4 ms·

The drugs have been around for decades. Using them daily with increasing numbers of children during a decade or so of brain development, has not.

by zepto 5y ago

wswope 5y ago
Then why are there dozens of studies looking longitudinally at the effects of ADHD medications on children going (at least) back to the sixties all over Google Scholar? https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.ajp.2008.07091465 https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.ajp.2008.07091465 https://doi.org/10.1097/chi.0b013e318157cb3b https://doi.org/10.1097/chi.0b013e318157cb3b https://doi.org/10.1097/01.chi.0000128797.91601.1a https://doi.org/10.1097/01.chi.0000128797.91601.1a You done much reading on the subject to the contrary you can talk about? Any books on the topic you’ve read that you can name?
- zepto 5y ago
  > You done much reading on the subject to the contrary you can talk about? Any books on the topic you’ve read that you can name? Have you? Or did you just find some papers that support your view with a quick search? Remember, most social science and medical research from this time period is now considered very weak. A few papers don’t make a ‘well established consensus’.
  - wswope 5y ago
    I have a half dozen books on the subject on the bookshelf in my office, read quite a few more on top of those during undergrad and have easily read well over a hundred papers on the topic. I also have a pretty heavy background in stats, I’m well aware of the replication crisis, and I’m deeply skeptical by nature. My opinions are backed by an overwhelming preponderance of evidence, which you seem to feel qualified to criticize despite not having been aware of its existence until today, much less having actually read any of it. Did you try looking for more papers to confirm if it was really just a few? If so, what did you see?
    - zepto 5y ago
      > My opinions are backed by an overwhelming preponderance of evidence, which you seem to feel qualified to criticize despite not having been aware of its existence until today I feel qualified to question anything I like on an Internet forum, as should everyone. To defer to your opinions without you stating your qualifications would be idiotic. Throwing up a few links and expecting people to know that you have read over 100 papers and 6 books makes no sense at all. Nobody is going to treat you as if you are an expert on the subject unless you show them why they should. Until this point you’ve just been making claims from authority.
      - wswope 5y ago
        You're welcome to question whatever you like. > The drugs have been around for decades. Using them daily with increasing numbers of children during a decade or so of brain development, has not. is harmful medical misinformation though. I do think most people reading a confident assertion like yours on this particular forum would assume a personal/academic history or at least some solid background knowledge with the topic at hand to be backing the claim. I would rather not flaunt my credentials. You shouldn't believe me - you should believe the sources available at your fingertips. Wikipedia's not a bad start if you don't like reading academic papers.
        zepto 5y ago
        Here is a confident statement, very similar to the one I made: “The long-term effects on the developing brain and on mental health disorders in later life of chronic use of methylphenidate is unknown. “ It comes from Wikipedia, which presents nowhere near as rosy a picture as you do. In fact it supports my position that we are nowhere near as clear about the effects of these drugs as you confidently claim. Here’s another one: “A 2008 review found that the use of stimulants improved teachers' and parents' ratings of behavior; however, it did not improve academic achievement.[56] The same review also indicates growth retardation for children consistently medicated over three years, compared to unmedicated children in the study.[56] Intensive treatment for 14 months has no effect on long-term outcomes 8 years later.” https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attention_deficit_hyperactivity_disorder_controversies https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attention_deficit_hyperactiv... If you think this is harmful Medical misinformation, perhaps you should edit the Wikipedia page rather than asking people to read it.

The drugs have been around for decades. Using them daily with increasing numbers of children during a decade or so of brain development, has not.

by zepto 5y ago

The drugs have been around for decades. Using them daily with increasing numbers of children during a decade or so of brain development, has not.

wswope 5y ago

Then why are there dozens of studies looking longitudinally at the effects of ADHD medications on children going (at least) back to the sixties all over Google Scholar? https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.ajp.2008.07091465 https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.ajp.2008.07091465 https://doi.org/10.1097/chi.0b013e318157cb3b https://doi.org/10.1097/chi.0b013e318157cb3b https://doi.org/10.1097/01.chi.0000128797.91601.1a https://doi.org/10.1097/01.chi.0000128797.91601.1a You done much reading on the subject to the contrary you can talk about? Any books on the topic you’ve read that you can name?

zepto 5y ago
> You done much reading on the subject to the contrary you can talk about? Any books on the topic you’ve read that you can name? Have you? Or did you just find some papers that support your view with a quick search? Remember, most social science and medical research from this time period is now considered very weak. A few papers don’t make a ‘well established consensus’.
- wswope 5y ago
  I have a half dozen books on the subject on the bookshelf in my office, read quite a few more on top of those during undergrad and have easily read well over a hundred papers on the topic. I also have a pretty heavy background in stats, I’m well aware of the replication crisis, and I’m deeply skeptical by nature. My opinions are backed by an overwhelming preponderance of evidence, which you seem to feel qualified to criticize despite not having been aware of its existence until today, much less having actually read any of it. Did you try looking for more papers to confirm if it was really just a few? If so, what did you see?
  - zepto 5y ago
    > My opinions are backed by an overwhelming preponderance of evidence, which you seem to feel qualified to criticize despite not having been aware of its existence until today I feel qualified to question anything I like on an Internet forum, as should everyone. To defer to your opinions without you stating your qualifications would be idiotic. Throwing up a few links and expecting people to know that you have read over 100 papers and 6 books makes no sense at all. Nobody is going to treat you as if you are an expert on the subject unless you show them why they should. Until this point you’ve just been making claims from authority.
    - wswope 5y ago
      You're welcome to question whatever you like. > The drugs have been around for decades. Using them daily with increasing numbers of children during a decade or so of brain development, has not. is harmful medical misinformation though. I do think most people reading a confident assertion like yours on this particular forum would assume a personal/academic history or at least some solid background knowledge with the topic at hand to be backing the claim. I would rather not flaunt my credentials. You shouldn't believe me - you should believe the sources available at your fingertips. Wikipedia's not a bad start if you don't like reading academic papers.
      - zepto 5y ago
        Here is a confident statement, very similar to the one I made: “The long-term effects on the developing brain and on mental health disorders in later life of chronic use of methylphenidate is unknown. “ It comes from Wikipedia, which presents nowhere near as rosy a picture as you do. In fact it supports my position that we are nowhere near as clear about the effects of these drugs as you confidently claim. Here’s another one: “A 2008 review found that the use of stimulants improved teachers' and parents' ratings of behavior; however, it did not improve academic achievement.[56] The same review also indicates growth retardation for children consistently medicated over three years, compared to unmedicated children in the study.[56] Intensive treatment for 14 months has no effect on long-term outcomes 8 years later.” https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attention_deficit_hyperactivity_disorder_controversies https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attention_deficit_hyperactiv... If you think this is harmful Medical misinformation, perhaps you should edit the Wikipedia page rather than asking people to read it.