Prescripted Drug Use in Children

[Vagrant0]

So heated. But I think before we start trying to blame doctors for our chemically depenant population, we should probably look at most of the crap we're putting in our systems from the food we eat. I'm not any sort of expert in the field, but if you bother to think of all the additives that you consume every day, and all the side effects of those additives, it's a wonder we aren't more screwed up than we are. Remember, it isn't tobacco that causes cancer, it's all the extra crap cigarette companies put in to make it taste "better", and make it more addictive.

[Marxist ßastard]

...If you bother to think of all the additives that you consume every day, and all the side effects of those additives, it's a wonder we aren't more screwed up than we are.

You mean sugar?

 

Remember, it isn't tobacco that causes cancer, it's all the extra crap cigarette companies put in to make it taste "better", and make it more addictive.

Would you mind "remembering" your source for that statement?

[KzinistZerg]

My view is that basically, the problem is with the parents. Plenty of children have read problems that can be alleviated with drugs; doctors should check to see if that's the case. But also most children are whiny little brats because their parent are whiny little brats and never bothered to make the children worth more than a bucket of rocks. Todays society frown upon any sort of punishment that actually works, apparently.

[poopgoblin]

As for you poopgoblin (god, what an immature name), there's that biblical morality again? If someone steps out of line, beat them into submission! Why not go all the way and bring back stoning as the punishment for disrespecting your elders?

first off, why do you care about my name at all? you think i care what you think?

second, i just said a good backhanding, i never said kill them or to abuse children, in fact, if you abuse a child, you should be stoned to death. anyway, if they were to bring back stoning, it wouldn't be my problem because i don't step out of line.

[ninja_lord666]

...If you bother to think of all the additives that you consume every day, and all the side effects of those additives, it's a wonder we aren't more screwed up than we are.

You mean sugar?

 

Sugar isn't an additive. Vagrant is talking about all those ingredients you find in the nutrition facts that you can't even pronounce.

Example: Cap'n Crunch

Corn flour, sugar, oat flour, brown sugar, coconut oil, salt (so far so good), niacinamide (properly named Nicotinamide), yellow 5 (Tartrazine: derived from coal tar, yummy), reduced iron, zinc oxide (exposure to zinc oxide in the air can result in a nervous malady called metal fume fever), yellow 6 (appears to cause allergic or intolerance reactions, particularly amongst those with an aspirin intolerance), thiamin mononitrante (actually not that bad), BHT (banned for use in food in Japan (1958), Romania, Sweden, and Australia; used as an antioxidant in cosmetics, pharmaceutical drugs, jet fuels, rubber, petroleum products, and embalming fluid), pyridoxine hydrochloride (again, not that bad), riboflavin (quite good), folic acid (occurs naturaly in foods)

 

So you see, nine additives four good, one not so good, three bad, and one that is so controversial as to be banned in four countries...in a box of Cap'n Crunch...

 

Remember, it isn't tobacco that causes cancer, it's all the extra crap cigarette companies put in to make it taste "better", and make it more addictive.

Would you mind "remembering" your source for that statement?

 

There are so many that posting them here would deffinately be considered spam, so I'll redirect you to wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_additives_in_cigarettes

[Peregrine]

 

As for you poopgoblin (god, what an immature name), there's that biblical morality again? If someone steps out of line, beat them into submission! Why not go all the way and bring back stoning as the punishment for disrespecting your elders?

first off, why do you care about my name at all? you think i care what you think?

 

Because it demonstrates your level of immaturity. Which, by the way, is confirmed by everything you post.

 

second, i just said a good backhanding, i never said kill them or to abuse children, in fact, if you abuse a child, you should be stoned to death. anyway, if they were to bring back stoning, it wouldn't be my problem because i don't step out of line.

 

Good, I'm glad we agree. Now the only question is whether you will live by your beliefs and volunteer yourself for stoning?

 

Since you're clearly too brain-damaged to understand this: giving a child "a good backhanding" IS abuse you worthless sociopath. Which is of course a very appropriate label, since not only do you support child abuse in the name of "order", but you would have no problem allowing slow and painful death by stoning, just as long as you aren't the one dying (good luck on that one, I'm sure you break quite a few of those laws and qualify for stoning anyway).

 

That's exactly what I meant about "biblical morality". The rest of the world has moved beyond our barbaric origins, but you're still stuck with your primitive morality and "might makes right" society. I would say to remove yourself from the gene pool before you screw up some innocent child's life, but somehow I doubt you're ever going to get a woman to have sex with you anyway.

[poopgoblin]

you think backhandind is abusive? my parents backhanded me a couple of times, and i'm glad they did. it straightened me out.

 

and i NEVER said i support child abuse, didn't i even speak out against it? Don't put words in my mouth.

[Peregrine]

you think backhandind is abusive? my parents backhanded me a couple of times, and i'm glad they did. it straightened me out.

 

Yes, it's abusive. And I'm glad you enjoyed it. But just because you're a masochist and enjoy your whips and chains doesn't mean the rest of us are. I would say good luck finding a good dominatrix to live your abuse fantasies, but again, somehow I doubt you'll have any luck with women. Maybe you should consider men?

