My child is the only one with ADD, not on meds.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:pp, I am not being critical, but you do realize that all of that might have happened without meds too.

Not PP, but no, it would not have. Folks like you aren't reading the many posts from those of us who resisted meds, tried everything else, saw no improvement, UNTIL we tried meds. You are trying very, very hard to not only discount our actual experiences but also decades of studies.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:pp, I am not being critical, but you do realize that all of that might have happened without meds too.

Not PP, but no, it would not have. Folks like you aren't reading the many posts from those of us who resisted meds, tried everything else, saw no improvement, UNTIL we tried meds. You are trying very, very hard to not only discount our actual experiences but also decades of studies.

Some kids get better and some don't, with or without meds.
Maybe we can reconvene in 15 yrs or so, and then compare notes. But that has been done already, read the results of the article above.

[Anonymous]

Here's the thing. I don't need my kid to "get better". He is absolutely fantastic. I am not looking for a cure. I just want my child to get through today and tomorrow in the best possible way and help him thrive. Meds helped when nothing else did.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:pp, I am not being critical, but you do realize that all of that might have happened without meds too.

Not PP, but no, it would not have. Folks like you aren't reading the many posts from those of us who resisted meds, tried everything else, saw no improvement, UNTIL we tried meds. You are trying very, very hard to not only discount our actual experiences but also decades of studies.

Some kids get better and some don't, with or without meds.
Maybe we can reconvene in 15 yrs or so, and then compare notes. But that has been done already, read the results of the article above.

Not randomized. Again: not randomized. The results are meaningless. Again (since you are having trouble paying attention: not randomized. Meaningless.

[Anonymous]

A word of encouragement: I do think my 13 year old DD is learning to cope better.

School has gotten difficult but a lot of that is that she's really trying (sometimes obnoxiously!) to manage on her own.

She still takes meds for school and sometimes for other activities but I do notice that she seems to be better able to keep it together without them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Do you have any evidence based research to support the nonsensical opinions you are spouting? Better yet, are you a medical professional? If "no" to both, please stay off of this thread.

I love this attitude. You're drugging your child and demanding someone else provide incontrovertible evidence that they DO NOT work. That's super logical.

I would ask you to provide all the studies that prove the meds DO work long term (since this is the evidence you SHOULD be looking for before drugging your child), but I won't. Both because I know there aren't any, and also because anytime anyone posts scientific studies on an Internet forum that people disagree with, they poo poo the methodology, or funding, or whatever else suits their agenda (this is a favorite tactic of anti-vaxers).

And what tactic are you using to deny the many good studies showing that stimulants, in use for treating adhd for over 40 years, are very safe?

[Anonymous]

I've been a teacher for 15 years. Parents who do not work as partners with teachers greatly diminish the quality of service a teacher can and will be able to offer a student. One of my current students is untreated and the mother is opposed. Unfortunately, as a result, I cannot offer her extra services the other students don't have. She has quite literally never finished a single assignment the whole year because she has neither the foundation to understand nor the attention span to keep her in her seat for more than 3-4 minutes at a time. She will be repeating the year.
What's even worse is that while we are letting her "be her natural self" she has compromised the learning of the entire class. Instead of being able to work on strategies and pull in resources I am forced to refer her for discipline.

I have 2 children of my own with ADHD, and both are medicated. One is disfunctional without and the other is greatly compromised. Both would be severe classroom problems if they were not medicated.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:pp, I am not being critical, but you do realize that all of that might have happened without meds too.

Not PP, but no, it would not have. Folks like you aren't reading the many posts from those of us who resisted meds, tried everything else, saw no improvement, UNTIL we tried meds. You are trying very, very hard to not only discount our actual experiences but also decades of studies.

Some kids get better and some don't, with or without meds.
Maybe we can reconvene in 15 yrs or so, and then compare notes. But that has been done already, read the results of the article above.

Not randomized. Again: not randomized. The results are meaningless. Again (since you are having trouble paying attention: not randomized. Meaningless.

I am not sure the results are totally meaningless but I agree to the extent that the self-selection is extremely important. Perhaps the group that opted to medicate had the worst symptoms to begin with (which is what led the parents to medicate in the first place) and so the fact that they are indistinguishable from the unmedicated group is actually a relative improvement for them. Or maybe (I don't believe this but I just want to throw out that there are multiple factors) the parents who medicated were busier and opted for meds because they couldn't pursue as much therapy so again, the relative gains are significant. Not having double blind or even triple blind studies always calls result into question--though, again, I don't think it renders them meaningless.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:pp, I am not being critical, but you do realize that all of that might have happened without meds too.

