S/O - not agreeing on ADHD Medication - uncensored

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:In response to 16:45 - there is a huge difference in cultures and norms of the GP/Off Topic and the SN forums. Going off topic in those forums, being judgmental or offering an over-the-top dissenting opinion is more acceptable than it is on SN. The posts in the other thread were not helpful, particularly after OP indicated her DH had done no research on ADHD, even though he has a background in pharmaceutical research. Had they been in the vein of 'we did X and had good success, you might think about it' or 'before trying medication, what other approaches have you tried'. Instead, we got "Anything else is, in my opinion, completely irresponsible." "Hello sane person" (implying the rest of us are insane). "ding da-ding da-ding ding ding!" "Your child is 5 or 6. How can you possibly have tried "everything" in that short amount of time? How can you be so certain that your child is going to "fail out of school" etc. when your child has only been in K for 3 months?"

The examples you provide are also not analogous to the other OP's question. You were hijacking the other thread and were warned. I'm sorry if you can't understand why many of us thought it unacceptable. It's not that we're anti-alternative treatment, we're anti-judgment, anti-insult and anti-hijack. I don't know why you continued to insist on posting when it was clear that posts such as yours were not what the OP was looking for.

Incorrect actually. My first post on that thread was simply to ask Jeff why he was intervening. And did you read what I wrote? I didn't say ANY of the stuff you wrote in your post. I didn't judge, insult, or hijack you. I think you must think there was only one person posting with a different POV or only one person who was upset at the thread intervention by the admins. There were more than one of us. I only wrote the one post. So, please go and make assumptions about someone else. I mean, did you even bother to read what I wrote? I stand by my opinion, which is that extra information, including that which is outside what the OP asked for, is valuable on this site. I hope the iron fist control doesn't continue - you're welcome to it on this thread. I prefer a real, unstifled conversation.

BTW, I've posted on the subject on other threads, and don't believe I've ever been disrespectful.

[Anonymous]

You post on this subject a lot, banging the drum over and over again. Three posts for every one that you disagree with. the term "zealot" is aboslutely accurate.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:And yet you forgot to post a pretty important quote from her original statement....."He also used to be in the pharmaceutical field and thinks the ADHD drugs are partly a money-making scheme."

I didn't forget it. I acknowledged it:

Her DH has worked in the pharmaceutical field but that's pretty far ranging. He could have been a sales rep (obviously not for ADHD drugs since OP said he's not familiar with them), he could have been an accountant for a drug company, he could have been someone that proposes names for new medicines - it could have been a lot of different things.

I didn't even think anyone needed to address the money making side of pharmaceuticals. Of course the pharmaceutical companies are out to make a profit. They wouldn't be in business if they didn't and we wouldn't have many of the beneficial drugs we do without them. Why do you think there are frequent vaccine shortages? Because there's so little profit in them. You can't blame the companies for wanting to make a buck. It's why they exist in the first place. And, since you seem to like parsing, note that the OP's DH thought they were "partly" a money making scheme which would indicate he thinks they are at least partly effective.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:You post on this subject a lot, banging the drum over and over again. Three posts for every one that you disagree with. the term "zealot" is aboslutely accurate.

Why does everyone assume that it's only one person? I'm the OP and I know what I've posted. I also see what other people are posting and I'm not the only person with my point of view here.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You post on this subject a lot, banging the drum over and over again. Three posts for every one that you disagree with. the term "zealot" is aboslutely accurate.

Why does everyone assume that it's only one person? I'm the OP and I know what I've posted. I also see what other people are posting and I'm not the only person with my point of view here.

You might be able to see the differences in your posts but we can't. You write in the same style and we're unable to distinguish between you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: I hope the iron fist control doesn't continue - you're welcome to it on this thread. I prefer a real, unstifled conversation.

Feel free to start your own site. I don't think I'm the only one who'd welcome your departure.

[Anonymous]

It's interesting to me that the discussion of "Big Pharma" conspiracies/profit-gorging usually centers on discussions of mental illness (I use the term loosely) -- medications for ADHD, depression (Prozac Nation, anyone?) etc. I'm a really liberal person/not a fan of big corporations but the money the pharma industry makes indisputably has led to both a better variety of medications, and medications that work better. Yes, they push their products -- our son's psychiatrist had glossy literature - and discount cards - from a lot of the manufacturers of ADHD medications.

Incidentially, supplement manufacturers do the same thing (advertise, try to make their packaging attractive). Supplements are also Big Business -- and less regulated than pharmaceutical companies.

The use of the epithet Big Pharma is rarely used against producers of heart meds, or even statin medications. I think this goes back to the posts you see that clearly don't understand what ADHD medications do (and don't do), or even the posts claiming ADHD doesn't really exist and it's really bad parenting etc.

Our son, 8, takes ADHD medication. When he was DX'd, we had no hesitation about having him take them and didn't consider other, more alternative, options. We have also done therapy, strived for better organization and even used supplements. We also know that meds aren't perfect, that other interventions (organization, therapy) can be a godsend, and you take each day as it comes.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:
WTF is up with you, Jeff? Is there something particularly offensive about what I wrote that you need to call me a zealot or say I personally felt "my own need to confront another poster" to be more important than her desire to get info? First of all, I didn't realize the two things were mutually exclusive. Second, I didn't even say anything on that post - I just pointed out that you censored it. So why not go ahead and look and see how I did NOT confront her. I confronted you, for censoring. This response is defensive and uncalled for, completely. Way to stoop to name-calling as a response to what I thought was a fairly thoughtful post. Oh well. I guess you're allowed to have bad days too, but this is disappointing.

If your post in the other thread was removed, it was because it did not address the topic of the thread. Moreover, your post would have to have been posted following two separate posts from me asking that posters stay on topic. If you choose to ignore two warnings, you really have no grounds on which to complain.

I am not sure what is difficult to understand about this. Certain topics have a propensity to turn into endless arguments. Those arguments -- every side of which most have us have read many times -- drown out more specific information that is actually being sought after. It's a pretty common cycle here:

a) user posts a question on a "sensitive" topic;
b) big fight starts;
c) original poster gets frustrated because her question is not being addressed; and
d) everyone complains that DCUM is full of jerks and is completely useless.

In this case, I was essentially asked by a user (who, btw, I don't think was even the original poster), to interrupt that cycle. If you wanted to express your view about medication, you could do that in a separate thread such as this one. If you wanted to confront me about my "censorship", there is the Website Feedback forum. I would have happily explained the difference between censorship and moderation and explained my rational.

[Anonymous]

A good deal of mentally ill people have paranoia about institutions, the government, and the medical establishment in general. It is actually a symptom of many of these illnesses and it presents a big challenge for doctors who treat them. They will not trust a doctor or medication due to their illness but the doctor and medication are exactly what they need to get healthy.

You can see this symptom of mental illness in posts that seem unusally passionate, long and involved with theories and explanations. It's a whole different animal from well grounded people that are choosing other forms of therapy, etc. with a healthy understanding of the risks and benefits of the medications.

I hate to see kids get caught up in this and subjected to multiple treatments that are unproven and may even be unsafe. Giving a small child with ADHD antifungals or antivirals or putting an autistic child through chelation therapy just breaks my heart.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:You post on this subject a lot, banging the drum over and over again. Three posts for every one that you disagree with. the term "zealot" is aboslutely accurate.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: I hope the iron fist control doesn't continue - you're welcome to it on this thread. I prefer a real, unstifled conversation.

Feel free to start your own site. I don't think I'm the only one who'd welcome your departure.

It's unreal how rude some of you are. I wrote a post without any incendiary language or rudeness. I posted ONCE on the original thread, and then I think twice on this one (this makes three). I'm not posting 3-1 for every post I don't like; I was 16:45, I responded to Jeff, I responded to the person who wrote to me directly. It's interesting. I'm not even that anti-medicine. In fact, I'm not anti-medicine at ALL. I am on this thread to learn more and to share opinions on the little bit I do know. I had NOT written anything anti-medication on this thread, but folks assumed I had simply because I said "why the censorship."

I just wondered why Jeff was intervening in this situation when he didn't intervene in others. He answered it fine, and I was starting to see his point, but then he called me a zealot, which was really just uncalled for. Just like you being so rude is unnecessary.

Can I ask why? It's a serious question. I'm not insulting you, I am NOT the person saying that you're "drugging your kids" nor am I the poster putting the big pharma info out there. You're mixing me up with someone else. I own up to all of my posts and refer back to them when I repost if they're not obvious. I'm a real person out there with concerns of my own. I can see how tensions are high on this thread. I am the person saying "It's not cool that people are saying you're "zombie-ing" your kids, etc. That's NOT me. So why do you keep responding as if I'm saying things worthy of calling me a zealot or being so rude, or saying you and others want me to leave DCUM?

I know, I know, this is a website where that shit happens; I get it that it makes some people feel better to insult a stranger. But in case you haven't figured it out yet: basic human interactions 101: if you want genuine discourse, don't stoop to name-calling or unnecessary rudeness. I guess maybe you're having fun being rude to someone who hasn't fired any shots in your direction, or you're just too careless to make sure you're slinging barbs at the right person. OH WELL. That's your problem, not mine.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:A good deal of mentally ill people have paranoia about institutions, the government, and the medical establishment in general. It is actually a symptom of many of these illnesses and it presents a big challenge for doctors who treat them. They will not trust a doctor or medication due to their illness but the doctor and medication are exactly what they need to get healthy.

