Thoughts of a software peddler

Brian
It’s clear that you have some very strong opinions regarding ADHD and medication use. Kind of reminds me of all the singles that knew how to raise my kids, until they had kids themselves. Personally, we have 4 children, only one that requires meds for her ADHD. We’ve tried many interventions, prior to and during meds. We know exactly what we are dealing with. My daughter has a full time mom, (I quit a wonderful nursing job working with kids for her), her dad is an attentive dad, we strive to eat well, and don’t rely on food from a box. We’ve even tried some alternatives. Maybe you could send me your kids names, I certainly wouldn’t want my children entering a relationship with someone that has potentially only learned intolerance and can’t concieve that there may be another way to look at a situation other than from their own point of view.
There is a reason that your posts keep getting shut down. And it’s not simply b/c they are anti-med use.

Roxie,

What IS the reason? You tell me. I believe that it is because all the people who are comfortable with the “head-in-the-sand” approach to dealing with the big picture, respond to my posts by attacking ME instead of my view of the issues.

The above represents MY take on the issues. You’ll, no doubt, grant that I’m entitled to them. You’ll also grant that you have no proof that I’m wrong and, if you consider the date of the commencement of the “ADHD” epidemic as it coincides with the “new family order”, that there exists probable cause to agree with me.

Again, your anecdote regarding your own family does nothing to support a case against what I have stated. How may we know that you are not really a 13 year old miscreant websurfer having us all on? My child, who has a learning disorder, is improving dramatically without medication. That proves nothing. It’s an isolated case that has absolutely ZERO to do with ANY other case. If I decided to report here (inaccurately) that he is thriving on good solid cat-o-nine-tail beatings, every hour, on the hour, should everyone then rush out to their local pirate torture accessory warehouse? Or would I need a torture-lobby backing me up first?

Obviously, there are more reasons for childhood rebellion and misbehaviour than those I have stated. Sibling rivalries and imagined “bias” could produce the same effects as could myriad other reasons, real or imagined.

I have no tolerance with Schedule II, brain-altering drugs being given to children to treat the symptoms of trying to survive in a skewed world. For me, it’s child abuse, plain and simple. I don’t accuse the parents though, as they are also victims of the same world order that has created a dearth of individual responsibility. If you were raised popping pills to treat avoidable causes, what other recourse would you know of?

Again, there is zero proof that a condition, encapsulated in the “ADHD” classic symptoms, exists medically.

Again, there is zero evidence that “ADHD” symptom medication does anything other than remove the child’s ability to express disapproval with its environmental conditions. See or read, “A Clockwork Orange”.

Again, adequate studies have not been carried out on the long (or even short) term effects of pyscho-tropic Schedule II (Ritalin, cocaine, etc.) drug use on a developing human brain.

And what do you believe to be the next step? Yesterday, my 10-month old nephew was exhibiting signs of a wandering and short attention span with bouts of hyperactivity and disturbing the peace. Perhaps, if Novartis-sponsored studies show that a teensie-weensie dose of Ritalin (or Gin pills) will help parents and daycare operators get some P & Q, well….who would have thought about “coking” a child for the “ADHD”-listed symptoms back in the day?

Please in response, attack the issues and the points I make. If you attack me, the LDOnline moderators will be forced to shut down the thread. Or perhaps that’s the real goal of people who don’t want these points to be addressed.

And we don’t have kids. We had children and bought a dog.

I posted in one of the threads that was shut down and will do so again. I agree with Brian on a lot of points.

I believe humans can learn all behaviors and attention/inattention/acting out are some of them.

I do work in a school. I shutter when a parent hands me an ADHD scale to fill out. I can so easily sway it one way or another, and I know therefore that others can too.

I like to see another opinion stated rather than the “check out meds” one all the time.

[quote=”Anonymous”]Roxie,

What IS the reason? You tell me. I believe that it is because all the people who are comfortable with the “head-in-the-sand” approach to dealing with the big picture, respond to my posts by attacking ME instead of my view of the issues.”
[b]Maybe you find yourself being attacked because you attack others.
Your comment that others should send you our childrens names so to keep your children away from them was what?…. a compliment? I don’t think so. It was just plain mean. [/b]

“The above represents MY take on the issues. You’ll, no doubt, grant that I’m entitled to them. You’ll also grant that you have no proof that I’m wrong and, if you consider the date of the commencement of the “ADHD” epidemic as it coincides with the “new family order”, that there exists probable cause to agree with me.”

