ADD Forums - Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder Support and Information Resources Community  

Go Back   ADD Forums - Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder Support and Information Resources Community > SCIENTIFIC DISCUSSIONS, RESEARCH, NEWS AND EVENTS > Scientific, Philosophical & Theoretical Discussions > Science in the Media
Register Blogs FAQ Chat Members List Calendar Donate Gallery Arcade Mark Forums Read

Science in the Media This forum is for articles and stories of scientific importance; open discussion is encouraged

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 05-31-18, 05:03 PM
Think20020 Think20020 is offline
Newbie
 

Join Date: May 2018
Location: washington DC
Posts: 1
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Think20020 is on a distinguished road
Major re-eval needed after Barkley's disclosures

It's easiest to determine someone's level of integrity when regulation isn't involved. It's about acting in an ethical manner even when not doing so has no consequences and is not officially "required" or regulated. It's all about that "doing good when nobody is watching." And so let's talk about Russell A. Barkley.

But first it is worth noting that the potential for a "conflict of interest" to exist is not a new phenomenon; nor does it take regulation or policy for a researcher to know that conditions exist that make such conflict more or less likely. Anyone capable of earning a PhD or a MD could also easily discern conditions that would make a genuine conflict or the perception of a conflict more likely. Regulation may make the offense actionable but it does not change the ethics which always precede (and exist independently of) regulation. The impact of cognitive bias also reduces the likelihood of eliminating the impact of a potential conflict on the outcome and also on the interpretation of the outcome. Anyone with a PhD or MD knows that to be the case.

Disclosure of potential conflict of interests, as can happen when researchers receive funds from pharmaceutical companies while conducting research involving the company's product, is now mandated by certain journals and various regulatory agencies. But this is a fairly recent requirement. Before that, disclosure laws left much to be desired (see https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK22940/). Yet, before disclosure requirements, concepts related to public trust were not unknown to researchers. Some would never have considered accepting funds that would introduce potential conflicts of interest whereas others did so with regularity. So now let's discuss Russell A. Barkley.

Barkley now discloses his affiliations with the pharmaceutical companies.I could not say whether his university salary or promotional money from pharmaceutical companies made him the most rich. I can say that Ii'd heard him speak many times, read his work and even interacted with him, and never knew he had financial relationships with those companies. Apparently his disclosures came only after they were either mandated or after such relationships were scrutinized. Yet conclusions drawn by his research prior to the disclosures have influenced generations of practitioners. And, people like me who train future professionals. I was convinced that the support for medication for most with ADHD was ironclad. Why? Because Barkley's studies showed so, again and again. Dear graduate students...about my contentions related to ADHD and medication...I take it back! (too bad I can't)

I know! The revelation about Barkley is not new. But it is worth considering the impact he has had never-the-less. Do I have faith in his findings still? No! Why? re-read the first paragraph here. Why the focus on Barkley when others have done similarly. Because he has had the most wide sweeping impact-on parents; on colleagues and perhaps most importantly, on generations of practitioners. Shame on him!
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 05-31-18, 06:29 PM
Lunacie's Avatar
Lunacie Lunacie is offline
ADDvanced Forum ADDvocate
 

Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: south-central Kansas
Posts: 19,287
Thanks: 20,550
Thanked 25,923 Times in 12,090 Posts
Lunacie has a reputation beyond reputeLunacie has a reputation beyond reputeLunacie has a reputation beyond reputeLunacie has a reputation beyond reputeLunacie has a reputation beyond reputeLunacie has a reputation beyond reputeLunacie has a reputation beyond reputeLunacie has a reputation beyond reputeLunacie has a reputation beyond reputeLunacie has a reputation beyond reputeLunacie has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Major re-eval needed after Barkley's disclosures

Quote:
Originally Posted by Think20020 View Post
It's easiest to determine someone's level of integrity when regulation isn't involved. It's about acting in an ethical manner even when not doing so has no consequences and is not officially "required" or regulated. It's all about that "doing good when nobody is watching." And so let's talk about Russell A. Barkley.

But first it is worth noting that the potential for a "conflict of interest" to exist is not a new phenomenon; nor does it take regulation or policy for a researcher to know that conditions exist that make such conflict more or less likely. Anyone capable of earning a PhD or a MD could also easily discern conditions that would make a genuine conflict or the perception of a conflict more likely. Regulation may make the offense actionable but it does not change the ethics which always precede (and exist independently of) regulation. The impact of cognitive bias also reduces the likelihood of eliminating the impact of a potential conflict on the outcome and also on the interpretation of the outcome. Anyone with a PhD or MD knows that to be the case.

