have any other symptoms which indicate to them that they have
liver disease.

There have been a number of cases of liver damage requiring
transplantation, one which involved taking only a couple of
tablets more than the recommended daily dose.

Coincidentally, one of the morning shows had a piece today on a
baby that required a liver transplant for a Tylenol overdose,
just before I read your message.  Seems the package of Tylenol
said to consult a physician for the correct dosage if a child was
under two years of age.  The mom called the doctor and he gave
her the dosage for "Children's Tylenol." The mother,
unfortunately, was using "Infant Tylenol", which is slightly more
concentrated, and the baby lost her liver as a result of this
unfortunate miscomunication.

Despite the marketing hype, the risks of acetaminophen just
aren't worth it for a medication whose only purpose is to serve
as a mild analgesic.

--
     Mike Duvos         $    PGP 2.6 Public Key available     $
     mpd@netcom.com     $    via Finger.                      $

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

On Mon, 8 Jul 1996, Mike Duvos wrote:

> Since diabetes has an organic cause, this analogy with syndromes and
> disorders defined solely by behavioral percentages fails.

Incorrect.  I am not certain if ADD has been definitely linked to a lack of a
certain neurotransmitter, but since it shows up on a PET scan, it probably is.
You say that a disorder defined only by behavioral percentage in not a real
disorder.  If the number was far less than 10%, would you then consider it
a disease.  In an earlier message, you claimed that depression is an actual
disease.  One-third of all Americans have some form of clinical depression.
Your logic escapes me.

> People with VDD would probably want to be taller, and be as successful
> as their peers at important things like basketball.  The specified 
> treatment would certainly demonstrate effectiveness in accomplishing
> this goal.  People with VDD would argue that their disease was real, 
> since it was hereditary, and could be measured with complex scientific
> instrumentation, like PET^H^H^HYardsticks.

First of all, being tall is not really important in today's society.  It used
to be that people who had certain weaknesses and disorders were killed off
according to evolution.  Since we live in a developed society, evolution no
longer has any effect on humans.  It seems that the only people who think that
drug treatment is bad for people with disorders that can cause that person to
not reach his or her potential are those who have never even been afflicted
with a mental disorder.  Nor do they know much about the subject.

> Amphetamines have demonstrated themselves to be a tricky medication even
> for psychological disorders for which they were once considered 
> appropriate.  ADD and its treatment plays very well into a society that
> seems to feel that each and every one of life's misfortunes must be
> given a name and called a disease. 

People have lost jobs because of ADD.  Everyone has to do something undesirable
at one point or another.  For an ADD person, stopping a task that is very
interesting to that person to do boring work can be very difficult.  Rather
than blaming the public schools, it is much more productive to find a way to
work around such a barrier.  Ritalin is often the best way to do that.

> Of course, no amount of reason will disuade the True Believers from
> embracing yet another disease model, and we shouldn't expect that it 
> would.  But I think it is clear to many people that the forced medication
> of children for the convenience of those who take care of them is
> getting a bit out of control.

I guess I am a True Believer.  I believe that ADD exists.  I also believe in
the theory of Relativity.  Both of these are backed by hard evidence and nearly
unanimous agreement among specialists in these fields.  There is a middle
ground between believing that every kid who is hyperactive or has a short
attention span should be on Ritalin, and saying that ADD doesn't exist and it
is just a simple misfortune.  Of course, it's rather easy to dismiss something
as a misfortune which doesn't effect you personally.

- -- Mark

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
markm@voicenet.com              | finger -l for PGP key 0xe3bf2169
http://www.voicenet.com/~markm/ | d61734f2800486ae6f79bfeb70f95348
"Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four.  If that
is granted, all else follows."  --George Orwell, _1984_


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.3
Charset: noconv

iQCVAwUBMeHn8LZc+sv5siulAQHc+QP+ND3ObVaTbm1/rvDC3J9O0Yst/S1w792r
AArgL/r57K5VoR66gxB0zW8jegu6Yt7Qe1BDCgkrKKBkuaphCu5wdTZ/CF75xd1K
pIErVKwOOd3dTonN7MrXDw+u3UWw3c0Hj4ja+H13TsguqB2zlxj7OKfo+dW7RIdZ
lnZJVT5rFRg=
=LE0i
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

In the message after his "Last Message on the Topic",
"Mark M." <markm@voicenet.com> writes:

 >> Since diabetes has an organic cause, this analogy with
 >> syndromes and disorders defined solely by behavioral
 >> percentages fails.

 > Incorrect.  I am not certain if ADD has been definitely
 > linked to a lack of a certain neurotransmitter, but since it
 > shows up on a PET scan, it probably is.

Even thinking about math shows up on a PET scan.  Nothing
disordered about that.  I do it all the time.

