Foods and Concerta | ADHD Information
Anyone know where I can get a list of foods to avoid?
I am taking 36 mg Concerta and just wondering which ones to avoid.
Thanks :)
Nothing is banned while eating - just eat a well-balanced diet!
Acids like citrus fruit and vitamin C are not good while taking our meds (just take them when not needing focus.
Antacids of all kinds are out - they increase the effect in unpredicable ways.
And plenty of water!
NO. RITALIN IS CANCEROUS. GET YOUR KID OFF THAT CRAP FAST WHATEVER YOU DO. CHECK OUT RITALIN...CONCERTA, FOCALIN, METADATE, METHYLIN AND MORE .... IS RITALIN. CHECK OUT CHROMOSOMAL CHANGES, CHECK OUT THE TEXAS STUDY..ALL 12 KIDS HAD SIGNIFICANT CHROMOSOMAL CHANGES AFTER A SHORT TIME...THAT'S GENETIC DAMAGE FOLKS, HELLO?
ignore binformed. He is 14 and a child of scientologists. The proof is in the postings that he cuts and pastes - all from the scientologist-paid webpage ritalindeath.org. They want to see all medications disappear even if all non-scientologists have to suffer or even die.
bump
why are citrus fruits and VC not good? Anzie
what do antacids do? What about alcohol?
coug89
it's recommended that you not take any citrus fruits with your meds. That includes the vitamin c supplements (either ascorbic acid or citric acid). They decrease the effectiveness of the stim meds and just will waste your meds and make you feel less effect.
Antacids are out too - they can dangerously increase the effect in unpredictable ways.
Alcohol is a no-brainer. Noone should ever mix their medications with excess alcohol. One beer most likely won't cause grief but you take your medication to focus so why would you drink and decrease your attention?
Most of the above can be taken after the useful duration of your meds - for SR types that's about 2 to 4 hours and XR 6 to 8 hours.
And how are beggars supposed to know that?
What idiot. It was a sincere point that I made. Why do we still have beggars begging for 1 dollar if more then 50 millions are collected and spent like that. The directors of Novartis or the shareholders would all have 3 villa's and 3 mercedes in each villa. And there would be no poverty.
Still I do believe that studies are expensive, ofcourse....
Hi, Vickie,
I'm sorry for the outburst but it anoys me something awful when people come on here and use what I call scare tactics to get children off meds!
I hope the meds do work well for your daughter. I am finding ythe 36mg. to work really well, he still has his silly personality but he is way more controlled about being silly and implusive at inappropriate times. I do find I have to give him med breaks once every 2 weeks or so. I will notice all the regular behaviours coming back and then he goes off for 1 day on the weekend and everthing seems to be back in check. We pick a day that he is staying home and relaxing(what he calls relaxing). Anyway good luck to you and keep me posted on if everything is going well for you and your daughter.
KYTY
[QUOTE=Steven D]If it were really true that drug companies spent hundreds of millions of dollars on drug development or billions, then why wouldn't all the beggars beg for money before the Novartis headquarters? You don't have to answer this silly question, but you do get my point. Why is Novartis headquarters not being robbed everyday? Why don't other companies send spies to steal their technology worth millions?
[/QUOTE]
Idiot.
LOL funny, but mildly mean if Steven D wasn't trying to be funny. Either way the word "idiot" after reading that quote made me laugh.Perhaps scientists, but more expensively doctors. A doctor practicing in a large city pays well over 0,000.00 a year in insurance alone simply to open their doors to treat people.
In the US, medicine is huge business. A couple of years ago, I worked for a small company that made back braces. I was one of 30 people in my department. My one small little piece was to manage the accounts and get payment for .6 million dollars at any given moment.
That isn't research, no doctors employed, no medical malpractice insurance to buy. That doesn't include hiring the attorney to make sure everything complies with legal/licensing requirements. (as expensive as the doctor, if not more so)
million dollars is a lot of money to the little people like us. But, It is not a big statement in the medical industry. It costs more than 0 mil to make a new drug. The US prescription drug market was worth approximately 0 BILLION in 2002.
[quote]Actually, it doesn't mean there is something going on. million is pocket change for a medical study in this country.[/quote]
Really? What do you think they would do with the 2 mils? I would think they hire scientists or so. 2 mils can provide 2.000 people with 2 months of food and shelter.