Disclosure of potential conflict of interests, as can happen when researchers receive funds from pharmaceutical companies while conducting research involving the company's product, is now mandated by certain journals and various regulatory agencies. But this is a fairly recent requirement. Before that, disclosure laws left much to be desired (see https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK22940/). Yet, before disclosure requirements, concepts related to public trust were not unknown to researchers. Some would never have considered accepting funds that would introduce potential conflicts of interest whereas others did so with regularity. So now let's discuss Russell A. Barkley.

Barkley now discloses his affiliations with the pharmaceutical companies.I could not say whether his university salary or promotional money from pharmaceutical companies made him the most rich. I can say that Ii'd heard him speak many times, read his work and even interacted with him, and never knew he had financial relationships with those companies. Apparently his disclosures came only after they were either mandated or after such relationships were scrutinized. Yet conclusions drawn by his research prior to the disclosures have influenced generations of practitioners. And, people like me who train future professionals. I was convinced that the support for medication for most with ADHD was ironclad. Why? Because Barkley's studies showed so, again and again. Dear graduate students...about my contentions related to ADHD and medication...I take it back! (too bad I can't)

I know! The revelation about Barkley is not new. But it is worth considering the impact he has had never-the-less. Do I have faith in his findings still? No! Why? re-read the first paragraph here. Why the focus on Barkley when others have done similarly. Because he has had the most wide sweeping impact-on parents; on colleagues and perhaps most importantly, on generations of practitioners. Shame on him!

Nearly all research that is done on mental health disorders is funded

by pharmaceutical companies.

Why is it unethical to report on that research, to educate and inform

and to accept money for the time and effort involved in travel, preparation

and anything else (like power point presentations) used for doing so?
__________________
ADD is not a problem of knowing what to do; it is a problem of doing what you know.
-RUSSELL A. BARKLEY, PH.D.


As far as I know, there is nothing positive about ADHD that people can't have w out ADHD. ~ ADD me
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 05-31-18, 06:40 PM
finallyfound10's Avatar
finallyfound10 finallyfound10 is offline
ADDvanced Forum ADDvocate
 

Join Date: May 2010
Location: USA
Posts: 1,676
Thanks: 1,521
Thanked 1,561 Times in 861 Posts
finallyfound10 has a reputation beyond reputefinallyfound10 has a reputation beyond reputefinallyfound10 has a reputation beyond reputefinallyfound10 has a reputation beyond reputefinallyfound10 has a reputation beyond reputefinallyfound10 has a reputation beyond reputefinallyfound10 has a reputation beyond reputefinallyfound10 has a reputation beyond reputefinallyfound10 has a reputation beyond reputefinallyfound10 has a reputation beyond reputefinallyfound10 has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Major re-eval needed after Barkley's disclosures

The ones that were funded by NIH are still valid, I would think.



Does an IRB have any authority in that aspect of research or do they only deal narrowly with subject safety, informed consent, etc. in clinical trials?
__________________
ADHD-Inattentive, Adjustment Disorder w/Mixed Features of Anxiety and Depression, Dyscalculia (Math disability), Rejection Sensitivity Dysphoria, Adult Child of an Alcoholic.
Strattera 100 mg, Wellbutrin 450 mg XL, Klonopin 0.5 mg as needed.
Brene Brown
Shame derives it's power from being unspeakable.
Shame corrodes the very part of us that believes we are capable of change.
Shame cannot survive being spoken. It can't survive empathy.

Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
  #4  
Old 05-31-18, 07:11 PM
Lunacie's Avatar
Lunacie Lunacie is offline
ADDvanced Forum ADDvocate
 

Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: south-central Kansas
Posts: 19,287
Thanks: 20,550
Thanked 25,923 Times in 12,090 Posts
Lunacie has a reputation beyond reputeLunacie has a reputation beyond reputeLunacie has a reputation beyond reputeLunacie has a reputation beyond reputeLunacie has a reputation beyond reputeLunacie has a reputation beyond reputeLunacie has a reputation beyond reputeLunacie has a reputation beyond reputeLunacie has a reputation beyond reputeLunacie has a reputation beyond reputeLunacie has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Major re-eval needed after Barkley's disclosures

Quote:
Originally Posted by finallyfound10 View Post
The ones that were funded by NIH are still valid, I would think.



