Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : Alternative Medicine/Health -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: scaram(o)uche who wrote (81)	12/19/1999 10:13:00 PM
From: LLCF	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 357

<this sort of study is generally conducted by us dreaded scientists.> Rick, I have the utmost respect for the concept of science, just showing my frustration with the rigid confines with which much of todays U.S. medical community seems to operate within. I mean what am I missing here: 1.) Up to 25% of kids are on Ritalin in some areas? 2.) Someone [hopefully a trained observer, psychologist?] can certainly go and observe them and compare them to kids 25 years ago that must be on film somewhere. 3.) Do this enough times to get 'scientific' data, sure it cost money... but common! 25%? 4.) Then either declare that our standards of behavior have increased and kids need ritalin that didn't 25 years ago, or declare a freakin national emergency! [over the top, 2 glass of wine post! :) ] Now, assuming that we have a new problem over the past x years [which I believe, but unproven that I'm aware of]: 1.) Why would we go worrying about the mechanism of actual causation in the brain? Look for what's changed over the past 25 years. 2.) While it will be nice to have clues based on a genetic componant it seems the above is an order of magnitude more important to get starting points... ie. lets say we found a genetic componant to sensitivity to DDT herbicide... is that helpful? What if we start getting into combinations of environmental and dietary factors? It could take generations starting with mechanism and working backwards as opposed to starting with elimination studies wouldn't it? Should we really have to PROVE a mechanism if we find the above assumption [that we have a problem vs 25 years ago] correct? The environmental and dietary changes in our world are changing at breakneck speed, can we assume the medical community has a clue? I wouldn't. It seems to me that most things will have genetic components eventually capable of desribing sensitivities and tolerances to just about everything. And that will be great... but again, if the assumption of 'new' health problems is correct, that seems to be seeing the forest through the bark on the trees and better left down the road till we know which forest, let along tree to look at? DAK..... babbling again! Thanks very much for the reply... I'll be watching.