Steven D38882.9874074074Are you sure it's that expensive? I can barely believe it. Maybe you are being lied to by the drug companies... I can honestly think of reasons why they would...Studies can be that expensive. Costs of clinical trials vary depending on the clinical trial, the number of subjects, the length of followup and the costs of labs and other procedures use as study parameters. The studies (past not current) that I have been involved with ran between million (early phase I, 8 subjects) - million (pase III 3000 subjects), without counting company overhead during the study period. Those all involved either expensive cellular therapies or large study populations. With the time and money it takes to run studies, a small company can run out of the money it needs to survive before apporval, or can get to the end of the study and not show sufficient efficacy or safety to get market approval.
Animal studies to show enough safety to get approval to even start a human clinical trial can be just as expensive, especially if using non-human primates.
Wow that's quite a lot of money. I believe you are honest and you know much about these studies. Still I don't get how these companies get and spend the millions of dollars. Okey, 3 million and 25 million I believe, but I can hardly imagine how one can accumulate and spend more then 50 millions on drug development. I mean, you and Reisa write as if millions of bucks are just spend like sand, but still we have poverty in some countries. I find it strange how pharmaceutical companies can spend billions of dollars, while millions of people are starving and don't have the they need to buy some food. If money is just like sand, why don't we transfer 20 million dollars to unicef to solve the poverty problem??
Sure, I do believe that drug development is expensive, costing millions of dollars, but when I look at these numbers I feel that it can't be right. I have learned that it is important to question the information that is presented to someone. I will give you an example...
So if you look on internet on chernobyl casualties then you will find that one source states that there were no causulties by the chernobyl accident and some sources stating that there were many... Information is contradicting sometimes... It's important not to believe everything. Russia will say there are no casualties for example. Don't believe it. Some sources are more accurate then others.. So I don't know what to believe. I can explain this to you more if you like.
Steven D38883.5016550926If it were really true that drug companies spent hundreds of millions of dollars on drug development or billions, then why wouldn't all the beggars beg for money before the Novartis headquarters? You don't have to answer this silly question, but you do get my point. Why is Novartis headquarters not being robbed everyday? Why don't other companies send spies to steal their technology worth millions?
Then, if it was true, there would be plenty of jobs in the pharmaceutical company. Well paid jobs, you could earn at least 3.000 dollars a month if you worked at a drug company. And you got 4.000 collegues too and they earn 3.000 dollars a month. And the boss would never have to sack anyone, while they spend millions and millions of dollars.
I know a world of poverty. Not a world of millions of dollars.
It really upsets some of us who feel we are doing whats right for us and or our children. I think anyone who has such awful things to say about something that is very hard for mothers to deal with sould wait untill they have children of their own and see what it's like!!!! I have had alot of tial and error with different meds. for my son and we have now got him on 36mg. of concerta. It has made his grades improve. He now has formed friendships and least of all he feels good. We are all getting along in our family now and it has been a long road. If your not a DOCTOR keep your opinions to yourself and get off this website. We don't want you here!
You can google "US prescription drug market" and see. I used the lower end of the estimates I saw. Hi kyty,
I am so happy that your son in on a med that is working for him. My daughter just started Concerta (18mg) and is not seeing any improvement (or side effects). Unfortunately, the timing of starting her meds was poor. We will not be able to increase until the Dr. gets back from vacation early next month. But school will be out, so we wont be able to fully evaluate any dose change. She may go to summer school because of failed grages, so we shall see.
I helps tremendously to hear the successes of other children on this board, as well as hear the stories of adults who wish they would have been treated as kids.
thank you
[quote]It really upsets some of us who feel we are doing whats right for us and or our children. I think anyone who has such awful things to say about something that is very hard for mothers to deal with sould wait untill they have children of their own and see what it's like!!!! I have had alot of tial and error with different meds. for my son and we have now got him on 36mg. of concerta. It has made his grades improve. He now has formed friendships and least of all he feels good. We are all getting along in our family now and it has been a long road. If your not a DOCTOR keep your opinions to yourself and get off this website. We don't want you here!
[/quote]
I'm not a doctor, but I can refer to real toxicologists, which are doctors. I do not feel bad about anything I have posted about the possibility that ritalin might be cancer causing. I have been studying this topic some time. I have read from literature that it usually takes 20 or 30 years for cancer to develop from some chemical exposure (Ruddon, Cancer biology). Meaning that your children might live far less then their usual lifespan if ritalin is genotoxic. Knowing that, I do not feel sorry about what I have posted.
Please read the study. It's written by professors of toxicology.
http://psychrights.org/Drugs/cytogenetic-ritalin.pdf
Quote:
In conclusion, the lack of research on the long-term effects of methylphenidate use in humans warrants great concern.
