Hi, I'm new to the forum and I must say that while I find alot of the things on here enlightening, I also think some of them highlight a problem that I have noticed for a while in the pharmaceutical department. Everyone seems to be on a cocktail of meds, especially stimulants, and while I do not doubt the legitimacy of their diagnosis, I am concerned with how easily accepted stimulants are to everyone.

I am a 27 year old male, diagnosed with ADHD and anxiety disorder at age 9. I have had 3 full psycho-educational evaluation since then and was genuinely surprised time and again to find that I "suffer from severe attentional problems" because I really tried my hardest on those tests. I went through these processes at a great expense of both time and money. Alot of posts on here make it sound like someone was having trouble at work, so they went to their general practitioner, who gave them such and such amount of such and such stimulant. That concerns me alot.

I have been on this or that cocktail of meds for most of my life and I am bitter about it. I don't think a child should be pumped full of mind altering drugs simply because he is different. I'm concerned to see everyone popping stimulants in order to do things that they dont really want to do. I think there is far too little talk of the addictive nature of these drugs and the psychological problems inherent with these drugs. And mostly I'm afraid of what happens to us in the long run on stimulants and benzos, etc. Is there an chance that we are burning out our bodies or our brains? I really worry about these things a great deal.

Recently, I was diagnosed with Bipolar type-II after years of unsuccessful depression/rapid mood shift throughout the day. So now they pump me full of more meds which may or may not work. Who's to say that being pumped full of these chemicals for my whole life haven't caused me to be this way now? Doesn't pumping a body full of stimulants for a lifetime put a great deal of strain on a persons heart? What about the other organs?

I have noticed that more and more people, especially children, are being pumped full of drugs that may cause a great deal of harm in the long run. Does anyone share my concerns?:soapbox:

Rocky, as a mother of an ADDer, I can attest that her dad and I were VERY concerned about putting our child on medication. We initially resisted the diagnosis, then resisted medication, then resisted Ritalin (Rx of last resort in our minds).

We eventually came to realize that non-med strategies like sticker charts, 1-2-3 Magic, Love and Logic, seating assignments, extra time on tests, physical activity, organized sports, music lessons, play dates, enrichment programs, positive reinforcement from parents, support of extended family, wishing and praying were not enough to help our daughter function at a level CLOSE to her abilities. In our case, we had to look beyond non-medication interventions.

Yes, we were concerned. Yes, she's been on medications that caused bad side effects. However, the fact that she had a biological half-brother with unmedicated ADHD who committed suicide at the age of 13 was sufficient incentive for us to keep trying, even if it meant medication. DD is 17 now, not doing great in school, but able to function socially, doesn't hate herself, us or the world. So, we continue with medications IN ADDITION to supports. Even though she makes me absolutely nuts sometimes, I love her and am glad she's on this earth and in my life.

Oh yes, I am definitely concerned. But I tried for 21 years to live without medication and nothing worked. I was miserable and I thought about killing myself. I think some people really do need medication but I am also concerned about people being overdiagnosed or overmedicated. I'm also angry about people abusing stimulant medications.

Rocky you're definitely not alone in your concerns. And it's nice to see someone giving a crap about others and the potential harm they could be bringing on themselves.

However, you can only do what's right for you and offer your perspective and hope for the best. No amount of "it's not right" is going to change anyone's mind. Certainly not someone who is experiencing a great deal of benefit from medication.

Unfortunately there are instances where meds are causing more harm than good. And, just as unfortunate, there are folks that have the resources available to them, to be able to walk into their doctors office and say, "I think I have ADD, stimulate me please!"

With almost everything that provides a benefit, there are going to be cases where it doesn't. Eliminating it completely not only corrects the negative, but takes away the benefit too.

While I'm certain, positive in fact, there are ample cases of children receiving drugs they don't need, there are a great deal of children receiving the very same drugs and they do in fact need them.

"I don't think a child should be pumped full of mind altering drugs simply because he is different. I'm concerned to see everyone popping stimulants in order to do things that they dont really want to do. I think there is far too little talk of the addictive nature of these drugs and the psychological problems inherent with these drugs. And mostly I'm afraid of what happens to us in the long run on stimulants and benzos, etc. Is there an chance that we are burning out our bodies or our brains? I really worry about these things a great deal."

Ideally, no one wants a child pumped with drugs when he doesn't need them. Nor do we want to intentionally ruin our bodies with chemicals. But your version of a different child may be a kid that's dying inside because he can't get his brain to work right. He can't get anyone to understand and he can't control himself.

Your worries are valid. There's no perfect system to examine each individual situation and say "yes, legitimate reason, take meds", or "no, lousy excuse, no meds".

As an adult, I choose to take a stimulant because the alternative is to live in a completely chaotic mind. I willingly choose this even though I am aware of side effects, possible long term effects and the like. I am making a choice for myself. That's all I CAN do. I can't make up Mrs. Jones' mind for her.

As a parent, I'll ponder the same should it be necessary for my own children. But if that choice were taken away from me, that would be horrible.

You have a choice of whether to take meds or not. Parents must make that choice for their children. I agree, there are kids out there that have no business on meds. There are also kids out there being beaten with bats by their own dads. It's not fair, it's downright wrong, and sadly there's not a damn thing I can do about some guy in Jersey whether he's beating his kid or treating his kid.

No system is perfect. Welcome to America.

Thanks for your candid responses. I certainly can appreciate that everyones situation is unique. For what it's worth, I take stimulants daily and cannot function without them. But they also give me panic attacks and so I walk a fine line that I absolutely hate. For many people, the meds are a godsend. I went for testing in the 4th grade after my teachers told my parents that I was "shutting down & crying" in class frequently. I was a mess for most of my life starting a little bit after that and I guess I blamed the meds, or at least the failure of the meds to deliver on my hopes. More than anything, I hated taking a variety of meds for one month, then changing completely them completely the next month, ad nauseum. I always wonder if they caused my mind to be this way now. I wonder if maybe I would have grown out of it. And I wonder if it will really affect me negatively down the road in ways we dont know about because most of the things they have given me havent been around long enough to know what they are going to do. I guess I'm just bummed because it seems like people got along fine throughout history without meds and it scares me to think of the direction we seems to be headed in.

Rocky,

I too appreciate your concern .... But I take issue with the phrase "being pumped full of drugs."

I think parents put their kids on drugs only as an absolute last resort. What parent wants to think their kid needs a medication to concentrate, focus and connect socially with others?

Now I sense that one problem you have is that you did not decide to to go on the drugs, and you may feel like you were pressured into taking medication without your full consent. I can see why you might feel some resentment over this (if that is what you're feeling).

I'm in my 40's, and I decided to go on meds after suffering many years of on and off depression. Because I made the decision, I don't have your sense of having drugs "pumped into" me.

I don't think there's any evidence that taking stimulants damages the brain. You're right, the most rigorous long-term studies have not been conducted. But ... stimulants have been used for more than 50 years from what I understand ....

On the other hand, there IS apparently clear evidence of how untreated depression (and adhd often leads to depression) damages the heart and the brain. Depression results in release of all kinds of stress hormones that are terrible for the brain.

If you are really really concerned, then find a psychiatrist who specializes in adhd, one know knows the latest research; schedule a meeting and see what they say.

And/or find a neurologist and go meet with one and ask them about the long-term impact of stimulants and whether or not the meds you took at an earlier age could have damaged your brain.

Anyway, I think you're being a little hard yourself and people taking meds. In the America I live in, everyone wants to think they can do it alone without meds. We only come to meds after running repeatedly into a brick wall. I think that goes for adults like me and for parents who are making decisions for their children.

Welcome to the forums.

I guess I'm just bummed because it seems like people got along fine throughout history without medsI didn't. The branch of my family tree that carried the ADHD didn't.

The diagnostic criteria for ADHD clearly states:

DSM-IV Criteria for ADHD
I. Either A or B:



Six or more of the following symptoms of inattention have been present for at least 6 months to a point that is disruptive and inappropriate for developmental level:





Six or more of the following symptoms of hyperactivity-impulsivity have been present for at least 6 months to an extent that is disruptive and inappropriate for developmental level:


No problems = No ADHD

Thanks for your candid responses. I certainly can appreciate that everyones situation is unique. For what it's worth, I take stimulants daily and cannot function without them. But they also give me panic attacks and so I walk a fine line that I absolutely hate. For many people, the meds are a godsend. I went for testing in the 4th grade after my teachers told my parents that I was "shutting down & crying" in class frequently. I was a mess for most of my life starting a little bit after that and I guess I blamed the meds, or at least the failure of the meds to deliver on my hopes. More than anything, I hated taking a variety of meds for one month, then changing completely them completely the next month, ad nauseum. I always wonder if they caused my mind to be this way now. I wonder if maybe I would have grown out of it. And I wonder if it will really affect me negatively down the road in ways we dont know about because most of the things they have given me havent been around long enough to know what they are going to do. I think I can see why you would feel that way. I've noticed that adults who were medicated as children often wonder how they would have turned out if they had not been medicated. They wonder if taking drugs at a young age messed up their brains or they wonder if they would have outgrown the problem. It's understandable because people in your situation didn't really have a choice and you don't know how you would have turned out. My situation is different because I wasn't diagnosed until young adulthood, so I had the luxury of choosing the meds option. It was never forced on me so I don't have feelings of resentment. I never took meds as a child or adolescent so I can say without a doubt that my brain problems were not caused by medications. I guess it's hard to tell in your case because you were so young. But I was having problems long before I started meds so I don't have those "What if I hadn't taken medication?" questions. Instead I wonder, "Would my life turned out better if I HAD taken meds?"

I guess I'm just bummed because it seems like people got along fine throughout history without meds and it scares me to think of the direction we seems to be headed in. Although I'm concerned about the possibility of people being overmedicated, I don't quite agree with that statement. Back in the "good ol' days" the folks who didn't "fit in" with "normal" society were either ostracized or sometimes even put in institutions and their families "forgot" about them. The ones who weren't institutionalized were probably kicked out of school for being "morons" or "imbeciles" and became alcoholics later. Or maybe they committed suicide and were quietly forgotten. So I'm sure mental disorders existed back in the day, they were just less visible because no one talked about it. The black sheep family members were simply swept under the rug. It was survival of the fittest. Those who didn't fit in were simply left behind.

I'm not advocating for giving psychotropic medications to each child who has a problem. I'm just saying that it's inaccurate to assume that everyone got along fine without meds back in the day.

yeah, we got to be careful about the old days ....

In the old days, a person with my past levels of depression would have probably become a drunk and alcoholic. That's how I would have treated myself.

