'Take Your Pills" documentary on Netflix

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Let’s all go live on a commune then! That will take the stress out of our lives! No meds!

It's better than drugging our kids. Goodness me.

I'd really love to know how some of this drug-happy parents would react if their kid ended up on meth. The funny thing is that I think most of them would be horrified (as would I). And yet..... same thing, different place it comes from, and it's fine?

There's a major lack of critical thinking here.

It's not the same thing because my child's medication use is being closely monitored by two doctors (psych and ped) and by involved parents who make sure medication is dosed properly and teach complementary behavior modification as well. We teach him, at an age aproriate level, the benefits and risks of medication and the importance of using it properly. And he's getting it from a legal, licensed source so it's not cut with a bunch of random and dangerous crap.

Your blind faith in the pharmaceutical industry astounds me.

You know how 50 years ago people were sending their SN kids off to different institutions to be subjected to shock therapy and other things to 'help' them? Everyone used to do that. The government suggested it, supported it. And now, we know that it was totally the wrong thing to do.

I strongly believe that giving kids speed is going to be one of those thing that in 50 years people will look back at these primitive times and shake their heads at how clueless people were.

I agree with this.

How arrogant are we, to feel that our era has somehow gotten this right and that we are not repeating the mistakes of previous times, just with different names and labels?

I work with high school students. The effects of ADHD meds longterm are disturbing. I would never say these things in real life, though.

You work with high school students thus you can't possibly know the long-term effects - you have not seen these kids in elementary school while unmedicated/have not done longitudinal studies/ have not looked into between-group research. The only thing that you are doing right is keeping your ignorance to yourself.

Many of them have been on meds SINCE elementary school, so yes, the effects I see are long-term.

I notice you didn't ask what the effects are. You don't want to know. You have decided that meds are 100% safe and will not hear otherwise. So who is "ignorant"?

DP. Please, do tell us what long-term effects you’ve observed. This should be good.

Not sure what long term effects she's noticed, but she isn't alone:

https://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2012/06/09/fewer-prescriptions-for-adhd-less-drug-abuse/adhd-drugs-have-long-term-risks

LOL, that was hilarious. Give us another?

NP. It's hilarious that there is substantial evidence that stimulants damage the nucleus accumbens in developing brains? What?

He doesn’t cite to any science that actually supports his position. That piece is a book promo (from seven years ago), not a discussion of scientific evidence.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Let’s all go live on a commune then! That will take the stress out of our lives! No meds!

It's better than drugging our kids. Goodness me.

I'd really love to know how some of this drug-happy parents would react if their kid ended up on meth. The funny thing is that I think most of them would be horrified (as would I). And yet..... same thing, different place it comes from, and it's fine?

There's a major lack of critical thinking here.

It's not the same thing because my child's medication use is being closely monitored by two doctors (psych and ped) and by involved parents who make sure medication is dosed properly and teach complementary behavior modification as well. We teach him, at an age aproriate level, the benefits and risks of medication and the importance of using it properly. And he's getting it from a legal, licensed source so it's not cut with a bunch of random and dangerous crap.

Your blind faith in the pharmaceutical industry astounds me.

You know how 50 years ago people were sending their SN kids off to different institutions to be subjected to shock therapy and other things to 'help' them? Everyone used to do that. The government suggested it, supported it. And now, we know that it was totally the wrong thing to do.

I strongly believe that giving kids speed is going to be one of those thing that in 50 years people will look back at these primitive times and shake their heads at how clueless people were.

I agree with this.

How arrogant are we, to feel that our era has somehow gotten this right and that we are not repeating the mistakes of previous times, just with different names and labels?

I work with high school students. The effects of ADHD meds longterm are disturbing. I would never say these things in real life, though.

You work with high school students thus you can't possibly know the long-term effects - you have not seen these kids in elementary school while unmedicated/have not done longitudinal studies/ have not looked into between-group research. The only thing that you are doing right is keeping your ignorance to yourself.

Many of them have been on meds SINCE elementary school, so yes, the effects I see are long-term.

I notice you didn't ask what the effects are. You don't want to know. You have decided that meds are 100% safe and will not hear otherwise. So who is "ignorant"?

DP. Please, do tell us what long-term effects you’ve observed. This should be good.

Not sure what long term effects she's noticed, but she isn't alone:

https://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2012/06/09/fewer-prescriptions-for-adhd-less-drug-abuse/adhd-drugs-have-long-term-risks

LOL, that was hilarious. Give us another?

