ADHD Doesn't Go Away

Originally posted by Flux8
I wonder. Somewhat rhetorical question... How many of those that posted in this thread who have been diagnosed with AD/HD, (who do not take medication for it) found that it often takes 30 minutes to 2 hours or more to post a simple multiple paragraph response addressing certain points, not including researching links to back up or refute claims?

I have not been diagnosed with an Autism Spectrum Disorder but I usually take 30 minutes to at most 90 minutes in composing my posts. Some of them are long and some will have several links. I will read through the links and look for certain things. The links are references for points I make in the post.

I think what you're asking is "Are you a perfectionist?" Indeed I am. And even though I might push myself to spend more time on posts, I still often write too much, make errors and miss things. In school my writing teachers, even though they thought I had talent (I attributed this to spending more time on things), would sometimes tell me that I need to shorten my sentences and get to the point. I've struggled with that. But I've never treated writing like it's a professional discipline. For example, the highest writing course I've had is technical report writing. The second highest college level course I've had is WR 121. But anyway, maybe some of my writing problems will never go away. And perhaps this is because I might fit on the Autism Spectrum Disorder classification.

I frequently proof read my posts and will correct spelling errors. But I'm sure I miss some. I'm also sure that I miss grammar and punctuation rules. I'm no brainiac with these things.

reply to post by fr33kSh0w2012

I've read about these disorders off and on. This is what has led me to be suspicious. Additionally, a couple in my family have problems. We're all either in our later 20's or in our 30's now. So perhaps we were not fully noticed (2 of us are on medications). We all had learning difficulties in school. We also were attended by the school counselor on several occasions for different reasons - some of them related to bad grades, some were related to social shortcomings. In my particular case, I only saw the counselor once or twice. It wasn't because of bad grades, but because I interact terribly with others. Even though I had some ugly periods while in grade school, I eventually graduated and went on to HS and never heard a word from the counselor and was never sent to a psychiatrist.

I have bad hand writing, btw. I've always envied people with good hand writing. This always caused grief for my teachers who couldn't read what I wrote. When I was in school, I could write quite a bit by hand though. I'm in my 30's now and can't even write a page without my hand becoming exhausted. Contrastingly, I can use a keyboard like it's second nature. Upwards of 100 wpm.

Someone else in this thread stated something roughly analogous to "People are generally different. Some people you need a hammer. Some people you need a screwdriver. Others you need some chocolates and smooth talking. See, since everyone is different they require different strategies." I mostly agree. I've read that, for example, depression medication only works for about 30 to 50 percent of subjects. The others seem not to respond to it. These people will require therapy or some alternative. For people who fall on the Autism Spectrum Disorder this might also hold true.

Here's a reference:
abcnews.go.com - Study: Antidepressants, Placebos Near Equally Effective...

And another:
www.thedailybeast.com - The Depressing News About Antidepressants...

Do I have an agenda? Am I distorting the truth? Prolly. You bet. But I don't claim to be superior.

To understand a bit why I feel the way I do, you must know that I have witnessed 2 in my family that have been heavily drugged in an attempt to treat their mental disorder. For me, the ordeal has not been pleasant. I am disturbed by it. I do not want to repeat what has happened to them.

As someone with ADHD, I totally agree and don't see why there is such a stigma towards medication.

Originally posted by IAmFrom2077
As someone with ADHD, I totally agree and don't see why there is such a stigma towards medication.

You can thank the War On Drugs™ for that.

TPTB's continual barrage of propaganda has made any controlled substance appear as a bane on society.

Also, the conspiracy culture views "big pharma" as one of the many roots of all evil.
While I do have my problems with pharmaceutical companies, or really I have a problem with the idea of making a profit off of the suffering of others, they do as much good as they do harm.

We, as a culture, have lost our ability to be judicious about nearly all ideas.
I have my beliefs on why, and for that I too don my tinfoil cap.
(The lack of a formal public education in logic, reason and fallacies can mos def be blamed. If anyone reading wants help with that then check out this link.)