We on this board would have been labeled (and I'm not being sarcastic) "stupid" "dumb" "lazy" "irresponsible" "bad seed" "no good" "crazy." Take your pick.

It was in NO WAY better in the old days ... And a lot of us who now take medications and get therapy would have simply become unemployed and/or unemployable. And we'd have family members saying to their sons and daughters, "Don't be like uncle adhd! He's bad."

I am concerned with how easily accepted stimulants are to everyone.

Making generalizations is the direct opposite of skeptical thinking. Your doing the very thing you suggest is common here but with the opposite perspective.

The reality is stimulants can help productivity X amount with Y side effects. For a large number of people X is greater than Y enough to justify their use
of stimulants. You can convince yourself that Y cost is unacceptable. But the extreme hyperbolic discounting most ADHDers do esstentially reduces concernes about Y. Which means your concern for others here is largely going to go on deaf ear. The exception is non-ADHDers parents of ADHDer children who read what you say and make decisions based on it. Remember the expression "that path to Hell is paved with good intentions". Its not enough to be "concern" you need to be right to.

The very ability to adapt to ADHD without the need for medication suggest
one the person's mildly impaired and their perspective on ADHD is not going
to apply to a parent with a child with major impairment. It could suggest that person has accepted a life of low productivity. A large enough productivity deficit tends to greatly increase the Y value that is acceptable to people.

Making generalizations is the direct opposite of skeptical thinking. Your doing the very thing you suggest is common here but with the opposite perspective.

The reality is stimulants can help productivity X amount with Y side effects. For a large number of people X is greater than Y enough to justify their use
of stimulants. You can convince yourself that Y cost is unacceptable. But the extreme hyperbolic discounting most ADHDers do esstentially reduces concernes about Y. Which means your concern for others here is largely going to go on deaf ear. The exception is non-ADHDers parents of ADHDer children who read what you say and make decisions based on it. Remember the expression "that path to Hell is paved with good intentions". Its not enough to be "concern" you need to be right to.

The very ability to adapt to ADHD without the need for medication suggest
one the person's mildly impaired and their perspective on ADHD is not going
to apply to a parent with a child with major impairment. It could suggest that person has accepted a life of low productivity. A large enough productivity deficit tends to greatly increase the Y value that is acceptable to people.

Frankly, I'm having trouble following this. Let me make my concerns a little bit more clear using myself as an example. I was not very good at self-reporting and I don't think that most kids are. I did not always know what I was feeling or why I was feeling it and I think this goes for many kids who are constantly adapting to their bodies. Sometimes the meds would give me panic attacks, but I didnt understand what that was so I just wrote it off as feeling "icky." My parents had good intentions. They are wonderful people and patient educators. But I always resented having to take those meds. Sometimes, I would act like I had swallowed them and spit them out later. I hated the fact that I had no say in it.

I was diagnosed with Bipolar type-II later in life. My doctor told me that in general it takes an average of 8 years from the beginning of therapy to make the diagnosis of bipolar type-II in youngsters. As a result, the meds I would take during childhood caused a state of hypomania in the days followed by a crash at night and strong suicidal tendencies. So don't presume to tell me whether I am right or wrong in my concerns. I think it's COMPLETELY legitimate to be concerned with the ease of how these meds are prescribed.

I've also seen a few cases of parents who are so overwhelmed with their child that they decide to put them on meds because they want things to be easier for themselves. I realize this may be the exception and not the rule but I think that it's a legitimate concern. Maybe you can recall a time that you thought this about a particular parent that you may know.

I hear the way some of the people talk about their stims on this board and it's clear to me that they have developed a dependancy on them. I think there are a fair amount of unwitting stimulant addicts on here. I personally had become addicted stims after starting at 10mgs a day of aderall and years later ending up at 80 mgs a day before I came to the realization that I was making excuses in order to abuse the medication. I went cold turkey and it was like something out of a movie, where they put the guy in a rubber room for a few days to detox. It was hell and I don't think many people realize how bad they have come to need their "fix." Again, maybe the exception and not the rule, but I think it's happening and on a pretty large scale. It takes alot to look in the mirror and realize that you have become an addict, ESPECIALLY when it's to something that a doctor subscribes you. I'm NOT saying this is true for everyone, but I certainly hear enough rationalization out of people taking meds to be genuinely concerned for a fairly sized portion of the med taking population.

When I was in college a few years ago, almost everyone in the library on finals week was on adderall. Most of them didnt have ADHD. Instead they purchased them from kids who had access to stims. So these things work for everyone it seems. Which concerns me when I hear about general practitioners prescribing the things for the someone for their first time with only complaints of "I'm unmotivated, lethargic, etc." That's not to say that it only occurs with a certain type of doctor. I saw a psychiatrist here in Miami that people dubbed "The Candy Man." From what I understand he runs the LARGEST practice here in Miami. Students at the nearby university covet him and he is rewarded handsomely for being loose with the scripts. Often, kids who did not have ADHD would complain that they just couldnt study without their adderall. Does that sound like a familiar complaint to you? Because it sounds EXACTLY like the complaint given by someone who DOES have ADHD. I think that alone is a red flag.

I do think that all parents of ADHD'ers should hear some of these things instead of the usual rah-rah for meds. As I said before, meds can be a godsend for many people. But I think parents should think twice, if they are thinking at all, before letting a pediatrition or a general practitioner prescribe their kids ADHD meds. THAT'S probably my biggest concern. Next, I think that the dialogue between the parent and child must be handled carefully in order to get the child "on board" with the idea of taking meds instead of just handing them a pill with their brown bag lunches and sending them off to go and figure things out for themselves. Believe me, nobody wants to feel like they need a pill to be normal at that age and if it's not explained properly then you may be doing some damage. Now before every parent in the world posts a story about how legitimate their childs ADHD is and how that they tried everything, please let me reiterate that I believe some of the things in this post do not apply in some situations. But I do think there is something to these arguments and I would like to hear how others see things. :soapbox:

Why does this thread remind me of an infomercial for Supple?

>
The reality is stimulants can help productivity X amount with Y side effects. For a large number of people X is greater than Y enough to justify their use
of stimulants. You can convince yourself that Y cost is unacceptable. But the extreme hyperbolic discounting most ADHDers do esstentially reduces concernes about Y. Which means your concern for others here is largely going to go on deaf ear. The exception is non-ADHDers parents of ADHDer children who read what you say and make decisions based on it. Remember the expression "that path to Hell is paved with good intentions". Its not enough to be "concern" you need to be right to.
>
.

While I know that you were addressing your response to RockyZ, I want to note that for some of us the risk or the cost of taking meds really is unacceptable. When you've had an anaphylactic reaction to taking a prescription med, you become understandably cautious about trying any others because it is very difficult to know exactly what it was in the med that your body reacted to.

When you've had an anaphylactic reaction to taking a prescription med, you become understandably cautious about trying any others because it is very difficult to know exactly what it was in the med that your body reacted to.You've personally had an anaphylactic reaction to stimulant medication?

You've personally had an anaphylactic reaction to stimulant medication?

No, it wasn't a stimulant. It was before I even knew that I had ADHD. However, having had one mild reaction to a prescription med when I was in my teens, and then having the anaphylactic reaction in my 30's (two entirely different kinds of medication), I believe it's natural for me to be leery of taking new meds in general.

No, it wasn't a stimulant. It was before I even knew that I had ADHD. However, having had one mild reaction to a prescription med when I was in my teens, and then having the anaphylactic reaction in my 30's (two entirely different kinds of medication), I believe it's natural for me to be leery of taking new meds in general.As Spock would say: that statement is most illogical.

Making generalizations is the direct opposite of skeptical thinking.

your concern for others here is largely going to go on deaf ear. The exception is non-ADHDers parents of ADHDer children who read what you say and make decisions based on it. Remember the expression "that path to Hell is paved with good intentions". Its not enough to be "concern" you need to be right to.

Rocky,
I want to agree with you that it is definitely best to go to a psychiatrist or psychologist for help with adhd and other psychiatric problems.

Respectfully, I completely reject your idea that many of us are "addicted" to stimulants. The way you withdrew (cold turkey) is predictably the worst way to withdraw, so I can take no lesson from how bad you felt. It's supposed to be a process under close supervision of a psychiatrist and a good one at that!

I think you are recklessly and imprecisely using the terms "addiction" and "dependence."

I'm sure you know that there is a major addiction problem of illegal use of meta-amphetamines (at dosages of multiple times what people here take and in forms that make immediate release stimulants seem like slow pokes) that is leading to a dramatic increase of HIV among gay men. I do not think you can compare someone who takes adderall here (and who has to get a monthly script because it's a Schedule II drug and who has to present picture i.d. to the pharmacy) to a crystal meth addict who takes the drug to engage in unhealthy, unprotected sexual behavior. Not even close ....

Yes, I've been reading about college students who take adderall without a diagnosis. Well, they also illicitly take percocet, vicadin, huge amounts of tylenol (beyond the recommended dosage), aspirin. And many, if not most, college students also ingest huge amounts of alcohol beyond what anyone would consider healthy or appropriate. (So this is not a problem unique to stimulants or adhd medications.)

But ... and this is the point: the person who can socially have a beer or have a glass of wine with dinner is NOT the same as an alcoholic who needs a drink in the morning and to drinks to oblivion at the end of day and whose liver is having measurable (not future) harmful effects and damage.

I've been trying to "withdraw" from caffeine for the last 6 months. I sometimes feel like crap when I don't get my caffeine. And by the way, caffeine is a stimulant. But my withdrawal is not in the same league as the withdrawal pains experienced by a crack addict or coke addict, or heroin addict or crystal meth addict.

I will groan when I don't get my caffeine. Crack addicts will steal from their mothers and abandon children if they can't get a fix (not all do this). When it comes to meds, dosage is everything. One drink vs. 10 drinks. There's a huge difference between the two. Go to the hospital and tell the doctor you had two aspirin in the past 6 hours and tell him/her you had 20, and you'll see a dramatic difference in their reactions.

Anyway, it's good to be able to disagree with civility. Good luck.

Well, it was not easy for me to put my child on meds. But, i's side effects were mild compared to the reality of his ADHD. (Running in front of cars, jumping into pools, getting lost in the mall) I figure the effects of keeping him on a leash untill he is 30 would be worse than pumping him full of 2mg of Adderall.

The simple "did the drug make me this way" can be refuted when one reviews their developmental history prior to drugs.

I've also seen a few cases of parents who are so overwhelmed with their child that they decide to put them on meds because they want things to be easier for themselves. I realize this may be the exception and not the rule but I think that it's a legitimate concern.

Can a parent of a child with paralysed legs use a wheelchair? Or must that parent physically lift that child everywhere it must go in life? Does rejection
of technology somehow make them more righteous?


I hear the way some of the people talk about their stims on this board and it's clear to me that they have developed a dependancy on them. I think there are a fair amount of unwitting stimulant addicts on here. I personally had become addicted stims after starting at 10mgs a day of aderall and years later ending up at 80 mgs a day before I came to the realization that I was making excuses in order to abuse the medication.

Dependency and abuse are two different things. No one who accepts medical
technology would think twice about a diabetic using insulin. Stimulant abuse
is characterised by using increasing amounts in very short time intervals. A
abuser would snort your month supply of 80 mg pills in a day or two.


When I was in college a few years ago, almost everyone in the library on finals week was on adderall. Most of them didnt have ADHD. Instead they purchased them from kids who had access to stims. So these things work for everyone it seems. Which concerns me when I hear about general practitioners prescribing the things for the someone for their first time with only complaints of "I'm unmotivated, lethargic, etc." That's not to say that it only occurs with a certain type of doctor. I saw a psychiatrist here in Miami that people dubbed "The Candy Man." From what I understand he runs the LARGEST practice here in Miami. Students at the nearby university covet him and he is rewarded handsomely for being loose with the scripts. Often, kids who did not have ADHD would complain that they just couldnt study without their adderall. Does that sound like a familiar complaint to you? Because it sounds EXACTLY like the complaint given by someone who DOES have ADHD. I think that alone is a red flag.

Thats interesting but it has nothing to do with people who have a legitimate diagnosis of ADHD. In the same way people with a legitimate need for pain medication have nothing in common with those merely seeking an opiate high.

As Spock would say: that statement is most illogical.

If you (or anyone) can tell me exactly what it was in those meds that I had an allergic response to I'll be happy to follow your logic and avoid only the meds that contain that substance. But since I don't know what exactly I had an anaphylactic (life threatening) reaction to, it's very logical from my point of view to be extremely cautious in taking any prescription meds.

In fact I took a Loratadine tablet (also sold OTC as Claritin) last week and had my blood pressure sky rocket - my daughter was seriously ready to take me to the ER although I convinced her to wait until I took another blood pressure tablet (usually just one per day) and fortunately my BP came down. Thing is, this is a med that I've taken before and never had this reaction to. So now as well as being afraid to take a new med, I'm very concerned about taking meds that I've taken in the past with no problems.

This is however getting somewhat off topic. If you wish to continue this tangent, we should probably start a new thread.

The anti-drug philosophy is routed in puritanism. Strong work ethic is very important to puritanism. A drug that can turn "lazy" citizens into productive ones tends to prove that work ethic is not a demonstration of higher moral character but the absence of a treatable medical conditions like ADHD. If there is an acceptance of the biological reality of ADHD then there still the puritanical idea that a drug to treat it is the lazy non-work ethic way to treat it.

Another ideal of puritanism is anti-pleasure. The opposition to fox hunting in England in the distant past was not based on prevention of animal cruelty but on grounds that the hunters got pleasure from hunting. Since the primary treatment options for ADHD tend to be controlled substance with abuse potential there is the natural puritanical opposition that some people maybe getting pleasure from the medications. Just as they had no love of the fox they
have no love of the user(or abuser). But the idea that people maybe getting pleasure keeps them up at night.

Lastly the puritanically philosophy that its righteous to suffer and the previous mentioned belief in strong work ethic justifies denying people in need help.
So expect alot of soapbox sermons on evil and not many helping hands in the real world.

Strong work ethic is very important to puritanism.I wonder if this is the reason some people believe that a Caesarian Section is the easy way to have a baby. :eek:

Thats interesting but it has nothing to do with people who have a legitimate diagnosis of ADHD. In the same way people with a legitimate need for pain medication have nothing in common with those merely seeking an opiate high.

Yes, that is very true. But if I had a legitimate need for pain meds I would be pretty ****ed off at the druggies seeking an opiate high. Unfortunately, society often lumps the true pain sufferer and the opiate drug seeker into the same category. So when the true pain sufferer talks about his/her condition, the lay person will respond, "Oh you're just overmedicating" or "You're just faking your pain" or "You're just weak." The same thing happens to true ADHDers and the stimulant abusers. We're unfairly lumped into the same category. John Q Public thinks that I am using ADHD has an "excuse" for my alleged "laziness." Apparently John Q Public thinks I am a druggie using stimulants to get high.

And that is why I want to kick the a** of every person who abuses Adderall. And that is why I want doctors to be more conservative about prescribing meds in some cases. The med abusers only make life more difficult for the people who actually need meds for legitimate reasons.

I do believe there are a lot of cases where ADHD is over prescribed and over medicated. I have seen with my own eyes parents who use it as an excuse for their childrens behaviour.

I can be a little thick headed and am very strong in my beliefs.
I do not think a teacher or a GP or pediatrician should every make the diagnoses or prescribe medication for it.

Any parent that believes their child is afflicted should have a neuro-psych exam done on their child by a child psychologist.

In regards to medication, it is my belief that if a child has adhd and is on the RIGHT medication it aids in them being who they were born to be. Medication should be a tool used to help our children cope and manage adhd. If a child is on medication and it alters their personality or gives them a buzz then I would question if it was an accurate diagnoses and if the medication they are on is right for them.

My DS is 15 and has been on meds for 5 yrs. I got lucky in regards to the fact I didn't have to try a lot on him. His body accepted the 1st med chosen. I am open and honest with him about adhd. when he is on medication it is much easier for me to "reach" him. Showing him the problems that adhd can cause in everyday life and ways to manage this. If I tried to teach these things to him when he was not on medication nothing would sink in.

In regards to becoming addicted to drugs I do not believe this at all. I know my son and how bad his impulses can be and I firmly believe that with meds he stops and thinks and without meds he is at a much higher risk of getting into drugs. Without his meds he suffers socially and will do almost anything to make friends... not a good combination.

The bottom line is that adhd is REAL and people need to realise that. Each child is different and therefore different things work for each child. It is our duty as parents to make sure our kids are properly diagnosed and treated. It is also our duty to ensure that they grow up to be happy productive adults as apposed to adults who feel they can behave the way they want and it's not their fault.. they have adhd.

ADHD is a reason for behaviour and should not be used as an excuse.

Seriously. Just worry about your own problems. You just waste time worrying about other people's problems. (I know it is a distraction from having to actually deal with your own issues)

Parents do the best they can. I am sorry your parents medicated you, I wish mine had. Do you have adhd kids? If you don't, I guess it would be hard to understand the pain and heart ache involved in such a choice.

The anti-drug philosophy is routed in puritanism. Strong work ethic is very important to puritanism. A drug that can turn "lazy" citizens into productive ones tends to prove that work ethic is not a demonstration of higher moral character but the absence of a treatable medical conditions like ADHD. If there is an acceptance of the biological reality of ADHD then there still the puritanical idea that a drug to treat it is the lazy non-work ethic way to treat it.

Another ideal of puritanism is anti-pleasure. The opposition to fox hunting in England in the distant past was not based on prevention of animal cruelty but on grounds that the hunters got pleasure from hunting. Since the primary treatment options for ADHD tend to be controlled substance with abuse potential there is the natural puritanical opposition that some people maybe getting pleasure from the medications. Just as they had no love of the fox they
have no love of the user(or abuser). But the idea that people maybe getting pleasure keeps them up at night.

Lastly the puritanically philosophy that its righteous to suffer and the previous mentioned belief in strong work ethic justifies denying people in need help.
So expect alot of soapbox sermons on evil and not many helping hands in the real world.

But the current situation is one rooted in biological determinism, driven by profit motive, and epitomized by the medicalization of mental illness (the fact that its called an illness is evidence of that).

We think we know so much more than we do when it comes to psychology, neurology, pharmacology, and how all these fields tie in together.


While I appreciate the sentiment that we shouldn't deny medication to people when it could possibly alleviate symptoms that are having a detrimental effect on their life, we should also acknowledge that we all too readily accept biological explanations for our actions, and try to seek shelter in them. I'm not saying its true for everyone (though many people who have problems with this would deny it, given the third-person effect), but for many people being able to say they have a 'disorder' like ADD or 'depression' and confidently affirm that its genetic and biological and none of their fault is a way to try and escape from these things. It can make you believe that you can just take a pill and be fine, when that isn't the case. Most SSRIs have been proven to be utterly ineffective except in a minority of cases yet they are still prescribed at incredible rates. As a society we dole out stimulant medications like candy to children (without knowing what effect it will have on their immature and undeveloped minds) without questioning the actual necessity of such actions. What about all the people with ADD who lived before stimulant medications were prescribed for the purpose? Were all of their lives miserable? (rhetorical question, I know many who have learned to deal with it over their lives, just as everyone else, and they are all the stronger for it).

I don't think we should dismiss stimulant medication entirely as a therapeutic aid, but it shouldn't be a crutch people are made to think they need to stand on their own. I also don't think we should be giving children such powerful psychoactive substances before puberty, and preferably not before they are relatively mature and can decide for themselves. We don't know what tinkering with neurochemical levels does to their developing minds (and please don't try to argue that we do, we really haven't progressed very far since the psychopharmacological revolution), and it may be inhibiting development of coping mechanisms that can help them deal with who they are. Its the whole idea of what normal and whats not, and that ADD and ADHD are 'disorders', read: bad things to have, when they are really like everything else in life, a mixed bag of positive and negative elements. It all depends on perspective.


Personally, I find that stimulant medications dulled my sense of who I am, and I lost some of the creative thinking and methods of expression that differentiated me from the rest of the "normal" people. I still think they can be useful if used carefully and with purpose, but I don't think I will ever go back to using them on a daily basis again. I can't and won't use them forever, so why use them as a crutch now.

I disagree with drug prohibition and think that instead of taking a paternalistic view the government should use regulation, education, and a scientifically based approach to psychoactives (as opposed to the ideological zealotry that reigns today). That also means taking a cold hard look at one of the wealthiest, largest, and most powerful lobbies in the US, the pharmaceutical industry lobby, and thinking hard about what currently separates licit from illicit substance.



Sorry if this is rambling / jumbled. Its been a long day.

To close: however useful diagnostic criteria is in distinguishing particular mental phenomena, ADD is not a medical illness, condition, or abnormality that I 'suffer' from. Its simply part of who I am, for better or for worse. I'd rather not try to 'treat' an aspect of my own personality, just try to better live with it, and therefore live with myself. Thats the main point I was trying to make, that its all about perspective, and how you see ADD/ADHD. Is it a disorder or illness? Or is just another aspect of what makes you unique as a person.

