Homeopathic Remedies for ADHD Vs ADHD Prescription Drugs - Determining The Best Treatment Option

Okay, so little Johnny or precious, but seemingly always energized little Sara, have been diagnosed with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) with the next step being to select the treatment option that will manage their symptoms safely and effectively without breaking the bank. The advice parents likely will receive typically varies greatly depending on what type of specialist is treating the condition.

For example if your child's primary care physician is a general practitioner he/she is likely to suggested one of a number of stimulant medications (Ritalin, Adderall, etc..), if your child's specialist is a psychiatrist or psychologist behavior modification therapy will likely be the favored course of action, and if they are a holistic practitioner your child will likely be provided a comprehensive natural threatment plan referred to as a full spectrum approach including herbal or homeopathic remedies.

So that brings us to our topic of homeopathic remedies for ADHD vs ADHD prescription drugs. We will leave out behavioral therapy or behavior modification since all parties agree it works and would be a good addition to either homeopathic ADHD remedies or ADHD prescription drugs.

At this point you can stop hyperventilating, take a couple of deep breaths, and get ready to begin your investigative journey to find answers.

Which treatment will deliver the best result?

This is tricky one as there is a case to be made for both ADHD prescription drugs and homeopathic remedies for ADHD.

Volumes of well documented research tell us that prescription drugs for attention deficit disorder will produce good results in the short-term about 75 percent of the time. The caveat is the longer they are used the less effective they tend to be (NIMH study).

Stimulant medications solely treat the symptoms and in no way heal the underlying cause. In other words they are nothing more than a symptom management tool that requires almost perfect daily dosage amounts to provide optimal results.

Homeopathic remedies for ADHD seem to be slightly less effective overall showing to be effective in approximately seven out of ten cases. Millions of natural herbal or homeopathic remedies for attention deficit hyperactivity disorder have been sold with parents of ADHD children generally giving this form of treatment very high marks.

One notable advantage for these types of medications is that they may provide long-term benefits. According to one British study examining the benefits of homeopathic remedies when taken by ADHD children the long-term benefits were in the 50 percent range.

What about safety?

Stimulant medications have a long list of possible side effects including stunted growth (though normally temporary), loss of appetite, nervousness, insomnia, changes in personality, skin rashes, headaches, facial tics, and one study published by the National Institute of Health even correlated their use with heart failure and blood pressure issues.

Can you imagine any parent saying "My little Johnny is a foot shorter than his classmates, can't sleep, gets really nervous, and might keel over any day but boy has his grades improved."?

Homeopathy which is the science of natural dilutions is one of the safest forms of medicine known to man. Currently there are no documented cases of side effects when used for the treatment of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder in either children or adults.

Affordability

You can expect to pay around $30 a month for most homeopathic remedies for ADHD. As far a prescription medications go if your insurance is picking up the tab on a co-pay the cost is likely to be about a wash. If your insurance covers the cost of the medications then stimulants will be the more affordable option. On the other hand, if you are without insurance or your insurance plan will not pick up the cost for alternative treatments then homeopathic remedies will likely be far less expensive.

Choosing the right natural remedy

This is a complicated issue with most well established natural health companies providing a well trained support team to talk to parents about exactly these types of concerns. I would advise you to take advantage of this type of free resource in order to make the most informed decision possible.

From my perspective as an independent researcher much will depend on the number of symptoms and whether or not a co-existing condition such as ODD, OCD, depression, or bi-polar disorder are present, and to what degree. Many of the newer homeopathic remedies for treating child ADHD have over 20 ingredients to cover a broader spectrum of symptoms.

On the other hand one of the best selling homeopathic remedies for ADHD children of all time contains only four ingredients. They are hyoscyamus, arsen iod, verta alb, and tuberculinum.

In conclusion, as you might guess being a natural health guy I lean toward natural remedies primarily due to safety and long-term unknowns. That said, parents should consult with their doctor, mental health professional, or natural health specialist to find the right treatment solution as ADHD symptoms can vary greatly from child to child.

Robert D. Hawkins is an enthusiastic consumer advocate for natural health and natural living with over 10 years experience in the field. To discover more about ADHD along with information about safe and effective all natural herbal and homeopathic ADHD remedies Click Here

NATO's Policy of Afghan Drugs

It boggles one's mind how twisted the official American logic is. The New York Times writes about the reluctance of NATO to eradicate the deadly crops and heroin laboratories in Afghanistan, explaining it by the chicaneries behind the formulations in the new NATO mandate and the concern about poor Afghan farmers 'toiling' in poppy fields.

