Anonymous wrote:Thanks to the original poster for sharing the article. I liked to learn the history part and the fact that we are no closer to figuring out what this condition is. It is obviously very nuanced and everyone with ADHD seems a little different, which makes it hard.

My questions after reading it. They explain that most kids ADHD symptoms get better as they get older and are able to focus on preferred tasks/topics in college and their career choice and don’t need meds. But they also say one of the biggest numbers recently on the rise is adults seeking ADHD meds. Now that is obviously a disconnect. My speculation is that you can be off meds in your 20s when you’re solely focusing on work, but once you get to your 30s and you are likely married with a family, everything falls apart because so much executive functioning and attention is needed to small boring tasks that the ADHD brain has trouble with. I feel like they really should’ve went into this more, and executive functioning deficits in general that seemed to always come along with ADHD.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The fact that the medication does not help academic outcomes is mind blowing to me. Why take it especially with all the side effects?

I don't think we can call that a "fact." Maybe it will vary person to person (or incorporate the way teachers inflate grades in some places). It absolutely changed academic outcomes for our kid.

We didn't get a diagnosis for our inattentive ADHD kid until late middle school, when innate intelligence and behavior cues could no longer cover for what turned out to be a 3rd percentile attention score (!!). This inattentive kid in elementary school (who could read and do basic math by kindergarten) was deemed well behaved and maybe just of average intelligence. Grades, such as the are in elementary school, were fine, but nothing was really being learned -- it's elementary school and the bar is low for a really bright kid.

By the time academics becomes heavy reading an lecture based, an inattentive kid starts falling behind because inattentive ADHD (if you ask someone who has it) is like being rendered temporarily blind and/or deaf randomly and without warning or even knowing it happened half the time. It makes me wonder if there is a link between inattentive ADHD and absence seizures. It can be for a stretch, where you zone out for half a class, or an instant, where you miss key words in a discussion or every other sentence or half of the point being made (and so you misunderstand, miss key words or actually learn things incorrectly because you only registered half of the explanation). It's like your brain was turned off and time moved on, and when your brain turns on again, sometime you realize it happened and sometimes you don't, but you certainly missed half the class lecture and are certainly behind in whatever you were reading and probably have to start over. How can that NOT affect academic outcomes?

Medication for our kid decreased the frequency of these episodes and also improved awareness of when it was happening, so he more often knew when he missed something and could go get help. In the past, his notes would be half a page compared to other kids with 4-5 pages from the same class, but he didn't think he'd missed anything! Now he either doesn't miss it or catches himself when he does. Grades aside, he is clearly learning more, and homework takes half the time it used to because he isn't constantly losing his place and rereading - it still happens, but less frequently. And it does show in grades that went from Cs and Bs to As and Bs. This is a kid who scored over 700 on both sections of the SAT (so no dummy), but in class before medication would either fail a test he had studied for for hours or get an A -- depended on the day! Teachers and tutors and our son were flummoxed because even when he obviously knew the material he would fail. Medication changed that - not to perfection, but so much better.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This article is for an anti-med crowd who wants to send their kids to healing farms like RFK Jr. All part of a campaign to get rid of supports for ND kids

Are you kidding?? The NYT is:
PRO MEDS
PRO VAXX
PRO PHARMA
Big time.

We need to just start doing brain scans so everyone SEE to evidence of what’s going on. Right now things are based on reporting, but no scientific evidence.

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:TLDR; ADHD meds keep teachers happier but don’t actually result in better learning outcomes for kids at school.

This is bull sh*t. For my kid and the other kids I know with a similar diagnosis it makes all the difference. I can't believe more parents aren't calling this out for the crap it is.

Calling out a very well reported news article based on … what exactly? The article doesn’t dispute that stimulants show an immediate impact on behavior for younger kids in the short term.

Dp. The article acts like the behavioral aspect is short term and therefore doesn't matter, or only matters because it causes less fighting at home.

In reality, kids face big consequences, at school and with friends, if they can't control impulsive behavior. Being labeled "the bad kid" is a big deal.

