otherhealth.com - View Single Post

bwv11 · #5 (**permalink**) 16th January 2004, 09:54 PM

Anna: “if you have a given child with 'adhd' you don't know for sure that maternal smoking or anything else is the cause.”

Cha cha: “aetiology is not always something that is of importance in every case”

agreed. But that is the specific point of this thread, namely, to discuss those aspects of any disorder, not just ‘adhd,’ that have their origins in utero or earlier (miasmatic, other inherited characteristics). Of course, in actual practice (in real people), this necessarily becomes enmeshed in the whole diagnostic process, but conceptually it can still be separated out, and should be, with appropriate caveats reflecting degrees of certainty and uncertainty in the assessment. For this discussion, I have assumed that in any particular case, maternal smoking caused “all or some portion” of a group of symptoms.

Anna: “the later the onset of adhd, the more optimistic one can be.”

A good point – indeed, generally true that the earlier the “insult” to the organism, the more profound the ultimate impact on the individual, e.g. damage to a single cell very early during gestation can even be fatal …. Another aspect: if we say the ‘child’ was ‘never well since conception’, it would still be true that his condition became progressively worse during the course of the pregnancy, as new layers of toxins (maternal smoking, in this scenario) were laid down. In a sense, there is a change of state, but that is to be found in utero, rather than in the stages of childhood development. The fact this change of state took place so early, may mean prognosis is less favorable.

Anna: “we all have some genetic info which is less than optimum for a healthy life. in some people this is so much 'not optimum' that not much can be done to help balance the system”

So, whether the damage originates in utero or in infancy or in adulthood (exposure to toxic waste, e.g.), we still must evaluate how much responsiveness survives in the organism, in other words, prognosis. If we take ‘congenital’ to reflect absolute irreversibility, we must still determine on a case by case basis the degree to which particular symptoms, even those originating in utero, may be reversible; in fact, this suggests the idea that an undesirable trait (“excessive” distractibility) may be considered a “symptom” to the degree that it is, in fact, reversible; lacking reversibility, it becomes a “congenital defect,” a less than optimal, fixed constitutional trait.

In short, the fact that there has been no change in state since birth, doesn’t mean there is no disordering of the vital force: our ability to “help balance the system” (anna’s words) may, and of course does vary from one complaint to another, or from one patient to the next.

cha cha: "there will, in fact, be a number of cases you'll see with ADHD where a very clear aetiology exists (the child was fine until about a week after we moved..."

i see this often with iatrogenic diseases: a mild, happy, friendly child turns mean and spiteful; a well-adjusted 8 y.o. boy begins to exhibit himself to girls and touch inappropriately; a 6 y.o. becomes overwrought emotionally. in each of these cases, the onset of disease followed the initation of allopathic treatment with new medications, and in each case the symptomatic behaviors were undocumented side effects - the docs in each case were dubious about my recommendation to discontinue the meds, but they were nice guys, and agreed to do so as an experiment at least, since, as i pointed out, the coincidental timing of prescription/symptom was rather pointed, and there was no prior history. in each case, removal of the offending "substance" led to immediate behavioral recovery. i have seen similar reaction patterns to food, synthetic fibers, electrical waves ... in which "cleaning up the personal space" led to "miracle cures."

bach

[ 16. January 2004, 22:01: Message edited by: bwv11 ]