'The drug trade (Afghanistan produces from 93 up per cent of the world heroin - H. S.) is estimated to account for about half of Afghanistan's meager economy, and some of the nation's poorest people, including farmers who toil in the poppy fields, are dependent on incomes that flow directly or indirectly from narcotics... Mr. Karzai has also opposed the forceful eradication of poppy crops, something that did not appear to be sanctioned by the new NATO mandate... According to the recent United Nations survey, 98 percent of Afghanistan's opium comes from seven provinces in the southwest, with no opium at all produced in half of the country's 34 provinces. The bulk of the NATO troops operating in the southwest come from the United States, Britain, Canada and Denmark... Together with the United States, Britain and Canada have already taken the heaviest casualties among the NATO nations fighting the Taliban and Al Qaeda, with NATO troops who have died in the seven-year war now approaching 1,000, including more than 600 Americans. (New York Times, October 11, 2008) End quote.

Amazing! Thus the troops, stationed in Afghanistan, and in many ways causing the grim situation there, are the main sufferers and potential victims... Not hundreds of thousands of the young Russian, Tajikistani, Kirgizstani, Uzbekistani, Kazakhstani, etc. who have fallen victims to the narcoagression (in Russia in some years up to 100,000 people a year).

During more than seven years of occupation the what meager economy Afghanistan had has been ruined, the infrastructure destroyed, industries hamstrung. While under Taliban the opium production was kept low, during the NATO occupation Afghanistan has become a legalized narcostate, a corporation of heroin production and genocidal traffic.

The logic cleared from the hypocrisy seems to be as follows. What is the annual loss of 100,000 young representatives of low-priority nations in comparison with the risks for NATO soldiers and the stability of Afghan narcoecomony?

But the real rationale, as some see it, may lie deeper still. Was it not Allan Dulles and Co. who advocated the reduction of the number of Russians to some 30-50 mln? Was it not Margaret Thatcher who once mentioned that only 15 mln people were economically justified on the territory of the USSR? Was it not Bill Clinton who echoed her?... The logical link seems obvious - we are subject to partial eradication and partial colonization.

Below I tabulate the data, illustrating the dynamics of opium production during 2000-2007.

(from http://narkotiki.ru/ocomments_6613.html)

Sown areas of opium poppies (thousand hectares)

2000 - 82

2001 - 8

2002 - 74

2003 - 80

2004 - 131

2005 - 104

2006 - 165

2007 - 193

Amount of opium produced (ton)

2000 - 3300

2001 - 185

2002 - 3400

2003 - 3600

2004 - 4200

2005 - 4100

2006 - 6100

2007 - 8200

Equivalent to heroin amount (ton)

2000 - 330

2001 - 18,5

2002 - 340

2003 - 360

2004 - 420

2005 - 410

2006 - 610

2007 - 820

As we see, since 2001 - the moment of bringing the NATO and American troops into Afghanistan - the production of opiates and heroin has increased 2-2.5 times. There is a streamlined credit and financial system and well-developed warehousing logistics to support the production and storage of narcotics. According to recent data, over 1,000 ton of pure heroin are stored in Afghan warehouses to serve as an 'insurance fund', damping the seasonal fluctuations of poppy crops. It is not surprising that banks willingly credit the farmers, engaged in opium production, which shows the lack of any serious risks.

According to Viktor Ivanov, head of the Russian Federal Service of Narcotics Control, this fact needs a serious analysis from the geopolitical perspective; the same is true about using narcomoney to influence the economic, political and other areas of life on the post-Soviet territory, among other things, to boost terrorism in the Caucasus. The problem of narcotics is also named as a reason for NATO advancement to the former Soviet republics (Kirgizstan, Tajikistan, etc.)

Let me turn your attention to the situation in Russia, where I belong. While there was an insignificant percentage of drug addiction when the 'iron curtain' was firmly in place to shield the USSR and socialist states from 'bourgeois influence', during the 20 years which followed the addiction has grown dramatically. Now, according to official statistics, about 2 per cent of the Russian population abuse narcotics, most of them - the 'heavy' ones of the opium group. And as clinical practice shows, those who regularly take heroin die within 5-7 years. In Russia the annual number of the deceased addicts ranges from 30,000 to 100,000 (predominantly young people), which is several times more than the death toll of the 10-year-long war of the USSR in Afghanistan. The supermortality of drug addicts at their stable total number means the systematic hidden inflow of new addicts instead of those quitting by death. Their contingent fully renews every 6-7 years, and the recruiting of young people never stops. It is a hidden Moloch, day by day gorging the young population of Russia.

But those addicts who remain to live also prove to be lost for the society, are excluded from social life and get involved in a criminal activity, recruiting new and new people. As a rule, they act as retailers of narcotics, working for wholesalers to earn a dose and relieve the 'breaking'. The established number of people convicted for narcocriminal activity is comparable to the number of servicemen in the Russian Army.