You seem to feel that if something can be detected
scientifically, then it has some tangible existance beyond
behavior and percentiles.  Silly, because these things are tools
of measurement too.

Being able to reliably tell people apart based on some fallacious
criteria does nothing to make the criteria less fallacious.

 > You say that a disorder defined only by behavioral percentage in
 > not a real disorder.  If the number was far less than 10%, would
 > you then consider it a disease.

No.  I would look at the population distribution.  If it was
smooth and continuous and similar to other distributions
associated with continuous normal variation of physical
characteristics, I certainly wouldn't call it a disease.

If some poor soul was sitting five standard deviations away from
the norm, with a verifiable organic problem, then the hypothesis
of disease would certainly be one worthy of investigation.

 > In an earlier message, you claimed that depression is an
 > actual disease.  One-third of all Americans have some form
 > of clinical depression. Your logic escapes me.

Depression is a normal human emotion as long as it is related to
something sad in ones environment.  Depression becomes a disease
only when serious and inappropriate self-destructive behavior is
likely, or when the mental state becomes endogenous, and
unrelated to ones circumstances.

Again, if I tried to define depression as "The least happy 33% of
the population", that would be silly, regardless of whether true
clinical depression existed.

 > It seems that the only people who think that drug treatment
 > is bad for people with disorders that can cause that person
 > to not reach his or her potential are those who have never
 > even been afflicted with a mental disorder.  Nor do they
 > know much about the subject.

Medicating a disease is fine.  Recreational uses of relatively
harmless intoxicants and are also fine.  It is the inappropriate
use of strong medicines with serious side effects by clueless
people for vague criteria like "reaching his or her potential"
that I have a problem with.

> People have lost jobs because of ADD.

People have lost jobs because they weren't physically strong,
smelled bad, didn't have hair, or spoke English with an accent no
one could understand.

Do these people get "deficit disorders" too?  Do we allow them to
ingest potentially life-threatening and toxic chemicals in a vain
attempt to pass everyone else in the Big Race Of Life(TM)?

Face it.  People are not all alike.  Shit happens.  Learn to
adjust.  Someday you'll find something you are good at, even if
it's not public school.

 > I guess I am a True Believer.  I believe that ADD exists.

I believe that large feet exist.  But I don't walk around with an
axe trying to correct the problem and save the large-footed
people the shame that comes from not being able to excel in the
world of ballet dancing.

 > I also believe in the theory of Relativity.

But can you derive it from a Lagrangian density without having to
peek in the book? :)

 > Both of these are backed by hard evidence and nearly
 > unanimous agreement among specialists in these fields.

There is absolutely no similarity between a hard science, like
physics, and a collection of people who make money selling
flim-flam to their disciples.

 > Of course, it's rather easy to dismiss something as a
 > misfortune which doesn't effect you personally.

So the short, smelly, bald, big-footed people who can't do tensor 
calculus tell me. :)

--
     Mike Duvos         $    PGP 2.6 Public Key available     $
     mpd@netcom.com     $    via Finger.                      $

Regarding the 'paradoxical' effect of speed on children:

It seems that age might not be the deciding factor. Scanning abstracts
of Medline articles on the subjects of methylfenidate AND <variants of
ADHD>, 469 hits in English, I found the one below. Perhaps the Swedish
speed epidemia in the 60-70's, now having sort of a comeback, was/is
partly self-medication. Note that this is about ADULTS and that the
research was made in 'The Peoples Republic of Massachusetts' (as someone
just called it). That these guys calm down on a drug that makes most
people the other way around suggests a structural difference; that some
of us are suffering from 'Ritalin deficiency'.

***********************************************************************
Spencer T. Wilens T. Biederman J. Faraone SV. Ablon JS. Lapey K.

Pediatric Psychopharmacology Unit, Massachusetts General Hospital,
Boston, USA.

A double-blind, crossover comparison of methylphenidate and placebo in
adults with childhood-onset attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder.

Archives of General Psychiatry. 52(6):434-43, 1995 Jun.


Abstract

BACKGROUND: There are few controlled studies of methylphenidate
hydrochloride in adults with attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder
(ADHD), and their results have been equivocal. The discrepancies among
these studies may be related to low doses, diagnostic uncertainties,
and lack of attention to comorbid disorders.
METHODS: We conducted a randomized, 7-week, placebo-controlled,
crossover study of methylphenidate in 23 adult patients with DSM-III-R
ADHD using standardized instruments for diagnosis, separate assessments
of ADHD and depressive and anxiety symptoms, and a robust daily dose of
methylphenidate hydrochloride, 1.0 mg/kg per day.
RESULTS: We found a marked therapeutic response for methylphenidate
treatment of ADHD symptoms that exceeded the placebo response (78% vs
4% P < .0001). Response to methylphenidate was independent of gender,
psychiatric comorbidity with anxiety or moderate depression, or family
history of psychiatric disorders.
CONCLUSION: Robust doses of methylphenidate are effective in the
treatment of adult ADHD.
***********************************************************************


Asgaard

> 
> So the short, smelly, bald, big-footed people who can't do tensor 
> calculus tell me. :)

She was a three-of-five on the Duvos Scale if ever there was one, but it 
had been a long day at the office, and Bob was well into his third 
Martini ...

