View Full Version : Play Attention


maplewoods
01-28-13, 06:43 PM
I was wondering if anyone here has had personal experience with Play Attention.

If yes, please relate your positive or negative experience.

Also, if anyone here is using Play Attention, please mention which version you are using, if it's the helmet type or the armband type.

It's important when evaluating any possible remedy, to take in to consideration how long you have tried it before stopping, since that may be a contributing factor in it's success or failure.

Thanks

ConcertaParent
02-19-13, 12:56 AM
I was wondering if anyone here has had personal experience with Play Attention. +1. I was disappointed with the research results with the old EEG helmet, but there is even less evidence with the new armband. I would first experiment with a less expensive neurofeedback alternative such as Focus Pocus, and skip 4-figure options like PlayAttention, while saving my money for an experienced neurofeedback clinic with true qEEG training.

maplewoods
02-19-13, 12:13 PM
+1. I was disappointed with the research results with the old EEG helmet,

Hi, ConcertaParent and thanks for your input.

Why were you disappointed with the results?

What type of results would you consider impressive?

ConcertaParent
02-19-13, 12:56 PM
The few studies that used PlayAttention with the old helmet had mediocre effect sizes. I would think that using an armband would be worse since the brain waves will be less accurate the farther you are away from the brain.

The results are more impressive with true qEEG neurofeedback at an experienced clinic. In my particular case, the quoted cost of at least 80-100 sessions over 12 months for $10,000+ means that it can't be the first choice of treatment without first trying other alternatives.
Why were you disappointed with the results?
What type of results would you consider impressive?

maplewoods
02-19-13, 03:29 PM
The few studies that used PlayAttention with the old helmet had mediocre effect sizes. I would think that using an armband would be worse since the brain waves will be less accurate the farther you are away from the brain.

The results are more impressive with true qEEG neurofeedback at an experienced clinic. In my particular case, the quoted cost of at least 80-100 sessions over 12 months for $10,000+ means that it can't be the first choice of treatment without first trying other alternatives.

You mention several factors.

Let's analyse 1 at a time.

You mention "Few Studies"

There are many many many studies. How many do consider to be "only a few"

Does it have to be 5 or do you need 10 or do you need 20? or 100? before we can reasonably assume that something really DOES actually help children?

Dizfriz
02-19-13, 04:54 PM
You mention several factors.

Let's analyse 1 at a time.

You mention "Few Studies"

There are many many many studies. How many do consider to be "only a few"

Does it have to be 5 or do you need 10 or do you need 20? or 100? before we can reasonably assume that something really DOES actually help children?
The standards of science are clear. First the studies have to be well designed then be replicated preferably several times before much attention is paid.

I am not sure Play Attention meets this standard as far as the research goes. I did a quick look with Google Scholar and really did not see a lot there on Play Attention. I definitely did not see "many many many studies". Could you list a few in peer review journals?

Perhaps I am misunderstanding but you but you seem to be upset because ConcertaParent was are not accepting of the intervention but questioned it to a degree.

So are you trying to find out about the method or be an advocate for it?

There is a difference. If you are trying to find out I can do a little research to try to help. Let me know.



Take care,

Dizfriz

maplewoods
02-20-13, 01:39 AM
The standards of science are clear. First the studies have to be well designed then be replicated preferably several times before much attention is paid.

I am not sure Play Attention meets this standard as far as the research goes. I did a quick look with Google Scholar and really did not see a lot there on Play Attention. I definitely did not see "many many many studies". Could you list a few in peer review journals?

Perhaps I am misunderstanding but you but you seem to be upset because ConcertaParent was are not accepting of the intervention but questioned it to a degree.

So are you trying to find out about the method or be an advocate for it?

There is a difference. If you are trying to find out I can do a little research to try to help. Let me know.



Take care,

Dizfriz

The Standards of science are clear (not really - it's actually a gray area with no absolutes and with many levels) indeed but not "everything" needs that degree of a standard.

Most people, you and me included, make hundreds of decisions (major and minor) daily, NONE of which are ever based on the scientific scrutiny or "study", the type of which you refer to here.

So if 99.99% of society makes decisions daily hundreds or thousands of times per year and 99.99% of the time it's not based on any of the above criteria, why is it that often times we hear people asking for it?

The answer is that the nature of most people is that they have a bias (of what they blindly BELIEVE IN or take a liking to).

Based on the above criteria most people apply a double standard in this realm. If it's something they believe in or feel strongly about, they approach it favorably without requiring the high standards and scrutiny of a "double blind study" and demanding absolute "proof" on a very high standard of a scientific level.

But when it comes to something which does not find favor in their eyes or belief system or their pure opinion (they just don't like the idea too much) then they RATIONALIZE by asking:

"where is the scientific highest standard of data and want a "study" and not just ANY study but the best study and even that is not good enough for them it must be a very large study and even that is not good enough for them but they demand further that there be many multiple studies and even then it's not good enough for them so they demand it be over a very large population and over many years and even then they still find some fault to say that it's not quite good enough yet because of something "more" that still needs to be researched further....

I agree, of course that if the question at hand is about whether or not a Drug should be used, then we all agree that we should apply the highest standards to be sure the drug is safe and effective because otherwise the drug CAN (and sometimes actually does) Kill you (even if it is FDA approved).

But if the question at hand is not a drug, which can potential kill, or harm, but the question is about the merit of an EDUCATIONAL Training system which helps children, then, in such a case, backhandedly dismissing a product with the "excuse", that it doesn't have the highest standards of a "study" yet, is clearly not a warranted, nor reasonable nor intelligent nor truthful way, to even attempt to evaluate ANY educational product, ever, in such a manner.

Play Attention is not a Drug which needs to be "proven" safe via any kind of study (nevertheless, many studies WERE done and have proven it anyway).

Play Attention is an EDUCATIONAL Training system, which has countless studies showing it's efficacy.

I am not Advocating for Play Attention nor Against Play attention. I am hear to discuss it open mindedly and would consider any input based on reasonable logic.

If anyone has any actual experience their feedback would be very valuable rather than pure hypothetical speculation based on personal likes or dislikes.

I have no objection with any opinion pro the product or against the product as long as the line of reasoning is based on truth and not based on guesswork false statements which are simply not true.

Again, I take no position pro or against the product but am here to evaluate it with an open mind, but not if the opinion is just with backhanded dismissal without accurate truthful foundation.

That's why simply "asked" him what level of a "study" he would be satisfied with (which he didn't answer).

Because this answer is crucial before any study is presented for TRUTHFUL (i.e. non-biased) evaluation because otherwise, IF his rejection is based on bias, then if I show him 1 study he will say nahhh, that's not good enough because it's only 1 and not even 2 - then if I show him 2 he will say well now, it's not even 3 - and the same goes about the quality of the study and other criteria.

dvdnvwls
02-20-13, 02:03 AM
Play Attention is an EDUCATIONAL Training system, which has countless studies showing it's efficacy.

Please give references to some (half a dozen should be lots?) of the studies you're mentioning, that are in peer-reviewed science journals. Thanks.

maplewoods
02-20-13, 02:38 AM
Please give references to some (half a dozen should be lots?) of the studies you're mentioning, that are in peer-reviewed science journals. Thanks.

You can start with this one:

http://cpj.sagepub.com/content/50/7/615

There are plenty more. I'l post more as time permits. I have to look them up and find them again and will post it as soon as I find them.

They have also completed a MUCH larger study, which confirms, on a much larger scale, the same findings, as in the above smaller study. The newer, bigger study to be released within the next month or 2 months, I was told, is even more impressive.

Read the following report:

The Floating Hospital for Children of the prestigious Tufts Medical School performed a controlled study of Play Attention in the Massachusetts School System. The outstanding results were published in the journal Clinical Pediatrics (http://cpj.sagepub.com/content/50/7/615).

The researchers were so inspired by their success, they received funding for a 19 school study. The results for the 19 school study haven’t been published, but exceed those of the original. You may expect those results to be published in a clinical journal the autumn of 2012. We’re excited and proud of these successes in a controlled study by one of the nation’s leading medical schools.

Furthermore, since 1996, Play Attention’s success has allowed us to gather data from various people or institutions including psychologists, speech language pathologists, teachers, and universities. These data have been collected and assessed using a variety of objective modalities. Some of the assessment instruments have included the BASC (Behavior Assessment System for Children). The BASC assists a professional in evaluating behavioral and emotional issues and identifying strengths and weaknesses. It also helps differentiate between hyperactivity and attention problems while monitoring treatment interventions and outcomes.

Additionally, continuous performance tests (CPTs) were used. These include the Integrated Visual and Auditory test of attention (IVA) and the Test of Variables of Attention (TOVA). Both the IVA and the TOVA are neurophysiological measures of attention, not subjective ratings of behavior. They present as very simple computer games that measure responses to either visual and/or auditory stimuli. These measurements are then compared to the measurements of a group of people without attention disorders who took the IVA or the T.O.V.A.

These objective assessments have demonstrated Play Attention’s efficacy in clinical practices, schools, and homes.

maplewoods
02-20-13, 02:45 AM
Please give references to some (half a dozen should be lots?) of the studies you're mentioning, that are in peer-reviewed science journals. Thanks.

The follwoing Link is a PDF of about 70 pages.

You will find tons of Clinical Data here.

{Removed link to brochure for commercial product.}

maplewoods
02-20-13, 02:57 AM
Please give references to some (half a dozen should be lots?) of the studies you're mentioning, that are in peer-reviewed science journals. Thanks.

Here is another one:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/01/100107083904.htm

maplewoods
02-20-13, 03:19 AM
Please give references to some (half a dozen should be lots?) of the studies you're mentioning, that are in peer-reviewed science journals. Thanks.

Check this out too. Although the following is not a study of Play Attention it's self, but it still proves the point that the Play Attention Methodology is on the right track as shown in their study:

{Removed link to Commercial Website.}
Training the ADHD Brain
Posted by Peter on September 27th, 2010
For years, we at Play Attention, have trained thousands and thousands of people to better pay attention, learn the cognitive skills they need to succeed, and change their behavior. Our results have spoken clearly for us since 1994. Now science is catching up.