ADHD, because it is a relatively new diagnosis, is an easy catch-all diagnosis when things go wrong behaviorally. Mistakes are going to be made in defining exactly what constitutes an ADHD diagnosis and those mistakes are now placed in the spotlight.
(My prediction: the new ADHD will be oppositional defiant disorder)

But the core reason for people having issue with an ADHD diagnosis is the fact that stimulants are used to treat it.
-No matter that the majority of people who have responded to this thread have overwhelmingly reported the positive gains from medication.
-No matter that ADHD is one of the most researched and validated of all mental health disorders.
-No matter that fMRI brain scans show that the nerve impulses in the frontal lobe are slower in those with ADHD than without.
-No matter that adderall is formulated with a combination of 4 different amphetamine salts that target a very particular part of the frontal lobe affected by ADHD.

The same people who are always looking for an enemy and see a conspiracy on every corner will always bash any thread concerning ADHD.

Thank you War on Drugs™.
Thank you for reeking havoc on us and nearly, if not totally, destroying the lives of all that you touch.
You are detriment to society at best and I hope that you rot in hell.

Cheers, and have a nice day.

reply to post by kyviecaldges


Well said, I agree with you on the stigma coming from the war on drugs. I am against ADD and ADHD medication especially in children when their minds are developing. I dont agree with adults using them either, whom I tend to think the majority who use do so because they just have too much stuff on their minds to focus on anything. IMO i think its healthier to develop skills/ habits to deal with it than to take a drug, drugs like adderall and ritlen have real effects on the mind and body and with that comes real side effects.

I do admit that the War on drugs has a bit to do with how I view such drugs. I look at ADD drugs the same way I look at steroids...one for physical effects, the other for mental. Both are strong substances and are abused because they work, the only difference is how our hypocritical society views them.

Originally posted by swimmer15
reply to post by kyviecaldges

 

have too much stuff on their minds to focus on anything. IMO i think its healthier to develop skills/ habits to deal with it than to take a drug, drugs like adderall and ritlen have real effects on the mind and body and with that comes real side effects.

I am in agreement with nearly all of what you have stated; however, I am a proponent of medication, but only when used properly.
Primarily because the side effects are mitigated when they are used as directed, which once again is nearly always the issue.
When people hear about issues with these meds it is almost always because they are not being used properly and they become fodder for the War On Drugs™.

The reason that I believe in combining meds with therapy is because the meds make someone more readily accepting of therapeutic change. It's called cognitive-behavioral reconstruction, and it is basically a fancy way of learning to think and behave differently.
(BTW... I have a degree in psychology, but I would have thought that might be obvious by now.)

One effect of stimulants and all drugs that effect the limbic system is that they induce neuroplasticity. This is a situation where the brain becomes more pliable and accepting of changes.
This is also one reason why certain substances create dependence, but if used correctly they lead to neither dependence nor abuse.
But only when used correctly. (I can't state that enough)

Both are strong substances and are abused because they work, the only difference is how our hypocritical society views them.

I added the emphasis for obvious reasons.

One more time...
Because They Work.

reply to post by kyviecaldges


Thanks for the reply!
Being a psychology major I understand your stance on the topic.
I like to compare ADD drugs to steroids because both are very effective yet one is stigmatized to the point that medical professionals are reluctant to use them even in legitimate cases and the other they hand out like candy. Our society looks at steroid use with no regard to sustained injuries or medical conditions in athletes yet the other, people eagerly give to children. We would not give our kids stanozolol if they struggled with running track but if struggling with school ADD is likely the problem.
Like steroids the stuff is hard on the body,and should be a last resort. Theres absolutely no way any kid on the stuff should be doing sports, the effects on the cardiovascular system are still that of a amphetamine.

reply to post by swimmer15

Like steroids the stuff is hard on the body,and should be a last resort. Theres absolutely no way any kid on the stuff should be doing sports, the effects on the cardiovascular system are still that of a amphetamine.

I very much agree with you in regards to children.

