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

Forum Index » Kids With Special Needs and Disabilities

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

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]pp, I am not being critical, but you do realize that all of that might have happened without meds too. [/quote]

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.[/quote]

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. [/quote]

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

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. [/quote]

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,

[i]"[b]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.[/b] Rather, early ADHD symptom trajectory regardless of treatment type is prognostic. [b]This finding implies that children with behavioral and sociodemographic advantage, with the best response to any treatment, will have the best long-term prognosis. [/b]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."[/i]
http://www.jaacap.com/article/S0890-8567(09)60066-6/abstract
[/quote]

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

[/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics