The Forums › Forums › Medication › What do you think of this article?
-
AuthorPosts
-
February 27, 2012 at 9:17 pm #90573
AnonymousInactiveFebruary 27, 2012 at 9:17 pmPost count: 14413February 28, 2012 at 3:09 pm #112845Well, as regards to omega-3—I’ve taken fish-oil capsules for heart health for years; I’ve even been on Lovasa (Omacor, if you live in Europe), the industrial-strength omega-3 pharmaceutical. Over that time, I’ve never noticed the slightest ADD benefit. Perhaps others have had a different experience…
REPORT ABUSEFebruary 28, 2012 at 4:50 pm #112846The webpage comes off as a tirade against medication. Comparing methylphenidate and other stimulants to cocaine is a hyperbole. I am already on a restricted diet and the only factor that I have found that can make my ADHD symptoms worse is low blood sugar.
REPORT ABUSEFebruary 28, 2012 at 6:16 pm #112847Very skeptical, and that’s only on reading the name “Mercola” in the URL.
Joe Mercola (who, btw, is actually a doctor of osteopathy, not an MD) has the distinction of being the most notorious and profiteering creator of pseudoscience on the ‘Net. He is known for his misleading half-truths and aggressive marketing. Not worth reading, IMO.
http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/index.php/joe-mercola-quackery-pays/
REPORT ABUSEFebruary 28, 2012 at 6:37 pm #112848Yet another opinion on the right thing to do. If we followed all the right things to do, we’d have to live a lot longer to try them all. Peppered with anecdotal examples instead of long term studies for examples, so I’m skeptical. Advice on a good diet is appropriate for all of us, regardless if ADD or not.
Just another opinion, but certainly not the definitive answer to ADD.
Just my .02 (opinion), Jim
REPORT ABUSEFebruary 28, 2012 at 8:06 pm #112849Hello Danica
Thank you for posting this article. It is an interesting read.
You asked our opinion of the article. Well I think it is a prime example of why one needs to be wary, sceptical and discerning when reading stuff on the internet. There is a distinct lack of primary sources of information in the article. Yes there are references but they are second hand from web sites. For claims such as the ones made in the article I would expect to see references to peer reviewed research papers. Where are they? The mouse study for example? I believe someone did cause liver cancer in mice by injecting them with doses of ritalin that were completely excessive for their body weight. But they did say this was unrealistic.
Always look for peer reviewed primary sources. If they are not cited then it’s just somebody’s opinion. Of course they are entitled to their opinion but it is not founded on fact. Be wary of the internet.
In fact I might use this article as an example for my students!
REPORT ABUSEFebruary 28, 2012 at 9:16 pm #112850The article leans heavily on the work of Lendon Smith. His CV is criticized here: http://www.quackwatch.com/04ConsumerEducation/lendonsmith.html
He seems to have done an about face, first over prescribing Ritalin and later saying it was unnecessary.
REPORT ABUSEFebruary 28, 2012 at 11:58 pm #112851Wow everyone – some good points here. Saffron is right – this guy is just touting his products. Bill – well spotted! Quoting a fraudster isn’t really wise if you want to be taken seriously. So all in all the article is just BS on just about every level.
REPORT ABUSEFebruary 29, 2012 at 12:30 am #112852
AnonymousInactiveFebruary 29, 2012 at 12:30 amPost count: 14413Thanks for the thought, everyone! My friend posted the link to it on facebook, and the material seemed so overwhelming, now I have a bit of an idea of how to respond
REPORT ABUSE
February 29, 2012 at 5:22 am #112853Danica – Good to hear from you again. I’ve been wondering from time to time how you were doing. Bring us up to date.
REPORT ABUSE -
AuthorPosts