But the current situation is one rooted in biological determinism, driven by profit motive

Evolution got us in this situation and evolution is very much driven by profit.
Good or bad it just way of the world.


and epitomized by the medicalization of mental illness (the fact that its called an illness is evidence of that).

Deviation from the norm is fine if you can live with it. But many choose not to
so their problems are illnesses. Its mostly semantic how we decide to label a condition. In my case I consider ADHD a neurological condition like Parkinson's disease. Which has a biological and physical environmental influence. The nurture hypothesis aspect of ADHD etiology or treatment is negated by the fact behavior treatments have low efficacy compared to physical treatments.


We think we know so much more than we do when it comes to psychology, neurology, pharmacology, and how all these fields tie in together.

Maybe narcissistic people have that illusion but most educated people know the more they learn how little they in fact know. People in need of help today are at the mercy of current technology.


but for many people being able to say they have a 'disorder' like ADD or 'depression' and confidently affirm that its genetic and biological and none of their fault is a way to try and escape from these things.

Personal fault implies freewill. I reject the notion. Maybe some other people
think a magic pattern of transistors or code can give a machine real choice but I do not. At best you have noise and true randomness but no real control.


It can make you believe that you can just take a pill and be fine, when that isn't the case. Most SSRIs have been proven to be utterly ineffective except in a minority of cases yet they are still prescribed at incredible rates.

Since I used them I know they work for me. The problem is the misconception of antidepressants as antidepressants. They are better
characterised as thymoanesthesiacs. Which is bad but better than suicide.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antidepressant#Thymoanesthesia

Also the problems with effective antidepressant treatments is not related to ADHD meds which have very high efficacy.


What about all the people with ADD who lived before stimulant medications were prescribed for the purpose? Were all of their lives miserable?

Stimulants have been in use everywhere for a long time. Ephedra, coffee, tea, nicotine, khat, coca, etc. People who did not use them likely were less productive.


I don't think we should dismiss stimulant medication entirely as a therapeutic aid, but it shouldn't be a crutch people are made to think they need to stand on their own.

A crutch is medical technology to aid walking in a person with some illness. No one walks with a crutch that does not need one. We have already covered this
rejection of technology does not make you stronger. FDR needed crutches but because people saw that as a weakness he carefully hid the fact in public. But he was a strong man(using wheel chair and crutches in private). Needless to say medical illness particular mental illness is still stigmatized today.


I also don't think we should be giving children such powerful psychoactive substances before puberty, and preferably not before they are relatively mature


What about vaccinations?


and can decide for themselves.

Parents make medical decisions for minors.


We don't know what tinkering with neurochemical levels does to their developing minds (and please don't try to argue that we do, we really haven't progressed very far since the psychopharmacological revolution),

You can say the same thing for most substances. I remember a discussion in college from a guess speaker who hypothesis a certain type of amino-acids common in food maybe related to Alzheimer risk. Should I stopped eating all those foods after that? Life is risk. I can choose to walk to Walmart to improve my health (I often do) but I maybe significantly increasing my risk to be run over to.







I'd rather not try to 'treat' an aspect of my own personality, just try to better live with it, and therefore live with myself. Thats the main point I was trying to make, that its all about perspective, and how you see ADD/ADHD. Is it a disorder or illness?

I agree but many people have significant impairment. People with aspergers
(mild autism) often say they do not want to be cured. But a parent with a low functioning autistic child might have the opposite viewpoint. The ability to adapt to ADHD with out treatment suggest its mild in the first place or you accept low productivity. Which means your perspective likely does not apply to a large number of people.

i agree a bit w/ 20trackmind above,
you should try to refrain from worrying about how other people are being treated with medications.

to you it seems that this forum is full of drugged up add'ers that are only interested in finding the right medication cocktail, however, for many with ad/hd who also have other co-existing diagnoses (like depression, bipolar, and anxiety) suffer a GREAT deal in living day to day. People with severe adhd + coexisting conditions suffer in almost all areas of life, this is not any way to live. many of us have done the "cognitive-behavioral" therapy for years and still are, but it doesn't help the core problem of why they still suffer every day: BRAIN NEURO-CHEMICAL FUNCTIONS

every emotion and thought we as living organisms have comes directly from the interaction of brain cells, neurons, interacting with each other along miles of different pathways that contain enormous amounts of branches in all directions. the neurons communicate with neurotransmitters like DOPAMINE, AND NOREPINEPHRIN (the two main ones affected by adhd stimulant medications), they float from one end of one neuron, to the nearby neighboring neuron and then fit in their particular neuron-"key holes" (ex: dopamine only fits into dopamine-shaped "key holes" on the end of a neuron)

people with impairments in cognitive and emotional functioning have the brain-dysfunction where their neurotransmitters are RE-ABSORBED by the originating neuron TOO FAST, so that the strength and length of time of the impulse is drastically reduced, which then understandably reduces mood and cognitive abilities.
this reabsorbtion is called REUPTAKE, psychoactive medications often delay the re-uptake of certain neurochemicals (dopamine, norepinephrine, seratonin, epinephrine, ect) so that a longer exposure the recieving neuron will have to the particular neurochemical, this action is why many psychoactive medications are discribed as REUPTAKE INHIBITORS, and stimulant medications inhibit the re-absorbtion of dopamine and norepinephrine (and others)

PEOPLE WITH AD/HD have dysfunctional neuron to neuron communications, thus the need FOR THE ALREADY PROVEN EFFECTIVE PSYCHO-STIMULANT MEDS

same goes for depression, bipolar, anxiety, and other illnesses...

each individual has neurons that respond differently to different medications, hence the need for a "COCKTAIL" of 2 or more meds as you put it is VERY APPROPRIATE FOR SOME PEOPLE!!!!!
many who are on "cocktails" have gone through numorus trials of different meds with little improvement, but a combination of meds trigors their unique neurons to begin to work properly

THIS IS A BIOLOGICAL ISSUE AND SHOULD BE UNDERSTOOD IN ORDER TO STOP THE DISCRIMINATION OF THOSE WHO USE PSYCHOACTIVE MEDICATIONS.

NOT EVERYONE IS AN ABUSER OF DRUGS, IN FACT THE PERCENTAGE OF PEOPLE WHO ABUSE THEIR MEDICATIONS IS VASTLY OUTNUMBERED BY THOSE WHO TAKE THEIR MEDS AS PRESCRIBED.

PEOPLE ARE AFRAID TO SEEK MEDICINAL HELP FOR THEIR SUFFERING BECAUSE OF THESE RIDICULING MYTHS THAT ARE FLOATING AROUND IN OUR SOCIETY, NO ONE SHOULD SUFFER NEURON-DYSFUNCTIONS IF THERE IS A MEDICINE THAT MODERN SCIENCE HAS PROVIDED TO TREAT AND ACTUALLY HELP THE PARTICULAR NEURON INTERACTIONS THAT LOWER A PERSONS QUALITY OF LIFE

The post above the one above mine is a complete dismissal of the past 20 years of neuroscience. Read something.

What about vaccinations?

Vaccinations are not psychoactive. I am talking about psychoactive substances, and more specifically, substances that exert powerful effects on neurotransmitter levels in the brain. Vaccinations do change your body in a permanent way, but they do so in a specific and predictable fashion (to inoculate you from disease of course).


Stimulants have been in use everywhere for a long time. Ephedra, coffee, tea, nicotine, khat, coca, etc. People who did not use them likely were less productive.


Yes, stimulants have been around for a while, though keep in mind that they weren't used by humans everywhere forever. For instance, coffee didn't start to spread from Ethiopia/Yemen until after the Ottoman Empire was in existence (quick wiki search suggests it proliferated through the Middle East in 15th century, then was exported to Europe after).

I think that the fact that stimulants are so prevalent (to a practically universal level) is a reflection of the increasing pace at which our society moves. Thats a whole different debate however.

There are people who use all sorts of stimulants (ADHD or not) who are less productive than those who don't. It depends on the person (set + setting), stimulant use doesn't necessarily equal greater productivity.


Maybe narcissistic people have that illusion but most educated people know the more they learn how little they in fact know.
Parents make medical decisions for minors.
You can say the same thing for most substances. I remember a discussion in college from a guess speaker who hypothesis a certain type of amino-acids common in food maybe related to Alzheimer risk. Should I stopped eating all those foods after that? Life is risk. I can choose to walk to Walmart to improve my health (I often do) but I maybe significantly increasing my risk to be run over to.


I doubt the risks from amino-acids in food are as significant as directly altering neurotransmitter levels in a still developing brain. Who knows.

Parents make medical decisions based off the advice of doctors, and who knows how much information they end up working with. Maybe they believe the benefits outweigh the risks, or maybe they just want a quick solution so they take the medical professional at their word. The problem I have with some of these parents is that they are doing it for themselves (their own desires they hope to vicariously achieve through their children), or are simply not thinking about the effects it could have on their children in the long-run, as it is their kids who will have to bear any consequences. I don't mean to say that medication for mental disorders shouldn't be given to children, but feck, we are giving powerful stimulants to extremely young children without so much as a thought it seems. Look at the statistics. I know its a godsend for some, but how many children are being put at risk because their parents are having trouble coping with their behaviour or because they are afraid of having an unsuccessful child (what happened to late bloomers?).

I don't want to judge, but sometimes it seems like parents don't think enough about their children's welfare. Not saying this is most or all people, but you know they are out there. The doctors who are so quick to diagnose on a whim and immediately prescribe are no better.


The ability to adapt to ADHD with out treatment suggest its mild in the first place or you accept low productivity. Which means your perspective likely does not apply to a large number of people.

I disagree.

The people I mentioned earlier, the ones who seem to be happy, functional people with ADD: they don't have mild cases. I could go further with descriptions, but we all know what severe ADD can be like. How about 60 years of living with it. Have you gotten that far? Are you planning on taking stimulants until you are that old?

I was on stimulant medications and they did jack for my productivity, plus I found they stifled my personality and creativity. So yes, for now I'm accepting my **** productivity and all the other problems I have to deal with. That doesn't mean I'm giving up, I'm just still learning how to make the most of the cards I was dealt.

I find your insinuations that I (or loved ones in same boat) somehow need to be on stimulant medication to function or I don't really have ADD offensive, but it may just be that I still haven't gotten to sleep. I'll just drop it for now.


The post above the one above mine is a complete dismissal of the past 20 years of neuroscience. Read something.

It isn't a complete dismissal. Please tell me what makes you think that.

I have taken courses focusing on aspects of neurology before, but am far from a specialist. I just feel that the current reductionist paradigm of biological / neurological research has been taken too far (Crick never intended for his simple hypothesis to become dogma) and that we need to stop assuming that a bottom-up approach is the right way to go about things. Granted, we don't have many better alternative techniques for developing new medications, but I think we've gone a bit far with blindly playing with neurotransmitters.