In message <199607081653.MAA10428@jekyll.piermont.com>, "Perry E. Metzger" writ
es:
>Oh, and by the way, Ritalin has never been known in slang as "mother's
>little helper". That would be a tranquilizer taken by the mother to
>help her get through her own day.

	I think this refers to Valium.

ObCrypto:

	I see some Australian researchers have made an advance in quantum
crypto.

	Derek

--Boundary..3943.1071713592.multipart/signed
Content-Type: text/plain
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

On Tue, 9 Jul 1996, Derek Bell wrote:

> ObCrypto:
> 
> 	I see some Australian researchers have made an advance in quantum
> crypto.

What kinds of advances?  Last I heard, British Telecom was using quantum
crypto on 10 kilometer fiber optic cables.

-- Mark

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
markm@voicenet.com              | finger -l for PGP key 0xe3bf2169
http://www.voicenet.com/~markm/ | d61734f2800486ae6f79bfeb70f95348
"Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four.  If that
is granted, all else follows."  --George Orwell, _1984_



--Boundary..3943.1071713592.multipart/signed
Content-Type: application/octet-stream; name="pgp00001.pgp"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="pgp00001.pgp"
Content-Description: "PGP signature"

LS0tLS1CRUdJTiBQR1AgU0lHTkFUVVJFLS0tLS0KVmVyc2lvbjogMi42LjMK
CmlRQ1ZBd1VCTWVMNXFiWmMrc3Y1c2l1bEFRRVRoQVArT1ZYclhUNHdEOUFl
aFp3L0ZUYlFNdmtHWXBudytDdlEKZ1ZTWXZxQWhaaGNkdHNuY1M1dkdtMnds
ZjJmTHI0aC9wSnlYNHlSNGh3anJnUkQ5dDlpRFRRdmxROGFkOFNMdgpaOEFR
Q251YTBTQi8vSXd4eFd2UWVZdUlhSkh2QS9BbVlwOCt1cGxuY3A1ZFY5cWtp
Y2pCZnU1bzZ6U1VYMm10ClJ6YzRnbStubm53PQo9c01WKwotLS0tLUVORCBQ
R1AgU0lHTkFUVVJFLS0tLS0K
--Boundary..3943.1071713592.multipart/signed--

ichudov@algebra.com (Igor Chudov @ home) writes:
> What annoys me to NO END is the laws that require that children under
> age of 13 (?) must always be under parental supervision. These laws
> even say that leaving children unsupervised is child abuse.

Igor, it was safe to leave childred alone in Russia because in Russia
perverts and child molesters were jailed and/or castrated.  Here in the
U.S. perverts have 'civil rights'. Hence the children must be protected
from them.

---

Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM
Brighton Beach Boardwalk BBS, Forest Hills, N.Y.: +1-718-261-2013, 14.4Kbps

On Sat, 6 Jul 1996, Timothy C. May wrote:
> 
> When the mother (a single mother, as this is California) drops her son off
> with my friend (also single, of course), she includes several "Ritalin"
> capsules with instructions on how to dose her son with this
> depressant/behavior modification drug.

Er... Tim... Ritalin is an amphetamine. 

---
Cause maybe  (maybe)		      | In my mind I'm going to Carolina
you're gonna be the one that saves me | - back in Chapel Hill May 16th.
And after all			      | Email address remains unchanged
You're my firewall -    	      | ........First in Usenet.........

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
                          SANDY SANDFORT
 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

C'punks,

On Sun, 7 Jul 1996, Simon Spero wrote:

> On Sat, 6 Jul 1996, Timothy C. May wrote:
> > 
> > ...she includes several "Ritalin"
> > capsules with instructions on how to dose her son with this
> > depressant/behavior modification drug.
> 
> Er... Tim... Ritalin is an amphetamine. 

Yes, normally, but doesn't it have a paradoxical reaction for
hyperactive children (i.e., it acts as a depressant for them)?


 S a n d y

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Sandy writes:

> Yes, normally, but doesn't it have a paradoxical reaction for
> hyperactive children (i.e., it acts as a depressant for them)?

So the medical profession tells us.  It's a curious message.  College
students who take methamphetamine during exam week to increase their
alertness and performance are criminals, and bomber pilots and kids
who take this or a similar drug for the same reasons are not.

