4 ms·

The goal of the piece was to dispell doubt in the medication because of its inability to resolve long-term treatment - then it backs this assertion up with...wa

by tomkin 14y ago

The goal of the piece was to dispell doubt in the medication because of its inability to resolve long-term treatment - then it backs this assertion up with...wait for it...nothing! It's offensive because the diagnosis has finally reached a milestone of acceptance and now we're shaping opinion about treatment through bullshit.

rauljara 14y ago
Nothing? Really? >But in 2009, findings were published from a well-controlled study that had been going on for more than a decade, and the results were very clear. The study randomly assigned almost 600 children with attention problems to four treatment conditions. Some received medication alone, some cognitive-behavior therapy alone, some medication plus therapy, and some were in a community-care control group that received no systematic treatment. At first this study suggested that medication, or medication plus therapy, produced the best results. However, after three years, these effects had faded, and by eight years there was no evidence that medication produced any academic or behavioral benefits. Perhaps you are concerned about the lack of a citation (which is standard practice in op-eds, an editorial decision of the paper, and something which the author has no control over). Here is link to the study: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19318991 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19318991
- darkarmani 14y ago
  Did you even read the overview of the study?? "Medication use decreased by 62% after the 14-month controlled trial" 8 years later there was no controlled study and 62% of the subjects stopped medication at 14 months! Doesn't the article sound extremely dishonest now?
  - rauljara 14y ago
    Yes I did. No, it doesn't seem dishonest, because the whole sentence reads, "Medication use decreased by 62% after the 14-month controlled trial, but adjusting for this did not change the results." Also, I would like to point out that studies cannot force the patients to take medication. If the people taking the medication are terminating their own treatment, don't you think that's a little bit of a warning sign? I've seen recordings of interviews with kids where they talk about how much they hate their adhd meds, and how the meds affect their personalities. In contrast, adults don't seem to have the same pattern of disliking the effects. To the best of my knowledge, no one's figured that one out yet.
    - tomkin 14y ago
      > Yes I did. No, it doesn't seem dishonest and > Also, I would like to point out that studies cannot force the patients to take medication. plus: "it was a well-controlled study" = dishonest. If they don't know for sure, then why are they reporting it as fact? Some people, as many have already said, are misdiagnosed with A.D.D., so it is no surprise that many people would stop medication as it would have not had a benefit to them. > don't you think that's a little bit of a warning sign? No. A lot of the time when that happens, in my experience, it has been due to other's opinion on the effect or usefulness of the medication. (i.e. you).

by tomkin 14y ago

rauljara 14y ago

Nothing? Really? >But in 2009, findings were published from a well-controlled study that had been going on for more than a decade, and the results were very clear. The study randomly assigned almost 600 children with attention problems to four treatment conditions. Some received medication alone, some cognitive-behavior therapy alone, some medication plus therapy, and some were in a community-care control group that received no systematic treatment. At first this study suggested that medication, or medication plus therapy, produced the best results. However, after three years, these effects had faded, and by eight years there was no evidence that medication produced any academic or behavioral benefits. Perhaps you are concerned about the lack of a citation (which is standard practice in op-eds, an editorial decision of the paper, and something which the author has no control over). Here is link to the study: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19318991 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19318991

darkarmani 14y ago
Did you even read the overview of the study?? "Medication use decreased by 62% after the 14-month controlled trial" 8 years later there was no controlled study and 62% of the subjects stopped medication at 14 months! Doesn't the article sound extremely dishonest now?
- rauljara 14y ago
  Yes I did. No, it doesn't seem dishonest, because the whole sentence reads, "Medication use decreased by 62% after the 14-month controlled trial, but adjusting for this did not change the results." Also, I would like to point out that studies cannot force the patients to take medication. If the people taking the medication are terminating their own treatment, don't you think that's a little bit of a warning sign? I've seen recordings of interviews with kids where they talk about how much they hate their adhd meds, and how the meds affect their personalities. In contrast, adults don't seem to have the same pattern of disliking the effects. To the best of my knowledge, no one's figured that one out yet.
  - tomkin 14y ago
    > Yes I did. No, it doesn't seem dishonest and > Also, I would like to point out that studies cannot force the patients to take medication. plus: "it was a well-controlled study" = dishonest. If they don't know for sure, then why are they reporting it as fact? Some people, as many have already said, are misdiagnosed with A.D.D., so it is no surprise that many people would stop medication as it would have not had a benefit to them. > don't you think that's a little bit of a warning sign? No. A lot of the time when that happens, in my experience, it has been due to other's opinion on the effect or usefulness of the medication. (i.e. you).