NP. It's hilarious that there is substantial evidence that stimulants damage the nucleus accumbens in developing brains? What?

He doesn’t cite to any science that actually supports his position. That piece is a book promo (from seven years ago), not a discussion of scientific evidence.

He's a physician and a psychologist. What else do you want? Who is prescribing your kid's stimulants again? Hope you're not trusting the advice of a physician or psychologist!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Let’s all go live on a commune then! That will take the stress out of our lives! No meds!

It's better than drugging our kids. Goodness me.

I'd really love to know how some of this drug-happy parents would react if their kid ended up on meth. The funny thing is that I think most of them would be horrified (as would I). And yet..... same thing, different place it comes from, and it's fine?

There's a major lack of critical thinking here.

It's not the same thing because my child's medication use is being closely monitored by two doctors (psych and ped) and by involved parents who make sure medication is dosed properly and teach complementary behavior modification as well. We teach him, at an age aproriate level, the benefits and risks of medication and the importance of using it properly. And he's getting it from a legal, licensed source so it's not cut with a bunch of random and dangerous crap.

Your blind faith in the pharmaceutical industry astounds me.

You know how 50 years ago people were sending their SN kids off to different institutions to be subjected to shock therapy and other things to 'help' them? Everyone used to do that. The government suggested it, supported it. And now, we know that it was totally the wrong thing to do.

I strongly believe that giving kids speed is going to be one of those thing that in 50 years people will look back at these primitive times and shake their heads at how clueless people were.

I agree with this.

How arrogant are we, to feel that our era has somehow gotten this right and that we are not repeating the mistakes of previous times, just with different names and labels?

I work with high school students. The effects of ADHD meds longterm are disturbing. I would never say these things in real life, though.

You work with high school students thus you can't possibly know the long-term effects - you have not seen these kids in elementary school while unmedicated/have not done longitudinal studies/ have not looked into between-group research. The only thing that you are doing right is keeping your ignorance to yourself.

Many of them have been on meds SINCE elementary school, so yes, the effects I see are long-term.

I notice you didn't ask what the effects are. You don't want to know. You have decided that meds are 100% safe and will not hear otherwise. So who is "ignorant"?

DP. Please, do tell us what long-term effects you’ve observed. This should be good.

Not sure what long term effects she's noticed, but she isn't alone:

https://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2012/06/09/fewer-prescriptions-for-adhd-less-drug-abuse/adhd-drugs-have-long-term-risks

LOL, that was hilarious. Give us another?

NP. It's hilarious that there is substantial evidence that stimulants damage the nucleus accumbens in developing brains? What?

He doesn’t cite to any science that actually supports his position. That piece is a book promo (from seven years ago), not a discussion of scientific evidence.

He's a physician and a psychologist. What else do you want? Who is prescribing your kid's stimulants again? Hope you're not trusting the advice of a physician or psychologist!

My child and I are both under the care of a psychiatrist for our ADHD medication. One who follows the actual research being done in this area.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Let’s all go live on a commune then! That will take the stress out of our lives! No meds!

It's better than drugging our kids. Goodness me.

I'd really love to know how some of this drug-happy parents would react if their kid ended up on meth. The funny thing is that I think most of them would be horrified (as would I). And yet..... same thing, different place it comes from, and it's fine?

There's a major lack of critical thinking here.

It's not the same thing because my child's medication use is being closely monitored by two doctors (psych and ped) and by involved parents who make sure medication is dosed properly and teach complementary behavior modification as well. We teach him, at an age aproriate level, the benefits and risks of medication and the importance of using it properly. And he's getting it from a legal, licensed source so it's not cut with a bunch of random and dangerous crap.

Your blind faith in the pharmaceutical industry astounds me.

You know how 50 years ago people were sending their SN kids off to different institutions to be subjected to shock therapy and other things to 'help' them? Everyone used to do that. The government suggested it, supported it. And now, we know that it was totally the wrong thing to do.

I strongly believe that giving kids speed is going to be one of those thing that in 50 years people will look back at these primitive times and shake their heads at how clueless people were.

I agree with this.

How arrogant are we, to feel that our era has somehow gotten this right and that we are not repeating the mistakes of previous times, just with different names and labels?

I work with high school students. The effects of ADHD meds longterm are disturbing. I would never say these things in real life, though.