Two recent distinct studies validate the brain’s ability to change. While a vast plethora of research confirms these studies’ findings, they are noteworthy. The first study demonstrates the efficacy of skill training, and the second demonstrates how teaching skills rewires the living brain.

The first study, published in the August 25 Journal of the American Medical Association, was performed by researchers from Massachusetts General Hospital (MGH). They utilized cognitive behavioral therapy as a direct intervention for ADHD adults. Cognitive therapy teaches skills for managing life challenges.

The researchers at MGH found that while medications were the first line of treatment, many patients still persist with underlying symptoms.

While previous studies on cognitive behavioral therapy for ADHD were small and short term, the researchers at MGH claim their study to be the first to conduct full-scale randomized, controlled trial of the efficiency of an individually-delivered, non-medication treatment of ADHD among adults.

“Medications are very effective in ‘turning down the volume’ on ADHD symptoms, but they do not teach people skills,” commented Steven Safren, PhD, ABPP, director of Behavioral Medicine in the MGH Department of Psychiatry, who led the study.

“This study shows that a skills-based approach can help patients learn how to cope with their attention problems and better manage this significant and impairing disorder.”

“Sessions were designed specifically to meet the needs of ADHD patients and included things like starting and maintaining calendar and task list systems, breaking large tasks into manageable steps, and shaping tasks to be as long as your attention span will permit,” commented Safren, an associate professor of Psychology in the Harvard Medical School Department of Psychiatry. “The treatment is half like taking a course and half like being in traditional psychotherapy.”

Like Play Attention has been doing since 1994, the researchers provided training sessions mainly that included skills training in filtering of distractions, organization, problem solving, and planning.

Safren’s group receiving cognitive and behavioral training demonstrated advanced control of their symptoms over their control group. This benefit had persisted when measured three and nine months after the training.

The second study, published in The Journal of Neuroscience (August 25, 2010, 30 34 11493-11500 doi 10.1523 JNEUROSCI.1550-10.2010), examined the brains of rats when they learned to control their impulses. The researchers documented synaptic changes in the medial prefrontal cortex. They concluded that the rat’s brains rewired themselves to produce the impulse controls necessary to be successful in the tasks the scientists had established for them.

Other past studies have confirmed that the brain will rewire to make changes for skills, impulse control, organization, etc. We’re glad that science is catching up to an learning process that we’ve done at Play Attention for sixteen years now. That’s beyond cutting edge; it’s leading the way for others.
{Removed link to Commercial Website.}

Dizfriz
02-20-13, 09:08 AM
A quick review of your sources:

http://cpj.sagepub.com/content/50/7/615

All we have is the abstract, the actual article is behind a paywall.

From the abstract :

Conclusion. This randomized control trial provides preliminary evidence of the effectiveness of computer-based interventions for ADHD and supports the feasibility of offering them in a school setting. While positive, note the tentativeness of the conclusions. "preliminary evidence" and "supports the feasibility". Hardly overwhelming.

From the play attention site: (can't link to a commercial site...rules)

This is from the people trying to market the system. Glowing reports from those selling a product are usually taken with a large grain of salt as they should be.

There should be evidence available from other sources than the marketer of the device.


http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0107083904.htm Science Daily News primarily consists of press releases. This one was from gamesforlife.co.uk/ who is in the business of selling the product.


Play Attention is an EDUCATIONAL Training system, which has countless studies showing it's efficacy. OK, I am willing to be convinced. Where are the countless studies?

Over the years I have seen these kinds of things come and go. Mostly they quietly go away after a while.

This one may be different, may be the best thing since bottled water and sliced bread but the evidence presented does not seem to be very convincing at this point.

At this point, I would recommend caution before spending much money on this unless it can be easily afforded. Right now the evidence does not seem to be very strong. It doesn't mean that it doesn't work but simply that the evidence is not there yet.

If one wishes to present something as science based then it must follow the guidelines of science. Whether one likes the rules of science or not is not very relevant.


Take care,

Dizfriz

Abi
02-20-13, 11:10 AM
Moderator Note
Please note that live-linking to commercially-oriented webites is not permitted here at ADDF; nor is linking to brochures advertising commercial products allowed.

Please keep these guidelines in mind when contributing.

Thank you :)

maplewoods
02-20-13, 12:54 PM
Dizfriz,

You have some merit to some of the points you make but your conclusion is certainly not logical nor justfiably warnated, evne by your own standards, (in my opinion).

As I pointed out in my earlier posts, there is a double standard at play and you yourself make countless decisions daily without applying the "standard" which you seek here.

As for the alternatives?

The highest standards are applied to all ADD Drugs which are "approved" but guess what?

At the end of the day, no matter how many wonderful "studies" and FDA approval, which the drugs have they simply don't do the 'greatest' job, (to say the least) long term.

In fact there isn't any study at all whatsoever, not even one, that proves that any one drug (not even 1) works very effectively, for any significant length of time, long term for most people.

All the so called "glowing reports" of all the "holly" and "approved" ADD Drugs, are based on relatively short term use for the duration of the trial or study but virtually every single drug on the market for ADD fails 100% of the time for virtually every single person who ever tries it.

The above is pretty serious indictment of the entire medical industry and all doctors who prescribe these medications.

Recent evidence confirms that every single drug for ADD on the markt, without any exception - every single one of them fails after a period of time that it's used.

That's why this forum exists and that's why YOU are here!

That's why doctors keep switching medications on their patients and this switching is purely experimental and 100% based on ANECDOTAL evidence - anecdotal as reported by the patient and experimental (trial and error method) in the method used by every doctor, when he decides, which prescription medication to TRY and experiment on you, with (where you serve as his Guina pig, based on trial and error experimentation - a 100% unscientific method.

In addition there never even existed any medication (not even for a short duration of time) that the medication for ADD had a LASTING EFFECT, after the medication was stopped. That means that within 2 weeks of any ADD medication is stopped the symptoms return 100% of the time by 100% of any and every drug for ADD.

This is not the case with the other interventions such as Play Attention where not only can the symptoms be improved without any medication at all whatsoever, but in addition, many pilot studies have proven that the effect lasts, even LONG after the intervention is stopped. This has been shown many times and not even 1 drug could ever show that not even in any "preliminary trial" of any drug and not in any "pilot study" (no matter how small or insignificant the study may be, nevertheless not even any 1 drug on earth has ever shown even a glimmer of hope of even a chance of 1 in million, that it's effect can last, at all whatsoever, after it's use is discontinued, even for as short as 2 weeks later!

That's a WORLD of a difference in effectiveness. You can't even compare something like drugs which has absolute zero effect after it's stopped, to Play Attention whose effect lasts, the vast majority of the time, by most people who use it.

So Drugs have their high standard, which you like to see,

- of course they can do these studies because they make billions of dollars, so they can affford it, and all alternative interventions don't have such a budjet and thearfore will never be able to afford it EVER in the future either....

But do the Drugs bring satisfaction to most people, most of the time LONG TERM???

The above is a very simple "unscientific" question and no "study" is required to answer it.

Just look at this forum, which is living proof of everyone expressing the ineffectiveness of the Drugs!

Because the other alternatives simply don't really work very well at all (to say the least) even though they have Billions of dollars of the holly "study" behind them.

Dizfriz
02-20-13, 03:04 PM
You seem to want people to use the play attention just because you say it works. That is
not adequate.

Look at the efforts to get neurofeedback recognized as a validated treatment for ADHD.
They are getting closer and are following the rules to do so. In other words, they are
doing the research.

Why should I buy a treatment for a disorder without good evidence it is effective? You have provided one study that shows some possibility and that is it. Not very good.

I am going to work with you as an honest true believer.

So if you want to people to use this treatment shouldn't you able to show sources of evidence outside those trying to sell it? They are hardly objective.

So as has been asked several times show some peer reviewed studies showing the effectiveness of this treatment. You have alluded to the countless number of studies you assert but you have not done this. Company sites do not count.

A couple of points.

That's a WORLD of a difference in effectiveness. You can't even compare something like drugs which has absolute zero effect after it's stopped, Oh yes we can. As far as we know there is no treatment that has much in the way of carryover once the intervention is stopped. Right now, there are two interventions that have been shown to be effective in treating ADHD....medication and behavior intervention. For both of these effectiveness tends to cease once the treatment stops. There have been thousands of peer reviewed studies examining this. As I understand there are over 10,000 peer reviewed studies involving ADHD, wouldn't one think that play attention might have a few?

to Play Attention whose effect lasts, the vast majority of the time, by most people who use it. So you say but you have shown little no evidence to back this up, Are we simply to take your word for it? That dog doesn't hunt.

You may not like science nor medications but that has nothing to do with examining the effectiveness of the intervention you push. It would be helpful for you to stay on this subject.

How are we to know if this product has any beneficial results at all much less long term ones?


The ball is in your court. I am not saying the treatment doesn't work but do say that you haven't supported it so why should anyone buy it based just on your statement that it does.

Inquiring minds would like to know.


Dizfriz

Amtram
02-20-13, 06:51 PM
That is what research is for. That's why something that has more research with more statistically significant results is generally considered to "work" better than something backed up with customer testimonials.

When it comes to research for medications, there are a number of reasons why one might work and one might not, and the research provides insight as to why, which fine-tunes both the prescription process and also improves scientific understanding of the condition.

You picked a few quotes out of studies that support a point of view that is largely supported by this community - that the most effective treatment consists not of medication alone or therapy alone, but a combination of both. Studies that have looked at this in a way that is well-designed and controlled find this over and over again.

The therapies used that tend to be most effective, though, are targeted to the individual. "Brain training" and other task-mastery based protocols tend to show improvement only in specific performances, not in the wider range of issues a person with ADHD needs addressed. e.g., if you have a social problem, brain training tasks will not help you.