If it does not concern you, then just wait a few years to see what happens. I never told you that concerta is bad or so... I won't advice you to do anything. It's up to yourself....
And to add to this children may even be more vulnerable to genotoxins, because their cells are less differentiated. And they have a higher proliferation rate (Ruddon, Cancer biology). And to add to this I believe that gene damage might inhibit proliferation (causing senescence) and so their development too. That is probably why methylphenidate causes growth (length + weight) attenuation. If this is true, then this growth attenuation will never completely catch up. So I believe I have plenty of good reasons to post this.
[quote]I helps tremendously to hear the successes of other children on this board, as well as hear the stories of adults who wish they would have been treated as kids.[/quote]
Well, if it works out so well for them, maybe the benefits really outweight the possible risks.. Then they must have made the right choice.
Read this too:
http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/ac/05/transcripts/2005-4152 t2_Transcript.pdf
It's from the FDA. They are discussing the study.
Steven D38884.359212963No... According to the texan study 3 months of ritalin is just a hazardous as cleaning up chernobyl.
But.. It's just one study... You do what you want and you believe what you want. But don't complain to me afterwards that you or a family member is having tumors.
The ritalin upsurge started around 1990-2000. If the study proves true we might be flooded with cancer cases around 2010. So be prepared.
Yes binformed. It's gene damage and it may even be permanent gene damage. You don't see it, unless you have a good microscope. You only see the effects decades later when you see a tumor.http://www.fda.gov/oc/oms/ofm/budget/2007/HTML/Tables/Source soffunding.htm
National Institutes of Health
,977,343
,020,845
Evaluation of genetic toxicity and behavioral effects of chrnic methylphenidate exposure
Your government is researching the link between ritalin/ concerta and cancer. Look above. So now you have to believe me that something is going on. Why would your government spend 2 mills of dollars on research? Because they have too much tax money????
I mean your government must consist of clever people, musn't it. Now, your government puts a tremendous amount of effort to asses this link. So there must be something going on. Btw.. I'm from the Netherlands. The entire world is dependent on your government's research too. So that's what I am waiting for.. For these study results.
Steven D38882.5235069444Well the FDA isn't my government agency but ok.
2 million american bucks doesn't buy much. That makes for a small and isolated test in comparison to tests done on the cox2 inhibitors, etc. which got many more millions in testing dollars.
The reason they are spending any money at all on this is the lobbyist from Texas who are paid for by the homeopathic industry and are set on removing all medications from the mainstream in order to get more business. It's as simple as that. Lobbies make money in the US - and they get influence to peddle more than any other group.
The genentic question is important and should be expored, as there are a significant number of people on these meds. That being said:
1) The above spending is for genetic toxicity and behavoral effects...There are many interesting aspects of these meds that can be researched and clinical studies are very expensive.
2) Just because there are studies planned, does not mean the results are already known (why would you study a question that has an answer already). In fact, it is part of good science to determine if a study can be replicated, and to further explore the questions opened up by the study results. Another example is assuming there is merit in a lawsuit just because one is filed (if this were true, California would not have enacted the SLAPP statutes).
3) There has not been a rash of cancers attributed to sugar substitutes.
4) The US government has spent many millions of dollars in a not so useful manner; see the golden fleece awards for a small taste of how the US government has spent taxpayer money wisely.
http://www.taxpayer.net/awards/goldenfleece/recent.htm
Just my thoughts.
vickie38882.5678356482[quote]2) Just because there are studies planned, does not mean the results are already known (why would you study a question that has an answer already). In fact, it is part of good science to determine if a study can be replicated, and to further explore the questions opened up by the study results. Another example is assuming there is merit in a lawsuit just because one is filed (if this were true, California would not have enacted the SLAPP statutes). [/quote]
duh.... I'm not stupid you know. But I have heard your FDA is usually sluggish and now they are quick... Like 911. I heard your FDA usually is more sluggish as a slug when it comes to examining adverse effects. And they usually examine things after hunderds of people have died. Or millions of petitions signed. Or I may be wrong. And now they react so quick...
[quote]4) The US government has spent many millions of dollars in a not so useful manner; see the golden fleece awards for a small taste of how the US government has spent taxpayer money wisely. http://www.taxpayer.net/awards/goldenfleece/recent.htm [/quote]
Bad government. So my you have too much tax money to waste huh? And your government puts 2 million of tax money in something completely worthless????
Don't you forget that tax money comes from your pocket also. YOU have to work harder to pay for this government 2 mil dollars study... And it's 4 million if you add 2007 with it.