[b]I have no proof that you are wrong, about what, your opinion. No, your opinion is your own and it can be right nor wrong. Only facts can be disputed in that regard, and you have given none. Your Ritalin Death site is nothing more than propaganda, it’s not debatable. [/b]

“Again, your anecdote regarding your own family does nothing to support a case against what I have stated. How may we know that you are not really a 13 year old miscreant websurfer having us all on? My child, who has a learning disorder, is improving dramatically without medication. That proves nothing. It’s an isolated case that has absolutely ZERO to do with ANY other case. If I decided to report here (inaccurately) that he is thriving on good solid cat-o-nine-tail beatings, every hour, on the hour, should everyone then rush out to their local pirate torture accessory warehouse? Or would I need a torture-lobby backing me up first?”

[b]I certainly hope your wouldn’t consider treating a learning disability with medication. There is absolutely no evidence to support the use of medication for a learning disability. ADHD, however, is a completely different matter. There is plenty of evidence, scientific and antecdotal that shows that it indeed does work. As for my experience with ADHD, it was not offered up as ‘proof’ of anything. It was offered up as a limited reference to my experience and knowledge of ADHD. [/b]

“Obviously, there are more reasons for childhood rebellion and misbehaviour than those I have stated. Sibling rivalries and imagined “bias” could produce the same effects as could myriad other reasons, real or imagined.”
[b]Well, I am beginning to understand the misunderstanding here. ADHD is not, nor ever was defined by “childhood rebellion and misbehaviour.” May I suggest that you try reading some solid basic information regarding ADHD, and not just that you find on the anti-ADHD, anti-psychiatry, anti-med sites. That’s what I did. I looked at information from all viewpoints, not just the one that I was leaning towards when my dd was dx’d with ADHD. I didn’t want to be limited and only consider a single point of view. There was way too much going on with my dd, and way too much on the line for me to only look for information that supported my notions, preconcieved or otherwise. [/b]

“I have no tolerance with Schedule II, brain-altering drugs being given to children to treat the symptoms of trying to survive in a skewed world. For me, it’s child abuse, plain and simple. I don’t accuse the parents though, as they are also victims of the same world order that has created a dearth of individual responsibility. If you were raised popping pills to treat avoidable causes, what other recourse would you know of?”
[b]That’s a standard propagandist notion. Treating ADHD has nothing to do with being raised in an enviornment where pills are the quick fix to everything. You are painting ADHD families with a broad brush when you make such statements, and it decreases your credibility when you make statement that see all that treat their childrens ADHD with meds as one in the same. Yes, some ADHDer’s come from disfunctional families, some come from functional intact families, some come from families that see out MD treatment for every malady that strikes, others come from families that do everything possible to not use medications or even Dr’s if they can, and everything inbetween. There are also many independent studies on the effects of meds on ADHDer’s, you may want to read up on some of them. Hint, the anti-meds vocalists don’t typically do studies, they simply try to tear down all research that supports ADHD and the use of medication, so you need to widen your scope for real research. FYI: I’m very pleased with the “brain-altering” actions methylphenidate has had on by dd. [/b]
“Again, there is zero proof that a condition, encapsulated in the “ADHD” classic symptoms, exists medically.”
[b]ADHD is not considered a ‘medical’ condition, your point is?…..[/b]

Again, there is zero evidence that “ADHD” symptom medication does anything other than remove the child’s ability to express disapproval with its environmental conditions. See or read, “A Clockwork Orange”.

[b]You’ve got to be kidding? I saw “A Clockwork Orange” as a teen. Tell me please how that has anything to do with evidence that stims treat ADHD? Again, there are studies out there. But you need to look for them. And if you don’t know how to read the research, or you still don’t understand the research after reading it, take it to someone you trust that understands research and statistical analysis. It is quite confusing. I took 2 classes on it in college and consider myself to be a rank amatuer when it comes to interpreting the research. FYI: abstracts don’t provide enough information to clearly understand the variables and the significance of a study. For example. The results could read that 90% of the subjects showed a preference for blue. But you don’t know that only 10 particpants were used. The study gives much more detail. It’s just like the abstracts that tout the ‘Ritalin acts much like cocaine’ and link it to methylphenidate use for kids with ADHD. They fail to mention that in the study the methylphenidate was injected and given at higher amounts that prescribed for ADHD, minor detail, NOT![/b]

“Again, adequate studies have not been carried out on the long (or even short) term effects of pyscho-tropic Schedule II (Ritalin, cocaine, etc.) drug use on a developing human brain.”
[b]Someone has shared some more inaccurate info. with you. Cocaine is not used to treat ADHD. Yes, there was a 10 year study that did indeed show that methylphenidate use does not effect brain growth, as was claimed by many of the anti-ADHD “experts” (MD’s at that). Yes, there certainly have been short term studies done. How many meds that are given for chronic conditions are studied long term? How long is long term? How are all the variables that can effect outcome controlled for in a long term study? How do you account for the fact that methylphenidate has been used for the last 40 years for ADHD and there is no data to indicate that it causes any long term negative side effects? [/b]