This program is not news to most of us here. We already have anecdotes scattered about in various discussion areas. You could address those anecdotes with anecdotes of your own, but if you want to convince us, evidence would work much better. Many of us also know how to look critically at evidence, so good evidence with relevant citations would work the best. The evidence so far, though, is that this is another brain training program, and its results would be reflective of other brain training type programs on ADHD that have been found before.

maplewoods
02-20-13, 07:45 PM
The therapies used that tend to be most effective, though, are targeted to the individual. "Brain training" and other task-mastery based protocols tend to show improvement only in specific performances, not in the wider range of issues a person with ADHD needs addressed. e.g., if you have a social problem, brain training tasks will not help you.



Amtram,

I agree with what you say that "Brain Training" actually works and that is what my entire point was, all along.

ConcertaParent
02-20-13, 08:12 PM
The key to an intelligent decision of which of the many purported treatments to try is to weigh the expected efficacy/benefits/advantages against their expected costs/time/risks/disadvantages.
I will try all of the following brainwave-related treatments BEFORE PA's overpriced $1,800 cost and unproven armband:

- FocusPocus ADHD software for only $99
- DAVID ALERT audio-visual entrainment for ~$370
- SmartBrain Technologies for $640+
- HEG or EEG home system
- experienced qEEG neurofeedback clinic
- LENS, HEG and other neurofeedback treatments.

So many snake oil businesses have ripped off consumers desperately seeking improvement. If one tried every unproven $1,800 snake oil product out there, one would go bankrupt and waste precious time not trying better alternatives.

Drewbacca
02-20-13, 09:59 PM
The thing with these types of products is that they do "work." They just don't work as claimed. If I go outside and toss a baseball around enough, I'm going to get better at tossing a baseball. Unfortunately, that doesn't mean I'll be a better driver or a faster walker. Likewise, working a lot of cross word puzzles makes me better at cross word puzzles! Unfortunately, that won't help me to get a degree.

I don't personally have a problem with products like Play Attention. Honestly, I'd rather my children use something like that than watch the crap on television these days... such programs aren't worthless (if they are worth the excessive cost, I don't think that they are); they just aren't going to fix anyone's ADHD. I'm still waiting to see an objective study that says otherwise.

namazu
02-21-13, 12:09 AM
MODERATOR NOTE:

The thread has been reopened after removal of off-topic remarks and personal attacks.

Please restrict further comments to the request for personal experiences contained in maplewoods' original post...
I was wondering if anyone here has had personal experience with Play Attention.

If yes, please relate your positive or negative experience.

Also, if anyone here is using Play Attention, please mention which version you are using, if it's the helmet type or the armband type....and other information germane to this type of treatment approach.

Please treat all members with respect and avoid trading personal accusations.

The references that were removed because of their commercial source may be found on the company's website or through your favorite search engine.

Thank you.

maplewoods
02-21-13, 12:43 AM
The key to an intelligent decision of which of the many purported treatments to try is to weigh the expected efficacy/benefits/advantages against their expected costs/time/risks/disadvantages.
I will try all of the following brainwave-related treatments BEFORE PA's overpriced $1,800 cost and unproven armband:

- FocusPocus ADHD software for only $99
- DAVID ALERT audio-visual entrainment for ~$370
- SmartBrain Technologies for $640+
- HEG or EEG home system
- experienced qEEG neurofeedback clinic
- LENS, HEG and other neurofeedback treatments.

So many snake oil businesses have ripped off consumers desperately seeking improvement. If one tried every unproven $1,800 snake oil product out there, one would go bankrupt and waste precious time not trying better alternatives.

I agree.

I'm actually in favor of first trying the focus pocus package before spending so much on others.

Focus Pocus has the advantage that at least the related hardware is open source, + you can see the actual EEG, whereas Play Attention is not.

Play Attention also has many advantages that Focus Pocus doesn't and that is in the area of support and that's been in use for about a decade while Focus Pocus is a brand new kid on the block with hardley any studies done yet, in comparison to play attention which has many.

But what I like about both of them, is the common denominator, which is that they are both based on the principal (of the Neuroplasticity of the Brain and) that Focus or the lack of it is not treated as disease which needs to be medicated, but rather they view the ADD child's lack of attention, as a Trainable Skill and both are based on neurofeedback which helps a child learn the skill quickly because they see in real-time if they are effectively focusing or not.

I'm still researching them, but so far I feel that both of the above are both on the right track and each one has advantages that the other lacks.

I don't favor all the other software programs that try to Brain Train without using EEG feedback because it's the feedback mechanism that helps one learn the new skill of focus, as they see the results of their efforts to focus, in real-time.


BTW
The focus pocus software package does require the hardware by another separate company called NeuroSky. They have 2 headsets. 1 headset is with a wire that costs about $80 and another which is wireless which costs about $130

ConcertaParent
02-21-13, 02:05 AM
that's been in use for about a decade Do you know why PA got rid of its EEG helmet? After attending a webinar, I agreed with the EEG experts' skepticism of the new armband. I asked if a PA system can be bought with the EEG helmet instead of the armband, but it was not an option.
principal (of the Neuroplasticity of the Brain Unfortunately, the principle of neuroplasticity is being way overused by businesses marketing their expensive products. For example, Fast ForWord and Michael Merzenich keeps talking about "neuroplasticity" but when Fast ForWord is subjected to independent randomized controlled trials (RCTs, something PA should do with its armband), the results are very disappointing to both educators and parents.

mildadhd
02-21-13, 02:54 AM
What about going to a park, and kicking a ball or something, for free? My son used to laugh uncontrollably, when I would chase him with the ball. Some of the best times of our lives. (Neither of us prefer competition, and would make up our own rules/games).

Amtram
02-21-13, 08:59 AM
That is the perfect game for ADDers. Here are the rules: http://calvinandhobbes.wikia.com/wiki/Calvinball

maplewoods
02-21-13, 12:31 PM
Do you know why PA got rid of its EEG helmet?

I asked them the same question.

I was told that it's simply because it's much more comfortable and since it works just as well, (according to them although many are skeptical) therefore the more comfortable option, is better.

Another reason they told me is because some children feel stupid or otherwise uncomfortable having to put a helmet on their head.

What I would like, is to find any parent or adult user (other than the company but rather any individual user) who is actually using the helmet or the armband or perhaps anyone who has the experience of both that can report to us their findings.

If I can't find (anyone else except the company) - a few people who have actually tested it themselves - (and so far I only found 1 mom) then I would be inclined to try Focus Pocus first before investing in anything more expensive.

maplewoods
02-21-13, 12:45 PM
What about going to a park, and kicking a ball or something, for free? My son used to laugh uncontrollably, when I would chase him with the ball. Some of the best times of our lives. (Neither of us prefer competition, and would make up our own rules/games).

Yes, there are lots and lots of things that could be helpful and they are indeed actually somewhat helpful.

I know about many, many, many different things that all work but I was looking for actual, hands on experience and feedback of anyone who actually tried something which they found effective, themselves, not based on any "study" but based on their own personal experience.


If you try the "ball" thing and if you find that it does wonders and effectively gets your child more focused, in actuality, I would love to hear your actual experience of your success story and I would be willing to try it myself too.

That's why I started the thread searching for anyone, who has actually had, any actual, hands on, personal experience, in this realm.

mildadhd
02-21-13, 01:23 PM
Yes, there are lots and lots of things that could be helpful and they are indeed actually somewhat helpful.

I know about many, many, many different things that all work but I was looking for actual, hands on experience and feedback of anyone who actually tried something which they found effective, themselves, not based on any "study" but based on their own personal experience.


If you try the "ball" thing and if you find that it does wonders and effectively gets your child more focused, in actuality, I would love to hear your actual experience of your success story and I would be willing to try it myself too.

That's why I started the thread searching for anyone, who has actually had, any actual, hands on, personal experience, in this realm.

I have no idea what play attention is? And am not referring to play attention in this post.

If you check out this thread link below, it will give you an idea of the primary emotions. Found in the middle and lower brain that the higher brain is built around.

I am only beginning to learn about the primary emotions of the lower and middle brain, I am not a professional. But I think this is the direction that will change and promote some new ways of looking at treatment, that will be found helpful in the future.




The PLAY/rough-and-tumble, physical socialengagement system

Young animals have strong urges for physical play - running, chasing, pouncing, and wrestling. These “aggressive” - assertive actions are consistently accompanied by positive affect - an intense social joy - signaled in rats by making abundant high frequency (~50 kHz) chirping sounds, resembling laughter. One key function of social play is to learn social rules and refine social interactions. Subcortically concentrated PLAY31 urges may promote the epigenetic construction of higher social brain functions, including empathy. Further studies of this system may lead to the discovery of positive affect promoting neurochemistries that may be useful in treating depression.32

http://www.addforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=140558


Playing (PLAY System) is one of the best things a child/parent can do to promote development of the higher cortex in many areas of life. Especially ruff and tumble during early years.


Side Note: Imaging machines are limited to what areas of the brain that can be measured, these imaging machines "measure" the higher cortex changes in blood flow but are not very good for measuring middle and lower brain primary emotional functions. That doesn't mean I don't think imaging machines have good purposes,but they cannot measure the whole brain function, very well.

maplewoods
02-21-13, 02:28 PM
I have no idea what play attention is? And am not referring to play attention in this post.


I know that you were not talking about play attention when you sugested "play".

When I responded to yoy on that comment #24, neither did I mention even 1 word about play attention and therefore I don't understand why you are replying to me now, by saying that you were not talking about it, since neither me nor you had mention it in the last exchange (my reply, to your comment #24).

Now back to the issue at hand:

You suggested Playing ball in the park, and my reply was that it remains to be seen, in actuality, hands on, the precise benefit, that can be observed, by a parent, when he plays with his child in the park, in actuality (NOT on a theoretical level but in actuality, in easily observable changes), in the child as a result of what you had suggested.

If it works, I'm all for it.

However the thread you refer to is very abstract and very theoretical, whereas I am talking about down to earth experiment that me and you can try an experiment today, right here right now and observe the tangible results without having to use theoretical philosophy but rather tangible results.

That's why I suggest, (you) trying it out, if you think it will work and let us know how it works out, in actuality.

A second point is as follows:

Although all the deep thought and the abstract theoretical speculation, in the thread you pointed, to, is all very good, but it's very broad in scope, as it pertains to too many different aspects of the brain - and that's fine. -

However, if we are FOCUSED on the ADD "Focus" issue, which is something that people with ADD are handicapped in, then it's not "right on target".