Perhaps I was too generalised...

Vaccinations do change your body in a permanent way, but they do so in a specific and predictable fashion (to inoculate you from disease of course).

They also can kill or injury. But people largely accept the risk to reward benefits ratio.



There are people who use all sorts of stimulants (ADHD or not) who are less productive than those who don't. It depends on the person (set + setting), stimulant use doesn't necessarily equal greater productivity.

A person with ADHD not seeing greater productivity from medication should
not be using it.


some of these parents is that they are doing it for themselves (their own desires they hope to vicariously achieve through their children),

Thats a rather odd observation to make that I doubt can be backed up with
a scientific reference.


or are simply not thinking about the effects it could have on their children in the long-run, as it is their kids who will have to bear any consequences.


There are greater consequences for not treating ADHD to the child.


I don't want to judge, but sometimes it seems like parents don't think enough about their children's welfare.

That entire premises is based on if ADHD medication do more harm than good.
The evidence suggest they do more good.


The people I mentioned earlier, the ones who seem to be happy, functional people with ADD: they don't have mild cases.

By definition they have mild ADHD or have accepted low productivity.


I was on stimulant medications and they did jack for my productivity, plus I found they stifled my personality and creativity.So yes, for now I'm accepting my **** productivity and all the other problems I have to deal with. That doesn't mean I'm giving up, I'm just still learning how to make the most of the cards I was dealt.

Thats sad you were a non-responder. But that maybe clouding your perceptions
on the large percent who do respond. By the way I'm a largely non-responder
to stimulants(and rarely take them) and live a low productive life. I'm not
giving up either(well yet :) ).


I find your insinuations that I (or loved ones in same boat) somehow need to be on stimulant medication to function or I don't really have ADD offensive.


I said a person would have mild ADHD or low productivity if they adjusted to no treatment. You admitted you had low productivity. Thats fine an individuals can make that choice and I do not
hold it against them. But parents make the choice for kids.

I read recently that something like 1 in 150 develop autism. Growing up I don't remember hearing much about this condition. In fact, it seems like in the last 5 or 10 years we hear about it all the time. I wish these damn medical people would stop creating these conditions and the parents do the job they are supposed to do.


WOW- did I just write that. Last time I checked this is a support forum for ADHD and this is the medication forum. Here we discuss the benefits, as well as some of the challenges, of using various medications such as psycho-stimulants in managing the symptoms of ADHD.

FACT- ADHD is a biological mental disorder.
FACT- Biological mental disorders can often be managed with medications.
FACT- ADHD is real, depression is real, autism is real, schtzophrenia(sp), Bipolar, etc these are real and they are treatable, manageable, etc etc.

And lastly, the first paragragh was an attempt at well I dont know- maybe sarcasm mixed with some hyprocricy(sp). I transport autistic kids on a daily basis so I know it's REAL. And I would wager that most teachers know a kid or two who deals with ADHD.

RockyZ,


First of all, welcome to the Forum.

You posed some excellent points.

ADHD is a truly multifaceted construct; with about a dozen or so applicable definitions.

My "favorite," if you will, is this one:

ADHD is a "trait," repersenting the lower end of the normal (developmental ) curve.

Before listing some of the RISK FACTORS associated with untreated ( no medication) ADHD ( includes primarily H-I & Combined types ), it's imperative to understand both the "Clinical Threshold" and the "Metric(s)" of ADHD.

In keeping with the developemntal nature of the disorder, the "Metric" for measuring ADHD is Developmental Deviance.

Simply put, the ADHD individual is always compared to same age / same gender non-ADHD peers.

For them, the symptoms wouldn't create problems;which is where the "Clinical Threshold" comes into play.

The threshold is Impairment : No Impairment, No Disorder.


Depending on the type , degree of severity & comorbid conditions, the RISK FACTORS for untreated (no medication), are definately NOT good (this would exclude Predominantly Inattentive type;including Sluggish Cognitive Tempo) :

1) greater risk of high school drop out;

2) lower HS graduation rate;

3) lower college entrance rate;

4) much lower college graduation rate;

5) make less money across life span;

6) greater risk of being fired from job;

7) greater likelihood of (at fault ) traffic accident(s);

8) more likely to get a speeding ticket(s);

9) shorter lifespan.


That's about all I can think of right now.

Suffice to say there's more, but I hope this was helpful.

Thanks & Good Luck

tc
mctavish23
(Robert)

1) greater risk of high school drop out;

2) lower HS graduation rate;

4) much lower college graduation rate;

5) make less money across life span;

6) greater risk of being fired from job;

7) greater likelihood of (at fault ) traffic accident(s);



Those all apply to me and I was using mainly just typical caffeine use at the time. Except I quit all my jobs impulsively. My car crash was in fact the reason I was forced to quit my last job and have not worked in 4 years. I only accepted I have ADHD 2 years ago (about the same time I signed up to this forum). So my perspective is from a person who had a lot of potential
but who could be living under a bridge in the near future.

By definition they have mild ADHD or have accepted low productivity.

I meant ADD, and not ADHD. By that I mean ADHD-PI / SCT type disorders as opposed to combined type.

And they have neither. This is what I was talking about when referring to the medicalization of psychological characteristics. If you manage to deal with your symptoms you don't really have a disorder, but that doesn't mean you don't have the same deviant neurological processes that others who qualify as ADD/ADHD do.

Like I said. The people I am thinking of (and look up to) have fairly severe symptoms (worse than I) and have done well for themselves in areas important to them. They have still had major hangups, especially with relationships and dealing with authority (choosing between personal principles and career advancement basically), but they have learned how to get what they need to done. That isn't to suggest that their problems magically disappeared or that they have just accepted "low productivity".

I don't think its right to judge severity by how much you feel the condition is a 'disorder'. ADHD doesn't get better, but you can learn to cope.

Agree to disagree on this (or not, whatever).




Thats sad you were a non-responder. But that maybe clouding your perceptions on the large percent who do respond. By the way I'm a largely non-responder to stimulants(and rarely take them) and live a low productive life. I'm not giving up either(well yet :) ).

Perhaps. I've seen it both ways, but we know that anecdotal evidence can't supplant actual empirical research. I just wish there was more empirical research of a higher quality, particularly on the sub-type of ADHD that most interests me. All with time though.

Also, want to note (relevant to my previous point) that not having the highest productivity doesn't mean you can't be successful. I think people better managing their productivity (especially with regard to hyperfocus) can lead quite successful lives for having the problems that they do.





One last point. I may return to this discussion in the future, but will bow out for now as I admit that I am not making the most eloquent arguments (having trouble saying what I'd like). To whoever left the negative reputation for "generalities based on ignorance", I apologize for rushing my posts out of emotion and not properly citing, but I assure you that I have done extensive research and am trying my best not to generalize. If it appeared that way, my fault. However, on another forum that I moderate where the reputation system is used, we don't allow people to give out negative reputation just because they disagree with what is said. I don't know how it works here, but if you disagreed with me why not just post and debate? Giving me negative rep basically saying "you are wrong because I said so" doesn't add anything. If thats how it works here (rep based on whether you like or dislike a post), then whatever, no biggie. I thought the point was to identify people who add or detract from the community, and I feel like I managed to avoid insulting comments or an otherwise inappropriate demeanor. Ah well, back to the real world.

do not doubt the legitimacy of their diagnosis, I am concerned with how easily accepted stimulants are to everyone.

Then you are

A) uneducated about ADD

B) not being truthful about not doubting the legitimacy of our diagnosis

C) trolling

I am

A) unmedicated

there fore I should

B) stop here . ..



I think there is far too little talk of the addictive nature of these drugs and the psychological problems inherent with these drugs.

Gee where have you been?

In a cave without any mass media devices? The news media is constantly regurgitating inaccurate stigmas, $cientology dogma and spreading misinformation about ADD medications and addiction - I thought avoiding their propaganda was humanly impossible.


{I know I should have stopped earlier , I should stop now but we all know that won't happen}


Who's to say that being pumped full of these chemicals for my whole life haven't caused me to be this way now?


This would suggest I wasn’t ADD before beginning ADD medications – which is not logical.


Doesn't pumping a body full of stimulants for a lifetime put a great deal of strain on a persons heart? What about the other organs?

I don’t know does breathing polluted air put a strain on the lungs??

Perhaps we should all stop breathing lest we damage our lungs.

We have a choice as to weather or not we take ADD medications but breathing polluted air is another matter all together = if taking the ADD medications worries you so much then don’t take the darn medications . . .

Some times folks simply make things harder than they need to be = geez


I have noticed that more and more people, especially children, are being pumped full of drugs that may cause a great deal of harm in the long run. Does anyone share my concerns?

Your choice of words really communicates your perspectives but borders on accusations especially toward those who choose to medicate their children - this is only in my personal opinion but to answer the question

I read these "concerns" so often I think there should be a special section for all anti-medication discussions that way people who want to exchange scary unfounded accusations about ADD medications will have a section to do so.



But they also give me panic attacks

Try

A)Meditation

B) exercise

C) a change in life situation

D) Discontinuing/changing the medications

E) All of the above

There are many choices in life -

At one time you may have been forced to take medications but you are 21 you now have the ability to make the choice as to how you want to deal with your ADD . You can stop medications at any time - gosh that would seem to be more logical than walking around with resentment about being on medications. Life is to short to waste time on being mad about some thing you can change.



Okay I am taking my unmedicated hinny to bed now - section moderators if I wrote out of line just edit me

>
>

One last point. I may return to this discussion in the future, but will bow out for now as I admit that I am not making the most eloquent arguments (having trouble saying what I'd like). To whoever left the negative reputation for "generalities based on ignorance", I apologize for rushing my posts out of emotion and not properly citing, but I assure you that I have done extensive research and am trying my best not to generalize. If it appeared that way, my fault. However, on another forum that I moderate where the reputation system is used, we don't allow people to give out negative reputation just because they disagree with what is said. I don't know how it works here, but if you disagreed with me why not just post and debate? Giving me negative rep basically saying "you are wrong because I said so" doesn't add anything. If thats how it works here (rep based on whether you like or dislike a post), then whatever, no biggie. I thought the point was to identify people who add or detract from the community, and I feel like I managed to avoid insulting comments or an otherwise inappropriate demeanor. Ah well, back to the real world.

I think you're doing fine in your posting here. You're basically "thinking out loud" and getting feedback on your thoughts. Seems to me that's one of the benefits of posting on a discussion board, eh?