“And what do you believe to be the next step? Yesterday, my 10-month old nephew was exhibiting signs of a wandering and short attention span with bouts of hyperactivity and disturbing the peace. Perhaps, if Novartis-sponsored studies show that a teensie-weensie dose of Ritalin (or Gin pills) will help parents and daycare operators get some P & Q, well….who would have thought about “coking” a child for the “ADHD”-listed symptoms back in the day?”
[b]I’m sure you are aware of this, but again, ‘coke’ as in cocaine, is not used to treat ADHD. I would be inclined to report any Dr that felt the need to treat a 10 month old for wandering and a short attention span. [/b]

“Please in response, attack the issues and the points I make. If you attack me, the LDOnline moderators will be forced to shut down the thread. Or perhaps that’s the real goal of people who don’t want these points to be addressed.

And we don’t have kids. We had children and bought a dog.”
[b]LOL, so did we! Four children (kids for short, we don’t live on a farm with goats so ‘kid’ as a reference for baby goat seldom comes to my mind, or is ever put to use), and a dog (a yellow lab, she’s 5 months old)[/b]

Oops, the previous post was from me, Roxie. I forgot to type in all the blanks!

Below are only just a few of the research/studies done through the years that proof ADHD is very real. There are many more for those who bother to look. Also read the book by Russell A. Barkley. PhD - Taking Charge of ADHD.

Research/studies done by:

Drs. Monte Buschbaum & Paul Wender in 1973 (then at the National Institute of Mental Health, NIMH).

Drs. Hans Lou, Leif Henriksen and Peter Bruhn in 1984 - at the Kennedy Institute in Denmark.

A more recent study done by Dr. Alan Zametkin and his colleagues at the National Institute of Mental Health, NIMH.

Dr. Karl Seig and colleagues at the University of Kansas in 1993

Drs. Larry Burd and colleagues at the University of North Dakota in 1987

Drs. George Hynd, Richard Marshall and Jose Conzalez at the University of Georgia 1990, 1991 and 1993

Drs Xavier Castellanos, Jay Giedd and colleagues at the NIMH and Pauline Filipek adn colleagues at the Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School.

Dr. Michael Gordon at the Upstate Medical University in Syracuse, New York.

Drs. Joseph Biederman, Stephen Faraone and their associates at Massachusetts General Hospital in 1990

Drs. Jeffrey Gilger, Bruce Pennington, John DeFries

Discovery of Gene related to ADHD.

http://www.scienceblog.com/community/article205.html

for more info on Genetics in relation to ADHD, just do a google search on “Gene and ADHD”

Thanks for presenting your citations. I would add that one of the most thoroughly researched books I have ever read on the subject is Peter Breggin’s “Talking Back to Ritalin”. It presents lots of research not presented by Barclay and also quotes some of the authors you cite with some different perspectives. If I were totally uninformed about this issue, and wanted to get the whole perspective, I would read Barclay’s book and then read Breggin’s book, and then follow up on the research that seemed to speak loudest to me. Both of them are very entrenched in their views, both are quite convinced of their position, and both present research selected to validate their points. The conclusions they draw are diametrically opposed to each other. If you read both of these books, and followed up on the research, you’d really have the whole picture, and could make a truly informed choice.

Hmm, read both, I can’t say that I have found Breggin to be so wonderful, or informative. Just someone with an extreme position.

[quote=”Roxie”]Hmm, read both, I can’t say that I have found Breggin to be so wonderful, or informative. Just someone with an extreme position.[/quote]

I read both too, and I agree with you Roxie about Breggin.

He definitely has an axe to grind, but he has more research backing than anyone else I know. If you want to know the references that support the skeptical view on medication, Breggin has them all. But you will have to deal with his rhetoric. On the other hand, Barkley is full of unsupported rhetoric as well. It’s just more “socially accepted” rhetoric. The idea of ADHD as a “biochemical imbalance” is totally rhetorical - the evidence does not support it, as even top researchers are willing to admit when pressed. Yet this rhetoric is presented as fact time and time again. Barkley is also one of those odious characters who imply that non-medicating parents like me ought to be held liable for child abuse, despite his own review back in 1978 showing that ADHD kids on meds don’t do any better acedemically than kids who aren’t. So he isn’t exactly what I would call an objective scientist.

That’s why I have relied on original research to establish my views on the matter. If you sift through the details and focus on the hypotheses and summaries of the research, you can get a lot farther than when reading someone’s interpretations. Barkley has as much of an axe to grind as Breggin, in my opinion. I recommend both so that anyone interested can get the research behind the two positions. Talk is cheap. I want the facts, and both of these guys present references to their work, despite their almost opposite views. That’s why I would make those recommendations, not because either of the authors’ styles are particluarly objective or convincing.