That's why I had responded to your comment #24, by me saying "lets see if playing ball in the park will get them FOCUSED".

The issue here (in this thread) is FOCUS and what will help a child to get more focused.

If playing ball in the park can be DEMONSTRATED, hands on, in actuality, (rather than on deep abstract hypothetical philosophical theoretical level) - then I would be happy to try playing ball in the park, to see if the result is that it is perhaps you may be suggesting:

I wish we could take a child with with ADD who is very unfocused and therefore can't learn properly because he can't focus and we will give him an intervention called "playing ball in the park" - and I would like to see even 1 parent who can tell me that this "playing ball in the park" was an effective intervention, to transform this child's scattered brain, to become focused as a result.

I am not disputing what you are saying about the benefit of playing ball in the park (I agree it's great thing in general, why not?) I am only ASKING you * "did you actually try it" * and if yes did you see the result that it transformed the child's unfocused brain to become focused in an easily observable manner as any parent could easily see it.

mildadhd
02-21-13, 02:31 PM
I don't think these computer programs work for ADDers because computers don't address the real needs, "natural needs" of early childhood development.

They might promote development in certain areas, but not the areas that are required, to promote brain development related to ADD.


Play and touch. ("I think touch is the source of play"- Prof. PankSepp")

(Approx time 44:00) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u4ICY6-7hJo

The most important sensory system in a rat is touch, probably the same as our little children...if you play with your 2 year old, you better pick it up and throw it and be physical, they love it, that is the best play, so I think touch is the source of play.- Prof. Jaak Panksepp

mildadhd
02-21-13, 02:57 PM
I know that you were not talking about play attention when you sugested "play".

When I responded to yoy on that comment #24, neither did I mention even 1 word about play attention and therefore I don't understand why you are replying to me now, by saying that you were not talking about it, since neither me nor you had mention it in the last exchange (my reply, to your comment #24).

Now back to the issue at hand:

You suggested Playing ball in the park, and my reply was that it remains to be seen, in actuality, hands on, the precise benefit, that can be observed, by a parent, when he plays with his child in the park, in actuality (NOT on a theoretical level but in actuality, in easily observable changes), in the child as a result of what you had suggested.

If it works, I'm all for it.

However the thread you refer to is very abstract and very theoretical, whereas I am talking about down to earth experiment that me and you can try an experiment today, right here right now and observe the tangible results without having to use theoretical philosophy but rather tangible results.

That's why I suggest, (you) trying it out, if you think it will work and let us know how it works out, in actuality.

A second point is as follows:

Although all the deep thought and the abstract theoretical speculation, in the thread you pointed, to, is all very good, but it's very broad in scope, as it pertains to too many different aspects of the brain - and that's fine. -

However, if we are FOCUSED on the ADD "Focus" issue, which is something that people with ADD are handicapped in, then it's not "right on target".

That's why I had responded to your comment #24, by me saying "lets see if playing ball in the park will get them FOCUSED".

The issue here (in this thread) is FOCUS and what will help a child to get more focused.

If playing ball in the park can be DEMONSTRATED, hands on, in actuality, (rather than on deep abstract hypothetical philosophical theoretical level) - then I would be happy to try playing ball in the park, to see if the result is that it is perhaps you may be suggesting:

I wish we could take a child with with ADD who is very unfocused and therefore can't learn properly because he can't focus and we will give him an intervention called "playing ball in the park" - and I would like to see even 1 parent who can tell me that this "playing ball in the park" was an effective intervention, to transform this child's scattered brain, to become focused as a result.

I am not disputing what you are saying about the benefit of playing ball in the park (I agree it's great thing in general, why not?) I am only ASKING you * "did you actually try it" * and if yes did you see the result that it transformed the child's unfocused brain to become focused in an easily observable manner as any parent could easily see it.


I am a father, and yes, playing at the park works(ed) for my son. He is doing good in all areas of life, in my opinion. (playing at the park is one of many things that can help promote neuroplasticity)

Side Note: I was only pointing out that I didn't support Play Attention because it is the title of the thread, nothing against you personally, I found it important to address the fact that I don't know what Play Attention is, so people don't think I support it. I don't think the problem can be solved with such artificial means.

What I recommend to you, is to learn how the "brain focus' develops and is affected, from a ground up approach.(considering the whole brain and body)

maplewoods
02-21-13, 03:22 PM
I am a father, and yes, playing at the park works(ed) for my son. He is doing good in all areas of life, in my opinion.



I am very happy to hear that you son is doing great and that it "works(ed)" for him.

That is indeed very exciting but very cryptic at the same time, since you didn't give us any specific examples of how exactly it helped your son and in which way and how much it helped him etc.

Please be so kind to describe as best you can, in a few lines, exactly what was the specific "abnormality" (was he ADD and become "cured" as "non-add"?) or whatever symptoms which your child had before you implemented the intervention of "playing ball in the park" with him and please describe, which symptoms specifically "went away" as a result of your playing ball with him in the park?

If in fact you son had any specific problem, which disappeared, as a result of your intervention, of "playing ball in the park" with him, I would also be curios to know, how long it took, (how much time in the park each time and how many times (sessions) and over how many months or years), before you had achieved the "recovery" or "cure" or whatever transformation you achieved with your child.

mildadhd
02-21-13, 03:23 PM
However, if we are FOCUSED on the ADD "Focus" issue, which is something that people with ADD are handicapped in, then it's not "right on target"-Maplewoods.

What areas of the brain do you think are involved in "focus"?

maplewoods
02-21-13, 03:52 PM
What areas of the brain do you think are involved in "focus"?

To me it doesn't matter at all, whatsoever, and in my opinion it should not matter to anyone else either.

The only thing that should matter is if you get the desired results.

the Results we want is a Focused mind, to be as good as what we observe at least with most so called "normal" people, or better.

It's as simple as that.

Absolutely ZERO philosophy is needed only results that WORK and that can be repeated by anyone else who cares to try the same "remedy" or intervention.

It can be demonstrated in actuality that there are in fact many things that increase focus.

When someone can demonstrate that any kind of intervention actually works to increase focus, as matter of fact, no one can dispute the actual facts.

Then later (after proving the facts) come along the philosophers who speculate as to the reason why it worked so well and they "make up" a philosophy and reasoning as to what they ASSUME is the reason why it works so well. This "philosophy" and "made up" assumptions as to what the reason might be, is arguable by others who can come up with any one of dozens of other alternative explanations to exaplan the facts.

Reasons and "explanations" and theories to explain things, are always debatable, but the actual factual (repeatable) results are not debatable.

After an intervention is shown to actually work, now you can later, also, ask me why it works.

We can leave the explanations to the scientist, which use our end results to later "make up" the explanations as to why it worked, in fact but our concern should just be what actually works regardless of philosophy (because the reasons will always be arguable and debatable and therefore you don't get to far working that way).

That's my opinion and approach- First get something that actually works, then philosophize afterwords if you have the time or care to bother.

mildadhd
02-21-13, 03:56 PM
To me it doesn't matter at all, whatsoever, and in my opinion it should not matter to anyone else either.

The only thing that should matter is if you get the desired results.

the Results we want is a Focused mind, to be as good as what we observe at least with most so called "normal" people, or better.

It's as simple as that.

Absolutely ZERO philosophy is needed only results that WORK and that can be repeated by anyone else who cares to try the same "remedy" or intervention.

It can be demonstrated in actuality that there are in fact many things that increase focus.

When someone can demonstrate that any kind of intervention actually works to increase focus, as matter of fact, no one can dispute the actual facts.

Then later (after proving the facts) come along the philosophers who speculate as to the reason why it worked so well and they "make up" a philosophy and reasoning as to what they ASSUME is the reason why it works so well. This "philosophy" and "made up" assumptions as to what the reason might be, is arguable by others who can come up with any one of dozens of other alternative explanations to exaplan the facts.

Reasons and "explanations" and theories to explain things, are always debatable, but the actual factual (repeatable) results are not debatable.

After an intervention is shown to actually work, now you can later, also, ask me why it works.

We can leave the explanations to the scientist, which use our end results to later "make up" the explanations as to why it worked, in fact but our concern should just be what actually works regardless of philosophy (because the reasons will always be arguable and debatable and therefore you don't get to far working that way).

That's my opinion and approach- First get something that actually works, then philosophize afterwords if you have the time or care to bother.

I assume you are talking about Play Attention? How does it work or not work, in your opinion? And in regards to your other questions, everything can be explained if you study how the normal brain/mind/body develops, in a relationship with other people, especially the primary caregivers, I study neuroplasticity a lot (as a hobby), and I am interested in your explanation of how this works for you?

maplewoods
02-21-13, 04:14 PM
I assume you are talking about Play Attention? How does it work?

No.

There in are fact many many different ways besides the one that you mentioned.

In the following post, it mentions many alternatives:

http://www.addforums.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1446722&postcount=19

The above Link refers to EEG or computer based systems.

I also know of other methods that work extreamly well, that have nothing at all to do with EEG and nothing at all to do with any kind of computers, nor software.

The following 2 systems are perhaps a little more along the lines of your way of thinking. I can't vouch for the philosophy but I do know for sure that they work 100% extraordinarily well and very effectively and with permanent results.

1) One is product is called iLs Total Focus by a company called Integarted Listening (costs about $1400)

another super excelent one is called

2) Learning Breakthrough (only costs about $400)

The common denominator of the above 2 is that they use very complex broad and wide-ranging set of stimulus to stimulate the brain via specific targeted exercises and specific gated and filtered sounds, (called the Tomatis Method) which awakens dormant parts of the brain (which parts of the brain is irrelevant except that it DOES in fact work) and the results is that for all practical purpose, not only is the child's focus FAR better but many many other brain faculties are also greatly improved as a result.

There are countless studies that prove the above 2 works extremely well and in addition I have first hand information from people who use these 2 products every single day with consistently repeatable results.

mildadhd
02-21-13, 04:19 PM
No.

There in are fact many many different ways besides the one that you mentioned.