 

and i NEVER said i support child abuse, didn't i even speak out against it? Don't put words in my mouth.

 

 

Oh? Then what's this?

 

I support child abuse.

 

See, right there, your own words. Hint for the clueless: hitting someone because you don't have the intelligence or patience to find another solution IS abuse.

[ResidentWeevil2077]

OK, I'm gonna come right out and say what I should have said before, and this is ONLY my opinion - I HATE drugs. From my own lifestyle, I've never been one to use any kind of pill to make me feel better, not even aspirin. But now, I've been prescribed Celexa for anxiety that my family doctor diagnosed me with. I suppose I'm partly to blame, since I told him I get anxious every once in a while, when in fact, I rarely, if ever, get anxious at all.

 

I took them at first, but now I don't take them at all, because quite frankly, I never needed them in the first place. And this was a case where a doctor only went on patient opinion, no medical testing was ever done to prove there was something wrong with my brain. I know that testing would be rather expensive to begin with, and sometimes it would be better if the patient told their doctor what they felt. But I feel that doctors making a mistakes with their diagnoses are becoming more and more prevalent today. And because of this, I'm gradually losing faith and trust in the healthcare system altogether.

 

My standpoint also stems from my religious beliefs. I had a very low opinion of healthcare from the time I could comprehend what was going on, and my Christian faith diminished that further. I know this isn't supposed be about religion, but this is my reason for my views. I would much rather put my faith and trust in God than to put them in someone who may or may not know what they're doing. I really don't care if any of you believe in God, or are agonostic or atheist or whatever you want to believe, this is my view.

 

-------------------------------------------------------------------

 

So then suddenly professionals should not be allowed to do what they have been trained to do (for the better part of their lives, no less) if there aren't laws dictating their every move?

 

The more you post, the more apparent it becomes that you have no idea whatsoever what the conservative political ideology is all about, or especially what free-market capitalism is all about. However, you claim to have extremely conservative, pro-capitalist beliefs. Why is this?

I have social conservative beliefs (such marriage is between a man and woman, not between two people, and that there should be tighter laws in Canada to deter crime), but I never said I was pro-capitalist. In fact, now that I think about it, I wish there were more gov't restrictions on the corporate level to ensure fairer and more ethical business practices. You can agree or disagree, but that's not the point.

 

My point is sometimes the professionals make mistakes, sometimes at the cost of another life. I'm not saying that they shouldn't be allowed to make a decision without consent from the gov't, but I believe there should at least be some guidelines in place to ensure doctors will make a proper diagnosis, even though it may be nigh impossible. I know what I'm about to say may sound rather cruel and anti-life, but sometimes, a person may be fated to not live past the age of 20, either because their ailment will kill them while doctors try their hardest to make a proper diagnosis, or because the doctors make a "guessed" diagnosis and prescribe a drug that may very well result in that person's death. I know this sounds like I hate life, but I don't, because sometimes, that's just the way things are.

 

-------------------------------------------------------------------

 

In all, my opinion of society in general is very low. We have become so dependant upon the so-called "almighty wonder pill", a cure-all and end-all of all disease, which, I can tell you right here and now, doesn't exist, and never will exist. And in the meantime, we have become so detatched from one another that nobody really cares about their neightbours or even their family.

[Marxist ßastard]

Sugar isn't an additive.

You know what? I say it is. If you can find an actual definition of the word that contradicts my usage, then I'll just point out that one of the primary dietary sources of sugar --- high fructose corn syrup --- most certainly is.

 

...But once again, I doubt that you'll find a coherent definition of the word that actually fits the connotation that you're implying. That's just one of the risks of relying on buzzwords to generate a fear-based response in people.

 

Vagrant is talking about all those ingredients you find in the nutrition facts that you can't even pronounce.

I can pronounce them. Does that make them non-hazardous to me?

 

Sugar, brown sugar (so far so good)

You see, what gets me so upset is that people like you look at problems like a high obesity/diabetes rate and hyperactivity and completely ignore the fact that two different kinds of sugar are within the list of top four ingredients by mass in cereals like this. Instead, you just immediately jump to the least rational scenario you could possibly think up.

 

derived from coal tar, yummy

And there's the very close runner-up: the self-proclaimed chemical engineer who thinks he knows better than the real thing because he dug up some useless trivia on Wikipedia. I'm not even going to waste the effort trying to explain the difference between a product and a precursor to you; look it up yourself.

 

exposure to zinc oxide in the air can result in a nervous malady called excessive citing of unreliable sources

...Which would be a concern if you snorted the cereal. That would make a very colorful serving suggestion.

 

BHT (banned for use in food in Japan (1958), Romania, Sweden, and Australia; used as an antioxidant in cosmetics, pharmaceutical drugs, jet fuels, rubber, petroleum products, and embalming fluid)

Yes, because some people came to the conclusion that it may be carcinogenic. Others, not so much.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_additives_in_cigarettes

Excuse me, but I looked very hard and couldn't find any evidence showing that one would not be at risk for any adverse health effects if he smoked all-natural cigarettes. In fact, I couldn't even find where it says that --- it just looks like, you know, a list. Was the page blanked since then?