–- Steve

For a view contrary to Steve’s, please take a look at the discussion of Dr. Breggin that is found on the quackwatch.com site, http://www.quackwatch.org/11Ind/breggin.html

[quote=”Anonymous”]For a view contrary to Steve’s, please take a look at the discussion of Dr. Breggin that is found on the quackwatch.com site, http://www.quackwatch.org/11Ind/breggin.html[/quote]

I think that site sums it up pretty well. I think I’ll put more emphasis on what true experts, those that really do do research and not just comment on it, over an “expert” that even judges seem to question his credibility.

I found some other interesting articles on the quack watch website.

http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/signs.html
http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/altpsych.html
http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/eyequack.html

While this discussion is getting a bit tedious, I will attempt to reiterate my point one more time so that no one who wants to understand will be distracted what I am trying to say.

Breggin CLEARLY has an axe to grind. He does select out the references that meet his agenda. So does Barkley. So does almost anyone else who comments on this topic, including the reponders to my post, in my opinion. Note that the website article on Breggin (“Quackwatch”) that is referred to has exactly ZERO references to original scientific studies on the subject of ADHD. It is more a political commentary that references “fact sheets” and “practice guidelines” that are composed by professionals already invested in the ADHD-as-biological-disorder worldview. Not that I am saying that worldview is bad, mind you - simply that it IS a worldview that is generally accepted by the public. The fact that a worldview is ACCEPTED doesn’t make it TRUE. Science deals with FACTS. The facts are found in scientific studies on the subject, along with periodic reviews of the studies that compare what different studies have found, looking for consistencies and inconsistencies. A careful review of the literature will lead to the conclusion that no one really knows what “causes” ADHD, and that most rational commentators will conclude that this list of behaviors can result from a wide range of circumstances. None of this happens on this particular website. Instead, it appears to be an attempt to convince people of the lack of credibility of this particular PERSON, rather than addressing the factual basis of the ADHD hypothesis.

What I SAID was that Breggin and Barcley are VERY WELL REFERENCED. If you want to know what the case is against medication, Breggin has every reference you could want that makes that case. If you want to know the case in favor of medication, Barkley has every reference you could want to make that case. Though Barkley is perhaps less strident in his rhetoric, neither of them presents many references that are contrary to their preferred viewpoint. Hence, I suggest READING THE REFERENCES THEY PRESENT, AND MAKING UP YOUR OWN MIND.

Personally, I find reading Barkley sickening. His purely biological viewpoint leaves out a huge array of issues (like child abuse, PTSD, poor diets, the psychological effects of labelling, and the inflexibility of our educational system) that obviously affect children’s behavior over and above any biological differences that may exist. But he does present valid research that supports his viewpoint, at least as far as the benefits of medication are concerned. (He tends to minimize the potential drawbacks.)

I also find reading Breggin frustrating, as his rhetoric often obscures his points, and alienates the more moderate reader. He also overlooks or minimizes the challenges of dealing with these children, particularly when confronted with a school system that is not designed to meet the needs of students that don’t conform with the expected “norms”. But he does present valid research that supports his viewpoint, at least as far as the dangers of medication and the lack of long-term positive outcomes demonstrated is concerned.

Both of these guys are invested in their views. There are very few authors on this subject that are not. But they do give you some studies to refer to. I am not advocating having someone else tell you what to think. I am advocating bypassing the biased commentators and looking up the research yourself. That applies to folks from either side of the fence. Those who are philosophically opposed to medicating may find Breggin reassuring. Those who have chosen the medication path may find Barkley soothing. If you are looking for someone to reassure you that you are correct, there is always someone to fill the role. If you want to make up your own mind based on the facts, it will require a lot more work. I am presenting a pathway to look at the whole issue. If you just read Barkley (or Breggin), you are only getting half of the story.

