4 ms·

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 c

• 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 It’s not bad science, but the citations are outdated - from before the era of mainstream fMRI data, which has been arguably been the biggest new source of understanding on the subject over the past twenty years.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
    > The first quote is a symptom of you choosing to seek your information from the “ADHD controvieries” page in bad faith It’s not bad faith. There is much more than what I quoted that is reasonable to question about ADHD research and treatment. What is bad faith is to tell people not to look at the contradictory results. If you choose not to look at results that don’t confirm your view, then of course you will think there is a consensus. > 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. That suggests strongly that the drugs are prescribed to benefit teachers and classmates, rather than the individual with ADHD who doesn’t gain.
    • wswope 5y ago
      > That suggests strongly that the drugs are prescribed to benefit teachers and classmates, rather than the individual with ADHD who doesn’t gain. What is bad faith is to tell people not to look at the contradictory results. If you choose not to look at results that don’t confirm your view, then of course you will think there is a consensus. There's plenty of evidence to suggest medications benefit individuals with ADHD, e.g. lower rates of substance abuse in adulthood, higher rates of academic achievement (as in graduation rates/highest level of degree attained), visible normalization of volume in areas of the prefrontal cortex associated with executive functioning compared to healthy controls. My primary goal here is to demonstrate publicly that you're an uninformed crank who doesn't know the subject, so that parents don't deny potentially life-changing medication to their kids. You changing your mind would be a nice bonus, but not necessary. Thanks for talking long enough to out yourself.
      • zepto 5y ago
        > What is bad faith is to tell people not to look at the contradictory results. If you choose not to look at results that don’t confirm your view, then of course you will think there is a consensus. The only person who has told anyone not to look at anything is you. If you can find somewhere where I am telling people not to look at things, then you might have a point. > My primary goal here is to demonstrate publicly that you're an uninformed crank who doesn't know the subject, Inspector Javert enters stage right! > so that parents don't deny potentially life-changing medication to their kids. Noble, but you haven’t demonstrated that. You’ve made some unsubstantiated claims to your own expertise on the subject but otherwise you are just another commenter on the internet, who is a strong advocate for medications. You say, ‘potentially life changing’, and of course there are people who have that experience. But you say potentially, because it would be a lie to claim certainty. > lower rates of substance abuse in adulthood, higher rates of academic achievement (as in graduation rates/highest level of degree attained), visible normalization of volume in areas of the prefrontal cortex associated with executive functioning compared to healthy controls. None of which can be attributed directly to the effects of medication. Substance abuse and lower executive function are well established sequelae of adverse childhood experiences. It’s fairly easy to see that if drugs make kids easier for schools and families to manage, then they will have fewer adverse experiences, so there is a causal pathway that supports this outcome. And frankly if you as a family can’t handle an ADHD kid, or find suitable education for them, such that you won’t end up problematizing them, then indeed medications will be a benefit. Nobody is questioning that. However a singleminded focus on medication, a denial of the trade-offs, and a refusal to consider the context, means we can only look at it from this dismal perspective, and renders us incapable of recognizing that medication is not in fact positive for everyone with ADHD. We know that there is a wide range of different relationships to medication use chosen by diagnosed adults. By no means all of them choose to use it as their only tool, or even at all. I know you are focused on defending medication, but I think you’re doing so to the exclusion of every other consideration, and it’s not clear why.