We have at least one poster who seems to enjoy leaving nasty comments and red reputation points - without having the courage to sign their name(s). Please don't let someone like that make you feel your contribution to this forum - and to this thread - are not appreciated by others. Not everyone agrees with me all the time, and that's okay with me because I don't always agree with others. Having someone disagree with me (respectfully) helps me to think about my own opinions from a different perspective. Sometimes I have changed my mind based on that interaction, and sometimes I just reaffirm the opinion that I already hold.

... I fully expect to get another red point and anonymous comment for this post... whatever...

I meant ADD, and not ADHD. By that I mean ADHD-PI / SCT type disorders as opposed to combined type.

And they have neither. This is what I was talking about when referring to the medicalization of psychological characteristics. If you manage to deal with your symptoms you don't really have a disorder, but that doesn't mean you don't have the same deviant neurological processes that others who qualify as ADD/ADHD do.


Your arguing semantics and nomenclature. If your not comfortable with the term ADHD we can substitute another word that does not have "medicalization"
like non-thetan. People who have productive lives like Hollywood movie stars that have had few treatments/auditing are mildly non-thetan to start with. Those unfortunate souls that were solicited on the street that are very non-thetan that can not afford/tolerate/etc treatments/auditing will end up living low productive lives.

By the way the Church of Scientology did not reject psychological diagnosis in the early 60's. The
FDA cracked down on them hard for promoting e-metres to cure illness. Hence the church now rejects the label of disease. In the same way most vitamin labels have notes like "is not intended to diagnose, treat, cure or prevent any disease".

Your arguing semantics and nomenclature. If your not comfortable with the term ADHD we can substitute another word that does not have "medicalization"
like non-thetan. People who have productive lives like Hollywood movie stars that have had few treatments/auditing are mildly non-thetan to start with. Those unfortunate souls that were solicited on the street that are very non-thetan that can not afford/tolerate/etc treatments/auditing will end up living low productive lives.

By the way the Church of Scientology did not reject psychological diagnosis in the early 60's. The
FDA cracked down on them hard for promoting e-metres to cure illness. Hence the church now rejects the label of disease. In the same way most vitamin labels have notes like "is not intended to diagnose, treat, cure or prevent any disease".

Just reflecting my longing for a more thorough understanding of ADHD subtypes and the differences between them, as I don't fit neatly into the diagnostic boxes (regarding preferred use of ADD over ADHD for myself).


As for my remarks on the medicalization of illness and the problems I have with the pharmaceutical industry, etc., these are founded in writings of the anti-psychiatry movement and related research on the pharmaceutical industry I have done (for university), as well as personal research on pharmacology and related subjects (as moderator and contributer on a drug harm-reduction focused forum). I guess I went too far into the philosophical and got away from the practical - which is what these forums seem to mainly deal with and especially this subforum (whoops, didn't notice we were in meds forum). I don't have any problem with people using psychoactives to help treat problematic mental conditions or to try and better themselves or even just for fun. I have bigger problems with the commercialization of one part of the drug world and the prohibition of the other (not to mention the in-between, like the very annoying situation with 'unapproved' / unpatentable meds or the situation with Kava in Europe, etc.), but I realize this isn't the appropriate place to discuss such things.

Also want to clarify that I detest scientology, and that its anti-drug & anti-psychology zealotry should not be conflated with the views I hitherto expressed. :o

I think your concerns are very real, and I certainly don't think members of this community take the issue of their medications lightly. Myself included. No one would argue that proper nutrition and regular excercise are crucial parts to managing ADHD.

But it's not enough. Eating all the veggies in the world won't make up for the lack of chemicals that allows me to concentrate for longer than 15 -20 minutes. It might make it last a bit longer, but nowhere near to the degree my medications do.

I don't think those of us in the community 'pop' drugs in without a moment's thought to it's long term effects. But we've weighed the pros and cons, and have decided that we'll take the medications. The fact that they have been absued by others makes me aware, but won't deter me from taking them.

You are free you manage your ADHD how you see fit. There's nothing wrong with using a non-pharmacutical approach. Hopefully it will bring better results than the medication did.

That said, please respect your fellow ADHD who choose to go about it differently. Taking medication doesn't mean we aren't aware or aren't concerned with the points you brought up. But we've decided the positive effects they do have cannot be ignored either.

(These data apply to individuals diagnosed with ADHD)

There were 3 studies, conducted over a 13 year time span, which showed that the use of any stimulant resulted in a decrease in the risk for a substance use disorder.

I just read the followup.

What it showed was that the use of stimulants won't completely stop substance use disorders.

However, stimulants still decrease impulsivity;which, in turn, impacts substance use.

The risk factors for Inattentive type,including SCT, are not as devastating as for the other types.

However, individuals with ADHD-PI are, by the very nature of the disorder, more likely to be overlooked than diagnosed.

Individuals with SCT are not going to act out, anymore than they will raise their hands to ask a question.

There isn't some elite group of individuals with ADHD who run around scoffing at meds.

I don't know if someone else has ADHD or not.

However, I do know ADHD and, while meds may not be quite as effective with ADHD-PI type, there's NOTHING to suggest that individuals who truly have ADHD, become addicted to stimulants.

Hope this helps

tc
mctavish23
(Robert)

I guess I went too far into the philosophical and got away from the practical - which is what these forums seem to mainly deal with and especially this subforum

Yea practical is what I base my decision on weather or to to medicate - the theological I save for Sunday mornings.



(whoops, didn't notice we were in meds forum)[/

Which is why these views need their own sub-forum - I was posting unmedicated and very tongue in cheek but I think about half of the irritation is due to the section you are in and the members this section normally attracts. {umm people on medication or are giving it to a child. . . .}



have bigger problems with the commercialization of one part of the drug world and the prohibition of the other

After bashing ADD medication use I hope you do not suggest we all go out and smoke a dubbie? {it wouldn't even be the first time it happened} but it went over poorly last time and the time before.



That said, please respect your fellow ADHD who choose to go about it differently. Taking medication doesn't mean we aren't aware or aren't concerned with the points you brought up. But we've decided the positive effects they do have cannot be ignored either.

This is an excellent post . . . the above part is especially well done!







To whoever left the negative reputation for "generalities based on ignorance", I apologize for rushing my posts out of emotion

I fully expect to get another red point and anonymous comment for this post... whatever...

Rep system - crap. ..

The red thing or green thing is based upon weather or not the person pressing the buttons likes your post or doesn't like it - I just gave some one a positive vote to out weight the negative because they didn't want to participate any more . . .

What one must realize is that some folks use the system to disagree with your perspective - instead of doing what I am fixing to do - disagreeing out right under my user name so you know who I am -

I spent hours on a post I wrote to be helpful only to have it dinged for some stupid reason while one I wrote in sarcasm was praised - so do I stick with sarcasm all the time??? I think that would get boring even for me. I appreciate the positive feed back especially the signed stuff.

The negative nameless stuff - when some one doesn't even see their comments as being worthy of their anonymous user name here how much credence does it deserve from me?

Maybe we ought to start a thread in chit chat and make a place where we can talk back to the irritating anonymous people who leave us negative feed back for post we spent hours writing and editing . This way we don't get distracted in threads - I understand - negative rep points happens to me too . . .I am just looking for ways to deal with it productively.

okay the topic = commercial break over back to regularly scheduled programming . . . :D






Also want to clarify that I detest scientology, and that its anti-drug & anti-psychology zealotry should not be conflated with the views I hitherto expressed

Well I am glad you clarified this - I can put my $cientologist repellent away for now - :p




If you manage to deal with your symptoms you don't really have a disorder, but that doesn't mean you don't have the same deviant neurological processes that others who qualify as ADD/ADHD do.


This is correct but it still does not increase the logic of your argument - people with type two diabetes all have biological causes that are the same however some people can get by on diet and exercise while others need oral medications added to this mix . Still others need both oral diabetic medications and insulin to go with the diet and exercise.

According to your line of reasoning all diabetics should be expected to manage their conditions with diet and exercise alone because others can do so So according to you those who need the insulin and medication must not be considering the danger of long term medication use????

This point of view and generalization grossly ignores individuality, circumstance diversity, ect . . .



don't think its right to judge severity by how much you feel the condition is a 'disorder'. ADHD doesn't get better, but you can learn to cope.


Huh??? If I have only one leg I am disabled however if I do not have any legs I am more disabled - how limiting my disability is depends greatly upon my environment as well as other things like my ability to cope, over all health, presence or absence of secondary conditions ect Two people can be without legs how ever one may be more severely disabled than the other due to lower functioning - ADD diagnosis doesn't work much differently.

Severity is determined by the amount of impairment or life interference experienced Do you have a more logical way of determining severity of a condition?

Just reflecting my longing for a more thorough understanding of ADHD subtypes and the differences between them, as I don't fit neatly into the diagnostic boxes

Oh well why didn't you just say so

Neuropsychological executive functions and DSM-IV ADHD subtypes (http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=14092425)

Our results do not support distinct neuropsychological deficits in ADHD-IA and ADHD-C children, and suggest that symptoms of inattention, rather than symptoms of hyperactivity/impulsivity, are associated with neuropsychological impairment.{End Quote}

Well this explains all those disagreements between Scuro and I 100 years ago - I really didn't have the problems I claimed I didn't - amazing empirical evidence I know what it is like to have ADD {science finally catches up.}

A Comparison of the Neuropsychological Profiles of the DSM-IV Subtypes of ADHD - Statistical Data Included
(http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0902/is_6_29/ai_80897776/pg_10)

I am unsure how much information is repeated I only got to scan them briefly because I am posting this while my computer mouse is under attack by resident feline who apparently wants my attention. . . directed away from the computer and into her. . .and she makes herself mighty hard to ignore.

That was an excellent post, Meadd.

While it would seem to make sense for doctors to pidgeonhole us into nice neat little categories and treat according to that, in practice there is way too much variable in the way each of us is affected by the issue, in the way we deal with the issue, and how we respond to medication or other treatments.

And frankly, I can trace that compartmentalization back to the insurance industry and the HMOs.



I hear ya about taking the time to write a post that really explains my thinking or my opinion only to have it dinged, while something I dash off and really should be ashamed of sending in the heat of the moment gets praise. Some people do seem to have odd priorities and odder value systems.

>
>
Which is why these views need their own sub-forum - I was posting unmedicated and very tongue in cheek but I think about half of the irritation is due to the section you are in and the members this section normally attracts. {umm people on medication or are giving it to a child. . . .}
>
>
.

Something I have noticed here, and it may go in cycles, is that sometimes I will log on and check new posts - and they are all in threads about side effects from medications. Since I'm not medicated, there aren't any threads I have anything to add anything to. And I'm horrible about starting new threads myself.