Does an IRB have any authority in that aspect of research or do they only deal narrowly with subject safety, informed consent, etc. in clinical trials?
Hm, I wrote "nearly all research" . . . maybe I should have written "most research"?

Gotta admit I don't know the actual percentages.



Yes, NIH is certainly a valid source for research.

NIH is funded by government grants.

But I don't know if that funding extends to doing public speaking to share the

results of the research.


I think IRB is mainly to oversee ethics in the way research is conducted.

Apparently they approve, reject, monitor and review research.

I would think if someone involved with research was being unethical in some way

they'd be more likely to reject that research, no?
__________________
ADD is not a problem of knowing what to do; it is a problem of doing what you know.
-RUSSELL A. BARKLEY, PH.D.


As far as I know, there is nothing positive about ADHD that people can't have w out ADHD. ~ ADD me
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to Lunacie For This Useful Post:
finallyfound10 (06-12-18)
  #5  
Old 05-31-18, 09:20 PM
Budkeiser's Avatar
Budkeiser Budkeiser is offline
Member
 

Join Date: Mar 2018
Location: Wisconsin
Posts: 86
Thanks: 23
Thanked 77 Times in 50 Posts
Budkeiser is on a distinguished road
Re: Major re-eval needed after Barkley's disclosures

Iím not sure I understand this post. Is it that youíre upset some guy took money for research that didnít happen and heís a spokesperson for pharmaceutical companies? I donít know what NIH is or how it relates.
What disclosures were there and when? Is there a link? Is he like a Dr. Oz or Dr Phil TV personality or on a reality show? I donít watch much TV. Never heard of him. I donít remember hearing his name on the news today.
If heís selling something or claimed to be an ďexpertĒ, I probably disregarded it and moved on.
__________________
Sometimes you're the windshield, sometimes you're the bug.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 05-31-18, 11:08 PM
namazu's Avatar
namazu namazu is online now
Contrapunctual Moderator
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Northern Hemisphere
Posts: 14,272
Thanks: 64,012
Thanked 20,603 Times in 10,356 Posts
namazu has a reputation beyond reputenamazu has a reputation beyond reputenamazu has a reputation beyond reputenamazu has a reputation beyond reputenamazu has a reputation beyond reputenamazu has a reputation beyond reputenamazu has a reputation beyond reputenamazu has a reputation beyond reputenamazu has a reputation beyond reputenamazu has a reputation beyond reputenamazu has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Major re-eval needed after Barkley's disclosures

NIH = (United States) National Institutes of Health, a government agency that funds health research.


IRB = institutional review board, a group -- usually based at a research-sponsoring institution like a university, hospital, government agency, or research center -- that evaluates planned research to ensure that the safety and rights of human research participants are protected and that researchers follow relevant regulations.


Russell Barkley is a researcher (trained as a psychologist) who has published many papers and books about ADHD. He is widely regarded as an expert (one of many!) in the ADHD research field.

Since at least as far back as 2004, and possibly earlier, he has disclosed that he received money from drug companies for consulting and speaking engagements.

These types of payments -- as well as direct funding of research by pharmaceutical companies -- are controversial. For medical doctors, payments from drug companies have been linked to prescribing more of the company's drugs. In some cases, it appears that "speaking fees" or "consulting fees" actually amounted to a kickback scheme for prescribing drugs. There is now a database where you can look up drug company-funded speaking and consulting fees, meals, and travel expenses for physicians and hospitals in the US.

Now, Barkley is not a medical doctor and he cannot prescribe drugs to patients, so that is not exactly the issue here. With researchers (who aren't necessarily prescribing drugs themselves), the concern is whether being on a drug company's payroll leads researchers to report conclusions more favorable to a pharmaceutical company's business than they would otherwise. In an environment that favors "evidence-based" approaches to medical care, having skewed evidence is a real problem. Similarly, when experts contribute to consensus statements, treatment guidelines, or other similar documents, it is a potential conflict of interest if those same experts are receiving money from drug companies.

In recognition of this problem, there has been a big push on the part of scientific journals, institutions, and government agencies to require more transparency. Researchers are now generally required to disclose potential conflicts of interest (financial and otherwise) related to their research. Trials of drugs must be pre-registered in a central place like clinicaltrials.gov (stating in advance the methods to be used and the outcome measures to be assessed) to help ensure transparency and to fight the problem of publication bias. These are imperfect measures, to be sure, but they allow readers to evaluate the potential biases with a more critical eye.