In the following post, it mentions many alternatives:

http://www.addforums.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1446722&postcount=19

The above Link refers to EEG or computer based systems.

I also know of other methods that work extreamly well, that have nothing at all to do with EEG and nothing at all to do with any kind of computers, nor software.

The following 2 systems are perhaps a little more along the lines of your way of thinking. I can't vouch for the philosophy but I do know for sure that they work 100% extraordinarily well and very effectively and with permanent results.

1) One is product is called iLs Total Focus by a company called Integarted Listening (costs about $1400)

another super excelent one is called

2) Learning Breakthrough (only costs about $400)

The common denominator of the above 2 is that they use very complex broad and wide-ranging set of stimulus to stimulate the brain via specific targeted exercises and specific gated and filtered sounds, (called the Tomatis Method) which awakens dormant parts of the brain (which parts of the brain is irrelevant except that it DOES in fact work) and the results is that for all practical purpose, not only is the child's focus FAR better but many many other brain faculties are also greatly improved as a result.

There are countless studies that prove the above 2 works extremely well and in addition I have first hand information from people who use these 2 products every single day with consistently repeatable results.

The park is free! (I didn't say this was the only thing we can do)

Lets see the studies?

maplewoods
02-21-13, 04:32 PM
Lets see the studies?

I don't have the time to search for them all, and then post them here (and then get an argument of everyone jumping on me (foolishly) that I'm trying to promote a product).

In the past I have Linked, to many useful studies that no one here had ever seen before and were very informative and very useful, yet this forum has restrictions on what you can link to so you have the name of the 2 companies and you can look it up yourself.

If you really want to look at it with an open mind you will find it but if someone takes on the attitude of "don't confuse me with the facts because I already made up my mind", then with such an attitude no amount of proof will ever be adequate because no matter how much is presented you can always argue that you need something more than that and a higher standard of proof.

I have no interest to debate it with people who have a closed mind.

I presented you with the information, Take it or leave it. If really want to you CAN research it yourself and you will see for yourself.

mildadhd
02-21-13, 04:40 PM
I don't have the time to search for them all, and then post them here (and then get an argument of everyone jumping on me (foolishly) that I'm trying to promote a product).

In the past I have Linked, to many useful studies that no one here had ever seen before and were very informative and very useful, yet this forum has restrictions on what you can link to so you have the name of the 2 companies and you can look it up yourself.

If you really want to look at it with an open mind you will find it but if someone takes on the attitude of "don't confuse me with the facts because I already made up my mind", then with such an attitude no amount of proof will ever be adequate because no matter how much is presented you can always argue that you need something more than that and a higher standard of proof.

I have no interest to debate it with people who have a closed mind.

I presented you with the information, Take it or leave it. If really want to you CAN research it yourself and you will see for yourself.

Ditto! This is the first time I have ever heard of this conversation. You haven't provided any information about these things except the costs, :scratch: Seems kind of fishy to me? I am leaving it, closing mind now!

maplewoods
02-21-13, 05:56 PM
I am a father, and yes, playing at the park works(ed) for my son. He is doing good in all areas of life, in my opinion.

Please be so kind to describe as best you can, in a few lines, exactly what was the specific "abnormality" (was he ADD and become "cured" as "non-add"?) or whatever symptoms which your child had before you implemented the intervention of "playing ball in the park" with him and please describe, which symptoms specifically "went away" as a result of your playing ball with him in the park?

I'm assuming he had no problem to begin with? Or did he?

mildadhd
02-21-13, 06:18 PM
Please be so kind to describe as best you can, in a few lines, exactly what was the specific "abnormality" (was he ADD and become "cured" as "non-add"?) or whatever symptoms which your child had before you implemented the intervention of "playing ball in the park" with him and please describe, which symptoms specifically "went away" as a result of your playing ball with him in the park?

I'm assuming he had no problem to begin with? Or did he?

Look! I have given you a link with a list of 7 primary emotional systems, related to normal brain development. When one or more is lacking, or experience abnormally interference in development, imagine the repercussions? I was wrong to discuss my family with you, and I don't wish to discuss anything more about my family with you. Your asking a whole lot of specifics, without giving any specifics of your own. If you said anything that had any weight at all, I wouldn't be so negative. Playing with a ball is not the only form of play, I thought you would be discussing play in relation to ADD and brain development? What are you discussing?

Spacemaster
02-21-13, 08:38 PM
I see that one of these programs "only costs $400". Do you realise that for most of us here, $400 is a lot? That amount of money could almost pay my rent for the month. Most of us here probably don't have that money hanging around, and saving up for it isn't easy either.

So yes, please do "confuse me with the facts". I would have to have facts before I could justify spending so much on a product.

If these programs were as effective as you say, there would be people here that would attest to that. If these programs were SO effective, we'd all be singing their praises and shouting huzzah!

I'm not trying to put you or the product down, or be sarcastic.

This isn't like choosing ice cream flavours. Ice cream doesn't have a base price of "only $400.00". Some of us here might not even have extra money for ice cream, save for the occasional treat. Please take this into consideration.

Are there "trial" periods? I for one, know that I would most likely try the product, and forget to send it back on time. Many of us on this forum would forget. Heck, many of us would forget to even try the thing before we had to send it back! I can't risk that, and be stuck for hundreds of dollars.

My unwillingness to try these products is not because I'm stubborn and I already made my opinion. I can't do it, because I can't afford it. I can't afford to spend that kind of money without concrete evidence that it works. I have to save up that much money just to get dental work done, because I have to pay out of pocket.

I really don't wish to sound dismissive, but so far I haven't seen anything on this thread that is convincing enough.

maplewoods
02-21-13, 11:36 PM
Spacemaster,

I understand what you are saying and I see your point.

But let me ask you if I may, what is the best thing you found so far that you are convinced works and that you are convinced, that it's worthwhile, (worth the money) without question?

I'm not looking for a long list, just 1 item or 1 drug that you can swear by as absolutely unquestionable.

What do you actually use instead?

Spacemaster
02-22-13, 12:08 AM
Adderall. But, I won't say it's unquestionable. It's not perfect, and I may develop a tolerance, but for now it works. It's all I have, and it's $9.00 a month.

Abi
02-22-13, 10:05 AM
Adderall. But, I won't say it's unquestionable. It's not perfect, and I may develop a tolerance, but for now it works. It's all I have, and it's $9.00 a month.

Quoted for truth.

Abi
02-22-13, 10:07 AM
I don't have ADHD, but bipolar which gives me "ADHD-like" symptoms.

I use Wellbutrin - costs the equivalent of $40 a month.

Again, it's not perfect, but it has allowed me to pursue a Masters degree, which I am about half-way complete. I would never be able to do this since the devlopment of my bipolar (in my early 20s) until starting this med.

Drewbacca
02-22-13, 12:45 PM
Adderall. But, I won't say it's unquestionable. It's not perfect, and I may develop a tolerance, but for now it works. It's all I have, and it's $9.00 a month.

LOL Thanks for keeping it simple! I can't keep it that simple, myself... but then, I have more than one disorder at work on my end.

maplewoods
02-22-13, 01:12 PM
Adderall. But, I won't say it's unquestionable. It's not perfect, and I may develop a tolerance, but for now it works. It's all I have, and it's $9.00 a month.

I respect your decision and your reasons for doing so.

But from an analytical point of view, your decision is based primarily on a short term financial considerations and not necessarily on any "proof" (that the the medication has any potential efficacy to work long term) of any kind, and also not considering long term effectiveness (or any "proof" of long term effectiveness) - as you pointed out that you are well aware that you may develop a tolerance for it, long term.

We all make choices for different reasons and my point is not to judge your decisions. I make no "judgement" as to your derision or the decision of CHOICE that anyone else makes.

My only point is, that we all make decisions as to which choice to choose in our daily lives and rarely ever is it based on "proof", (not on any "study") as in this case its based simply on fiances.

Don't get me wrong, I do RESPECT your decision 100%.

Drewbacca
02-22-13, 01:49 PM
But from an analytical point of view, your decision is based primarily on a short term financial considerations and not necessarily on any "proof" (that the the medication has any potential efficacy to work long term) of any kind, and also not considering long term effectiveness (or any "proof" of long term effectiveness) - as you pointed out that you are well aware that you may develop a tolerance for it, long term.

There is currently no "cure" for ADHD (there are cures for other issues that mimic ADHD). We have treatments, not cures. The possibility of tolerance exists for any treatment; this isn't restricted to ADHD.

It doesn't matter if today's treatment will stop working eventually... so long as it is working currently. I say this, based on the fact that we don't know that it will stop working at some later point. My position would be different if we knew for a fact, from day one, that a medication would not provide a long term benefit for some reason.

Tolerance is not an indication that a medicine doesn't work, it's a side-effect of taking the medication. It must be considered in light of a treatment program, but it is no reason to not begin treatment via medication. If 5% of those being treated with amphetamines build up too much of a tolerance to continue that course of treatment, that doesn't negate the benefit of the other 95% who don't develop such an extreme level of tolerance. Again, we are assuming that spacemaster will develop such a tolerance... at this point, that is an unknown factor.

If you are asking for "proof" that any type of treatment will cure the disorder, then I think we are chasing the proverbial unicorn. Without a cure, there can be no proof.

As for "long term proof" there are studies suggesting that the short term acceptance and treatment of the disorder will reduce the population of prisons and short term use of medication will help ADHD students complete a college degree (which is becoming less of an option and more of a requirement in today's economy). Just because treatment *may* only have a short term benefit of treating ADHD itself, the subsequent benefits of taking it earlier in life can not be ignored when we look at the long term.

But, you are technically correct that there are no long-term studies supporting the use of medication, considering that the adult form of ADHD has only been recently accepted in its current form with documented treatement. For the same reason, there are no long term studies stating the opposite given the same terms.

maplewoods
02-22-13, 02:20 PM
But, you are technically correct that there are no long-term studies supporting the use of medication, considering that the adult form of ADHD has only been recently accepted in its current form with documented treatment. For the same reason, there are no long term studies stating the opposite given the same terms.

I'm glad you are aware of the above quoted fact.

Now we are beginning to get somewhere.