Anyway... two thoughts there.
One... what impression do new posters here get? That this forum is only about being medicated?
Two... we may be getting unrelated posts because others, like me, don't want to start a whole new thread, so they post a response to a thread without checking to see which sub-forum it's located in.

Since I used them I know they work for me. The problem is the misconception of antidepressants as antidepressants. They are better
characterised as thymoanesthesiacs. Which is bad but better than suicide.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antidepressant#Thymoanesthesia


I didn't know there was a name for this! Thymoanesthesia. Thank you for the link.

for many with ad/hd who also have other co-existing diagnoses (like depression, bipolar, and anxiety) suffer a GREAT deal in living day to day. People with severe adhd + coexisting conditions suffer in almost all areas of life, this is not any way to live. many of us have done the "cognitive-behavioral" therapy for years and still are, but it doesn't help the core problem of why they still suffer every day: BRAIN NEURO-CHEMICAL FUNCTIONS

PEOPLE WITH AD/HD have dysfunctional neuron to neuron communications, thus the need FOR THE ALREADY PROVEN EFFECTIVE PSYCHO-STIMULANT MEDS

same goes for depression, bipolar, anxiety, and other illnesses...

each individual has neurons that respond differently to different medications, hence the need for a "COCKTAIL" of 2 or more meds as you put it is VERY APPROPRIATE FOR SOME PEOPLE!!!!!
many who are on "cocktails" have gone through numorus trials of different meds with little improvement, but a combination of meds trigors their unique neurons to begin to work properly

THIS IS A BIOLOGICAL ISSUE AND SHOULD BE UNDERSTOOD IN ORDER TO STOP THE DISCRIMINATION OF THOSE WHO USE PSYCHOACTIVE MEDICATIONS.

[B]PEOPLE ARE AFRAID TO SEEK MEDICINAL HELP FOR THEIR SUFFERING BECAUSE OF THESE RIDICULING MYTHS THAT ARE FLOATING AROUND IN OUR SOCIETY, NO ONE SHOULD SUFFER NEURON-DYSFUNCTIONS IF THERE IS A MEDICINE THAT MODERN SCIENCE HAS PROVIDED TO TREAT AND ACTUALLY HELP THE PARTICULAR NEURON INTERACTIONS THAT LOWER A PERSONS QUALITY OF LIFE


WOW, beautifully put! I am saving this in a word doc (I hope you don't object) to help explain my add and bipolar condition to my dad who can't understand why I can't just "snap out of it".

Thank you, thank you, thank you! BRAVO!

Thanks for posting those data.

My experience in reading the literature on a regular basis is that :

1) Working Memory ( as an Executive Function ) represents the core deficit for ADHD-PI;

2) Inhibition as the base for the EF's, represents the core deficit for ADHD H-I ( and ultimately C-type);

3) Of the 6 types of attention currently defined by neuropsych research, 5 of which represent Input functions of the brain, the one and only Output function ( Sustained or Persistent attention) is the one disrupted by ADHD;

These data aren't new by any means.

However, there's been nothing ( in the way of multiple studies ) to refute them either.

The great thing about research is that it's never stagnant.

tc
mctavish23
(Robert)

PEOPLE ARE AFRAID TO SEEK MEDICINAL HELP FOR THEIR SUFFERING BECAUSE OF THESE RIDICULING MYTHS THAT ARE FLOATING AROUND IN OUR SOCIETY, NO ONE SHOULD SUFFER NEURON-DYSFUNCTIONS IF THERE IS A MEDICINE THAT MODERN SCIENCE HAS PROVIDED TO TREAT AND ACTUALLY HELP THE PARTICULAR NEURON INTERACTIONS THAT LOWER A PERSONS QUALITY OF LIFE


First off thanks for the above post.

I've had an off again/on again/ love-hate relationship with meds (hmmm... ok meds and women too) for years. I have talked myself out of medication many times. First and foremost because I think that I need to be "strong" and not rely on a "crutch". Second I worry that my liver or some other part of me is going to rot from long term usage. Third because I feel that psychiatry/neurology is about 500 years behind where it needs to be to really help me (but nobody can really change this). Fourth because sometimes I'm just flat broke and can't afford meds.

None of these excuses changes the fact that without being medicated for both ADD (no H, thank you very much) and bipolar, I am making the lives of people around me Hell, and I am sinking deeper into the quicksand of self-disgust.

So until something better comes along- like a brain circuitry implant or cloned NT brain cell implantation- I have little choice but the meds. People used wheel chairs before artificial legs were developed and glasses before R/K surgery. We just have to make do on what's the best affordable and available option. It doesn't do much good berating anyone else or even yourself for medication use.

I am high-functioning ADD (or SCT???) with bipolar and high IQ and I raised my hands in class often and occasionally caused a lot of trouble. I don't care either for the re-definition of "ADHD only" unless one of you wants to give me your H, I'll take it but you can't have it back!!!http://www.addforums.com/forums/images/icons/icon6.gif

Something I have noticed here, and it may go in cycles, is that sometimes I will log on and check new posts - and they are all in threads about side effects from medications. Since I'm not medicated, there aren't any threads I have anything to add anything to. And I'm horrible about starting new threads myself.

Anyway... two thoughts there.
One... what impression do new posters here get? That this forum is only about being medicated?
Two... we may be getting unrelated posts because others, like me, don't want to start a whole new thread, so they post a response to a thread without checking to see which sub-forum it's located in.

Thats why I think the non-medicated and anti-drug use perspective is good to have here to. But we need to quantify the risk and rewards of it also. When I read opposition to drugs I think one or more of the following:

1. The person has mild deficits(can they empathise with those very different?).

2. The person accepts their lot in life(why do they expect others to?).

3. They found effective non-drug treatments(what were they?).

4. Why are they complaining about drugs and not the positives of their approach to the situation(destructive verse constructive).

5. Why does an individual post on multiple websites criticizing the use of prescription medications yet state they have an open mind?

6. Why don't people who experience positive results with medication swarm websites and criticize people who choose not to use medication?

Thats why I think the non-medicated and anti-drug use perspective is good to have here to. But we need to quantify the risk and rewards of it also. When I read opposition to drugs I think one or more of the following:

1. The person has mild deficits(can they empathise with those very different?).

2. The person accepts their lot in life(why do they expect others to?).

3. They found effective non-drug treatments(what were they?).

4. Why are they complaining about drugs and not the positives of their approach to the situation(destructive verse constructive).

I do accept my lot in life, had 53 years of getting used to it before I learned there was an actual medical diagnosis for my condition. I have explained in several threads about my issues with allergic reactions to medications and my lack of insurance to pay for them anyway.

I have found Omega 3 supplements to be very effective for me. Wish I could afford the treatments for Sensory Integration Disorder - I might be almost "normal" then.

Its "normal" for folks to complain more than anything else. But actually I have seen quite a few posts around here talking about the benefits from diet changes, supplement therapy, and behavior therapy. Love the whole thread on the "Love and Logic" therapy.


5. Why does an individual post on multiple websites criticizing the use of prescription medications yet state they have an open mind?

6. Why don't people who experience positive results with medication swarm websites and criticize people who choose not to use medication?

How do you know the people are posting on multiple websites critizing the use of prescription meds? How do you know they're doing that in other places besides this forum?

I have been criticized many times on this forum for choosing not to use medication and for posting the benefits of supplements and behavior therapy. And I've seen the same thing happen to other posters here. Maybe that's why this forum isn't being "swarmed" with those posts?

How do you know the people are posting on multiple websites critizing the use of prescription meds? How do you know they're doing that in other places besides this forum?The same way we found ADDForums.

I have been criticized many times on this forum for choosing not to use medication and for posting the benefits of supplements and behavior therapy. And I've seen the same thing happen to other posters here. Maybe that's why this forum isn't being "swarmed" with those posts?ADDForums is one of the best moderated public forums on the world wide web - amazing when one considers how active the forums are with people looking for help living with mental illness. What I have observed on other discussion forums does not happen on ADDForums because of the high standards set by administrators, moderators and members.

I have been criticized many times on this forum for choosing not to use medication and for posting the benefits of supplements and behavior therapy. And I've seen the same thing happen to other posters here. Maybe that's why this forum isn't being "swarmed" with those posts?

That maybe the case that non-drug approaches face more criticism here and that leads to a lot of people interested in that approach not feeling welcome
here. Which farther reduces the amount of supporting posts/posters for such ideas. But it could be the relative effectiveness of various treatment approaches on random samples of ADHDers explains the distribution of posts/posters here to.

That maybe the case that non-drug approaches face more criticism here and that leads to a lot of people interested in that approach not feeling welcome
here. Which farther reduces the amount of supporting posts/posters for such ideas. But it could be the relative effectiveness of various treatment approaches on random samples of ADHDers explains the distribution of posts/posters here to.Perhaps the cool response may be due to how one expresses their opinions and not the opinions themselves?

Perhaps the cool response may be due to how one expresses their opinions and not the opinions themselves?

Yeah its important to be objective and looking for the truth and not merely trying or appearing to sale your own views, products, services, etc.

Something I have noticed here, and it may go in cycles, is that sometimes I will log on and check new posts - and they are all in threads about side effects from medications.Over the years, I've observed that some people - usually young, males - love to talk about chemistry. It's a guy thing?

Since I'm not medicated, there aren't any threads I have anything to add anything to. And I'm horrible about starting new threads myself.I know what you mean. I take plain old, inexpensive, Ritalin and often don't even want to reply to Ritalin threads, but feel obligated to when no one else does.

Re: starting new threads: how about starting new threads about a book you've read, program you've watched, speaker you've heard or . . . ?

we may be getting unrelated posts because others, like me, don't want to start a whole new thread, so they post a response to a thread without checking to see which sub-forum it's located in.Yes, impulsivity has a habit of doing that.

(Speaking strictly for myself)

Whenever possible,I try and post empirically (research) supported (valid & reliable data from peer reviewed journals) information.

When I'm making a statement of personal opinion, I try and make that clear as well.

The bottom line is that ADHD is a proven brainbased, neurobiological disorder of inhibition,self-control & working memory.

Using the DSM-IV TR symptoms, the genetic contribution for ADHD is .97

Research supports ONLY 2 (evidence based) treatments for ADHD : 1) medication (with the first research study in 1937) and 2) Behavior management.

That's it.

If there's a bias towards those 2 approaches, it's a RATIONAL one.

tc
mctavish23
(Robert)

Over the years, I've observed that some people - usually young, males - love to talk about chemistry. It's a guy thing?

