Why oh WHY do people who have no clue about ADHD and other disorders always seem to be the most opinionated about it?
:mad:
Because ADD is a moral failing, and it makes us feel morally superior to point that fact out?
Not to come down too hard on lander2k2, it’s not just people without ADD who are woefully ignorant on the subject. I know two people that have extreme ADD. And both think it’s a myth. One is a psychology student. The other is a psychologist. I suspect that deep down, they both feel it is somehow a moral failing, and don’t want to be associated with that.
Aha - ADHD-as-Matrix. Now I see where you are coming from.
Yes, love to. What is your support for the statement?
Absolutely! Can you show me this?
Let me ask you this. You acknowledge that you are simply Joe Average on this matter, employing common sense. So, is it possible for an average person to truly have an understanding of the full range of possible human experience? If not, is it possible that you lack a full understanding of the range of child and adult functional experiences to make such statements as “There cannot exist a condition X, such that its symptoms are Y and its treatment is Z?” Common sense tells me that making such statements on the support only of a typical person’s experiences is fraught with error. If you acknowledge no special access to a source for such information, but persist in making assertions about all human functioning, you are really not worth listening to.
Comon sense tells me that plently of people exist who do possess the capacity to talk out of the top of their hats. As I said, you are not novel in your assertions; I cannot count the number of fathers of children I have talked to who honestly believe that all their child needs is a kick in the ass. I believe that the kick in the ass method has been tried since time immemorial, yet for some children problems persist.
So, if you want to continue debate, show me two things, which you have implied you will present. One, evidence that drugs cover up, but ultimately exacerbate, mental health problems. Two, evidence that ADHD can be completely eradicated by simple methods. (If you show me the latter, I will be rich! Screw Russell Barkley and Bill Pelham! Please show me the money! Big screen TV, here I come.)
**
Hentor, you said yourself that some psychologists do research for pharmaceutical companies and I asked if you, a psychologist I assume, did any such research. Instead you go into a long explanation that, I hate to break it to you, was a waste of breathe (so to speak). The difference between psychology and psychiatry is pretty much common knowledge as far as I know.
You mentioned that much of the research is funded by the National Institute of Mental Health. I’m assuming that the American Psychiatric Association funds its fair share too. What would such institutes and associations be consisting of, perhaps? Psychologists and Psychiatrists maybe? Do you think it would be in their interest to have many disorders and conditions to treat and drug perhaps? Would that mean that they would have an interest in the results of the research? If a researcher reached the conclusion that drugs and psychotherapy did nothing to help the majority of children, would he get more funding for research from such organizations? I’m guessing, no. Just a guess.
As a side-note, I understand that the American Psychiatric Association members vote on whether to include a certain disorder in their official list of conditions! They vote on whether a disorder exists or not! Does this sound like science? If anyone would like to contend that point, please speak up.
**
Other therapies should be tried first? Then why is that it seems that so many shrinks (and as far as I understand—the dictionary agrees—shrink means psychiatrist, not psychologist) seem to follow the doctrine of “drug first, ask questions later?”
Yeah, you’re right. I need to do some research into common sense.
My own bias? Is having an opinion bias now? Do you have an opinion? Does that make you bias?
Since you haven’t changed your bias and aren’t budging an inch, then you must be suffering from idée fixe (you must feel really silly having misspelled that while trying to seem all highbrow) as well, huh?
Thank-you so much for asking, sugaree. That, until now, no-one showed any interest in such a notion was seriously disheartening for me. IMHO, a culture that is more interested in drugging children than finding out how to give them a head-start in their learning is a culture that is in serious trouble.
Here’s a link:
Get a hold of one of their books. They will blow your mind.
I think I will start that thread concerning the education of children. Excellent suggestion.
Landers2k, keep it simple: just present the evidence you imply having on the two questions. To remind you: One, evidence that drugs cover up, but ultimately exacerbate, mental health problems. Two, evidence that ADHD can be completely eradicated by simple methods. Your attempts at obfuscation based upon conspiracy theory simply won’t go anywhere. Put up, brother, or shut up.
**
Seems to me talk radio is full of idiots who accuse the first observation of corruption as conspiracy theory, but whatever. Go back and have a quick peek at what I said; I was making an incidental remark that had nothing to do with the subject at hand. I’ve gathered no facts on this subject from talk radio. (Are facts available on talk radio—I thought it was all comedy. I guess the joke is on me)
So your girlfriend has to concentrate to go to sleep, huh? Okay.
That your girlfriend is a doctor speaks volumes. It’s good to see that she is subjecting herself to the same treatment that she prescribes to little kids. Seems fair to me.
It seems you’re the one trying to make ADD the scapegoat. I think people’s ignorance and irresponsibility should be held accountable myself.
lander2k2, I hope you get around to answering my questions. I know we’ve peppered you with a lot, and that can be overwhelming. Having said that, I have a few more for you.
Some people, due to genetics or environment, have defective legs. Correct? One simply needs to see a person on crutches to know that. And I’m sure you’d say that the crutches are not some product of a vast conspiracy. They are a necessary treatment.
We together on this so far?
Some people, due to genetics or environment, have defective hearts. Correct? One simply needs to see a person on ACE inhibitors and nitroglycerin to know that. And I’m sure you’d say that those drugs are not some product of a vast conspiracy. Once again, necessary to treat the illness.
What is it about the brain that makes it immune from defect? Why is that one organ not subject to damage? What makes it so special? And if you disagree with that immunity, what is the moral outrage at treating the defect with medicine?
How is it that treating a defective kindney is sound medicine, while treating a defective brain must be an evil plot?
