I doubt the safety of methylphenidate (Ritalin, concerta, metadate). A small, preliminary study in texas was the first ever performed to address if methylphenidate had any genotoxic effects in human. [1] Before that, methylphenidate was considered safe for human usage, supported by animal testing and statistical research.
Dr. Jacobson-kram[2], however, has claimed that after genotoxic effects take place, this increases the chance of developing a tumor 20, 30, 40 years later after exposure.
Dr. Jacobson-kram[2] provided the info that there is no study that addresses the incidence of cancer with methylphenidate usage concerning 20, 30 or 40 years after exposure.
The Texan study gave unfortunate results. In 12 children there was a threefold increase in chromosome abnormalities. The question remains how much the risk for cancer will increase on the long run (20, 30 or 40 years) and if the genotoxic effects are permanent or not.
References:
[1] Randa A. el Zein ea., Cytogenetic effects in children treated with methylphenidate,
http://psychrights.org/Drugs/cytogenetic-ritalin.pdf
[2] U.S. Food and drug administration, Pediatrics advisory committee (transcript),
http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/ac/05/transcripts/2005-4152 t2_Transcript.pdf
Quotes:
[2] DR. BIER: I just wanted to know a little more about the predictability issue. I mean is this a predictability issue when you have one hit, and an acute set of studies where you find this, and then the medication stops and then we're talking about cancer 20 years later? Or is this a repeated hits in people who take the medication over time?
What's the predictability? Is this from acute studies or is this from repeated studies?
DR. JACOBSON-KRAM: You mean --
DR. BIER: Well, if you have a positive chromatid exchanges, is that from a set of studies where we measured this once when a person started on the medication and gets cancer later? Or are you just talking about the frequency of those exchanges in people who have cancer?
DR. JACOBSON-KRAM: Oh, no, no, these endpoints are indicative of genetic changes that are occurring as a result of some exposure which initiate the carcinogenic process that results in a tumor 20, 30, 40 years later.
DR. BIER: Are there any data on these kind of specific tests done in the population prospectively now for cancers later?
DR. JACOBSON-KRAM: Not that I'm aware of. That would be a difficult study to do. It would take 30, 40 years to do that. Now, for example, you can ? there are some chemicals which are known to be human carcinogens. We know that epidemiologically. We can then lo ok at populations who are exposed to those chemicals, and also controls. And what we find is, in fact, those people with the exposures have higher frequencies of these markers.
Steven D38834.5564236111IMAC - Am I suffering from deja vu too?? No one was more electified by the Texas study than I, however, what people don't realize is no one is coming up with any alternatives and as I said in my post on the first thread relating to this study - which evil is worse - the chromosomal change or the myriad ugly possibilities of the child's (or adults) life without it. We eat certain foods and chemicals everyday that in 30, 40 or 50 years from now may cause cancer in us, but we still eat them! I must add that I am referring to those children and adults that simply cannot cope without being on the drug(s), not the borderline cases (of which I am sure there are many) that perhaps do not really need these medications in the first place.This study is getting old as far as I'm concerned. After 30 plus years of Ritalin being used regularly with children and adults with ADHD if the chromasomal damage was as severe as they lead us to believe then we should at this point be seeing an epidemic of adults in their 40s with tumors and other related illnesses that can be led back to the use of Ritalin. We haven't.
Take antioxidants. At first they were heralded as the great healer in the naturopathic world. Now they find that antioxidants can tear through cells and DNA if used in large amounts. Yet even they haven't led to a rise in cancer.
Human DNA is resilient. We have our cells shredded daily with ultraviolet exposure, magnetic fields, exposure to the components of petrochemicals (in particular tolulene), plastics, etc. Our body immediately begins to destroy the old damaged cells and bring forth new ones to replace them. That's one of the things that all life forms are built to do!
Quit dwelling on potential (very low potential indeed!) problems and weigh them against the great benefits. I for one am sick of this debate!
Honestly I have heard all of these scare tactics before, and I haven't ever seen one that turned out to have any significant danger behind it. Even if a well respected and properly researched study came out tomorrow, I wouldn't care.
My life has changed so much for the better since I began taking these medications. Even if someone convinced me that any of this was true, I would rather live my life to the fullest every day than go back to the fog and chaos. Honestly, without treatment I would probably have killed myself by now either in some stupid careless accident or on purpose out of constant misery. I would rather face early death, senility, cancer, and not have kids than live like I did before my diagnosis.
You can protect yourself from genotoxic effects:
eat fruit and tomatoes (they contain retinoids and lycopene).
vitamin E supplement (antioxidant).
Resveratrol supplements.
Source:
http://www.academicjournals.org/AJB/PDF/Pdf2004/Dec/Farombi. pdf