You can see this symptom of mental illness in posts that seem unusally passionate, long and involved with theories and explanations. It's a whole different animal from well grounded people that are choosing other forms of therapy, etc. with a healthy understanding of the risks and benefits of the medications.

I hate to see kids get caught up in this and subjected to multiple treatments that are unproven and may even be unsafe. Giving a small child with ADHD antifungals or antivirals or putting an autistic child through chelation therapy just breaks my heart.

I forgot to add...all the rantings about this site and censorship seem to point to the paranoia I discuss as well.

[Anonymous]

This thread might be too far gone to have a discussion but...

I like the following article on Huffington Post from Dr. Diller. He isn't anti-medication - he is a psychiatrist who prescribes ADHD meds - but he is concerned at the rate at which medication is being prescribed. Personally, I am much more anti-medication than he is but I am willing to keep an open mind to the idea that there are some kids who truly benefit from medication. As a mental health professional myself, I do see how the field has changed in the last two decades and worry about the influence that the pharmaceutical industry has over all of us.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/larry-diller/united-states-of-adderall_b_980238.html
some highlights from the article:

"Since the 1980 publication of American Psychiatric Association's Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Psychiatry, Edition III (DSM-III), more and more Americans have been willing to interpret children's under-performance and misbehavior as ADHD/ADD. As more and more people have accepted the idea of a "chemical imbalance" (never proven but only inferred by the response to drugs like Prozac and Adderall), the stigma of psychiatric diagnosis and use of psychiatric drugs in children has declined. "

"While American organized psychiatry reintroduced the biology/genetics/chemical imbalance view of mental illness in 1980, the pharmaceutical industry grabbed this conceptual football and ran with it. Since the mid-1980s, the drug companies have been arguably the single biggest influence on America's thinking about children's mental health and illness -- by virtue of their financial clout to fund research and medical professional education (which in turn informs the education of other mental health and educational professionals), advertise first to physicians and then directly to parents, and offer free samples (vouchers, in this case, for amphetamine, a controlled substance)."
...
"I also believe there are no conspiracies to drug the children of America. Rather, a number of economic "invisible hands" work together to make children and families less able to cope and Adderall an attractive, efficient solution."

"I welcome readers' comments. I am not denying the existence of ADHD/ADD or the value of Adderall for the particular child or adult using it. I am not presuming I "know" for certain why we are the "United States of Adderall." But I worry less about our children's chemical imbalances than their living imbalances, which may contribute to the ADHD/Adderall epidemic."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A good deal of mentally ill people have paranoia about institutions, the government, and the medical establishment in general. It is actually a symptom of many of these illnesses and it presents a big challenge for doctors who treat them. They will not trust a doctor or medication due to their illness but the doctor and medication are exactly what they need to get healthy.

You can see this symptom of mental illness in posts that seem unusally passionate, long and involved with theories and explanations. It's a whole different animal from well grounded people that are choosing other forms of therapy, etc. with a healthy understanding of the risks and benefits of the medications.

I hate to see kids get caught up in this and subjected to multiple treatments that are unproven and may even be unsafe. Giving a small child with ADHD antifungals or antivirals or putting an autistic child through chelation therapy just breaks my heart.

I forgot to add...all the rantings about this site and censorship seem to point to the paranoia I discuss as well.

Have you ever taken Alpha Lipoic Acid? ALA is a vitamin-like chemical called an antioxidant that is recommended by many doctors. Here's some information on it:
http://www.webmd.com/vitamins-supplements/ingredientmono-767-Alpha%20Lipoic%20Acid%20%28ALPHA-LIPOIC%20ACID%29.aspx?activeIngredientId=767&activeIngredientName=Alpha%20Lipoic%20Acid%20%28ALPHA-LIPOIC%20ACID%29

Did you realize that ALA is a natural chelator that crosses the blood/brain barrier? Why would you be scared of this? Even WebMD sings it's praises.

Now lets discuss a natural way to fight yeast/fungus....Apple Cider Vinegar. Here's what WebMD has to say about ACV:
http://www.webmd.com/vitamins-supplements/ingredientmono-816-APPLE+CIDER+VINEGAR.aspx?activeIngredientId=816&activeIngredientName=APPLE+CIDER+VINEGAR&source=2

Do you realize that taking 1 oz of ACV per day will get rid of and prevent yeast infections and work on a systemic level to regulate yeast/fungus? How is this scary? How does this type of therapy break your heart? Now that you know that ACV is a natural antifungal, will you choose NOT to ever use it again in a recipe?