You work with high school students thus you can't possibly know the long-term effects - you have not seen these kids in elementary school while unmedicated/have not done longitudinal studies/ have not looked into between-group research. The only thing that you are doing right is keeping your ignorance to yourself.

Many of them have been on meds SINCE elementary school, so yes, the effects I see are long-term.

I notice you didn't ask what the effects are. You don't want to know. You have decided that meds are 100% safe and will not hear otherwise. So who is "ignorant"?

DP. Please, do tell us what long-term effects you’ve observed. This should be good.

Not sure what long term effects she's noticed, but she isn't alone:

https://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2012/06/09/fewer-prescriptions-for-adhd-less-drug-abuse/adhd-drugs-have-long-term-risks

LOL, that was hilarious. Give us another?

NP. It's hilarious that there is substantial evidence that stimulants damage the nucleus accumbens in developing brains? What?

He doesn’t cite to any science that actually supports his position. That piece is a book promo (from seven years ago), not a discussion of scientific evidence.

Did we read the same article? This was linked in plain sight in the one I read, at least...https://www.leonardsax.com/stimulants.html

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I know at least one adult who takes it just for improved performance. They rave about it, and AFAIK at least sometimes get it illegally.

However, I think the worst thing is all the kids on it. A parent can feed their kids junk food, food dyes and colorings that so many kids are known to get hyper from, and then they can put them on Adderall to keep their butt in their chair and keep up at school. I really feel like it's abuse. I think you should need to prove that NOTHING else will work for your child before getting this type of prescription, including things that are undesirable for the kids and/or inconvenient for the parents.

It's a sad, sad reflection on this country that people are more inclined to force their child to take speed than to put them on a special diet containing only real food.

Or how about making sure the kid gets plenty of sleep, before jumping into bed with Big Pharma?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Let’s all go live on a commune then! That will take the stress out of our lives! No meds!

It's better than drugging our kids. Goodness me.

I'd really love to know how some of this drug-happy parents would react if their kid ended up on meth. The funny thing is that I think most of them would be horrified (as would I). And yet..... same thing, different place it comes from, and it's fine?

There's a major lack of critical thinking here.

It's not the same thing because my child's medication use is being closely monitored by two doctors (psych and ped) and by involved parents who make sure medication is dosed properly and teach complementary behavior modification as well. We teach him, at an age aproriate level, the benefits and risks of medication and the importance of using it properly. And he's getting it from a legal, licensed source so it's not cut with a bunch of random and dangerous crap.

Your blind faith in the pharmaceutical industry astounds me.

You know how 50 years ago people were sending their SN kids off to different institutions to be subjected to shock therapy and other things to 'help' them? Everyone used to do that. The government suggested it, supported it. And now, we know that it was totally the wrong thing to do.

I strongly believe that giving kids speed is going to be one of those thing that in 50 years people will look back at these primitive times and shake their heads at how clueless people were.

I agree with this.

How arrogant are we, to feel that our era has somehow gotten this right and that we are not repeating the mistakes of previous times, just with different names and labels?

I work with high school students. The effects of ADHD meds longterm are disturbing. I would never say these things in real life, though.

You work with high school students thus you can't possibly know the long-term effects - you have not seen these kids in elementary school while unmedicated/have not done longitudinal studies/ have not looked into between-group research. The only thing that you are doing right is keeping your ignorance to yourself.

Many of them have been on meds SINCE elementary school, so yes, the effects I see are long-term.

I notice you didn't ask what the effects are. You don't want to know. You have decided that meds are 100% safe and will not hear otherwise. So who is "ignorant"?

DP. Please, do tell us what long-term effects you’ve observed. This should be good.

Not sure what long term effects she's noticed, but she isn't alone:

https://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2012/06/09/fewer-prescriptions-for-adhd-less-drug-abuse/adhd-drugs-have-long-term-risks

LOL, that was hilarious. Give us another?

NP. It's hilarious that there is substantial evidence that stimulants damage the nucleus accumbens in developing brains? What?

He doesn’t cite to any science that actually supports his position. That piece is a book promo (from seven years ago), not a discussion of scientific evidence.

He's a physician and a psychologist. What else do you want? Who is prescribing your kid's stimulants again? Hope you're not trusting the advice of a physician or psychologist!

