3 ms·

>we don't have good enough science to know how potentially dangerous or helpful ADHD drugs really are. We have nearly a century of usage which suggests these d

by scottmf 10y ago

>we don't have good enough science to know how potentially dangerous or helpful ADHD drugs really are. We have nearly a century of usage which suggests these drugs are incredibly safe. We medicate a lot of problems which are caused/worsened by society. We need a solution: Either we fundamentally restructure society, or we medicate. Since we're not fundamentally restructuring society any time soon, medication is our best option and we have a lot of data suggesting stimulant medications in these doses are pretty damn safe—and certainly outweigh the negatives of not medicating (failing school, abusing drugs, other mental illness). The real epidemic here is the pejorative use of the word "medication". The distrust of treatment is always based on ignorance and appeals to nature, tradition, etc.

forgotpwtomain 10y ago
> We have nearly a century of usage which suggests these drugs are incredibly safe. Non-industry funded long term study (30+ years) citation needed. > We medicate a lot of problems which are caused/worsened by society. We need a solution: Either we fundamentally restructure society, or we medicate. I think this is a false dichotomy, not backed by any credible research and is a clever way for the pharmacy industry to sell drugs instead of society expending effort on alternative solutions. edit (To clarify): Specifically you are jumping from "lot of problems which are caused/worsened by society" to a polarized choice of "medicate" or "fundamentally restructure society". But it should be clear that there is a whole field of available approaches which aren't "fundamental restructuring" which can attempt to alleviate such problems and unless research has enumerated and depleted all other available gradual options, this again, is a bogus dichotomy.
- scottmf 10y ago
  We have real data which heavily backs the case for medicating. You have emotion and conjecture. >Non-industry funded long term study (30+ years) citation needed. What do you want? You're suggesting all these studies are funded by pharma cos and the scientists are falsifying data? If you're not going to believe any of the data and stick to your own emotions on the subject there's no point discussing this. Until you have anything besides personal feelings and unfounded beliefs we should obviously stick to what we're doing. Anything else is dangerous and unscientific.
  - forgotpwtomain 10y ago
    > We have real data which heavily backs the case for medicating. > You have emotion and conjecture. No, I asked for you to provide a reference to a credible study, you have failed to do so. There is no need or place for ad-hominem attacks here. Who is 'we' btw? > You're suggesting all these studies are funded by pharma cos and the scientists are falsifying data? What I wrote explicitly was: >>> if the research doesn't support their product they can shelve it and fund some other studies until they have research which does. Are you claiming this is not true? Or that this does not happen? On a side-note: standards in psychology research are much lower than in hard sciences, so the conflict of interest is exacerbated. > Until you have anything besides personal feelings and unfounded beliefs we should obviously stick to what we're doing. Anything else is dangerous and unscientific. Per chance, despite the immature nature of your tone - you are actually a researcher who has worked on many studies supporting what you claimed above and your research has been funded by pharmaceutical companies. Has really not a single study with a source of funding which is not pharmaceutical company been able to replicate your results? I would consider that deeply suspicious in any field; and on the contrary to argue that it's not, is dangerous and unscientific.
    - scottmf 10y ago
      Of course it has. http://www.europeanneuropsychopharmacology.com/article/S0924-977X(12)00198-8/abstract http://www.europeanneuropsychopharmacology.com/article/S0924...

by scottmf 10y ago

forgotpwtomain 10y ago

> We have nearly a century of usage which suggests these drugs are incredibly safe. Non-industry funded long term study (30+ years) citation needed. > We medicate a lot of problems which are caused/worsened by society. We need a solution: Either we fundamentally restructure society, or we medicate. I think this is a false dichotomy, not backed by any credible research and is a clever way for the pharmacy industry to sell drugs instead of society expending effort on alternative solutions. edit (To clarify): Specifically you are jumping from "lot of problems which are caused/worsened by society" to a polarized choice of "medicate" or "fundamentally restructure society". But it should be clear that there is a whole field of available approaches which aren't "fundamental restructuring" which can attempt to alleviate such problems and unless research has enumerated and depleted all other available gradual options, this again, is a bogus dichotomy.

scottmf 10y ago
We have real data which heavily backs the case for medicating. You have emotion and conjecture. >Non-industry funded long term study (30+ years) citation needed. What do you want? You're suggesting all these studies are funded by pharma cos and the scientists are falsifying data? If you're not going to believe any of the data and stick to your own emotions on the subject there's no point discussing this. Until you have anything besides personal feelings and unfounded beliefs we should obviously stick to what we're doing. Anything else is dangerous and unscientific.
- forgotpwtomain 10y ago
  > We have real data which heavily backs the case for medicating. > You have emotion and conjecture. No, I asked for you to provide a reference to a credible study, you have failed to do so. There is no need or place for ad-hominem attacks here. Who is 'we' btw? > You're suggesting all these studies are funded by pharma cos and the scientists are falsifying data? What I wrote explicitly was: >>> if the research doesn't support their product they can shelve it and fund some other studies until they have research which does. Are you claiming this is not true? Or that this does not happen? On a side-note: standards in psychology research are much lower than in hard sciences, so the conflict of interest is exacerbated. > Until you have anything besides personal feelings and unfounded beliefs we should obviously stick to what we're doing. Anything else is dangerous and unscientific. Per chance, despite the immature nature of your tone - you are actually a researcher who has worked on many studies supporting what you claimed above and your research has been funded by pharmaceutical companies. Has really not a single study with a source of funding which is not pharmaceutical company been able to replicate your results? I would consider that deeply suspicious in any field; and on the contrary to argue that it's not, is dangerous and unscientific.
  - scottmf 10y ago
    Of course it has. http://www.europeanneuropsychopharmacology.com/article/S0924-977X(12)00198-8/abstract http://www.europeanneuropsychopharmacology.com/article/S0924...