Digestive enzymes are found in EVERY SINGLE raw food that exists....fruit, vegetables, meat. They are killed off when food is cooked, so we are very deprived enzymes. Our body can produce a limited amount enzymes, but for the most part, enzymes are supposed to be present in the food we eat. Enzymes are responsible for breaking down the outer layers of viruses so that the immune system can eliminate them, but since we are so deficient in enzymes, viruses run rampant in our bodies. Why would supplementing with digestive enzymes scare you? It is a natural way to work on viruses....not that you know this are you going to be scared of all raw foods and eliminate them because the FDA hasn't put their stamp of approval on digestive enzymes?
http://www.enzymestuff.com/enzyvirus.htm#1

This is why posts like yours frustrate me. You have absolutely NO IDEA what you are putting judgments on. From my point of view, it is down right scary just how much people like you do not know about alternative medicine or natural methods.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
WTF is up with you, Jeff? Is there something particularly offensive about what I wrote that you need to call me a zealot or say I personally felt "my own need to confront another poster" to be more important than her desire to get info? First of all, I didn't realize the two things were mutually exclusive. Second, I didn't even say anything on that post - I just pointed out that you censored it. So why not go ahead and look and see how I did NOT confront her. I confronted you, for censoring. This response is defensive and uncalled for, completely. Way to stoop to name-calling as a response to what I thought was a fairly thoughtful post. Oh well. I guess you're allowed to have bad days too, but this is disappointing.

If your post in the other thread was removed, it was because it did not address the topic of the thread. Moreover, your post would have to have been posted following two separate posts from me asking that posters stay on topic. If you choose to ignore two warnings, you really have no grounds on which to complain.

I am not sure what is difficult to understand about this. Certain topics have a propensity to turn into endless arguments. Those arguments -- every side of which most have us have read many times -- drown out more specific information that is actually being sought after. It's a pretty common cycle here:

a) user posts a question on a "sensitive" topic;
b) big fight starts;
c) original poster gets frustrated because her question is not being addressed; and
d) everyone complains that DCUM is full of jerks and is completely useless.

In this case, I was essentially asked by a user (who, btw, I don't think was even the original poster), to interrupt that cycle. If you wanted to express your view about medication, you could do that in a separate thread such as this one. If you wanted to confront me about my "censorship", there is the Website Feedback forum. I would have happily explained the difference between censorship and moderation and explained my rational.

Let's get something straight. You did NOT remove one of my posts. You did not warn "me" about anything. I didn't post anything at all, (let alone anything offensive), to that first thread! My only post was the one where I asked why you were treating this thread differently than you treat other threads. I was objecting to the censorhip in general, not to some censorship of ME, because that did not happen. I essentially saw a thread where you were telling people they could only respond within very specific parameters and admonishing others who were taking the husband's POV. I simply advocated that this was legitimate and germane to the conversation, and made the MIL example where others might conceivably challenge the OP to think outside her question. Subsequently, I discussed how I've learned a lot from answers to questions I didn't actually ask. Nothing in that was offensive or "zealot" like.

I guess you, and several other posters, can only imagine someone would object if their own posts had been removed. Maybe I overestimated you, in that I'd think you'd take the time to check to see if I was causing a problem on that thread (I wasn't) or if I actually WAS producing anti-med, zealot posts (I wasn't) before calling me those names.

Or that just because I wanted open discourse on the subject, it automatically meant I was an anti-medication zealot? I've already made clear several times that I am NOT the person who was posting mean things or anti-meds things. I posted NOTHING. Yet still, you are asking me why it's so hard to understand your point. I get your point. Do you get that you're barking up the wrong tree? It's possible to have a philosophical objection to what I view as stifling discourse even if it's not your own posts being removed.

It would be nice if you could admit you were wrong for name-calling and assuming I'd written objectionable posts or that I'd failed to heed your "warnings." Again, you're mistaking me for someone else, which is too bad considering I'm sure you could just take a second to see what I'd posted before name-calling based on an inaccurate assumption you made. Boo.

[Anonymous]

And I'd like to add....

no one has ever died from drinking Apple Cider Vinegar. BUT, if you gave a child a pharmaceutical antifungal, like diflucan, there are risks of severe liver damage. THAT is scary for a young child.

Alpha Lipoic Acid is safe, natural, and effective. I cannot, for the life of me, find anything online that says that it is unsafe. BUT, if you look up chelation that has been administered by medical doctors who use pharmaceuticals for chelation, then YES it is very scary.

I see a common theme here. Anyone else?