The OP's concerns seem to be that Barkley accepted money from drug companies in the first place, and/or that he did not always disclose these potential conflicts of interest as transparently as he has for the past 15 or so years.

I agree that we need to consider potential conflicts of interest when evaluating scientific studies and other recommendations. With regard to Barkley's work, it is reasonable to ask whether his relationship with drug companies has affected his work or his conclusions. Science does not (at least, as an ideal!) operate on the basis of argument by authority. Barkley's work should be evaluated critically and on its merits -- not accepted blindly because Barkley said so! Where his findings can be replicated by other researchers (many of whom have no ties to drug companies), those findings will stand.

Without getting into politics, I will say that I am hopeful that efforts to focus more sunlight on the research process will help combat publication bias (or the appearance thereof) and the (not unwarranted) skepticism it engenders.
Reply With Quote
The Following 7 Users Say Thank You to namazu For This Useful Post:
aeon (06-02-18), confusedforever (06-19-18), daveddd (08-11-18), finallyfound10 (06-12-18), Fuzzy12 (06-03-18), Greyhound1 (05-31-18), Lunacie (06-01-18)
  #7  
Old 06-01-18, 04:50 AM
SB_UK SB_UK is offline
 
 

Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: -
Posts: 21,002
Blog Entries: 20
Thanks: 6,147
Thanked 6,455 Times in 4,705 Posts
SB_UK has disabled reputation
Re: Major re-eval needed after Barkley's disclosures

If you're an expert in this world then you've a vested interest.

No specialist is going to prove that their speciality is not required.

The only means of workign out the right answer (and it's surprisingly simple) is to have an individual who does not care what the answer is as long as it's right.

Establishment medicine and friends - medical research, biotech and pharmaceutical corporations are getting a kicking in the UK at the moment - we've even TV programs 'the doctor who gave up medication' on prime-time TV providing evidence of the corruption which is inevitable when sombody does something for the wrong reasons.
__________________
ADHD understood - simple matter of defining purpose (morality) of mind
See Stabile 'enforced moral consistency' ~15 years ago, nothing else since has been of any relevance to ADHD.
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to SB_UK For This Useful Post:
tudorose (06-02-18)
  #8  
Old 06-01-18, 06:01 AM
sarahsweets's Avatar
sarahsweets sarahsweets is offline
Mod-A-holic
 

Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: nj, usa
Posts: 27,928
Thanks: 5,724
Thanked 32,275 Times in 14,937 Posts
sarahsweets has a reputation beyond reputesarahsweets has a reputation beyond reputesarahsweets has a reputation beyond reputesarahsweets has a reputation beyond reputesarahsweets has a reputation beyond reputesarahsweets has a reputation beyond reputesarahsweets has a reputation beyond reputesarahsweets has a reputation beyond reputesarahsweets has a reputation beyond reputesarahsweets has a reputation beyond reputesarahsweets has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Major re-eval needed after Barkley's disclosures

Quote:
Originally Posted by SB_UK View Post
If you're an expert in this world then you've a vested interest.

No specialist is going to prove that their speciality is not required.

The only means of workign out the right answer (and it's surprisingly simple) is to have an individual who does not care what the answer is as long as it's right.

Establishment medicine and friends - medical research, biotech and pharmaceutical corporations are getting a kicking in the UK at the moment - we've even TV programs 'the doctor who gave up medication' on prime-time TV providing evidence of the corruption which is inevitable when sombody does something for the wrong reasons.
Yes, but how do we know that in this case it was done for the wrong reasons?
__________________
President of the No F's given society.

I carried a watermelon?
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 06-01-18, 11:54 AM
Lunacie's Avatar
Lunacie Lunacie is offline
ADDvanced Forum ADDvocate
 

Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: south-central Kansas
Posts: 19,287
Thanks: 20,550
Thanked 25,923 Times in 12,090 Posts
Lunacie has a reputation beyond reputeLunacie has a reputation beyond reputeLunacie has a reputation beyond reputeLunacie has a reputation beyond reputeLunacie has a reputation beyond reputeLunacie has a reputation beyond reputeLunacie has a reputation beyond reputeLunacie has a reputation beyond reputeLunacie has a reputation beyond reputeLunacie has a reputation beyond reputeLunacie has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Major re-eval needed after Barkley's disclosures

Quote:
Originally Posted by SB_UK View Post
If you're an expert in this world then you've a vested interest.

