I am wonder, many students buy Adderall illegally to make them more focus for studying, well then is that mean they got ADD? Having problem to focus is a symptoms of ADD, why then they do not go see their doctor and get test for ADD and then they get can get Adderall? I also know that it's hard to get Adderall from doctors even if you got ADD. I remember my first doctor didn't want to prescribed me Adderall, she didn't beleive I got ADD, I told her test me you will see but she never did, God she was a bad doctor, thank God I got a new one who listen to me, she test me and she saw that I did have ADD and she prescribe me Adderall XR and guess what it help, I was not crazy to beleive I got ADD and Adderall will help me, I hate doctor who don't want to listen and are **** when you seem to know more then them about pills, it's like they think who do you think you are, you think you know more then me about what will be good for you. Just because I did a lot of research over the net about ADD and Adderalls and other meds and let her know what I feel will be good for me she seem to think I think that I know more then her about this, well guess what it's seem in that case I did! Doctor should be happy that their clients do some research about what will be good for them, they should not feel we think we better then them, they should realise we want to work with them in all this and they should take in consideration what we feel will be good for us and evaluate if we are right. Thank God I got a new doctor and she listen to me and she test me for ADD and told me lets try Adderall XR, we try and it seem to work, God it was not complicate for my other doctor to just try it.

I agree that they should take in account of a clients own research a bit more, but by the look of your post, it would be a bit hard to take you seriously, or at least in my case, fully understand what your talking about...

No, that is not what that means.

A individual with ADD reacts EXACTLY the same way to a stimulant as someone that doesnt have ADD. It's pretty simple. People with ADD respond very well to a sustaned low dose of a stimulant, but it doesnt effect someone that doesnt have it any diffrently.

Most students like it becasue it does just what it does to someone with ADD without being used to the drug. Stimulates them, keeps them up for those late night term paper sessions and lets them more easily dive into the information.

And im sorry, it's a bit hard to think you know more than all those "stupid doctors" after reading your story. I mean, research on the internet is not exactly a substitute for a advanced education.

Yeah I think I went a bit far by saying I know more then my doctor.lol:), but I felt that I know a bit about what I was saying and that I got ADD and Adderall will had help me and I guess I was right coz it did work for me. I am just mad that my doctor didn't beleive me and didn't want to test me, she only had to test me and see if I got it and I did. Doctor should listen more their patients things will better.

Technically,any stimulant will improve a person's focus.

For example, the military gives pilots on long missions dexedrine to help stay alert,etc.

ADHD is a proven neurobiological, brain based disorder, that creates impairments (problems) in major life activities.

It's also classified as a "dimensional disorder" in that everyone exhibits the symptoms to some degree.

However, people with ADHD experience problems as a result of the symptoms.

People who don't have ADHD, don't experience problems from the symptoms.

My opinion is that it doesnt really mean much of anything in terms of ADHD,if the person abusing the medication has improved focus.

Well why I agree that the doctor should have at least taken your opinion into mind, also you have to take into consideration that quite a few kids DO abuse the stuff, and alot of doctors are pretty cautious about giving scripts to them.

But I also find that it can be pretty annoying to get your dosage changed. I mean, I would rather have to take a polygraph then have to be uped 5mg increments (as I did with dex) over a few months untill it seemed my doctor became secure enough that I wasnt abusing it to give me the correct dosage. :(

I didn't said I think I know more then my doctor, I said I think she think I know more in these then her. I said I did some reseach and felt in that case I know what I was talking about and she should take it in consideration and realise if I was right on this or not. Maybe in my first post it seem I said I felt I know more then my doctor, I red it again and I feel I didn't said that, anyways maybe someone can misinterpret what I said, I do sometime got trouble expressing what I want to say right.

Technically,any stimulant will improve a person's focus.



ADHD is a proven neurobiological, brain based disorder, that creates impairments (problems) in major life activities.

What?

Some members of this forum (Me included) are a bit weary with using this word.

ADHD has not been "proven," hell, the actual specific mechanism of how amphetamines metabolites affect a persons brain chemistry has not been "proven," just assumed based on clinical studies.

Proven, is a very powerfull word in the sciences.

I red again my post lol:), your right I did said I seem to know more then them it that, well I said seem not I know lol:). God I got problem to phrase right what I am trying to say.lol:), sorry.

What?

Some members of this forum (Me included) are a bit weary with using this word.

ADHD has not been "proven," hell, the actual specific mechanism of how amphetamines metabolites affect a persons brain chemistry has not been "proven," just assumed based on clinical studies.

Proven, is a very powerfull word in the sciences.
I believe McT meant that there is substantial evidence to support that simulants relieve symptoms and that there is also substantial evidence that ADHD involves neurological abnormalities.

I agree about the word "prove", though, and try to be careful about using it in a scientific context, but I also agree with Robert's point.

My references are :

The US Surgeon General's Report on Mental Health: Chapter 3 Disorders of Infancy, Childhood and Adolescence.

The ADHD Handbook : Third Edition (2005) by Russ Barkley.

The ADHD Book of Lists by Sandra Rief (2003). Pages 22-27.

That covers the sections entitled "What Research Is Revealing About ADHD" and "Probable Causes of ADHD".

I've been over this numerous times in a number of different posts.

There are 3 "landmark" ADHD studies:
(Zametkin, et.al.,(1990)-estabished diminished metabolic activity

Cook et.al. (1995)-molecular genetics

MTA study (1999) dealt more with treatment.

When it comes to the science of ADHD, I'm qouting the literature.

Please check those out when you get a chance.

I meant exactly what I said.

There are currently 15 different operational definitions of ADHD; all of which apply in some way.

Thats one of them.

It's available for viewing in many different references.

The easiest place to find all of those is in Rief's book on plages 3-4.

"Proven" applies to diminished metabolic activity being replicated in another study.

The original data wasn't substantiated but another study showed that there was diminshed metabolic activity .

All of that is available in the Second Edition of the ADHD Handbook (1998) on p.166.

That statement is not out of bounds at all.

I meant exactly what I said.

...

"Proven" applies to diminished metabolic activity being replicated in another study.

I don't want to start another argument about the nature of science, here, but "proof" isn't possible. The best one can do is provide evidence. Overwhelming evidence, such as the evidence you've cited, is what the majority might call "proof", but it's a logical impossibility.

Since all reasoning (at its roots) is based on induction, the strongest conclusions can only be "probably".

All are welcome to criticize me for splitting semantic hairs, but as a researcher and methods teacher, I take this very seriously.

No, I wasn't disagreeing with the evidence of ADHD in anyway if it came across like that, its pretty well established, I was just being nit picky over the use of the word "proven." :P

Barb,

I'm using accepted standard of practice nomenclature regarding the literature.

I know what you're saying though.

I'm using accepted standard of practice nomenclature regarding the literature.

I know what you're saying though.
The topic of "proof" came up in a different context on another thread that both Daven & I participated in. I'm sure that's what he was referring to. Anyway, that's why I spoke "for you" -- I didn't mean to ruffle feathers.

Back to regularly scheduled programming.... ;)