Lets contemplate a hypothetical "What IF".

What if a study was done, over a period of many long years, say for example over 5 years or 6 years, and what if, we looked at a group of say perhaps a bunch of 200 children or so, and what if we followed these 200 chidlren over many years and what if we see that the vast majority of those who take medication for ADD, do not in fact have their symptoms resolved at all, whatsoever.

What do you think, that would hypothetically show us, about the efficacy of ADD medication, long term, for the majority of children?

Wouldn't it be a great idea to do such a study?

Has anyone tried that yet?

If such a study was done, what do you guess (just take a wild guess), what do you think such the results would likely show?

Take a guess.

Dizfriz
02-22-13, 02:24 PM
I am seeing the term "proof" used in this thread and this, I feel, needs clarifying.

Science does not do proof. Nothing in science is ever proven since the possibility of new evidence must be kept open.

All scientific theories are provisional in nature for the same reason.

A quick definition of the word fact as it is usually used in science. In science, 'fact' can only mean 'confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent.' -Stephen Jay Gould What science can do is support, disprove or falsify but never prove.

So if someone asks for scientific proof, they are asking for something that cannot and will not exist.

The best we can get is somewhere in the range of the evidence strongly supporting something.

As the old saying goes, "Proof is for booze and math, not science."


A small aside, methelphenate has been used for treatment of ADHD for over 50 years and the Amphetamines for over 70. Proof-no; but I think we have a fairly good handle on the long term effects of the medications.

Just for clarity.

Dizfriz

namazu
02-22-13, 02:36 PM
I'm glad you are aware of the above quoted fact.

Now we are beginning to get somewhere.

Lets contemplate a hypothetical "What IF".

What if a study was done, over a period of many long years, say for example over 5 years or 6 years, and what if, we looked at a group of say perhaps a bunch of 200 children or so, and what if we followed these 200 chidlren over many years and what if we see that the vast majority of those who take medication for ADD, do not in fact have their symptoms resolved at all, whatsoever.

What do you think, that would hypothetically show us, about the efficacy of ADD medication, long term, for the majority of children?

Wouldn't it be a great idea to do such a study?

Has anyone tried that yet?

If such a study was done, what do you guess (just take a wild guess), what do you think such the results would likely show?

Take a guess.
Studies like the one(s) to which you allude have generally been observational rather than interventional -- that is, researchers followed kids and their medication use or non-use, but didn't intervene in these decisions.

Studies of this sort are very frequently complicated by the fact that people whose symptoms are more severe or difficult to manage in the first place are also more likely to be prescribed medications.

So when you compare those who took meds (or continued to take meds) and those who didn't, it's not necessarily a "fair" comparison. An early study (whose results don't seem to hold under scrutiny) suggested that those who took meds were more likely to use drugs later in life. But this study suffered from the same problem, namely, that those with more severe ADHD (and impulse-control problems) were more likely to use drugs. And they were also, by virtue of their more severe ADHD symptoms, more likely to have been prescribed medications. But that doesn't imply that medication use itself led to (i.e., caused / was a driving factor for) drug use later.

The comparison you'd really want to see is that of people with ADHD of similar severity and predispositions and parental attitudes towards discipline and medication who took or did not take medications (according to some classification scheme). But in general, interventional studies (like randomized, double-blind, controlled trials, which assign treatments or non-treatments in a way that minimizes self-selection or skewing of the samples) are expensive and short.

In the long term, it is both impractical and sometimes unethical to insist that people take a drug or placebo just to see what happens... So the long-term studies are almost all purely observational (at least by some point during follow-up), and thus frequently subject to "confounding by severity". There are some study-design and statistical maneuvers that can help to mitigate this phenomenon, but it's extremely difficult to eliminate and sometimes to accurately quantify the problem.

So when I read headlines like "Kids who use ADHD medications long-term are no better off than kids who don't take meds", I automatically question whether kids who use ADHD medications long-term are better off (or not) than they themselves would have been if they hadn't taken meds long-term. And that's a tough question to answer.

Self-selection and drop-outs from studies of neurofeedback-based tools are limiting factors in much of the research on these potential treatments, as well. Well-designed studies would be needed to give scientific support to testimonials.

That said, I support people using whatever legal, non-harmful means of addressing their ADHD they find to be effective, even if there aren't reams of iron-clad "proof" of efficacy. But I feel that claims for products marketed as treatments for medical conditions should, like medications, have to meet standards of evidence so as not to constitute false advertising. If it's free and not dangerous, go ahead!

Dizfriz
02-22-13, 03:12 PM
I'm glad you are aware of the above quoted fact.

Now we are beginning to get somewhere.

Lets contemplate a hypothetical "What IF".

What if a study was done, over a period of many long years, say for example over 5 years or 6 years, and what if, we looked at a group of say perhaps a bunch of 200 children or so, and what if we followed these 200 chidlren over many years and what if we see that the vast majority of those who take medication for ADD, do not in fact have their symptoms resolved at all, whatsoever.

What do you think, that would hypothetically show us, about the efficacy of ADD medication, long term, for the majority of children?

Wouldn't it be a great idea to do such a study?

Has anyone tried that yet?

If such a study was done, what do you guess (just take a wild guess), what do you think such the results would likely show?

Take a guess.

I don't understand the point of this. We know that the medications are only effective as long as they are being taken. Once they are stopped, there is no carry over. The medications do not cure ADHD only treat it. The same for behavior management. Both of these are validated treatments for ADHD but neither cures it. There is no symptom resolution once treatment is removed.

This is the same for a number of things. If you stop taking insulin,watching eating and exercise, it is back to square one. These are treatments to manage diabetes.

Insulin is not a cure for diabetes. Glasses are not a cure for vision problems, artificial limbs are not a cure for having one missing. Stimulants are not a cure for ADHD. Take away an artificial leg and the individual will still have problems walking no matter how long it was used,

As far as ADHD is concerned, right now there is no treatment that has shown any significant carry over. With all of them there are no long term benefits after treatment is stopped. Most stop immediately on stopping the treatment or have only a very short time carryover.

I cannot understand why you think this is a problem. We are talking about management of a disorder not a cure. If we can successfully manage a disorder such as this, what is the problem? Is it a criticism that insulin can only help manage diabetes and not cure it?

Yours in puzzlement,

Dizfriz

mildadhd
02-22-13, 03:32 PM
Maplewoods,

Could you Private Message me with all the information you have about Play Attention? Example what is it and how does it work, etc...?

maplewoods
02-22-13, 05:26 PM
I don't understand the point of this. We know that the medications are only effective as long as they are being taken.

Dizfriz

I am talking about following children for 5 or 6 years while they CONTINUE to use the drugs.

The point of it to see the long term affect WITHOUT stopping to take the drugs.

There is a huge discrepancy in the credibility of the way how all ADD drugs are approved.

The way they do it is they try it short term and then see it works and then conclude "it's great".

What if every single one of them "evaporates" it effectiveness, after a few months or after a few years, then you are prescribing non-working "medication" which may be 100% ineffective after the initial few day or after the initial few weeks or after the initial few months.

I'm not talking about 1 specific drug. I'm talking about all of them in general and not about the story of 1 person but what is the effect YEARS DOWN THE LINE by the vast majority of every single user!

A again, wouldn't it be interesting to follow a group of 200 children who ARE taking medication today and CONTINUE to take it for 6 years, every day and then 6 years later look to see if ANY ONE child is at all still benefiting?

I suspect not, even if they continue non-stop medication every day, as per their doctor..

Abi
02-22-13, 06:11 PM
Adult ADHD has been officially recognised since '78.

Assuming that prior to '78 ADHD youth were taken off meds at the age of 20... it is conceivable that people born in '58 or later.... diagnosed, say in '63 or later {back when it was MBD} could be out there who have been continuously medicated.

That's 50 years. Maybe an extreme example, but I do have friends who have been continuously medicated since the late 80's / early 90's and have been on Ritalin for close to 25 years, and it is still effective.

Drewbacca
02-22-13, 06:52 PM
I can't answer your hypothetical question without seeing the hypothetical paper in its entirety. As I stated elsewhere, the study in question has stated as fact "Results of the initial study found that overall, low doses of this medication over the short term are effective and safe."

In much the same way, a wheel-chair helps a paraplegic move about and maintain an independent lifestyle. I don't think that you would question the value of a wheel-chair for such an afflicted person, would you? Suppose there was a study that followed 200 hypothetical paraplegics for six years and six years later, they all still required wheel-chairs... a wheel-chair is an effective means of living without the use of one's legs, if necessary.

This, is in essence what you are saying. If you want to argue that medication doesn't cure ADHD, then fine, you win. What is your point? But if you are arguing that medication shouldn't be used because it doesn't cure the disorder... well, that's just absurd. I agree that alternative treatments should be considered and investigated... but don't take away medication if it has been shown to help treat the symptoms.

Also, there is no need for the excessive amount of sarcasm. I fail to see what you are arguing in favor of? Are you suggesting that medication isn't sufficient treatment of symptoms? Are you arguing that we shouldn't be treating the symptoms but the cause? (in which case, show me a means of doing so). Are you saying that there IS a cure that I'm unaware of? Do all the children in your "hypothetical" study actually have ADHD? Or, do some of them have something else which mimics the disorder and requires a different method of treatment?

You really aren't taking a clear position except to say that "there is no cure."

Drewbacca
02-22-13, 07:04 PM
Adult ADHD has been officially recognised since '78.

Enlighten me, because we are clearly misunderstanding each other on this point. I doubt that we disagree, but I suspect that we aren't talking about the same thing.

While there is a rich history of this topic, easily dating 100+ years, in research, it is only recently an accepted mainstream condition. It was only in the 1990s that child diagnosis really became widely accepted and the idea that it carries over into adult hood and is not "grown out of" is a more recent concept.

I can dig up isolated and related studies well before the 1990s, but the research and treatment has taken off in the last decade or so. If you know of a long term study (and by long term, I mean something like 50+ years for someone with a chronic ADHD condition, not just difficulty during the years in a school environment)...