The doses that are given to children are entirely too high and they are often times given out without any concurrent therapy.
Parents have this idea that the pill is a magic panacea and that their kids will become "normal" if they just take their meds, but it takes so much more than that.
I did not begin taking meds for ADHD until 2007. I was 24 at the time. I still take less than the prescribed dosage because I don't need to take more for it to be effective.
However I also see a therapist and continue practicing the coping skills that have been taught to me since beginning therapy.

The problem with mental health and medication is this-
Those who need the medication are generally undermedicated and those who do not need it are over medicated.

This is a direct result of the medical infrastructure in place in the US.
You will learn in school that HMO's or PPO's or whatever insurance John Doe has will not pay a shrink for an office visit unless a diagnosis is made.
And with every diagnosis comes the resulting medications.

So few psychiatrists see the value in combining meds with therapy, but that needs to change.
And I think that it will when the older generation retires and our generation takes over.

Like everything wrong with health care in America, it comes down to money.

Originally posted by kyviecaldges

Originally posted by IAmFrom2077
As someone with ADHD, I totally agree and don't see why there is such a stigma towards medication.

You can thank the War On Drugs™ for that.

TPTB's continual barrage of propaganda has made any controlled substance appear as a bane on society.

Also, the conspiracy culture views "big pharma" as one of the many roots of all evil.
While I do have my problems with pharmaceutical companies, or really I have a problem with the idea of making a profit off of the suffering of others, they do as much good as they do harm.

We, as a culture, have lost our ability to be judicious about nearly all ideas.
I have my beliefs on why, and for that I too don my tinfoil cap.
(The lack of a formal public education in logic, reason and fallacies can mos def be blamed. If anyone reading wants help with that then check out this link.)

ADHD, because it is a relatively new diagnosis, is an easy catch-all diagnosis when things go wrong behaviorally. Mistakes are going to be made in defining exactly what constitutes an ADHD diagnosis and those mistakes are now placed in the spotlight.
(My prediction: the new ADHD will be oppositional defiant disorder)

But the core reason for people having issue with an ADHD diagnosis is the fact that stimulants are used to treat it.
-No matter that the majority of people who have responded to this thread have overwhelmingly reported the positive gains from medication.
-No matter that ADHD is one of the most researched and validated of all mental health disorders.
-No matter that fMRI brain scans show that the nerve impulses in the frontal lobe are slower in those with ADHD than without.
-No matter that adderall is formulated with a combination of 4 different amphetamine salts that target a very particular part of the frontal lobe affected by ADHD.

The same people who are always looking for an enemy and see a conspiracy on every corner will always bash any thread concerning ADHD.

Thank you War on Drugs™.
Thank you for reeking havoc on us and nearly, if not totally, destroying the lives of all that you touch.
You are detriment to society at best and I hope that you rot in hell.

Cheers, and have a nice day.

edit on 6/3/2013 by kyviecaldges because: Needed to fix some stuff. Why do you want to know this?[

Who the hell are you? Really? You haven't a clue about Big Pharma, medications or healthcare for that matter! I'm sure you will now say you think chemotherapy is beneficial. You obviously lack the knowledge necessary for a real debate on the issues of how ADHD can be controlled.

reply to post by curiouswa


Congrats... you have just produced a logical fallacy laden post. In fact, every statement you made is a fallacy and logically inconclusive.
Check out the link in my signature.

Who the hell are you? Really?

Argument ad hominem.

An ad hominem (Latin for "to the man" or "to the person"), short for argumentum ad hominem, is an argument made personally against an opponent instead of against their argument. Ad hominem reasoning is normally described as an informal fallacy, more precisely an irrelevance.

link to source

You haven't a clue about Big Pharma, medications or healthcare for that matter! I'm sure you will now say you think chemotherapy is beneficial.

Straw man argument.

A straw man or straw person, also known in the UK as an Aunt Sally, is a type of argument and is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position. To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by replacing it with a superficially similar yet unequivalent proposition (the "straw man"), and to refute it, without ever having actually refuted the original position. This technique has been used throughout history in polemical debate, particularly in arguments about highly charged, emotional issues.

link to source

You obviously lack the knowledge necessary for a real debate on the issues of how ADHD can be controlled.