Thid is why many parents take med breaks, and/or the kid switches meds. These meds don't just have a short term affect. It's not Ritalin until the behavioral effect wears off and then there's no options for behavioral challenges. Doctors and parents are using an umbrella of meds to deal with these challenges over the course if many years, as needed, got these kids.

No, the article says that the research shows the impact of medication on behavior is short term. It probably could have gone more into depth on the relative severity of “ADHD” diagnoses though. There’s a big difference between a child that is so hyperactive they cannot sit to eat or learn to read; and a kid who is merely spacey.

The article discusses one study on Ritalin, saying:

"But by 36 months, that advantage had faded completely..."

I don't see anything further about trying other drugs after one stops being effective and that those other drugs are not effective.

I took ritalin for about 36 months, it seemed to fade in its effectiveness and then was put on another non-ritalin drug, took that for 20 years until it stopped becoming available, and moved around and eventually wound up on Concerta (a Ritalin-related drug) which has worked wonderfully for 5+ years.

In the process of switching drugs I found that Adderall was ineffective for me and the side effects were deeply unpleasant, even though it was in the same family as the drug I took after stopping Ritalin, and Concerta was amazing, despite Ritalin previously seeming to have lost its effectiveness. Not all drugs work in all people the same way, and that seems like a very basic error in the reporting.

Did you read the part in the article where they discussed how people believe that they are functioning better on stimulants, but actually are not?

That study was on neurotypical people and not people with ADHD! So giving a person who doesn’t have ADHD stimulants doesn’t help them. It does not mean giving kids with ADHD stimulants wouldn’t help them.

I’m not sure that’s true but in any event there were also studies of kids that showed no increase in academic acheivement.

Frankly, based on personal experience, that is obvious BS.

personal experience vs RCT. Ok!

Do you discount personal experience? The medication DID change academic outcomes. Who was the study studying? How old were they? How long were they followed? Where is the link to this study?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can we go back to the fact that 25% of boys get ADHD diagnoses??

If it is over diagnosed, it is the hyperactive type. They want to control behavior in over crowded classrooms.
Inattentive is grossly under diagnosed. Every teacher loves the quiet kid (who is zoned out but no one realizes that). They will ignore that kid unless they fail (hard to do in elementary school) to avoid having another student with an IEP.

I’m not totally sure that’s true. I do think a lot of parents are hyper-attuned to any academic struggle or difference. A kid missing a few assignments in MS will snowball into an ADHD diagnosis.

No. The kid can't fake the two-day testing battery that is needed for the diagnosis.

Anonymous wrote:This article is for an anti-med crowd who wants to send their kids to healing farms like RFK Jr. All part of a campaign to get rid of supports for ND kids

Anonymous wrote:This article is for an anti-med crowd who wants to send their kids to healing farms like RFK Jr. All part of a campaign to get rid of supports for ND kids

Anonymous wrote:This article is for an anti-med crowd who wants to send their kids to healing farms like RFK Jr. All part of a campaign to get rid of supports for ND kids

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:TLDR; ADHD meds keep teachers happier but don’t actually result in better learning outcomes for kids at school.

This is bull sh*t. For my kid and the other kids I know with a similar diagnosis it makes all the difference. I can't believe more parents aren't calling this out for the crap it is.

Calling out a very well reported news article based on … what exactly? The article doesn’t dispute that stimulants show an immediate impact on behavior for younger kids in the short term.

Dp. The article acts like the behavioral aspect is short term and therefore doesn't matter, or only matters because it causes less fighting at home.

In reality, kids face big consequences, at school and with friends, if they can't control impulsive behavior. Being labeled "the bad kid" is a big deal.

Thid is why many parents take med breaks, and/or the kid switches meds. These meds don't just have a short term affect. It's not Ritalin until the behavioral effect wears off and then there's no options for behavioral challenges. Doctors and parents are using an umbrella of meds to deal with these challenges over the course if many years, as needed, got these kids.

No, the article says that the research shows the impact of medication on behavior is short term. It probably could have gone more into depth on the relative severity of “ADHD” diagnoses though. There’s a big difference between a child that is so hyperactive they cannot sit to eat or learn to read; and a kid who is merely spacey.