It is noteworthy, that the use of narcotics in Russia exceeds that in the European Union 8-10 times. This also testifies, apart from the proximity of Russia to the narcostate, to the directed narcoagression into Russia. The three main northern narco-streams from Afghanistan pass through Central Asia and Kazakhstan and lead to the Moscow Region, Urals and Siberia.

The social and economic consequences of the narcotic criminality in Russia are obvious: asocial and antisocial behavior, truncated fates, unborn children, and negative childbirth statistics in the situation of ongoing depopulation of the country. There is not a single family in Russia, which hasn't been confronted in some way with the problem of narcotics - all of them have relatives or acquaintances whose children have become addicted or died of narcotics.

Under the circumstances it is very strange to read in the New York Times of October 2, 2008, on page A8:

'The commander, Gen. David D. McKiernan, made clear that international troops in Afghanistan were not going to eradicate opium poppy crops. Afghanistan is the world's top supplier of opium poppies, which are processed into heroin.

But by drawing a clear link between the narcotics trade and its role in the insurgency, General McKiernan was outlining what could be an important and expanding role for American and NATO troops as they seek to eliminate a source of money and weapons for the insurgency.

"I think there's a need for increased involvement in I.S.A.F. in assisting the Afghan government in counternarcotics efforts," said General McKiernan, commander of NATO's International Security Assistance Force, or I.S.A.F. "Where we can make a clear intelligence linkage between a narcotics dealer or a facility and the insurgency, I consider that a force protection issue, and we can deal with that in a military way."

Well, perhaps it is sensible from the military viewpoint to selectively destroy only the crops and laboratories associated with the insurgents, but is it humane to continue conniving at the opium production? At whose expense is the shaky well-being of Afghanistan achieved? And why not co-operate with the CIS states (in the first place Russia, Kirgizstan, Turkmenistan, Tajikistan, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan) to resolve the situation? These issues await solutions.

Dying? No Risky Drugs For You! Texas Faces The Reality Of Inaccessible Experimental Drugs

Apparently, one's schedule of death is more of the court's business than most would believe. On August 7th, the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruled against terminally ill patients' right to try experimental drugs in an effort to save their own lives.

Judge Thomas B. Griffith said the freedom to use medications not approved by regulatory bodies was not rooted in the traditions and history of the United States, and therefore could not be legally sanctioned. Self-defense clauses in the Bill of Rights "cannot justify creating a constitutional right to assume any level of risk without regard to the scientific and medical judgment expressed through the clinical testing process," said Griffith.

For states like Texas, this is big news. Chronic diseases like diabetes are on the rise, without a definitive cure in sight. While not officially classified as a terminal illness, diabetes was listed as the sixth leading cause of death in the state; its incidence increased twenty-seven percent in Texas in just five years -- from 2000 to 2005. Approximately 1.3 million adults throughout Dallas, Austin, Houston and the rest of the state are currently diagnosed, and potentially fatal complications include cardiovascular disease (the number one killer of Americans), stroke, and hypertension. Amputations, eye disease, and chronic infections also occur.

Overall, a person with diabetes has a seventeen percent greater chance of being diagnosed with cardiovascular disease, an eight percent higher likelihood of suffering a stroke, and is forty-three percent more likely to develop hypertension. If terminally ill patients cannot gain access to experimental treatments without being one of the lucky ones included in certain stages of clinical trials, then it can be assured that those with chronic illnesses, no matter the level of associated complications, will also be denied.

Perhaps even more striking, sufferers of lung cancer (which is also a problem in Texas), HIV/AIDS, and multiple sclerosis would also be denied the choice, even though current treatment options either offer no cure, or only save a small minority of those diagnosed.

Most health insurance companies won't cover experimental treatments, but for many dying of an as-of-yet incurable illness, this is simply not the issue. It's that, coverage or no coverage, with or without the ability to pay, a drug that could save lives may exist, and may exist in enough quantity to provide treatment -- but still -- very few actually have access to it. With the only other option being death, many would rather take the risk of trying something.

The recent controversies over Vioxx, an arthritis medication found to increase the risk of certain heart problems, Avandia, a diabetic treatment believed capable of producing similar negative side effects, and Prilosec and Nexium, yet more seemingly innocuous drugs believed to increase the risk of heart attack and stroke, could call statements like Griffith's into even more question. If the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has not always shown the best judgment in releasing, or warning against, possibly dangerous drugs, it may also prove true that the same agency is not allowing access to possibly life-saving medications when it should, either.

The Abigail Alliance for Better Access to Developmental Drugs first filed the case in 2003, challenging the FDA's right to restrict medications shown to have the potential of saving or prolonging the lives of terminally ill patients, but had not yet completed full clinical trials. Founder of the Abigail Alliance, Frank Burroughs, said the group was "dumbfounded that most of the justices tragically missed the merits of the case," and made promises to take the issue to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Burroughs, who lost his daughter, Abigail, to cancer after a lengthy battle to gain access to medications that were then classified as experimental but were later approved, believes such drugs should be accessible to terminally ill patients after the first of three phases of clinical trial.