Ummm...he’s Leonard Sax. Have you read his books? I’ve read almost all of them. He was a very bright man, gifted writer and hugely amusing, but this is not his area of specialty at all and he had not done the research or even a lot review. He also has a particular perspective on abuse of psychiatric drugs since he spent a large portion of his early career trying out all the available psychiatric drugs in a very abusive manner before he realized that was not a great idea. His autobiography is super interesting but I would not trust his views over that of my treating psychiatrist or the folks who actually study in this field. I do agree that in 50-100 years, we will consider the current treatment of ADHD to be very backward. The truth is we don’t really know what causes it or why it manifests differently in different people or why different drugs work differently for different people. All we can do now is treat symptoms largely through trial and error. I expect they’ll know a lot more in 100 years and will have much better treatments. But I live right now so we deal with what we’ve got.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Let’s all go live on a commune then! That will take the stress out of our lives! No meds!

It's better than drugging our kids. Goodness me.

I'd really love to know how some of this drug-happy parents would react if their kid ended up on meth. The funny thing is that I think most of them would be horrified (as would I). And yet..... same thing, different place it comes from, and it's fine?

There's a major lack of critical thinking here.

It's not the same thing because my child's medication use is being closely monitored by two doctors (psych and ped) and by involved parents who make sure medication is dosed properly and teach complementary behavior modification as well. We teach him, at an age aproriate level, the benefits and risks of medication and the importance of using it properly. And he's getting it from a legal, licensed source so it's not cut with a bunch of random and dangerous crap.

Your blind faith in the pharmaceutical industry astounds me.

You know how 50 years ago people were sending their SN kids off to different institutions to be subjected to shock therapy and other things to 'help' them? Everyone used to do that. The government suggested it, supported it. And now, we know that it was totally the wrong thing to do.

I strongly believe that giving kids speed is going to be one of those thing that in 50 years people will look back at these primitive times and shake their heads at how clueless people were.

I agree with this.

How arrogant are we, to feel that our era has somehow gotten this right and that we are not repeating the mistakes of previous times, just with different names and labels?

I work with high school students. The effects of ADHD meds longterm are disturbing. I would never say these things in real life, though.

You work with high school students thus you can't possibly know the long-term effects - you have not seen these kids in elementary school while unmedicated/have not done longitudinal studies/ have not looked into between-group research. The only thing that you are doing right is keeping your ignorance to yourself.

Many of them have been on meds SINCE elementary school, so yes, the effects I see are long-term.

I notice you didn't ask what the effects are. You don't want to know. You have decided that meds are 100% safe and will not hear otherwise. So who is "ignorant"?

DP. Please, do tell us what long-term effects you’ve observed. This should be good.

Not sure what long term effects she's noticed, but she isn't alone:

https://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2012/06/09/fewer-prescriptions-for-adhd-less-drug-abuse/adhd-drugs-have-long-term-risks

LOL, that was hilarious. Give us another?

NP. It's hilarious that there is substantial evidence that stimulants damage the nucleus accumbens in developing brains? What?

He doesn’t cite to any science that actually supports his position. That piece is a book promo (from seven years ago), not a discussion of scientific evidence.

He's a physician and a psychologist. What else do you want? Who is prescribing your kid's stimulants again? Hope you're not trusting the advice of a physician or psychologist!

Ummm...he’s Leonard Sax. Have you read his books? I’ve read almost all of them. He was a very bright man, gifted writer and hugely amusing, but this is not his area of specialty at all and he had not done the research or even a lot review. He also has a particular perspective on abuse of psychiatric drugs since he spent a large portion of his early career trying out all the available psychiatric drugs in a very abusive manner before he realized that was not a great idea. His autobiography is super interesting but I would not trust his views over that of my treating psychiatrist or the folks who actually study in this field. I do agree that in 50-100 years, we will consider the current treatment of ADHD to be very backward. The truth is we don’t really know what causes it or why it manifests differently in different people or why different drugs work differently for different people. All we can do now is treat symptoms largely through trial and error. I expect they’ll know a lot more in 100 years and will have much better treatments. But I live right now so we deal with what we’ve got.

Thank you for this thoughtful educated response. I keep asking my psychiatrist about the recent developments in ADHD research, and according to her, there are no break through or even major advancement in the field yet.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: I do agree that in 50-100 years, we will consider the current treatment of ADHD to be very backward. The truth is we don’t really know what causes it or why it manifests differently in different people or why different drugs work differently for different people. All we can do now is treat symptoms largely through trial and error. I expect they’ll know a lot more in 100 years and will have much better treatments. But I live right now so we deal with what we’ve got.