Faulty generalization.

A fallacy of defective induction reaches a conclusion from weak premises. Unlike fallacies of relevance, in fallacies of defective induction, the premises are related to the conclusions yet only weakly buttress the conclusions. A faulty generalization is thus produced. This inductive fallacy is any of several errors of inductive inference.

link to source

Go back to school son. I am out of your league.

Originally posted by kyviecaldges
reply to post by Philippines

 

Thank you for debating this in a ration context, firstly.

Natural is an incredibly nebulous word. I think that the only way we can define the word natural in an empirical context is to qualify it with the term processed.
It might not be natural to eat anything that is processed, or take anything that is processed, but where do you draw the line.

You're right. Let's say natural is organic food with no chemicals involved in any part of the process. As for processed food, let's say processed food using natural organic ingredients. When I buy "processed" bacon, that means it is brined in a salt/sugar brine for ~2 weeks, and then hot smoked, and let to cool down.

Another kind of processed food could be the commercial factory kind. I can detail the process as I know it from farm to market to define it completely, generically, and maybe specifically depending on the product. This usually involves chemicals outside of NaCl to produce.

Originally posted by kyviecaldges
Cooking is a process and because of cooking meat we gain the ability to more readily digest protein.
Do you want to eat raw meat?

I don't mind raw meat. You can eat beef and tuna raw no problem if you know what you're doing. I do agree that cooking meat does make it easier to digest in general. However, fire has been around for a long time. I don't understand this point you bring up, please elaborate =)

Originally posted by kyviecaldges
Aspirin is made from willow bark and it has been shown to drastically decrease the likelihood of heart disease if taken in small doses regularly because it thins the blood reducing clots and plaque build up in arteries.

Yes, perhaps, but what diet/livelihood reasons exist for any heart disease to exist in the first place?

Originally posted by kyviecaldges
The natural debate can also be taken in the context of allopathic versus homeopathic medicine.
I personally have been in a life threatening traumatic motorcycle wreck and if it were not for the level one trauma care I received that is the direct result of allopathic medicine, then I would be dead.
If they had just bandaged me up and fed me a macrobiotic diet, which is still processed to a certain degree by the way, then I would have surely died.

We are in a time where of which there is no historical parallel, so it is easy to criticize things that seem out of place, but the empirical data backs up the use of stimulant medication for treating the symptoms associated with ADHD.
Here are definitions for the terms allopathic and homeopathic for those who do not know what I am talking about.

Allopathic medicine is an expression commonly used by homeopaths and proponents of other forms of alternative medicine to refer to mainstream medical use of pharmacologically active agents or physical interventions to treat or suppress symptoms or pathophysiologic processes of diseases or conditions.

link to source

Homeopathy is a system of alternative medicine originated in 1796 by Samuel Hahnemann, based on his doctrine of similia similibus curentur ("like cures like"), according to which a substance that causes the symptoms of a disease in healthy people will cure similar symptoms in sick people.

link to source

It is interesting to note that the entrance in wikipedia goes on to say this...

Scientific research has found homeopathic remedies ineffective and their postulated mechanisms of action implausible. The scientific community regards homeopathy as a sham; the American Medical Association considers homeopathy to be quackery, and homeopathic remedies have been criticized as unethical.

It seems like empirical science does not back up the idea that "natural" is good in this case, but that is because "natural" is effectively impossible to define universally.

My point is, you are what you ingest. Whether food or pills. If you want to take meth, go for it. Ritalin is meth.

As for empirical science, please research more on what myelin is, how it functions, and how amphetamines destroy it. As for some proof to drugs being meth, please look to ritalin and that it is related to methamphetamine. I outlined it for you. These drugs fry the brain, resulting in the user needing to take increasing doses until the myelin is gone and your brain can no longer communicate with itself.



Edit: To go further on "natural" - please provide an example of a naturally occurring amphetamine in nature, readily available for consumption, like willow bark. That would be an example for a definition of "natural". Are amphetamines found in nature for consumption like willow bark for aspirin?