Steven D38882.6983101852Like again, you can just ignore the cautionary sign and hope not to get cancer...
Or you could maybe do some research...
It's up to you.
I never said that ritalin was carcinogenic. But it is a possibility.
Is it possible that abnormalities in ADHD people's genes or whatever is higher than the 'normal' population? Has a genetic study been done for non treated vs treated ADHD?
Just wondering......
[QUOTE=Steven D]
http://www.fda.gov/oc/oms/ofm/budget/2007/HTML/Tables/Source soffunding.htm
National Institutes of Health
,977,343
,020,845
Evaluation of genetic toxicity and behavioral effects of chrnic methylphenidate exposure
Your government is researching the link between ritalin/ concerta and cancer. Look above. So now you have to believe me that something is going on. Why would your government spend 2 mills of dollars on research? Because they have too much tax money????
I mean your government must consist of clever people, musn't it. Now, your government puts a tremendous amount of effort to asses this link. So there must be something going on. Btw.. I'm from the Netherlands. The entire world is dependent on your government's research too. So that's what I am waiting for.. For these study results.
[/QUOTE]
Actually, it doesn't mean there is something going on. million is pocket change for a medical study in this country. Drug studies and medical research are all about competition among various drug companies. Find some way to make the FDA cast doubts on your competitor's product, then get them to say great things about yours.
Where do you get the idea steven that 3 months of Ritalin is equivalent to cleaning Chernobyl??!??
During the cleanup of Chernobyl even protected there was such massive damage to DNA that cancer was prevalent in many people. Even limiting exposure to the minimum allowable often wasn't enough protection. And yet you compare the two?
One single test showed some chromasomal damage in one single group from one geographical area. Just one. Yet you put weight behind it?!?
Many things could attribute to the children showing some minor chromasomal damage. Exposure to a localized mutagen. Electromagnetic exposure. Even testing error hasn't been ruled out (cannot be with only one group tested). And no cancers in the test group (or any group using Ritalin for that matter).
Ritalin doesn't cause cancer. After over 50 years of use on a global scale it would have shown up in massive amounts in rare and easily traced cancers (leukemia, brain tumors, liver cancer, etc.). There would be no mistake after half a century if the case was there.
And now Ritalin and the other ADHD meds are being used successfully to treat people with palliative cancers of the brain to regain normal thought processes. Every time ADHD meds are used - it shows how useful they truly are.
This whole test was a paper tiger - absolutely no basis and therefore no teeth.
Try again.
I have been researching this topic for quite some time. I do understand what chromosomal aberrations are and what this research means. I read it in literature. I am worried, because the 3 fold increase in chromosomal aberrations is quite huge. Even Chernobyl workers have 3 CA per 100 cells in their blood. It is comparable with the children in texas after treatment.
[quote]One single test showed some chromasomal damage in one single group from one geographical area. Just one. Yet you put weight behind it?!?[/quote]
The geographical area isn't relevant. It is relevant for statistical studies. Yes, the study has weight...
The test was the first ever conducted. And it is better then the animal tests (rats and mice) that were previously used for carcinogenicity screening.
And cancer developes very slowly. IF someone uses ritalin between 1990, he could get cancer in 2020. It's a very slow process. Compare with asbestos.
[quote]Ritalin doesn't cause cancer. After over 50 years of use on a global scale it would have shown up in massive amounts in rare and easily traced cancers (leukemia, brain tumors, liver cancer, etc.). There would be no mistake after half a century if the case was there.[/quote]
There was relative less ritalin usage before 1990-1995. The usage expanded between 1990-2000. So the first adverse health effects should be detected around 2010. Time will tell.
I didn't conclude that ritalin caused cancer. But it is a possiblity. So how do I find out??? it's easy.
In fact, the FDA is studying this topic. So we don't have certainty yet. Let's wait and see.... I'm going to ask you in this forum if you are still healthy.
So how will I know if ritalin causes cancer? I'll just wait a few years and see if you people are suffering from cancer. Plain simple.
Steven D38882.0383796296[quote]This whole test was a paper tiger - absolutely no basis and therefore no teeth.[/quote]
Time will tell.
Please read the study and compare it with other studies:
http://psychrights.org/Drugs/cytogenetic-ritalin.pdf
Steven D38882.0524305556[QUOTE=thecrozz]Anyone know where I can get a list of foods to avoid?
I am taking 36 mg Concerta and just wondering which ones to avoid.