No specialist is going to prove that their speciality is not required.

The only means of workign out the right answer (and it's surprisingly simple) is to have an individual who does not care what the answer is as long as it's right.

Establishment medicine and friends - medical research, biotech and pharmaceutical corporations are getting a kicking in the UK at the moment - we've even TV programs 'the doctor who gave up medication' on prime-time TV providing evidence of the corruption which is inevitable when sombody does something for the wrong reasons.
As Namazu pointed out above,

Dr. Barkley is not the kind of doctor who prescribes medication.

He's a psychologist.

Therefore he has no stake in promoting prescription medication.

ADHD runs in his family genes and he simply cares about how it affects people.
__________________
ADD is not a problem of knowing what to do; it is a problem of doing what you know.
-RUSSELL A. BARKLEY, PH.D.


As far as I know, there is nothing positive about ADHD that people can't have w out ADHD. ~ ADD me
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 06-01-18, 11:54 AM
SB_UK SB_UK is offline
 
 

Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: -
Posts: 21,002
Blog Entries: 20
Thanks: 6,147
Thanked 6,455 Times in 4,705 Posts
SB_UK has disabled reputation
Re: Major re-eval needed after Barkley's disclosures

Quote:
Originally Posted by sarahsweets View Post
Yes, but how do we know that in this case it was done for the wrong reasons?
Nothing can be done for the right reason if an individual has a vested interest.

There's no objectivity.

One has to be open to all possibilities.

A geneticist never states that a disease isn't genetic.

They simply increase numbers under statistically significant, clinically insignificant findings are declared (source - Namazu).

The quotation chosen by Stabile on-site is simply - 'when all you have is a hammer, everything's a nail'.
__________________
ADHD understood - simple matter of defining purpose (morality) of mind
See Stabile 'enforced moral consistency' ~15 years ago, nothing else since has been of any relevance to ADHD.
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 06-01-18, 12:05 PM
SB_UK SB_UK is offline
 
 

Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: -
Posts: 21,002
Blog Entries: 20
Thanks: 6,147
Thanked 6,455 Times in 4,705 Posts
SB_UK has disabled reputation
Re: Major re-eval needed after Barkley's disclosures

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lunacie View Post
As Namazu pointed out above,

Dr. Barkley is not the kind of doctor who prescribes medication.

He's a psychologist.

Therefore he has no stake in promoting prescription medication.

ADHD runs in his family genes and he simply cares about how it affects people.
Prescription medication raises Pharmaceutical corporation interest.
Raises the profile of any such condition.
Corporations are well known it seems in putting up infomercials.
Results in interest
- results in funding forthcoming to academics (as a consequence).

If there's a perception that there's a problem because of industry interest - then the academic will gain.

-*-

None of this is worth considering though.

You're either objective or you're not.

If you're not - then everything you do is a problem.

Even if everything you do is identical to what somebody without vested interest does.

Motivation must be true - for actions to be right.

-*-

Is it possible for an individual to be free from vested interest ?

In a world with money - it is hard - but if somebody has some money saved up and can survive without any form of employment or can be totally anonymous and so not get caught destroying the industry that he's receiving payment in - then perhaps yes. Problem though - anybody who works for a company or principle that's wrong - would not be able to pay attention to what they're doing.

One of the first mods here described ADHD as 'the mind having a mind of its own' - in a very real sense ADHD isn't anything to do with having no attention - we have a mind which wants to pay attention to what it wants to pay attention to.

Accordingly - learning and work which convey info that're not desired - cannot be attended to.

-*-

The simple oneline answer to your question - is that the entire system is confounded by a reward system (primitive) which ADDers can not do (ie to be able to pay attention based on climbing money/power hierarchies) - because we've a reward system which relates to information sensitivity. The capacity to be able to be rewarded by money is a clear statment that Barkley's operating over a state of mind of 'unwisdom' - and so I'd strike out all that he does as incorrect if only because it's done for the wrong reason.
__________________
ADHD understood - simple matter of defining purpose (morality) of mind
See Stabile 'enforced moral consistency' ~15 years ago, nothing else since has been of any relevance to ADHD.