Steve,
You may find it tedious that others have an opposing opinion than yours, but reiterating that you put Barkley and Breggin on the same playing field doesn’t change my view. Just a visit to Breggin’s own website where he proclaims to be a “World Expert on Psychiatry” one must question his expertise. He comments on research, a search on medline elicits reviews and articles by Breggin, but no research. Don’t you find that curious? His track record as a expert is anything but stellar. Yes, he writes books, you may be shocked by some of what he has written. You claim he has an axe to grind, personally, I don’t see it that way at all. You claim that his cited research can go up against Barkleys, I don’t agree. You don’t like that others have a less than positive opinion of Breggin and have presented information that puts his view points into question as well as his credibility, well, facts are facts and they should be considered. You don’t agree that ADHD is a biological disorder- that is your opinion, but the facts point otherwise. Simply because “The” cause has not been pinpointed does not make the dx of ADHD illegimate. Are you are of how many medical dx’s don’t have an exact cause? Can the cause of cancer be pinpointed in 100% of the cases? 75%? How about 50%? I could go on to list numerous other dx’s, but that would get tedious. You are bothered that Barkley hasn’t included abuse, neglect, etc. in his view of the cause of ADHD. Maybe because those things don’t cause ADHD. Do you understand what a differential dx is? Do you understand how outside factors can exacerbate symptoms? It happens with many disorders and illnesses, not just ADHD.
You clearly have strong feelings about medication, but that doesn’t make Breggins claims any more accurate or Barkleys inaccurate. Tell me, how can it be that Breggin knows the long term effects of medication, but can also claim that there are no long term studies done to prove the safety? Doesn’t make sense does it? Personally, I haven’t stopped at finding information about meds with either man. In fact there are much better sources than either.
If you have really read Barkley, you would know that he does not only tout medication, in fact, behavioral interventions are a large portion of what he talks about. Have you read anyone else besides Breggin and Barkley? If not you should. There is so much information about ADHD out there, and it’s not limited to these two gentleman.
Lastly, I have to say I really take exception to your comment “I am advocating bypassing the biased commentators and looking up the research yourself. That applies to folks from either side of the fence. Those who are philosophically opposed to medicating may find Breggin reassuring. Those who have chosen the medication path may find Barkley soothing. If you are looking for someone to reassure you that you are correct, there is always someone to fill the role. If you want to make up your own mind based on the facts, it will require a lot more work. I am presenting a pathway to look at the whole issue. If you just read Barkley (or Breggin), you are only getting half of the story.” If I had a dime for every time an anti-med supporter came to a support board to tell us wayward parents of ADHDer’s how we need to get our heads out of the sand and become informed. The posters that have responded to you in this thread have been clearly educated about ADHD and treatment, med based and non-med based. It really is possible to read the literature on ADHD, from all view points, and come up on the side of conventional wisdom.

Roxie — I just dropped in on this thread via a reference elsewhere, and I am not qualified to tell anyone about ADHD, so I am not going to get into that.

What I am writing about is a very important issue of logic, of science, and of education.
You unfortunately have *entirely* missed Steve’s point.

It does not matter whether you like or dislike a particular author. It does not matter whether you agree with an author’s views or not. What matters is whether there is some measurable, demonstrable, replicable FACT available about an issue.

Steve did NOT support either of the authors he mentioned - in fact he made it clear that he thinks both of them are out on a limb. What he suggested, and it is a good sugestion, is to do a *bibliography search*. He suggested, clearly and several times over, that you either entirely ignore the book contents, or take them with a large grain of salt, but go out and read the *original studies*.
Then he suggested, again repeatedly, that you *get the real data and then make up your own mind*.
This is darned good advice in any field, and especially in the morass of education writing, worse when it is crossed with politics.
It is hardly an espousal of either side of the argument nor of any particular author’s fanaticism; it is in fact a calm, rational, and *scientific* approach.

Your reply demonstrates exactly the problem that leads to so many of these bad books and pointless arguments and flame wars: you are judging the book by its cover and the message by its messenger, and since you have already made up your mind that you disagree with a particular author (from what I agree, quite rightly, but that is beside the point), you refuse to look any further at anything that he may have touched.

In fact, reading references can be a very interesting activity, and can even confirm your low opinion (or lower it even further.)
There is one case of a poster on Reading who comes on all hoity-toity and super-scholarly and claims all sorts of things “prove” a certain highly debatable (and very expensive) program, which just happens to be the poster’s employer. I decided to go into the references provided and found that the poster was misquoting, distorting, and even inventing references. When I faced the poster down with this, then we got even more invented references, of “unpublished work” and “private communications” which of course us uninitiated peasants are not privy to. This re-confirmed my doubts about this program. In ither words, after reading the supposed supporting references, I believed in it less, not more. This is scientific research as opposed to propaganda.
But I also found a very interesting neglected approach to dyslexia in one of the papers and have tried using it more.

Just because a particular author is a fanatic and not believable him/herself, you should not reject the quoted research; that is throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
This is the point Steve was making, and critical reading is vital both to us as adults and as a subject to teach our students, so please try to restrain your (often justified) personal distaste and read critically and objectively.

Victoria, I most certainly did get Steve’s point that one needs to do viglilant research and look for original research, in fact, if you scroll back far enough into this thread you will see that I stated just that, AND that one should look at all view points first before coming to a consensus in their own mind.

Steve actually did support the authors he is comparing, in his first post on this topic when someone suggested some research cites:

“Thanks for presenting your citations. I would add that one of the most thoroughly researched books I have ever read on the subject is Peter Breggin’s “Talking Back to Ritalin”. It presents lots of research not presented by Barclay and also quotes some of the authors you cite with some different perspectives. If I were totally uninformed about this issue, and wanted to get the whole perspective, I would read Barclay’s book and then read Breggin’s book, and then follow up on the research that seemed to speak loudest to me. Both of them are very entrenched in their views, both are quite convinced of their position, and both present research selected to validate their points. The conclusions they draw are diametrically opposed to each other. If you read both of these books, and followed up on the research, you’d really have the whole picture, and could make a truly informed choice.”