Thanks :)
[/QUOTE]
Well I hate green beans. Oh, wait! That wasn't the question was it? Geez, all you peeps with an axe to grind, go to the debate board!
Just don't drink juice or take vitamin C within an hour of your meds. Dunno about antacids.
Compare the texan study with chernobyl:
AbstractThe frequency of chromosomal aberrations was evaluated in more than 500 liquidators of the Chernobyl accident. The ‘sarcophagus’ builders and the dosimetrists showed the highest frequency of aberrations per 100 cells: 3.24 ± 0.25 and 3.11 ± 0.43. For Chernobyl Atomic Power Station staff members the mean frequencies of aberrations per 100 cells was 2.37 ± 0.20. The mean yields of aberrations in the other groups was between 1.31 and 1.47 per 100 cells.
When I search sciencedirect I got a feeling that we are going to make it into the guiness book of record.
Treatment with cyclophosphamide:
Therapeutically treated patients showed statistically higher baseline SCE frequencies than untreated control patients with a mean SCE/cell of 6.95 vs. 5.25, p < 0.016.
6.95 vs 5.25 SCE per cell
Ritalin treatment: 26.27 vs 6.09 SCE per cell
Steven D38882.1457175926The extraordinarily high frequency shown in the study should be the first sign that something wasn't right in testing. I have yet to hear of repeats on this test showing backup correlative data to reinforce it.
Also - chromasomes break down normally. Cancer comes when the chromasomes are damaged but not fragmented. Big difference. The Chernobyl chromasomal damage left them intact but broken in key spots that induce cancer. Radiation does that. Also radiation continues to break down DNA in the body after exposure as the cells are now reactive due to the exposure.
Even free radicals in food, water and air damage chromasomes. So does cosmic rays, xrays, etc. The body is constantly flushing out dead cells that have fragmented chromasomes - it's the bodies' way of "error correction". The key would be if they could connect damage to existing live cells in ways that could lead to carcinomas. Haven't seen that - only supposition from the anti-med groups that is at the moment hyperbole.
Ritalin has been in use for over half a century in narcoleptics and ADHD kids. As I said the cancers should be rampant if there was a connection. We wouldn't have to wait 10 years - it would be making thalidomide look like a bad summer cold epidemic. There would be no doubt by now.
Why villianize a useful, working medication with far less risk to the population than meds like viagra, aspirin - even penicillin??
[quote]The extraordinarily high frequency shown in the study should be the first sign that something wasn't right in testing. I have yet to hear of repeats on this test showing backup correlative data to reinforce it.[/quote]
Maybe it is and maybe it is not.
[quote]Also - chromasomes break down normally. Cancer comes when the chromasomes are damaged but not fragmented. Big difference. The Chernobyl chromasomal damage left them intact but broken in key spots that induce cancer. Radiation does that. Also radiation continues to break down DNA in the body after exposure as the cells are now reactive due to the exposure. [/quote]
Ofcourse they tested stable chromosomes. Otherwise the study would not have any predictive value. It does have predictive value, because some of the endpoints tested are linked to cancer risk.
[quote]Ritalin has been in use for over half a century in narcoleptics and ADHD kids. As I said the cancers should be rampant if there was a connection. We wouldn't have to wait 10 years - it would be making thalidomide look like a bad summer cold epidemic. There would be no doubt by now.[/quote]
The problem is that cancer needs decades to develop after exposure. And there are no long-term research results regarding ritalin usage. There are absolutely no studies that adressed people who used ritalin on the long term to examine for cancer incidence. So it is quite a dangerous situation.
Also, there was quite little ritalin usage before 1990. The upsurge began in 1990-2000. In this period the ritalin usage expanded greatly. So I postulate that these negative health effects can only be seen in 2010. We wait and we will see.
I believe there are 2 possibilities:
The texan study was not valid or does not have the associalted long term negative health effects.
Or
The texan study proves valid. Then, knowing that ritalin usage has increased dramatically between 1990-1995, there will be the associated negative health effects in the future. Starting now and we see the frequency of negative health effects increasing in the future. Which means we will see increasing cancer cases.
So how do we find out?
The FDA is conducting studies. We should get information about this from the FDA. Unfortunately I am in the Netherlands. Call the FDA and ask them about these studies. I never said that ritalin caused cancer. But I believe it is a possibility.
If the second alternative is true, I would urge you to start a chemoprevention diet. Fruits for example, they contain phytochemicals. Many of them can prevent cancer development. Meaning that you may live longer by using these phytochemicals.
Steven D38882.3041435185