Not PP, but no, it would not have. Folks like you aren't reading the many posts from those of us who resisted meds, tried everything else, saw no improvement, UNTIL we tried meds. You are trying very, very hard to not only discount our actual experiences but also decades of studies.

Some kids get better and some don't, with or without meds.
Maybe we can reconvene in 15 yrs or so, and then compare notes. But that has been done already, read the results of the article above.

Not randomized. Again: not randomized. The results are meaningless. Again (since you are having trouble paying attention: not randomized. Meaningless.

I am not sure the results are totally meaningless but I agree to the extent that the self-selection is extremely important. Perhaps the group that opted to medicate had the worst symptoms to begin with (which is what led the parents to medicate in the first place) and so the fact that they are indistinguishable from the unmedicated group is actually a relative improvement for them. Or maybe (I don't believe this but I just want to throw out that there are multiple factors) the parents who medicated were busier and opted for meds because they couldn't pursue as much therapy so again, the relative gains are significant. Not having double blind or even triple blind studies always calls result into question--though, again, I don't think it renders them meaningless.

NP here. Which study are we talking about? If it is the NIMH MTA study, the treatment groups were randomized. It is the ONLY study that has looked at medication vs. non-medication groups over a long period of time (8 years). While it is not a perfect study, it is probably the best we have to go on right now when considering the long term treatment of ADHD. Definitely not meaningless results. Here is that study BTW,

"Type or intensity of 14 months of treatment for ADHD in childhood (at age 7.0–9.9 years) does not predict functioning 6 to 8 years later. Rather, early ADHD symptom trajectory regardless of treatment type is prognostic. This finding implies that children with behavioral and sociodemographic advantage, with the best response to any treatment, will have the best long-term prognosis. As a group, however, despite initial symptom improvement during treatment that is largely maintained after treatment, children with combined-type ADHD exhibit significant impairment in adolescence. Innovative treatment approaches targeting specific areas of adolescent impairment are needed."
http://www.jaacap.com/article/S0890-8567(09)60066-6/abstract

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I've been a teacher for 15 years. Parents who do not work as partners with teachers greatly diminish the quality of service a teacher can and will be able to offer a student. One of my current students is untreated and the mother is opposed. Unfortunately, as a result, I cannot offer her extra services the other students don't have. She has quite literally never finished a single assignment the whole year because she has neither the foundation to understand nor the attention span to keep her in her seat for more than 3-4 minutes at a time. She will be repeating the year.
What's even worse is that while we are letting her "be her natural self" she has compromised the learning of the entire class. Instead of being able to work on strategies and pull in resources I am forced to refer her for discipline.

I have 2 children of my own with ADHD, and both are medicated. One is disfunctional without and the other is greatly compromised. Both would be severe classroom problems if they were not medicated.

I'm not sure what you mean exactly. My dd started 2nd grade this year, and her teacher started immediately implementing accommodations, increased movement breaks, small groups for tests, help from peers, check in/check out with school psychologist, social skills group, wiggle chair. She did this all before we got an official diagnosis and 504 plan. Can't you implement these accommodations? What does the parent have to do with these? We have not yet tried medication because we just got the diagnosis in December, and we were waiting for the results of these accommodations. At this point, I think we will try meds, but now trying to decide on timing. Since we are so close to the summer, I am thinking to start meds in 3rd grade.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I've been a teacher for 15 years. Parents who do not work as partners with teachers greatly diminish the quality of service a teacher can and will be able to offer a student. One of my current students is untreated and the mother is opposed. Unfortunately, as a result, I cannot offer her extra services the other students don't have. She has quite literally never finished a single assignment the whole year because she has neither the foundation to understand nor the attention span to keep her in her seat for more than 3-4 minutes at a time. She will be repeating the year.
What's even worse is that while we are letting her "be her natural self" she has compromised the learning of the entire class. Instead of being able to work on strategies and pull in resources I am forced to refer her for discipline.

I have 2 children of my own with ADHD, and both are medicated. One is disfunctional without and the other is greatly compromised. Both would be severe classroom problems if they were not medicated.