It was from that point that I, and others, questioned Breggin as an authority on ADHD. I’ll start with a basic opinion- Someone that holds an extreme, alternate view of a disorder, does his level best to tear down every piece of new reserach that supports that disorder, but can offer up no original research of their own, only commentary, gets knocked down a few pegs in my book. Others don’t need to see it my way, but I will freely put that opinion up for consideration just as Steve suggested looking to Breggin and Barkley to form an opinon on ADHD. There are so many others that need to be included on that quest. To stop at “Talking Back to Ritalin” by Breggin, and I’m not sure what from Barkley, that wasn’t cited…. Well it is very short sited and will not give any an accurate picture of ADHD.

One more time — Steve did NOT say it was a good book, and he certainly did NOT say he agreed with the author’s view; what he did say is that it is WELL-RESEARCHED and a source for information (which you may or may not agree with. Vital issue of logic: a person may be dead wrong, may be an awful person, but they still may do some things right. A critical reader judges the facts, does not make a blanket condemnation of the author.

Victoria

You seem very frustrated with me, I don’t understand why it bothers you so that I have an opinion on Breggin and take that into account when considering the credibility of his writings. His books are not a mere catalog of research citations. They are filled with his views and perspective.
That said, wouldn’t you agree that when someone recommends a book for reading, stating it is “one of the most thoroughly researched books on the subject” and then going on to compare it by stating that it “presents a lot of research not presented in Barkley’s book” (I have to wonder how much research is presented in Barkley’s book that are not presented in Breggins.) Maybe you don’t see that as a positive endorsement, but I do. Once again, I contend that limiting one’s search to Breggin and Barkley would be a mistake, and very short sited. I also contend that the background of the author is important. I wouldn’t go to an atheist to find out how to find ever lasting life with the father, I would have to consider where that person is coming from before I took anything they had to say as fact. Then if I solicited their input, I’d research what they have to say and draw my own conclusions.
It seems that you may be missing my point.

The elephant in the room that we all seem to be ignoring is the preposterousness of viewing Breggin and Barkley as being on separate but equal planes. The reality is that Barkley is a well-respected, highly-credentialed expert on ADHD who conduct original research. He enjoys world-wide respect from the mainstream medical community and has been repeatedly recognized for his contributions to our understanding of ADHD. Breggin, by contrast, is virtually a medical pariah. He holds extreme views that are rejected by just about every established professional community that deals with individuals who exhibit the collection of symptoms that we call ADHD. Those views are not based on any of his own research — in fact, he hasn’t done any. He is not an expert in ADHD. Instead, he denies it exists.

There are plenty of reasons to read the work of people other than Barkley, including that he has rather a pessimistic view of the outcome of ADHD, but Breggin is not a useful source unless you are looking for confirmation of a personal belief that ADHD does not exist and that kids who exhibit symptoms are really just the victims of bad parenting or bad schooling. If you want to read up on alternative treatments, take a look at the research on essential fatty acid supplementation and other dietary interventions. Or, look into programs like interactive metronome. These are all areas in which properly credentialed individuals have done decent research.

Thank you!!!

Thanks to Roxie for the replies. I believe though, what was more telling was what she didn’t reply to, ie., the negative environmental and sociological factors that confront our children today.

This thread is not for discussing the drugs/no drugs question. It is for discussing what should be done between the time a child is “diagnosed” as having? suffering from? “ADHD”. I say that there should be no rush to drugs. I say that there are obvious environmental factors that could be the cause of the negative or inappropriate behaviour (for that is what it is, no matter what label you put on it) exhibited by children who fall into the “ADHD” net.

For the purposes of this discussion, I believe we would be better served if we all adopted the position (just for argument’s sake) that we would all go with the medication if it was found that environmental factors had no bearing on the behaviour, AND NOT BEFORE (i.e., posters who are in favour of medication may agree that if environmental factors were found to be the cause of such behaviour, medication would represent a costly and dangerous palliative).

So, with the above in mind, can we debate the “environment as a cause” issue without sliding back into the drug/nodrug morass?

It appears obvious to me that our society has changed for the worse since I was born. I outlined some of my concerns in an earlier post. Whether you medicate or not, you surely agree that today’s environment probably takes a negative toll on all of our children. Why, then, not also agree that the symptoms attributed to “ADHD” may possibly have their roots in the lacks and insecurities that our lifestyles engender in our offspring. Who, for example, would argue that a mother and a daycare attendant may NORMALLY fulfill a child’s needs equally? Who would recommend divorce in a child’s life? Who would deny that their children probably are not eating as human children probably should? Who’d like to smash that “idiot box” sometimes?