The article discusses one study on Ritalin, saying:

"But by 36 months, that advantage had faded completely..."

I don't see anything further about trying other drugs after one stops being effective and that those other drugs are not effective.

I took ritalin for about 36 months, it seemed to fade in its effectiveness and then was put on another non-ritalin drug, took that for 20 years until it stopped becoming available, and moved around and eventually wound up on Concerta (a Ritalin-related drug) which has worked wonderfully for 5+ years.

In the process of switching drugs I found that Adderall was ineffective for me and the side effects were deeply unpleasant, even though it was in the same family as the drug I took after stopping Ritalin, and Concerta was amazing, despite Ritalin previously seeming to have lost its effectiveness. Not all drugs work in all people the same way, and that seems like a very basic error in the reporting.

Did you read the part in the article where they discussed how people believe that they are functioning better on stimulants, but actually are not?

That study was on neurotypical people and not people with ADHD! So giving a person who doesn’t have ADHD stimulants doesn’t help them. It does not mean giving kids with ADHD stimulants wouldn’t help them.

I’m not sure that’s true but in any event there were also studies of kids that showed no increase in academic acheivement.

Frankly, based on personal experience, that is obvious BS.

personal experience vs RCT. Ok!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can we go back to the fact that 25% of boys get ADHD diagnoses??

If it is over diagnosed, it is the hyperactive type. They want to control behavior in over crowded classrooms.
Inattentive is grossly under diagnosed. Every teacher loves the quiet kid (who is zoned out but no one realizes that). They will ignore that kid unless they fail (hard to do in elementary school) to avoid having another student with an IEP.

I’m not totally sure that’s true. I do think a lot of parents are hyper-attuned to any academic struggle or difference. A kid missing a few assignments in MS will snowball into an ADHD diagnosis.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The fact that the medication does not help academic outcomes is mind blowing to me. Why take it especially with all the side effects?

I don't think we can call that a "fact." Maybe it will vary person to person (or incorporate the way teachers inflate grades in some places). It absolutely changed academic outcomes for our kid.

We didn't get a diagnosis for our inattentive ADHD kid until late middle school, when innate intelligence and behavior cues could no longer cover for what turned out to be a 3rd percentile attention score (!!). This inattentive kid in elementary school (who could read and do basic math by kindergarten) was deemed well behaved and maybe just of average intelligence. Grades, such as the are in elementary school, were fine, but nothing was really being learned -- it's elementary school and the bar is low for a really bright kid.

By the time academics becomes heavy reading an lecture based, an inattentive kid starts falling behind because inattentive ADHD (if you ask someone who has it) is like being rendered temporarily blind and/or deaf randomly and without warning or even knowing it happened half the time. It makes me wonder if there is a link between inattentive ADHD and absence seizures. It can be for a stretch, where you zone out for half a class, or an instant, where you miss key words in a discussion or every other sentence or half of the point being made (and so you misunderstand, miss key words or actually learn things incorrectly because you only registered half of the explanation). It's like your brain was turned off and time moved on, and when your brain turns on again, sometime you realize it happened and sometimes you don't, but you certainly missed half the class lecture and are certainly behind in whatever you were reading and probably have to start over. How can that NOT affect academic outcomes?

Medication for our kid decreased the frequency of these episodes and also improved awareness of when it was happening, so he more often knew when he missed something and could go get help. In the past, his notes would be half a page compared to other kids with 4-5 pages from the same class, but he didn't think he'd missed anything! Now he either doesn't miss it or catches himself when he does. Grades aside, he is clearly learning more, and homework takes half the time it used to because he isn't constantly losing his place and rereading - it still happens, but less frequently. And it does show in grades that went from Cs and Bs to As and Bs. This is a kid who scored over 700 on both sections of the SAT (so no dummy), but in class before medication would either fail a test he had studied for for hours or get an A -- depended on the day! Teachers and tutors and our son were flummoxed because even when he obviously knew the material he would fail. Medication changed that - not to perfection, but so much better.

May I ask what medication? Did it take a lot of trial and error to get there?