Thank you for this thoughtful educated response. I keep asking my psychiatrist about the recent developments in ADHD research, and according to her, there are no break through or even major advancement in the field yet.

I have a science PhD and maybe this isn't obvious to people outside of research, but the only "advancements in the field" as it relates to ADHD are going to be drugs, drugs and more drugs. That's because all research needs to be funded by somebody, and it's expensive. Unless a pharmaceutical company is footing the bill (with the protections that patents provide them so they can recoup their costs) then it will never happen. Even research that is "government funded" is, especially in the US, essentially funded by a large corporation behind the scenes - through political donations and very loose and free relationships between the pharmaceutical industry and related government organizations (read: someone works a few years here, a few years there, then back here again).

If you accept that the root cause (and therefore real solution) could be something related to nutrition, environmental toxicity, gut flora, or something else for which the discovery of a link wouldn't necessarily yield benefits to a corporation (and would indeed perhaps actually reduce profits dramatically if people were to stop with all the medications) then you need to start looking for those links on your own. They will never come from the government.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: I do agree that in 50-100 years, we will consider the current treatment of ADHD to be very backward. The truth is we don’t really know what causes it or why it manifests differently in different people or why different drugs work differently for different people. All we can do now is treat symptoms largely through trial and error. I expect they’ll know a lot more in 100 years and will have much better treatments. But I live right now so we deal with what we’ve got.

Thank you for this thoughtful educated response. I keep asking my psychiatrist about the recent developments in ADHD research, and according to her, there are no break through or even major advancement in the field yet.

I have a science PhD and maybe this isn't obvious to people outside of research, but the only "advancements in the field" as it relates to ADHD are going to be drugs, drugs and more drugs. That's because all research needs to be funded by somebody, and it's expensive. Unless a pharmaceutical company is footing the bill (with the protections that patents provide them so they can recoup their costs) then it will never happen. Even research that is "government funded" is, especially in the US, essentially funded by a large corporation behind the scenes - through political donations and very loose and free relationships between the pharmaceutical industry and related government organizations (read: someone works a few years here, a few years there, then back here again).

If you accept that the root cause (and therefore real solution) could be something related to nutrition, environmental toxicity, gut flora, or something else for which the discovery of a link wouldn't necessarily yield benefits to a corporation (and would indeed perhaps actually reduce profits dramatically if people were to stop with all the medications) then you need to start looking for those links on your own. They will never come from the government.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: I do agree that in 50-100 years, we will consider the current treatment of ADHD to be very backward. The truth is we don’t really know what causes it or why it manifests differently in different people or why different drugs work differently for different people. All we can do now is treat symptoms largely through trial and error. I expect they’ll know a lot more in 100 years and will have much better treatments. But I live right now so we deal with what we’ve got.

Thank you for this thoughtful educated response. I keep asking my psychiatrist about the recent developments in ADHD research, and according to her, there are no break through or even major advancement in the field yet.

I have a science PhD and maybe this isn't obvious to people outside of research, but the only "advancements in the field" as it relates to ADHD are going to be drugs, drugs and more drugs. That's because all research needs to be funded by somebody, and it's expensive. Unless a pharmaceutical company is footing the bill (with the protections that patents provide them so they can recoup their costs) then it will never happen. Even research that is "government funded" is, especially in the US, essentially funded by a large corporation behind the scenes - through political donations and very loose and free relationships between the pharmaceutical industry and related government organizations (read: someone works a few years here, a few years there, then back here again).

If you accept that the root cause (and therefore real solution) could be something related to nutrition, environmental toxicity, gut flora, or something else for which the discovery of a link wouldn't necessarily yield benefits to a corporation (and would indeed perhaps actually reduce profits dramatically if people were to stop with all the medications) then you need to start looking for those links on your own. They will never come from the government.

I am the PP you are replying to; I have a PhD too (in social sciences though) and I disagree with your conclusions. My phone is dying so I’ll need to respond later.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: I do agree that in 50-100 years, we will consider the current treatment of ADHD to be very backward. The truth is we don’t really know what causes it or why it manifests differently in different people or why different drugs work differently for different people. All we can do now is treat symptoms largely through trial and error. I expect they’ll know a lot more in 100 years and will have much better treatments. But I live right now so we deal with what we’ve got.

Thank you for this thoughtful educated response. I keep asking my psychiatrist about the recent developments in ADHD research, and according to her, there are no break through or even major advancement in the field yet.

I have a science PhD and maybe this isn't obvious to people outside of research, but the only "advancements in the field" as it relates to ADHD are going to be drugs, drugs and more drugs. That's because all research needs to be funded by somebody, and it's expensive. Unless a pharmaceutical company is footing the bill (with the protections that patents provide them so they can recoup their costs) then it will never happen. Even research that is "government funded" is, especially in the US, essentially funded by a large corporation behind the scenes - through political donations and very loose and free relationships between the pharmaceutical industry and related government organizations (read: someone works a few years here, a few years there, then back here again).

If you accept that the root cause (and therefore real solution) could be something related to nutrition, environmental toxicity, gut flora, or something else for which the discovery of a link wouldn't necessarily yield benefits to a corporation (and would indeed perhaps actually reduce profits dramatically if people were to stop with all the medications) then you need to start looking for those links on your own. They will never come from the government.

+1
Seriously, what we are doing to our kids in this country is shameful. The learning environment is inadequate. Parents don't question their lifestyle and family dynamics. It's so much easier to call it a disease and medicate.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: I do agree that in 50-100 years, we will consider the current treatment of ADHD to be very backward. The truth is we don’t really know what causes it or why it manifests differently in different people or why different drugs work differently for different people. All we can do now is treat symptoms largely through trial and error. I expect they’ll know a lot more in 100 years and will have much better treatments. But I live right now so we deal with what we’ve got.

Thank you for this thoughtful educated response. I keep asking my psychiatrist about the recent developments in ADHD research, and according to her, there are no break through or even major advancement in the field yet.

I have a science PhD and maybe this isn't obvious to people outside of research, but the only "advancements in the field" as it relates to ADHD are going to be drugs, drugs and more drugs. That's because all research needs to be funded by somebody, and it's expensive. Unless a pharmaceutical company is footing the bill (with the protections that patents provide them so they can recoup their costs) then it will never happen. Even research that is "government funded" is, especially in the US, essentially funded by a large corporation behind the scenes - through political donations and very loose and free relationships between the pharmaceutical industry and related government organizations (read: someone works a few years here, a few years there, then back here again).

If you accept that the root cause (and therefore real solution) could be something related to nutrition, environmental toxicity, gut flora, or something else for which the discovery of a link wouldn't necessarily yield benefits to a corporation (and would indeed perhaps actually reduce profits dramatically if people were to stop with all the medications) then you need to start looking for those links on your own. They will never come from the government.

+1
Seriously, what we are doing to our kids in this country is shameful. The learning environment is inadequate. Parents don't question their lifestyle and family dynamics. It's so much easier to call it a disease and medicate.

Yeah, there's seriously a thread going on right now where a parent describes a child has having a bunch of health problems including being small, skinny, having "sensory issues", and getting sick all the time. And yet the child "doesn't eat meat or vegetables" at all. Instead, the child prefers carbs. The child is... wait for it... 3 years old. The OP is asking for sports activities or magic pills that might help her child to not be constantly sick.

I could not make this stuff up.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It was shocking to me when I was hanging with the boy moms at a bday party when my son was 8 and found out he was the only boy not on ADHD meds. Out of a class of 23 split as evenly as possible. They kind of looked at me like I was crazy or something or in denial. A boy that age not on meds was unheard of in their circles.

That's awful.
I don't know of any boys on it (I'm outside USA). I'm mom of 2 boys.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:adderall is legal cocaine, sold by drug companies. plain and simple.

It is. 100%.

How does it calm hyperactive children then?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:adderall is legal cocaine, sold by drug companies. plain and simple.

It is. 100%.

How does it calm hyperactive children then?

"Cocaine stimulates the brain’s reward system, causing quick gratification, intense pleasure and euphoria. This region of the brain is typically stimulated by natural pleasurable activities such as eating and having sex, producing an overall sense of well-being. However, cocaine unnaturally floods the system with innate ‘feel good’ chemistry, eventually compromising the brain’s natural ability to produce pleasure. Consequently, compulsive cocaine use results as one seeks to feel good again, and after a period of abuse, the brain is not able to naturally produce pleasurable feelings without the drug.

Along with a sense of pleasure and reward, cocaine induces hyper-focus and attention, feelings of confidence and mastery, wakefulness and decreased appetite. These are effects that are highly sought after and rewarding in themselves."

from https://chapterscapistrano.com/cocaine-adderall-similar-may-think/