The question here is: Are these negative factors the root cause of “ADHD”, Colombine, early substance abuse, and the continued self-generated increase in their own negative trends (I lump them together, you may not want to)? Or may we sweep all that under the rug and accept a mysterious and overwhelmingly under-explained physiological condition for all our children’s woes?

I seem to remember that a spoilt child used to be the product of too much “stuff” and not enough parental attention (love x discipline). Do you know any “ADHD” children who fall into that bracket? If yours do, perhaps yoou’ll have to go back a generation to discover the environmental causes. Did “duck and cover” get the ball rolling that “Iraq” is accelerating?

Forget the books, the authors, the doctors and the experts. What does your common sense tell you about your child’s environment and its exhibited behaviour?

Or, is anyone prepared just to admit that the whole exercise of finding and fixing the real causes is just too daunting to bear thinking about?

You post food for thought. I like that.

Look at our society. We are seekers of instant gratification. Some days I feel like I have to stand up and do cartwheels to get the students’ attention. Everything has to be “fun” and “entertaining.”

I agree that our diet is not good. Look at a typical school lunch menu for starters.

So, Brian, if bad parenting is the cause of the symptoms recognized in the medical community to constitute ADHD, just what exactly is it that causes the problems in YOUR child, about whom you have posted so movingly in the past? I believe you’ve described a number of “quirky” behaviors and have posted that there are some who want you to believe your child has ADHD. If parents are the cause of these kinds of behaviors, how is it that you, the uber-parent, could possibly have one of these “spoiled” (your word, not mine) children? Or is it just that your “child” is a convenient lie that you use when you think it is advantageous to your ultimate goal of negating the existence of ADHD, for whatever reason it is that you have adopted that goal?

[quote=”Brian1”]Thanks to Roxie for the replies. I believe though, what was more telling was what she didn’t reply to, ie., the negative environmental and sociological factors that confront our children today.

This thread is not for discussing the drugs/no drugs question. It is for discussing what should be done between the time a child is “diagnosed” as having? suffering from? “ADHD”. I say that there should be no rush to drugs. I say that there are obvious environmental factors that could be the cause of the negative or inappropriate behaviour (for that is what it is, no matter what label you put on it) exhibited by children who fall into the “ADHD” net.

For the purposes of this discussion, I believe we would be better served if we all adopted the position (just for argument’s sake) that we would all go with the medication if it was found that environmental factors had no bearing on the behaviour, AND NOT BEFORE (i.e., posters who are in favour of medication may agree that if environmental factors were found to be the cause of such behaviour, medication would represent a costly and dangerous palliative).

So, with the above in mind, can we debate the “environment as a cause” issue without sliding back into the drug/nodrug morass?

It appears obvious to me that our society has changed for the worse since I was born. I outlined some of my concerns in an earlier post. Whether you medicate or not, you surely agree that today’s environment probably takes a negative toll on all of our children. Why, then, not also agree that the symptoms attributed to “ADHD” may possibly have their roots in the lacks and insecurities that our lifestyles engender in our offspring. Who, for example, would argue that a mother and a daycare attendant may NORMALLY fulfill a child’s needs equally? Who would recommend divorce in a child’s life? Who would deny that their children probably are not eating as human children probably should? Who’d like to smash that “idiot box” sometimes?

The question here is: Are these negative factors the root cause of “ADHD”, Colombine, early substance abuse, and the continued self-generated increase in their own negative trends (I lump them together, you may not want to)? Or may we sweep all that under the rug and accept a mysterious and overwhelmingly under-explained physiological condition for all our children’s woes?

I seem to remember that a spoilt child used to be the product of too much “stuff” and not enough parental attention (love x discipline). Do you know any “ADHD” children who fall into that bracket? If yours do, perhaps yoou’ll have to go back a generation to discover the environmental causes. Did “duck and cover” get the ball rolling that “Iraq” is accelerating?

Forget the books, the authors, the doctors and the experts. What does your common sense tell you about your child’s environment and its exhibited behaviour?

Or, is anyone prepared just to admit that the whole exercise of finding and fixing the real causes is just too daunting to bear thinking about?[/quote]

[quote=”Brian1”]Thanks to Roxie for the replies. I believe though, what was more telling was what she didn’t reply to, ie., the negative environmental and sociological factors that confront our children today.”

Just to be clear, if I posted, It has my name or I followed up a post claiming it to be mine b/c I forgot to type in my username. I don’t post under allias’. I would never be able to keep track of who I am supposed to be.

Brian states:
“This thread is not for discussing the drugs/no drugs question. It is for discussing what should be done between the time a child is “diagnosed” as having? suffering from? “ADHD”.”