Joined by the Washington Legal Foundation, the Abigail Alliance argued that denying these patients the right to use experimental medications violated the Fifth Amendment, which states that one cannot be deprived of the right to life, liberty, or property without due process of law. Blocking such access means sufferers can not enact an adequate level of self-defense, said the Foundation.

Judge Judith W. Rogers, one of only two judges in the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit to rule for patients' right to choose, said it was "startling" that the "right to try to save one's life is left out in the cold, despite its [the 5th Amendment's due process clause] textual anchor in the right to life."

Opponents to open access to the medications, however, include more than just court officials. The National Organization for Rare Disorders, a patient advocacy group, responded by pointing out that drug companies would have less incentive to complete clinical trials to ensure the drugs were actually effective. There are reasons that not all experimental treatments hit the market.

The lifting of these restrictions would allow the industry to "profit from offering empty hope," said Robert Erwin of the Marti Nelson Cancer Foundation, another patient advocacy group.

Perhaps it simply comes down to a lack of faith -- in Americans' ability to make conscientious, high-stakes decisions about personal health. It's difficult to believe that the issue is actually a constitutional one; after all, we have the legal right to do a lot of things that aren't particularly good for us and, in fact, make absolutely no attempt to better our livelihoods. Drinking too much alcohol, smoking cigarettes, and eating horribly unhealthy food is, for instance, all sanctioned. In other words, as Americans, we seem to have the privilege of killing ourselves in a slow, painful way, but not of attempting unconventional means to do the opposite.

Being aware of political issues affecting your health is an important part of taking care of yourself. Minding your health will certainly affect you as you age, and eventually your wallet. If you’re a young individual who tries to keep informed and maintain a healthy condition and lifestyle, you should take a look at the revolutionary, comprehensive and highly-affordable individual health insurance solutions created by Precedent specifically for you. Visit our website, [http://www.precedent.com], for more information. We offer a unique and innovative suite of individual health insurance solutions, including highly-competitive HSA-qualified plans, and an unparalleled "real time" application and acceptance process.

Precedent puts a new spin on health insurance. Learn more at [http://www.precedent.com]

Cholesterol Numbers And "Statin" Drugs

I believe that one of the drawbacks to the information age lies in the amount of information that streams by us on the fringes of our attention. To be able to pick out the specifics from the huge amount of background noise is no small task.

So it is with statins. To me, this is one of those subjects that I hear a lot about in other contexts and so I think I know something about it. But, in truth, I really don't. So, if you are as unsure as I as to what statins are and why we should even care, please read on.

At the most basic, statins are a family of chemical substances that blocks an enzyme that the body needs to produce cholesterol. When statins are present in the system, the amount of LDL ("bad") is reduced.

Because of this property, statins and statin combination drugs are often prescribed by doctors for patients who have high amounts of cholesterol in their bloodstreams. Statins are available under many different brand names. Some of the more popular are Lipitor, Crestor, and Zocor.

In many medical studies, statin drugs have been shown to lower the overall risk of heart attacks and strokes for people who take them on a regular, prescribed basis to deal with high cholesterol levels.

Compared with other treatments, statin cholesterol lowering therapies decrease the advance of coronary artery disease much more effectively. In one study, for example, participants who had recently experienced heart attacks were given cholesterol lowering drugs in much higher doses than is usual and subsequently had many fewer strokes and heart attacks. Studies like this one suggest that concentrated statin therapy does save lives. As a result, the U.S. National Cholesterol Education Panel revised their guidelines to include statin treatments that were more intense as an option for patients considered to have a moderate to high risk of heart attacks.

There are now newer statin drugs available that can do even more to reduce the risks. These include atorvastatin (marketed as Caduet and Lipitor) and simvastatin (marketed as Zocor). These newer drugs can lower LDL cholesterol by as much as 55%, increase HDL cholesterol up to 15% and reduce triglycerides by up to 30%.

Statin drugs are not known to cause side effects for most people who take them. However, possible side effects are:

Fatigue
Upset Stomach
Gas and/or constipation
Cramps or stomach pain
Minor muscle ache

These side effects become more likely when higher doses are prescribed but are rarely, if ever, debilitating.

As is the case with any drug, statins may interact with other medications you are taking so be sure to keep your doctor up to date on all medications.

So that is a quick overview of statins and why we should care about them. As a class of drug, statins are extremely valuable in controlling cholesterol levels and prolonging life.

You can learn more about heart health and eating right at Chia Benefits.net.