Last edited by SB_UK; 06-01-18 at 12:28 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 06-01-18, 01:45 PM
Lunacie's Avatar
Lunacie Lunacie is offline
ADDvanced Forum ADDvocate
 

Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: south-central Kansas
Posts: 19,287
Thanks: 20,550
Thanked 25,923 Times in 12,090 Posts
Lunacie has a reputation beyond reputeLunacie has a reputation beyond reputeLunacie has a reputation beyond reputeLunacie has a reputation beyond reputeLunacie has a reputation beyond reputeLunacie has a reputation beyond reputeLunacie has a reputation beyond reputeLunacie has a reputation beyond reputeLunacie has a reputation beyond reputeLunacie has a reputation beyond reputeLunacie has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Major re-eval needed after Barkley's disclosures

Quote:
Originally Posted by SB_UK View Post
[...]

-*-

The simple oneline answer to your question - is that the entire system is confounded by a reward system (primitive) which ADDers can not do (ie to be able to pay attention based on climbing money/power hierarchies) - because we've a reward system which relates to information sensitivity. The capacity to be able to be rewarded by money is a clear statment that Barkley's operating over a state of mind of 'unwisdom' - and so I'd strike out all that he does as incorrect if only because it's done for the wrong reason.


I didn't ask a question but thanks for answering it anyway.
__________________
ADD is not a problem of knowing what to do; it is a problem of doing what you know.
-RUSSELL A. BARKLEY, PH.D.


As far as I know, there is nothing positive about ADHD that people can't have w out ADHD. ~ ADD me

Last edited by namazu; 06-01-18 at 07:36 PM.. Reason: shortened quoted material and fixed quote tags
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 06-01-18, 04:03 PM
SB_UK SB_UK is offline
 
 

Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: -
Posts: 21,002
Blog Entries: 20
Thanks: 6,147
Thanked 6,455 Times in 4,705 Posts
SB_UK has disabled reputation
Re: Major re-eval needed after Barkley's disclosures

Quote:
Originally Posted by Think20020 View Post
It's easiest to determine someone's level of integrity when regulation isn't involved. It's about acting in an ethical manner even when not doing so has no consequences and is not officially "required" or regulated. It's all about that "doing good when nobody is watching." And so let's talk about Russell A. Barkley.

But first it is worth noting that the potential for a "conflict of interest" to exist is not a new phenomenon; nor does it take regulation or policy for a researcher to know that conditions exist that make such conflict more or less likely. Anyone capable of earning a PhD or a MD could also easily discern conditions that would make a genuine conflict or the perception of a conflict more likely. Regulation may make the offense actionable but it does not change the ethics which always precede (and exist independently of) regulation. The impact of cognitive bias also reduces the likelihood of eliminating the impact of a potential conflict on the outcome and also on the interpretation of the outcome. Anyone with a PhD or MD knows that to be the case.

Disclosure of potential conflict of interests, as can happen when researchers receive funds from pharmaceutical companies while conducting research involving the company's product, is now mandated by certain journals and various regulatory agencies. But this is a fairly recent requirement. Before that, disclosure laws left much to be desired (see https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK22940/). Yet, before disclosure requirements, concepts related to public trust were not unknown to researchers. Some would never have considered accepting funds that would introduce potential conflicts of interest whereas others did so with regularity. So now let's discuss Russell A. Barkley.

Barkley now discloses his affiliations with the pharmaceutical companies.I could not say whether his university salary or promotional money from pharmaceutical companies made him the most rich. I can say that Ii'd heard him speak many times, read his work and even interacted with him, and never knew he had financial relationships with those companies. Apparently his disclosures came only after they were either mandated or after such relationships were scrutinized. Yet conclusions drawn by his research prior to the disclosures have influenced generations of practitioners. And, people like me who train future professionals. I was convinced that the support for medication for most with ADHD was ironclad. Why? Because Barkley's studies showed so, again and again. Dear graduate students...about my contentions related to ADHD and medication...I take it back! (too bad I can't)

I know! The revelation about Barkley is not new. But it is worth considering the impact he has had never-the-less. Do I have faith in his findings still? No! Why? re-read the first paragraph here. Why the focus on Barkley when others have done similarly. Because he has had the most wide sweeping impact-on parents; on colleagues and perhaps most importantly, on generations of practitioners. Shame on him!

This is a bit of a strange post.
If you have ADHD - then think about it and you'll be able to work out what it is. The ADDer actually wants to know. You don't need any expert advice.