I'm not saying that the treatment of ADHD with stimulants hasn't been around; I'm saying that things were not as well defined in the past. I think it might be safer to say that the long term treatment of inattention and hyperactivity via stimulants is well established... more so than saying that this is the case for ADHD (as we currently understand and treat it).

I don't really want to date the specifics of what and when... I'm just saying that I don't know of any longterm studies concerning the adult population with this disorder. If you know of any good ones, I'd love to become better informed and read them. Otherwise, I think we are just disagreeing over semantics. Beyond that, we are starting to get off topic. What I really want to know is where the OP is going with this (and hopefully it's not just a roundabout argument back to square one, aka ADHD is the problem and the title of this thread is the answer).

Abi
02-22-13, 07:11 PM
Adult ADHD was introduced into the DSM in '78

Though it's likely that practice lagged behind theory in this respect.

I'd like to see what Diz has to say about this... he has actively worked with ADHD sufferers and has been around a while.

Drewbacca
02-22-13, 07:28 PM
The way they do it is they try it short term and then see it works and then conclude "it's great".

You can probably get me on board with this statement, to a degree. I'm not a fan of the try-it-and-see approach... but lacking an alternative...

I don't think that anyone is arguing that "it's great." We are arguing that it's the best we've got and the benefits outweigh the negatives. These are two very different statements.


What if every single one of them "evaporates" it effectiveness, after a few months or after a few years, then you are prescribing non-working "medication" which may be 100% ineffective after the initial few day or after the initial few weeks or after the initial few months.

That's a really big "what if" and not based on reality. Either that, or we are all completely misunderstanding what you are trying to say. The medication does not stop being effective; treatment doesn't have a half life. If you think that it does, you need to provide some evidence. The study referencing the 200 children does not state what you are stating.


A again, wouldn't it be interesting to follow a group of 200 children who ARE taking medication today and CONTINUE to take it for 6 years, every day and then 6 years later look to see if ANY ONE child is at all still benefiting?


Show me where this is stated in a peer reviewed scientific journal. Show me where 100% of properly diagnosed children with an initial effective treatment are no longer benefiting from treatment. Eliminate any potential for criticism and make it a double blind study as well. Such a study doesn't exist. Surely, if your very heavy accusations are correct (you've stated everyone... 100% for that matter) then there must be studies that back up what you are saying without any question and without any misrepresentation. You have provided a single study, and you are reading into it to support your conclusions. We are trying to point out how you are misunderstanding the study but you are defiantly defending your opinion.

If you backed up a little bit, and tackled each of your concerns independently, I think you would find that we agree with more of your conclusions than you realize. The difference is that you are jumping to a wild conclusion by connecting dots that simply aren't there.

Referring to the study, I have a question for you. A given percent of children were not medicated. Why? The concern is that, statistically speaking, the percentage of children unmedicated looked indistinguishable from the percentage of children whom were medicated. This is, without question, a concern (albeit, one that wasn't directly addressed by the study in question and one that the study's authors have themselves stated requires further studies). The problem is that the study in question is very specific... they can't give an answer for a variable that wasn't considered in the course of the study. You are trying to insert a conclusion into the study that simply wasn't there. It needs more research! A new study has to be designed! In the end, you may have the proof that you are looking for, but as the issue currently stands, you are trying to pull a conclusion out of thin air based on unknown variables that were not looked at. Worse yet, you are implying that the doctors who are trying to research your fear are biased because they haven't come out with a statement that you are right. I don't think that you want evidence, I think that you want to be right.

Dizfriz
02-22-13, 08:20 PM
I am talking about following children for 5 or 6 years while they CONTINUE to use the drugs.

The point of it to see the long term affect WITHOUT stopping to take the drugs.

There is a huge discrepancy in the credibility of the way how all ADD drugs are approved.

The way they do it is they try it short term and then see it works and then conclude "it's great".

What if every single one of them "evaporates" it effectiveness, after a few months or after a few years, then you are prescribing non-working "medication" which may be 100% ineffective after the initial few day or after the initial few weeks or after the initial few months.

I'm not talking about 1 specific drug. I'm talking about all of them in general and not about the story of 1 person but what is the effect YEARS DOWN THE LINE by the vast majority of every single user!

A again, wouldn't it be interesting to follow a group of 200 children who ARE taking medication today and CONTINUE to take it for 6 years, every day and then 6 years later look to see if ANY ONE child is at all still benefiting?

I suspect not, even if they continue non-stop medication every day, as per their doctor.. I don't have a lot of time to do much research but the biggest longitudinal study was the giant MTA study.

Here is a source for some updated stuff on it. http://www.nimh.nih.gov/trials/practical/mta/multimodal-treatment-of-attention-deficit-hyperactivity-disorder-mta-study.shtml

A bit of caution though, much of the data is still in the process of being replicated and studied. Many of the conclusions will stand but some will not. That is just the nature of the beast so to speak.

For example the height issue. The MTA study showed lessened growth but other studies have indicated that this may not be the case, that the growth may catch up in late adolescent-early adulthood. There is more research ongoing to study the issue. The study has not been going long enough to come to any kind of conclusion. This is this is the kind of thing one has to keep in mind when reading this kind of research. It is all a work in progress..never finished. That is the nature of science.

But in any case, the study may give you some insight. Keep in mind that short reports are seldom definitive and unless one is up on the research to put these things in context they can be confusing. The height issue is a good example. If someone just read that the medications caused less height development and believed this to be true without being aware of some of the related research then the statement that medication caused less height would be in error. The more correct statement is that the MTA study showed a link between lessened height and medication. A more knowledgeable person would add on that other studies showed somewhat different results. That would be accurate.

The field is working hard on studying the long term benefits of treatment and it is far from settled but the MTA study is a good place to start with the caution that you cannot take anything as final or even close.

Enjoy

Dizfriz

maplewoods
02-24-13, 04:22 PM
I can't answer your hypothetical question without seeing the hypothetical paper in its entirety. As I stated elsewhere, the study in question has stated as fact "Results of the initial study found that overall, low doses of this medication over the short term are effective and safe."

In much the same way, a wheel-chair helps a paraplegic move about and maintain an independent lifestyle. I don't think that you would question the value of a wheel-chair for such an afflicted person, would you? Suppose there was a study that followed 200 hypothetical paraplegics for six years and six years later, they all still required wheel-chairs... a wheel-chair is an effective means of living without the use of one's legs, if necessary.

This, is in essence what you are saying. If you want to argue that medication doesn't cure ADHD, then fine, you win. What is your point? But if you are arguing that medication shouldn't be used because it doesn't cure the disorder... well, that's just absurd. I agree that alternative treatments should be considered and investigated... but don't take away medication if it has been shown to help treat the symptoms.

Also, there is no need for the excessive amount of sarcasm. I fail to see what you are arguing in favor of? Are you suggesting that medication isn't sufficient treatment of symptoms? Are you arguing that we shouldn't be treating the symptoms but the cause? (in which case, show me a means of doing so). Are you saying that there IS a cure that I'm unaware of? Do all the children in your "hypothetical" study actually have ADHD? Or, do some of them have something else which mimics the disorder and requires a different method of treatment?

You really aren't taking a clear position except to say that "there is no cure."


It's very simple, as follows:

1) To be honest, first of all (if the facts are established to be so, via my hypothetical "study"), every doctor prescribing such medications, would/should (if he is honest) give full disclosure to his patient to tell him that scientific evidence shows that this prescription which I am giving you is almost 100% guaranteed to NOT work, a short while after you begin taking it (either a few days later or a few weeks later or a few months later).

How would you like it, if you purchased a car, which is 100% guaranteed to stop functioning a relatively short while after you drive it out of the showroom and then becomes 100% non-functional and 100% useless and the car dealer didn't tell you what you are getting exactly.

The point is not to "blame" not to criticism but rather to be honest with full disclosure - something which 99.99% of all ADD medication users are being deceived by their doctors not telling them the truth.

2) As stated above the honest truth is usually never disclosed by any doctor prescribing ADD mediation EVER. (at least 99.99% of the time)

However if it were disclosed honestly, it would open the door for people to give much more serious thought, to seek out and to try out, a vert learge variaty, of plenty of other alternatives - but that can only happen once you someone is convinced that all medications ALL stop working, not to long after they begin "working".

Abi
02-24-13, 04:29 PM
1) To be honest, first of all (if the facts are established to be so, via my hypothetical "study"), every doctor prescribing such medications, would/should (if he is honest) give full disclosure to his patient to tell him that scientific evidence shows that this prescription which I am giving you is almost 100% guaranteed to NOT work, a short while after you begin taking it (either a few days later or a few weeks later or a few months later).

This is nonsense.

Seriously, where do you get this stuff?

Most of the people on this forum have been medicated for years, if not decades, and all have symptom relief to a greater or lesser extent, I have already mentioned 2 people I know of with formally SEVERE ADHD who have been on Ritalin for almost 25 years, and it continues to work for them.

maplewoods
02-24-13, 04:49 PM
Here is a source for some updated stuff on it. http://www.nimh.nih.gov/trials/practical/mta/multimodal-treatment-of-attention-deficit-hyperactivity-disorder-mta-study.shtml

Dizfriz


My comment on the above study data...

Please excuse my sarcasm.... I'm saying the following just for ILLUSTRATIVE purposes - just to get the point across. But of course I agree that I am exaggerating a little or perhaps more than a little but nevertheless my point IS correct nonetheless:

1) It tends to muddy the water if you blend in too many different factors and it takes off, the intensity of the proof, which is most embarrassing to the Drug companies who produce these drugs.

The focus of the issue that I brought up is not about safety and not about "combined" treatment where you mix more than 1 intervention (because that only "helps" to take away from showing, that a non-functional drug, actually works better than it really does, only because you combined it with something else that is far more functional than the Drug it's self, which isn't very functional at all - after a relatively short amount of time of it's use.

2) the bottom line, if you sift through all the "irrelevant" data in that link - it DOES prove my point and they ARE VERY APOLOGETIC to say well all this stuff we have here in these studies ...mmm emmm err.... we apologize mmm but mmm it doesn't exactly prove YET that Drugs are really SO ineffective because we can be apologetic about it and use a possible excuse and hypothetical reasoning that perhaps, the reason why it shows such embarrassing results for drugs, is perhaps, not because the drugs are really so terribly ineffective, but perhaps we can use the excuse (to help alleviate our shame) because it wasn't "intensive" enough and perhaps because it wasn't use in COMBINATION with something else.

maplewoods
02-24-13, 04:56 PM
This is nonsense.

