5 ms·

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

by 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.
    - wswope 5y ago
      Setting aside the context of those quotes, which I’ll circle back to, both methylphenidate and amphetamine have been studied and used in children since the 60s. We have longitudinal studies looking at the correlational effects and outcomes of medication-based treatment, and we have robust fMRI studies demonstrating the neurological effects of these medications. The first quote is a symptom of you choosing to seek your information from the “ADHD controvieries” page in bad faith instead of reading the normal, better-edited pages on the topic (note the page is flagged and not well-maintained). It’s not bad science, but the citations are outdated - from before the era of mainstream fMRI data, which has been arguably been the biggest new source of understanding on the subject over the past twenty years. Additionally, the second source quoted, which is by far the more relevant one, focuses on preschool-age children and makes its claim in that context - context which you chose to edit out. Your second quote is a relatively mainstream finding. There’s not a robust linkage between academic performance as determined by grades and medication-based ADHD treatment.
      - zepto 5y ago

by wswope 5y ago

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.
  - wswope 5y ago
    Setting aside the context of those quotes, which I’ll circle back to, both methylphenidate and amphetamine have been studied and used in children since the 60s. We have longitudinal studies looking at the correlational effects and outcomes of medication-based treatment, and we have robust fMRI studies demonstrating the neurological effects of these medications. The first quote is a symptom of you choosing to seek your information from the “ADHD controvieries” page in bad faith instead of reading the normal, better-edited pages on the topic (note the page is flagged and not well-maintained). It’s not bad science, but the citations are outdated - from before the era of mainstream fMRI data, which has been arguably been the biggest new source of understanding on the subject over the past twenty years. Additionally, the second source quoted, which is by far the more relevant one, focuses on preschool-age children and makes its claim in that context - context which you chose to edit out. Your second quote is a relatively mainstream finding. There’s not a robust linkage between academic performance as determined by grades and medication-based ADHD treatment.
    - zepto 5y ago