The *paid* expert has a vested interest in you not being able to work out what's wrong with you - this is basic common sense.


Anybody who receives money is a part of the problem - since they're now no longer objective. Anybody who is famous for a certain stance- anybody whose job it is to keep a certain school of thought alive - are all a part of the problem.


You see this in medical research - You must find me in my expertise in xyz because I will one day cure insert big disease which s/he won't ever cure.


Not really shame on this one researcher chap - but shame on a species for electing to operate through external and not internal reward in the course of their daily lives.


ADDers don't do external reward - because the core change that gives rise to ADDers is a form of informational sensitivity which prevents us from paying attention - since under informational overload we shut down. We need to be under a different model of society (without people telling us what to do) in order to operate - in order to work out what the right thing is for us to do - for ours and the collective's benefit.


It's all ever so simple.


Is there anything missing from the story above - simply that the mechanism has been identified and it would be right to call the ADDer a different species - since prime directive ie what one lives for - or is designed for - is the measure of the species.
__________________
ADHD understood - simple matter of defining purpose (morality) of mind
See Stabile 'enforced moral consistency' ~15 years ago, nothing else since has been of any relevance to ADHD.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 06-01-18, 04:17 PM
SB_UK SB_UK is offline
 
 

Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: -
Posts: 21,002
Blog Entries: 20
Thanks: 6,147
Thanked 6,455 Times in 4,705 Posts
SB_UK has disabled reputation
Re: Major re-eval needed after Barkley's disclosures

What's the solution to adhd disorder ?
For people to leave the adder alone to work whilst dreaming.

To allow adder to develop our sensitivity into personal quality.

The sensitivity - quality connection is direct.

Not to work for yet another braindead power greedy zombie.

So why if this is true do adders appear to be worse than average nonadders ? The sensitivity won't allow adders to leave the starting blocks in an insensitive environment.
Sensitivity results in depressed state requires stimulant to restore our energy.

Constant informational bombardment - I need time in complete solitude to be fine - and it will be the same for all adders.

Just the consequence of a cns which is sucking more information in from the outside world.
Without the space to handle the information - it crushes us.

So - 'stimulation' (that adders chase) is just stimulant in another form - seeking to energise an overloaded depressed system.

-*-

But why aren't the things that nonADDers do (ie to be able to rape the planet, people and animals for money/power) rewarding to the ADDer ? Simply because raping people is not consistent with our reward system of becoming ever more sensitive / of ever higher quality ... ... ... we can't rape unlike all people in the workplace currently - who so look forward to their pay being raised, title being lifted.
__________________
ADHD understood - simple matter of defining purpose (morality) of mind
See Stabile 'enforced moral consistency' ~15 years ago, nothing else since has been of any relevance to ADHD.

Last edited by SB_UK; 06-01-18 at 04:34 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 06-01-18, 05:55 PM
peripatetic peripatetic is offline
 
 

Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: .
Posts: 22,521
Blog Entries: 12
Thanks: 34,478
Thanked 34,035 Times in 15,410 Posts
peripatetic has a reputation beyond reputeperipatetic has a reputation beyond reputeperipatetic has a reputation beyond reputeperipatetic has a reputation beyond reputeperipatetic has a reputation beyond reputeperipatetic has a reputation beyond reputeperipatetic has a reputation beyond reputeperipatetic has a reputation beyond reputeperipatetic has a reputation beyond reputeperipatetic has a reputation beyond reputeperipatetic has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Major re-eval needed after Barkley's disclosures

moderator note

Please be sure posts are kept on the thread topic of research, Barkley, and research ethics.

Cheers,
-peri
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to peripatetic For This Useful Post:
Lunacie (06-01-18)
Reply

Bookmarks


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Anyone else have their meds on a PRN (take as needed) basis? brocaine Adderall 8 04-20-14 09:43 PM
Using Adderall and/or Ritalin as needed? datajunkie General Medication Discussion 0 03-18-14 05:42 PM
Anyone use Adderall XR as needed? FutagoStarr Adderall 5 02-27-14 02:18 PM
Feedback Needed for my Evaluation of an ADD-man's Behaviour crossroads Non-ADD Partner Support 200 11-14-09 06:21 PM
Neurological Testing Really Needed? Finn2009 Adult Diagnosis & Treatment 4 01-30-09 02:58 PM


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 12:26 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
(c) 2003 - 2015 ADD Forums