Seriously, where do you get this stuff?



It's in a recent study, published less than 2 weeks ago!

Abi
02-24-13, 05:12 PM
The study you refer to was addressed by the membership in the thread you posted it.

Amtram
02-24-13, 09:05 PM
It has also gotten quite a bit of attention from the scientific community as a stellar example of just the kind of study that is poorly done enough to be misinterpreted in grand fashion by the press and the public. Fortunately, science does tend to learn from its mistakes.

Drewbacca
02-24-13, 09:09 PM
I still would like to know if you read the entire study, or if you interpretation of the study is based entirely on the article you posted... which makes it third hand information.

If the facts were actually established, we wouldn't be having this discussion. You are making an incredible claim which is simply not backed up; you are claiming that medication doesn't work. I'll grant you that it doesn't work for everyone, due to issues with medication absorption. I'll also grant you that some people build a tolerance. If there wasn't statistically significant evidence that these medications create a positive response... they wouldn't be available. In fact, your theory would throw the whole concept of self-medicated out the window.

What you are arguing goes against 100% (your favorite statistic) of studies, because there is not a single study out there that will support what you are saying i.e. the meds fail to work in 100% of cases. That's just absurd and if you really believe that then you are either incredibly misinformed or you are intentionally stating a falsehood. A less extreme position can be supported to some degree, but to say that it's a 100% failure rate is flat out ignorance. It would seem that you are throwing out all evidence contrary to your opinion and grasping to anything that supports it (or more appropriately, appears to support it since the referenced study doesn't).

If you want to argue that pharmaceutical treatment doesn't cure ADHD, you're correct.
If you want to argue that medicine alone isn't sufficient as treatment, it's debatable, but I would generally agree with you... especially looking at the long-term.
If you want to argue that children are frequently misdiagnosed and/or given the wrong dosage and/or medication... I'd agree with you again.

What I don't agree with is that the medication is ineffective; again, it is for some people for the reasons mentioned above... but the majority of people have a positive response. You've provided no evidence contrary to this, besides the misreading of a review of a study. I could quote the actual study (and the previous study) until I'm blue in the face and I doubt that you would change your mind.

As I've said before, there are places where we can meet halfway. I'm not convinced that medication is the best treatment for children. I don't have a lot of faith in the prescribing doctors. I don't think that other factors, such as learning styles of children are sufficiently considered. I don't think that behavioral conditioning is working as well as it could. There's certainly room for plenty of research to put these things into better focus.

I'm sorry that you are so skeptical of doctors, pharmaceuticals, etc. But you need to step back and realize that at least half of this forum is a direct contradiction to your opinion.

I'm surprised that you've been in 99.99% of our doctor's offices when they failed to tell us that the medication apparently doesn't work (according to you).

My doctors were honest with me from day one which is why I didn't continue taking Ritalin. I did however have a positive response to Adderall... so I guess I'm just the .01%. Now, whether the positive effects outweigh the negative for me, that's debatable... but after two years of taking the medication, it is no less effective. But no, it's not a cure and there is still plenty of work for me to do in order to be successful in this life.

Anyways, I appreciate that you have taken the time to read/discuss/consider other opinions on this and it's pretty obvious that we will just have to agree to disagree so long as your positions remain on the extreme side of the spectrum, which is how I see it...

Spacemaster
02-24-13, 11:09 PM
Just a note,

If *I* were to even try this product, I'd have to be medicated first.

If I were to actually keep using it, you'd better believe I'd have to be medicated.

See, I don't follow through on this type of thing, I might use it 2 or 3 times max. If I'm on meds, the chances that I'll glean something from the product and continue to use it is far far greater.

For me to be able to implement any sort of system, meds are essential, and even then it's not guaranteed. The product wouldn't have to be boring to turn me off. (though that definitely would) It might be an interesting and great program, but I just don't stick with even the activities I like.

I'm a believer in using medication along with other methods, in tandem.

maplewoods
02-26-13, 07:18 PM
Johns Hopkins Children's Center are not "silly little children" and when they do a study, they know how to do it and they do it right.

The U.S. National Institute of Mental Health, are also not "little chidren" to do a study "foolishly" and they FUNDED it and when they do a study, they do it right!

So far, no one has disputed the results!

All they can do is bury their head in shame and say "we need "MORE" study", another study and lets do another one and another one after that and another after that - in time for our great great grandchildren vs. waking up to smell the coffee today, instead.

No one publication, "discounted" nor "poo pooed" nor disputed the results!


http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/news/fullstory_133911.html

http://psychcentral.com/news/2013/02/12/young-kids-with-adhd-may-benefit-little-from-drug-therapy/51511.html

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/02/130211162112.htm

http://www.healthline.com/health-news/are-ADHD-medications-effective-021213

BTW
Those who have been up to date in the alternative (other than drugs) interventions for ADD and ADHD, have been aware of the facts presented in this study, for many many years, in fact for over 3 decades ago, already. But for others, it took an official "study" to figure it out, 3 decades later - i.e. now, finally.

Amtram
02-26-13, 08:36 PM
Those aren't scientific publications. Medline brings up some of the same concerns that have been mentioned already in this thread, and the other three are news sources and aggregators. This is not to say that they are of no use. They often call attention to information we might otherwise have missed. However, they are not peer-review publications, so the distinction is important. If you google this study, you get page after page after page of hits from aggregators - that does not make it more true. Moving their way up closer to the front of this search is hits from purveyors of "alternative" treatments hoping to cash in, which looks even more suspicious, to my way of thinking.

The study says straight out that it didn't take into account whether the children were getting the correct medication (and we've all experienced how differently these medications affect us) whether they were getting the right dosage (we've also experienced significant differences with only small adjustments) or whether the children were compliant with their medication schedule (since the meds are short acting, symptoms will obviously return if they are not being taken.) These disclaimers are written out specifically in the study, by the authors, so clearly it's a concern that needs to be taken into account when evaluating the validity of the findings.

maplewoods
02-26-13, 08:48 PM
Those aren't scientific publications.

It says that:

"The study was funded by the U.S. National Institute of Mental Health and published online Feb. 11 in the Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry."

Is

"the Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry"

not good enough?

Amtram
02-26-13, 08:55 PM
It also says what I mentioned above. The authors themselves point out the potential flaws in the research, which should be good enough for even the ordinary reader to accept as a cause for question.

maplewoods
02-26-13, 09:36 PM
The study says straight out that it didn't take into account whether the children were getting the correct medication

Please keep in mind that I am not criticising you nor anyone else on this forum.

My criticism is directed only at the person who wrote the report in the study, which states that it's possible that the results are not entirely accurate (which you quoted).

I understand the concern and skepticism but I view that statement by them, only as an excuse to cover their SHOCK and shame.

+ they have to be "accurate" and since there is a possibility (even if 1 in a million) of anyone, sometimes, being "struck by lightning" it's a real factual "possibility" even if extremely highly improbable - but scientifically speaking it's possible for anyone to be struck by lighting at any time and it's not technically, absolutely "impossible" to be.

It doesn't really make much sense and although it's certainly a possibility, but such a possibility is SO highly improbable that it's too highly unlikely that such a presumed hypothetical can in fact be true because:

1) Most Parents who have a problematic Kid, and it's not just "a problematic" kid but bad enough that they had to take him to the doc to get medicated, 99.99% of such parents aren't going to sit idle and "be happy" with a non functioning medication and will not sit idle and not be ON TOP of the kids to make sure they take their medication, daily.

To assume otherwise (which the apologetic hypothetical possibility is based on) is totally absurd.

In fact I view it as so absurd, that I can't understand how they are not ashamed of themselves, to even consider such an absurdity, even as the remotest possibility.

2) These medications are not "over the counter".

That shows how absurd it is to make such a ridiculous assumption even as a possibility.

There is no way on earth they could be "ON MEDICATION" for 6 years unless a doctor keeps writing the prescriptions for it, ON END and it's illegal for the doc to write the prescription if he didn't CHECK OUT the kid to make sure he needs it and that it WORKS for him - and for the doc to do his best at this determination.

You want to assume that the majority of doctors for the majority of children don't follow the law and non know what they doing and that they are all doing everything wrong ALL THE TIME with ALL children in the study or at least with most of them?

So the absurdity is as follows:

We are assuming that the MAJORITY of all parents are dumb and stupid and are all have total reckless disregard for the health and well being of their children (medications) and didn't bother making sure if their very own precious little children all took the medication or didn't take it?

Then we compound the absurdity to say that the Doctors are also NUTS to keep on writing out prescriptions month after month for 6 years in a row, without ever inquiring whether or not the child is even taking the medication????? or if it he needs it or or if it even works and helps the child or not???????????

C'mmon now....

How NUTs can a doctor be to keep doing that?

That's not enough yet!

Now we must multiply and compound this absurdity even further to assume that if such a hypothetical possibility is at all even remotely possible - the absurdity includes further to assume that in addition:

Not only are the parents nuts for not paying attention if the kids take their meds and not only are the docs nuts for non knowing what their doing but we must multiply all this 186 times!

That means that such a NUT job happened, not only once, but the absurdity happened 186 times with every single child in the study (or at least the majority of the time).

Wait - that's still not enough yet:

We must carry this absurd assumption one step further:

It's not enough to assume that every single one of the (or most of them at least) children DID the meds, the wrong way:

In Addition:
Then we must also assume, the OPPOSITE that somehow miraculous all those OTHER children who did not take drugs, they all did everything, somehow, "perfectly right" (nothing went wrong ACCIDENTALLY by this group of children) and that's why the Non_ drugged group, did better than the Drugged group?

I don't see how anyone in their right mind can consider such a possibility even as a remote hypothetical possibility.

Yes, it's not "scientifically" 100% guaranteed to be absolutely and positively "impossible" but it's very highly improbable