I know what you mean. I take plain old, inexpensive, Ritalin and often don't even want to reply to Ritalin threads, but feel obligated to when no one else does.

Re: starting new threads: how about starting new threads about a book you've read, program you've watched, speaker you've heard or . . . ?

Yes, impulsivity has a habit of doing that.

**laughs** Yeah, impulsivity probably does have an impact on that effect here.


(Speaking strictly for myself)

Whenever possible,I try and post empirically (research) supported (valid & reliable data from peer reviewed journals) information.

When I'm making a statement of personal opinion, I try and make that clear as well.

The bottom line is that ADHD is a proven brainbased, neurobiological disorder of inhibition,self-control & working memory.

Using the DSM-IV TR symptoms, the genetic contribution for ADHD is .97

Research supports ONLY 2 (evidence based) treatments for ADHD : 1) medication (with the first research study in 1937) and 2) Behavior management.

That's it.

If there's a bias towards those 2 approaches, it's a RATIONAL one.

tc
mctavish23
(Robert)

Just because the pharmaceutical companies have only paid for research on treatment using their medications doesn't mean that other treatment options are not effective, just that they haven't been tested in the same way. If someone were to compile empirical data on the effects of other treatments, I think some folks might be rather surprised.

I'm glad medication works for some folks. But I'm also glad I don't find it necessary to spend a lot of money and time trying different meds to find the right combination for my symptoms and suffering from weird side effects and the possibility of even worse reactions in the process.

Just because the pharmaceutical companies have only paid for research on treatment using their medications doesn't mean that other treatment options are not effective, just that they haven't been tested in the same way. If someone were to compile empirical data on the effects of other treatments, I think some folks might be rather surprised.Lunacie, you are preaching to the choir.

I'm glad medication works for some folks. But I'm also glad I don't find it necessary to spend a lot of money and time trying different meds to find the right combination for my symptoms and suffering from weird side effects and the possibility of even worse reactions in the process.Lots of people are successful with the first medication they try. Lots of people do not experience regular side effects from medication. If you were interested in learning about ADHD, you will find lots of examples of this in these forums. If memory is a problem, perhaps copying and printing posts will help. I need to write stuff down, especially when learning new things.

Unfortunately, medication may not be as helpful for Asperger Syndrome or Autism Spectrum Disorders as it is for ADHD.

Just because the pharmaceutical companies have only paid for research on treatment using their medications doesn't mean that other treatment options are not effective, just that they haven't been tested in the same way. If someone were to compile empirical data on the effects of other treatments, I think some folks might be rather surprised.

Other therapies do get tested when they come along. The ones that show promise do get funding for further testing. Witness the numerous studies of Omega-3 effects today. Further, it's not as if it's hard to determine whether a new therapy is even more effective than stimulants. For the vast majority of people with ADHD, stimulant therapy is like turning on a lightbulb. The results are dramatic, immediate, and vastly positive. If we find a therapy more effective than that, it won't take long for people to notice.

When you have an engine that makes 50 horsepower, and make a change that suddenly gives it 200 horsepower, it's not going to be difficult to figure out if a different change will be just as effective. You just can't not notice going from 50 to 200 horsepower. It's absurdly obvious.

How do you know the people are posting on multiple websites criticizing the use of prescription meds? How do you know they're doing that in other places besides this forum?


Ummm experiment warning may cause sudden eye opening should not to be tried with in an hour of your planned bed time.


Type your user name into google and hit search -

There are other ways but that is the simplest, most direct and most commonly used.


That maybe the case that non-drug approaches face more criticism here and that leads to a lot of people interested in that approach not feeling welcome


First of all going into the proper section Misc Treatments and Approaches (http://www.addforums.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=159) may help - it certainly won't hurt.



But it could be the relative effectiveness of various treatment approaches on random samples of ADHDers explains the distribution of posts/posters here to.


yeah, especially when one is posting in the medication section -


http://img382.imageshack.us/img382/2575/76885909xi9.jpg

Sorry I like the pic - was looking for a place to share it - this seemed appropriate.

But I'm also glad I don't find it necessary to spend a lot of money and time trying different meds to find the right combination for my symptoms and suffering from weird side effects and the possibility of even worse reactions in the process.


lunacie - not every one spends a lot of money trying different medications - some do and some don't - the alternative route does not save any one the necessary trial and error steps we all have to go though . .. The only sure fire way to know if a treatment is going to work is to try it. That would be equally true for all treatment approaches.

Now those who choose to go the main stream route have things most other treatment methods do not - stats - medications have statistics that allow a for like a probability figure - there is a 70% chance stimulant medication will provide relief - there is a certain percentage "X" side effect will occur - ect

Stimulants also have immediate effects - it is correct the bad effects can be immediate but the flip side is that they normally wear off quickly as well.

As far as alternative approaches goes you are going to run some risk of adverse events - any thing that has an effect on the body can have a bad one this rule applies to foods straight from mother nature, herbal supplements, prescriptions, chiropractic therapy, polluted air in the spring -


Any thing that has any effect on the human body at all , it doesn't matter what the substance is - it can have a bad effect period - dietary approaches will have a lower chance of averse events but they are by no means void of the possibility -dietary approaches also have a low chance of being effective percentage wise


We all have to consider the possibilities of finding relief verses averse events Most of the time the more likely a treatment is provide relief the more likely it is to cause an unpleasant effect however dangerous effects are no higher for healthy persons in the over 6 age group using stimulants at therapeutic doses than they are for medications like antibiotics or cough syrup.

I challenge alternative approaches especially those who make outlandish claims of cures - many people do not like that about me however a claim of a 90% cure rate for ADD warrants a decent challenge.

New folks who suspect they or a child has ADD or who have been recently diagnosed will get on line and look for information about what kind of treatments are out there and how effective they work.

Weather we like it or not this site is the biggest on-line ADD community and comes up on google searches - most people lean one way or the other on medications however many do lurk as guest - they don't want to post they are here to read what we have to say

According to rational thinking we have ADD and we treat our ADD so we would be a good place to find out what kind of options are out there and how well those options work . To fail to challenge out landish claims of cures is to do a disservice to those out there reading who are looking to us for information and experience.

Besides if an approach can not stand up to scrutiny because it is a scam it is obvious pretty quickly - why people get mad at me for reveling that is beyond me. I am trying to uncover scams and revel hidden agendas. I am direct yes but I am a direct person. I have tried to be less abrasive which generated even more negative consequences than my directness does. I simply suck at being some one I am not



If an approach has some rational behind it and those promoting it have researched it before coming here to make claims then they should see my challenges as opportunities to bring out said logic, evidence or rational. I find it interesting how few groups I have come into contact with actually see it that way.


Personally I am pretty ambivalent as to which ADD treatment some one who has had adequate information choses. I am not saying this because I do not care I do care however I also know I am not the one having to live with other members ADD - I want the freedom to treat my ADD as I see fit - I am best able to decide what is right for me and I feel most adults here share in this ability.



As far as this thread goes the person should have shared their experiences - by presenting it as an experience they personally had They should have taken responsibility for their feelings about medications and their parents insistence upon taking it , instead of accusing all parents who have chosen to medication their children of "pumping their kids full of drugs"

The presentation in the initial post blatantly and in my opinion rudely dismissed the difficulty most of us parents face when deciding how to treat their child's ADD. As a parent who had to give their child multiple medications I know first hand the decision to medicate a child especially with a "cocktail" is NOT made "flippantly" - To assume via generalizations I failed to consider the risk of medication is to insult my intelligence and parenting - with this in mind my unmedicated sarcasm was really an exercise in control -



Until one is faced with a suicidal 13 year old with deep gashes in her wrist that are bleeding due to her attempting to take her own life they are speaking in ignorance. Until they slide through their depressed child's blood trying to reach them to help they don't have a freaking clue and it irritates me to no end when some one comes along and post a bunch of crap as if they do. . . . I understand the risk posed by multiple medications The risk of death via suicide if bipolar is left untreated is {30%}- for those who like stats and sources, my initial post is pretty loaded with them. Why bother treating bi-polar any way (http://www.addforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=41876)

Suicide is the second cause of death among untreated bipolar people while for the general population suicide doesn't even make the top ten I read the initial post and wondered wtf else was I supposed to do.

Lunacie, you are preaching to the choir.

Lots of people are successful with the first medication they try. Lots of people do not experience regular side effects from medication. If you were interested in learning about ADHD, you will find lots of examples of this in these forums. If memory is a problem, perhaps copying and printing posts will help. I need to write stuff down, especially when learning new things.

Unfortunately, medication may not be as helpful for Asperger Syndrome or Autism Spectrum Disorders as it is for ADHD.



I know that many people find medications that work for them without going through months or years of trying different combinations, without going through side effects, without having the medication loose effectiveness over time.

What I was referring to is that when I visit ADDFORUMS.com and click on "new posts", the majority of threads seem to be complaints about another new medication not being effective, experiencing side effects from medication, or loss of effectiveness over time.

When I do see threads about how effective a new medication has been for someone, it seems that there is often a new thread or post from that person within a few months reporting one or more of those issues.


And I was speaking about my own personal experience in trying to find a medication to lower my blood pressure over quite a number of years... the lack of effectiveness, the side effects, and the loss of effectiveness over time. Yes, medications for high blood pressure have saved a great many lives, but in my case I have to balance the possible anaphylactic reaction to any new medication the doctor wants me to try.

I hate the amount of money that was wasted when a new medication didn't work or I had to stop taking because of bad side effects, and that was when I actually had health insurance to help pay for the medications. I don't have health insurance now and can't afford to throw money/medication away.

So I'm glad that an alternative treatment for my ADHD has been effective for me, inexpensive for me, had no bad side effects, and the effectiveness has not diminished over more than 4 years.

I'm also glad when someone else finds a medication for ADHD that works for them - especially if they don't have to go through trial and error testing and don't experience any of those issues.

Ummm experiment warning may cause sudden eye opening should not to be tried with in an hour of your planned bed time.


Type your user name into google and hit search -

There are other ways but that is the simplest, most direct and most commonly used.

Good grief, do people actually do that? The most I usually do is check the person's profile here on this forum. I don't stalk them all over the internet to see if they have some agenda.




First of all going into the proper section Misc Treatments and Approaches (http://www.addforums.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=159)may help - it certainly won't hurt.






yeah, especially when one is posting in the medication section -


http://img382.imageshack.us/img382/2575/76885909xi9.jpg

Sorry I like the pic - was looking for a place to share it - this seemed appropriate.

My point was for people like me who don't browse by forum/category, they simply click on "new posts" and may respond to a thread without looking to see which forum it's in. Those who respond about alternative therapies in thread devoted t