So you link us to a site selling snake oil. Good show. You throw out hundreds of studies and link one site. Maybe some of what they say is useful so far i have found nothing on their site but gobledy gook but maybe if we send them money they will give us the real information. Yeah.
Why is that any time anyone suggests corruption or self-interest, someone starts screaming “conspiracy theory?” Who said there was a conspiracy? Not me. Just a bunch of people who are willing to make a bunch of cash at the expense of some kids. Pretty simple. No conspiracy. May I ask what you do tdn? Are you, per chance, a psychiatrist or psychologist? Or are you just some parent who has bought the psychiatric drivel and allowed your child to be drugged to solve a behavior problem? If neither, why would you be so keen to attack the view that drugging children is a bad idea?
Alright, so let’s get this straight: Are you telling me that drug companies don’t make huge amounts of money off the sales of drugs that are fed to children?
Let’s see.
http://www.ndsccenter.org/aboutUs/ps_doman.asp
Certainly, these people do seem to have an interesting agenda.
More later.
Yes. With no medication she obsesses needlessly about things. It’s not that hard a concept to understand.
First of all, it sounds like you’re accusing her of some sort of child abuse. I’d like you to take that back. That’s unfair, and it’s hitting below the belt. You have no call to insult her like that.
Second, not that it’s a big deal, but she is not a psychiatrist, she’s a psychologist – and not a clinician. She teaches, writes, and researches. She’s not a pill pusher, but she bothers to study facts rather than rely on what you call “common sense.”
Thirdly, if ritalin was such a part of a harmful conspiracy, why would she subject herself to it? She’s done the research, she’s consulted with other doctors, and she’s decided on a treatment. She doesn’t do recreational drugs, and has no desire to. What she wants is to be able to function like a normal human being.
Huh? I’m having trouble parsing this sentence. It makes absolutely zero sense.
Here we come to the heart of the matter. Moral accountability. You want to pump yourself up by appearing educated and responsible. In doing so you find something you only think you understand, and demonize it.
And that’s bad form.
No, we’re saying, it’s YOUR theory, it’s up to YOU to prove it. Or at least provide EVIDENCE for it. It’s not for US to disprove it.
:rolleyes:
OK. I’ve looked over the site. What I found was an ad campaign based on vague claims and snippets of testimonials with no genuine information provided, (unless, of course, I choose to buy one of their books or pay to attend one of their seminars). I did not see any references to any articles in any peer-reviewed journals listing their actual successes. (I did not even find any explicit statements regarding their methodology or their analysis.)
Now, what was the claim that the only reason for the psychiatric and drug coalition was to invent illnesses to make themselves money?
On the other hand, I did find a few comments regarding the IAHP from some critics. I’m sure the National Down Syndrome Congress and the American Academy of Pediatrics are all simply in collusion with the rest of the psych/drug conspiracy. It’s amazing that the overwhelming number of people who want to help other people are really in it to deny reality and to make money (despite the fact that if they really solved the problems, they would garner much more wealth).
Now, I am not assuming that the IAHP are, themselves, frauds or charlatans. It is entirely possible that a person with intense personal interaction with a child may be able to enhance the child’s capabilities. Whether that contact can be replicated as a general model of instruction would be the question, of course. Since the IAHP does not appear to have any actual objective studies to which they can point, I suspect that any successes they may have had are a result of the charismatic nature of their core practitioners rather than to their methodology.
I’m curious, lander2k2, just what is your connection to IAHP?
lander2k2: Dammit man! You said you understood the difference between psychiatrists and psychologists, but you continue to fail to employ this knowledge. Tell me again how psychologists are making money off of ADHD - I need to know for my own financial well being. We largely cannot prescribe medications right now. We largely cannot be compensated for treatment of ADHD right now. Very few people, if any, are getting rich from research activities (check the stats for average faculty salaries). So what is our financial incentive to remain complicit in this conspiracy, and continue to generate research findings not funded by pharmaceutical companies that support the validity and reliability of a construct called ADHD?
Here is the1998 NIH Consensus Statement on ADHD - remember, the NIH is a US government agency, so you will have to include the federal government in on the conspiracy, too.
I want my evidence - kick up the GD evidence on: One, evidence that drugs cover up, but ultimately exacerbate, mental health problems. Two, evidence that ADHD can be completely eradicated by simple methods.
I want to be rich! Help me be rich!
That’s sure what you made it sound like. A bunch of people banding together, inventing false disorders, in order to fleece the public at the expense of the health of children? Sounds like a conspiracy theory to me.
Wow, now I’m a child abuser. Interesting.
To set the record straight, I’m a computer programmer working in the cardiac surgery wing of a hospital. I am unmarried and have no children. And psychiatry is not drivel. It is science.
That’s a nice twist you put on that there. Implying that I think drugging kids is a good idea. Hmm.
Feeding kids heroin for breakfast is bad. Treating medical disorders is good. And I have no personal ax to grind in that matter. Clearer?
Farmers make huge(?) amounts of money selling food to the hungry. Are you saying that farmers invented a fake thing called “hunger” to reap profits?
Hey! They can cure blindness and deafness, too!
http://iahp.org/hurt/victories_01.html
It seems that their procedure, called ‘patterning’, is highly specific, and based mostly on one gentleman’s philosophy, without scientific basis. If it works, very good. However, I would pause at calling it simpler than pharmacology.
Get a job with Glenn Doman.
Perhaps, because I do not believe that every person with Child Onset Diabetes should not be condemned to an early (and fairly painful) death?
(remove one “not”)