Dr. Doris J. Rapp


This sector will contain my personal opinions about current publications, television shows or news reports  which illustrate the lack of understanding about environmental dangers and the scope of this present day epidemic that seems to be ignored by so many. If anyone has something they want me to comment on, please fax the original article to me at 1-480-905-8281

Let=s talk about the Ritalin article in the recent December '98 issue of Time Magazine.

The author of the article reviewed what she and others believe to be to major causes for the use of Ritalin to soar in production with a seven fold increase from l989 to l997.  We used  over 12 thousand  kilograms of Ritalin in l997! Over 90% of this is presently used in the United States. Why would this happen?  One reason that  it is being used more often is because its a fast medical insurance-covered fix that is helpful in our busy society and it requires much less time than psychotherapy.  That could be one reason but some other very important facts are being totally ignored. We must ask what these other factors are.  In addition, some children, here and abroad, are using Ritalin as a street drug.

In the past two weeks,  hundreds of scientists convened in Bethesda at the National Institute of Health to discuss why we have a so many hyperactive inattentive children who need to be medicated with a Class II narcotic called Ritalin. The above article surprisingly did not mention how many children are presently receiving Ritalin, but the estimates are that somewhere from 4 to 22 million children will be using this drug by the year 2000! At one time it was not used in children under six years of age but the above article points out that this is no longer considered wrong. The younger children (and their parents) need help urgently. This meeting obviously discussed drug therapy in detail and how well Ritalin works. Why was the conference not stressing proven  means to find out why so many children are in need of Ritalin? Why doesn=t someone at NIH ask why we have a nation of hyperactive children. Maybe there is something wrong that needs attention.

Did the invitation list to this NIH meeting really include investigators  from all sides of this issue or did it carefully exclude those who have been extremely successful using non-drug or non-psychological approaches? There are many studies,  here  and abroad, such as those by Soothill and Egger, that clearly demonstrate that foods and environmental factors can cause ADD and ADHD. Why were those who have been successful in eliminating the problem using drug-free  methods not included in the discussions?  Yes, I wonder why Feingold=s wonderful observations and diets were not mentioned?  His diet helped thousands all over the world? If 66% of the hyperactivity is related to food allergies as shown by the research of Soothill and Egger, O=Shea and myself, why is that not considered. Another piece of the puzzle is clearly dust, molds, pollen and chemicals.  What oh why are these factors  ignored?  Why were my research and videos that clearly demonstrate the ability the change a darling quiet child into an impossible, aggressive, abusive hyperactive in minutes with a single drop of an allergy extract or a purposeful feeding of a problem food not mentioned?  Why were the many many hyperactive children who have been helped with allergy extract therapy for foods, dust, molds and pollen not even considered?  Were reactions to chemical pollution discussed?  Why did  this meeting appear to chose to ignore what helps, without drugs?  Someone should be asking why?   

800,000 prescriptions for antidepressants were ordered last year for children aged 5 to 18 years.

Mint- flavored Prozac is hardly the answer if a child=s  depression is due to something eaten, touched or smelled that can be avoided.  Once again why the gap between the NIH, psychologists and environmental medical specialists when the latter can turn a child=s depression or hyperactivity on and off like a switch with different dilutions of routine allergy extracts?  We must find out why this is happening.  Sure drugs are helpful but if the causes can be eliminated, they are not needed.  Is there some reason why big business seems to have more power and control than common sense?

Ritalin is supposed to be the answer not because they understand it, but because it works.  Dr. Berent is quoted to have said that those who believe that diet helps hyperactivity are kidding themselves. If he would try the diet in my books, he will find that 66% are better in 3 to 7 days? Has he looked at the videos, the blood studies, the neurometric exams?  It works.  Now why would the NIH want to go into Ritalin in depth rather than try to find out why do so many children need it?  Why would they ignore methods that are safer that unequivocally help?  Something is wrong?  Why do they ignore fast, easy and inexpensive methods and prefer drug or psychotherapy.


My second comment is about the Dateline discussion about one new approach to treat hyperactivity that was shown on Sunday, 11/8/98. Are they serious?  The answer they gave their viewing public was that you let the child become the parent.  He can do whatever he wants, when he wants, as long as he wants, eat what he wants, when and as often as he likes.  Use one drug in the day to help quiet him and another at night for sleep.  They seem to miss the fact that the child was up almost all night and could not settle down after a junk food binge.  This child looks like many of the 1000's on my videos of allergic children reacting to a drop of allergy extract or one bite of the wrong food. Call 1-800-78-78-78-0. The approach advocated on this televised program  reduced the parental stress and responsibility while creating a child that will be totally intolerable.  Dr. Kenneth Condrel has written a book entitled "Wimpy Parents"I suggest that those at Dateline read it carefully along with my book entitled "Is This Your Child".  These books will give you insight that would truly help many.


My third comment is about the young boy in New England who was on several television shows a few weeks ago.  He had to wear a space suit because he could not go to school without using one and he positively wanted to go to school.  His school principal was generous and bought him the suit.  The common sense point was totally missed!  Someone should have asked what in the school was so severely affecting this child that he was forced  to wear a hot, uncomfortable, embarrassing spacesuit. How many other children had evidence of environmental illness in that school?  Change the school, not the child!