"Just Say No to Drugs Big Brother Doesn't Give You"

--
     Mike Duvos         $    PGP 2.6 Public Key available     $
     mpd@netcom.com     $    via Finger.                      $

Sandy Sandfort writes:
> On Sun, 7 Jul 1996, Simon Spero wrote:
> 
> > On Sat, 6 Jul 1996, Timothy C. May wrote:
> > > 
> > > ...she includes several "Ritalin"
> > > capsules with instructions on how to dose her son with this
> > > depressant/behavior modification drug.
> > 
> > Er... Tim... Ritalin is an amphetamine. 
> 
> Yes, normally, but doesn't it have a paradoxical reaction for
> hyperactive children (i.e., it acts as a depressant for them)?

1) If you believe that Ritalin has a different effect on hyperactive
   children, that would seem to indicate that the May hypothesis that
   hyperactivity isn't a biological phenomenon is false.
2) Yes, it appears that Ritalin has s different effect on children
   with ADD, in that it reduces their symptoms. "depressant", though,
   isn't the right term.

3) Of course, this isn't a crypto mailing list any more, so why NOT
   discuss every topic under the sun.

.pm

Simon Spero <ses@tipper.oit.unc.edu> writes:

> On Sat, 6 Jul 1996, Timothy C. May wrote:
> >
> > When the mother (a single mother, as this is California) drops her son off
> > with my friend (also single, of course), she includes several "Ritalin"
> > capsules with instructions on how to dose her son with this
> > depressant/behavior modification drug.
>
> Er... Tim... Ritalin is an amphetamine.

Yes, it's an _anti-depressant, supposedly turning up those pieces of the brain
responsible for "tuning out" outside interference, and letting the hyperactive
kid concentrate.  But a true cypherpunk never lets any facts interfere with his
political agenda.

---

Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM
Brighton Beach Boardwalk BBS, Forest Hills, N.Y.: +1-718-261-2013, 14.4Kbps

At 10:25 AM -0400 7/7/96, Sandy Sandfort wrote:
> > Er... Tim... Ritalin is an amphetamine.
>
> Yes, normally, but doesn't it have a paradoxical reaction for
> hyperactive children (i.e., it acts as a depressant for them)?

Yes. And for some of *them*, it makes them monomaniacal SOBs. ;-). I get
more work done with Ritalin, but I'm *much* nicer without it. I've decided
to live with ADD rather than treat it, which is what most people (including
"Dr. ADD", Richard(?) Hallowell) do. Jolt cola is also popular. :-).

Like a lot of pop-psychopharmacology, "syndromes" frequently get defined by
whether the right drug has the desired effect. If prozac works, you're
depressed, if Ritalin does, you're an ADDer, and so on. By Tim's anecdotal
evidence, the little hellion (hey, *I* was one...) must be ADD because
Ritalin works.

You can actually see ADD with a PET scan, but the proper way to get a
diagnosis of ADD is to get tested for it, which, in the case of ADD, is an
expensive man-day or two with with some clinical shrink in your face, and a
bunch of frustrating (if you're ADD) tests of your attention and ability to
focus in the presence of a lot of distractions. Oddly enough, *another*
pop-psychologist from Harvard was on "20/20" this week talking about
"emotional" intellegence, and one of the determinants was inability to
understand delayed gratification. Like most kids with ADD, I must have been
a drooling idiot, in that case.

However, I practically agree with Tim on all of his screed. (A good one, I
might add. He probably only reread it once for punctuation and spelling
before he did a command-e to send it on its way. After wiping the foam
from his mouth, that is. ;-)) It seems to me that the very *last* person to
be allowed to diagnose ADD is some crypto-socialist, fucking-statist,
control-freak, industrial-mode, human-warehouse-zookeeping "educator". The
humorous irony of all this is, of course, that my wife is a senior
education bureaucrat for the People's Republic of Massachusetts. An "equal
time" marriage indeed. And *she* pays the health insurance, because I
couldn't keep a *steady* job if my life depended on it. (A compensatory
mechanism?) Well, maybe if my *life* depended on it. That *might* get my
attention.


BarelyObCrypto: ADD is more about lack of attention *control* than lack of
attention itself. Hyperfocus is also a trait of ADHD, and computers tend to
cause hyperfocus for a lot of ADDers. How many easily distracted knee-jiggling
wunderkind hackers do *you* know? Care to guess how many ADDers there are
on cypherpunks?


Wiping foam from *my* mouth,
Bob Hettinga

-----------------
Robert Hettinga (rah@shipwright.com)
e$, 44 Farquhar Street, Boston, MA 02131 USA
"If they could 'just pass a few more laws', 
  we would all be criminals."    --Vinnie Moscaritolo
The e$ Home Page: http://www.vmeng.com/rah/