I'm not sure what you mean exactly. My dd started 2nd grade this year, and her teacher started immediately implementing accommodations, increased movement breaks, small groups for tests, help from peers, check in/check out with school psychologist, social skills group, wiggle chair. She did this all before we got an official diagnosis and 504 plan. Can't you implement these accommodations? What does the parent have to do with these? We have not yet tried medication because we just got the diagnosis in December, and we were waiting for the results of these accommodations. At this point, I think we will try meds, but now trying to decide on timing. Since we are so close to the summer, I am thinking to start meds in 3rd grade.

I also didn't understand what the teacher was implying. With my son, his teacher implemented a bunch of accommodations (behavior chart, timer, preferential seating, noise-blocking headphones, special chair, study carrel, movement breaks, weighted vest) before we even had a 504 in place. That said, we did work together with her on these things and were in frequent communication. None of the accommodations really made a discernible difference, so we eventually started medication later that year. He was also doing OT and behavioral therapy at the time.

[Anonymous]

The MTA study was initially randomized but parents were allowed to change their initial plan without leaving the study so it was unrandomized.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The MTA study was initially randomized but parents were allowed to change their initial plan without leaving the study so it was unrandomized.

It is unethical to assign a randomized lifelong treatment plan to a child. If this is the kid of study you are looking for to prove medication does not work long term, you will never find it. But I suspect that is what you want anyway.

Additionally, please look into the Russell's Teapot analogy. Being unable to disprove an assertion is not proof of said assertion. You are betting your child on a logical fallacy. Congrats.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:pp, I am not being critical, but you do realize that all of that might have happened without meds too.

Not PP, but no, it would not have. Folks like you aren't reading the many posts from those of us who resisted meds, tried everything else, saw no improvement, UNTIL we tried meds. You are trying very, very hard to not only discount our actual experiences but also decades of studies.

Some kids get better and some don't, with or without meds.
Maybe we can reconvene in 15 yrs or so, and then compare notes. But that has been done already, read the results of the article above.

Not randomized. Again: not randomized. The results are meaningless. Again (since you are having trouble paying attention: not randomized. Meaningless.

I am not sure the results are totally meaningless but I agree to the extent that the self-selection is extremely important. Perhaps the group that opted to medicate had the worst symptoms to begin with (which is what led the parents to medicate in the first place) and so the fact that they are indistinguishable from the unmedicated group is actually a relative improvement for them. Or maybe (I don't believe this but I just want to throw out that there are multiple factors) the parents who medicated were busier and opted for meds because they couldn't pursue as much therapy so again, the relative gains are significant. Not having double blind or even triple blind studies always calls result into question--though, again, I don't think it renders them meaningless.

NP here. Which study are we talking about? If it is the NIMH MTA study, the treatment groups were randomized. It is the ONLY study that has looked at medication vs. non-medication groups over a long period of time (8 years). While it is not a perfect study, it is probably the best we have to go on right now when considering the long term treatment of ADHD. Definitely not meaningless results. Here is that study BTW,

"Type or intensity of 14 months of treatment for ADHD in childhood (at age 7.0–9.9 years) does not predict functioning 6 to 8 years later. Rather, early ADHD symptom trajectory regardless of treatment type is prognostic. This finding implies that children with behavioral and sociodemographic advantage, with the best response to any treatment, will have the best long-term prognosis. As a group, however, despite initial symptom improvement during treatment that is largely maintained after treatment, children with combined-type ADHD exhibit significant impairment in adolescence. Innovative treatment approaches targeting specific areas of adolescent impairment are needed."
http://www.jaacap.com/article/S0890-8567(09)60066-6/abstract

Okay, that sentence sounds like it could apply to most any situation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The MTA study was initially randomized but parents were allowed to change their initial plan without leaving the study so it was unrandomized.

It is unethical to assign a randomized lifelong treatment plan to a child. If this is the kid of study you are looking for to prove medication does not work long term, you will never find it. But I suspect that is what you want anyway.

Additionally, please look into the Russell's Teapot analogy. Being unable to disprove an assertion is not proof of said assertion. You are betting your child on a logical fallacy. Congrats.

Sure, but then there's no proof either way.

You ALWAYS have the option of dropping out of any study. Thats an ethical requirement and has nothing to do with it being lifelong or children. But accurate studies will take those people out of the pool (and will have a large enough pool that it won;t affect the study) or will assign such people a pool of their own. They won't pretend it never happened.

The point is that you are railing against the use of medication EVER because even if parents see an improvement in the here and now and, that this improvement is illusory or won't last because of this study. And this study is just not enough to make that point. You are using the fallacy of looking at a smidgen of science and twisting it to fit your ideological bias.