You can claim what ever you want for this thread, but you mignt want to go back and read it. It started off with an attack on millermom’s site and then moved on to an attack on parents of ADHDer’s with an attempt to put us into a catagory of single, divorced, neglectful, greedfilled or anti-traditional role parents. Then it became a thread about doing your research, not stopping at just taking an authors word and following up by researching an authors sites. Breggin and Barkley were used an examples to contrast. Breggins credibility was questioned. It was you who introduced drugs into this thread also.

Brian writes:
“For the purposes of this discussion, I believe we would be better served if we all adopted the position (just for argument’s sake) that we would all go with the medication if it was found that environmental factors had no bearing on the behaviour, AND NOT BEFORE (i.e., posters who are in favour of medication may agree that if environmental factors were found to be the cause of such behaviour, medication would represent a costly and dangerous palliative).

So, with the above in mind, can we debate the “environment as a cause” issue without sliding back into the drug/nodrug morass?………

Forget the books, the authors, the doctors and the experts. What does your common sense tell you about your child’s environment and its exhibited behaviour?

Or, is anyone prepared just to admit that the whole exercise of finding and fixing the real causes is just too daunting to bear thinking about?[/quote]

Honestly? My common sense tells me that there is something amiss with my dd. My common sense tells me that when interventions have been made at home, and at school with minimal improvement sense and no consistent effect seen, despite a consistent effort the those in the “enviornment” that there is something much more going on. My common sense tells me that it is easy to blame someone. It’s easy to say “not me” and b/c one isn’t experiencing the same senario in their lives they easily have all the answers. My common sense tells me that I need to become as educated as I can about ADHD and the ever improving understanding of the disorder so that I am not quick to judge. My experience tells me that it is easy to look in from the outside and judge another, but until you allow yourself into their “skin” and attempt to see things from their perspective, one cannot know. I made that horrible mistake of once judging a mom of a baby with a cyanotic heart disease. The child could not have surgery until 1 yr of age. During that time the child put on an large amount of weight, thus increasing the risks with surgery and making recovery harder. I never stopped to understand what it must be like to have a baby that is not supposed to exert itself in anyway b/c it would become cyanotic and experience a dramatic decrease in their O2 level. The only intervention the mom found to work was a bottle. I’m sure she would rather have not had to resort to that, but she did what she could that was best for her child at the time. We all must make choices in our lives, we all must make some hard decisions. ADHD opens the door for many of these, it’s easy to judge when one doesn’t have to live it.

Sorry Roxie and Guest,

It appears that, although you may ask me direct questions, LDOnline modertors will not permit me to answer them.

I wonder why?

Is this a public open forum or another pro-meds lobby that disallows and attempts to disavow an alternative viewpoint.

Think why they should be afraid of anti-med content. Who is sponsoring this little online “information” charade?

Sad!

Meds are wonderful and do not affect a developing brain. Although this has never been proven scientifically, I’m sure that it will still prove a comfort to all those seeking a med-support “safe-haven”.

Ritalin may be a Schedule II, controlled drug, held in the same light as cocaine by the DEA, but if it gives us parents a little P & Q, well, that’s nice for us, isn’t it.

Did I mention that MEDS ARE GREAT and that there are no alternative treatments for what has been labelled “ADHD”?

Well, meds ARE great! I’m not sure if they do more than shut little Johnny up for us and the teachers but, if they at least do that then they are GREAT in my book!

Any other parents out there who are giving meds without proof of efficacy and need support. Tell your story here. Nasty anti-meds posters need not try to spoil our feelgood thread.

Brian writes:
“Sorry Roxie and Guest,

It appears that, although you may ask me direct questions, LDOnline modertors will not permit me to answer them.

I wonder why?

Is this a public open forum or another pro-meds lobby that disallows and attempts to disavow an alternative viewpoint. ”

Brian,
Considering some of your posts that have been left to see, I do not believe that LDonline is stopping you from supporting your claims and answering questions. I do think that you simply are unable to respond.

Roxie,

Actually, I posted a rather lengthy response to both you and the last-posted “Guest” on this thread. When I returned to the board after a while away, I found that it and several others had been reemoved without explanation. I’m sure that none of those posts broke any rules, either peculiar to this forum or in general, with regard to flaming, etc. I can only assume that they were removed due to their anti-meds/ pro-seeking alternative answer qualities.

You know I CAN respond, why would you doubt my word that I DID?

One glaring example of the moderators’ censorship is every thread I have started dealing with the condition known as “Munchausen by Proxy” detailing how “ADHD” is a perfect vehicle for mothers (95% of cases involve female sickos) who try to achieve recognition as being “good mothers” by inventing diseases for their healthy children .

I agree that they leave some of my posts intact but regretfully can’t prove to you that the others are being deleted. This one for example could be zapped without a trace.

Well there ya go Brian. Comparing mom’s of ADHD kids with Munchausen’s, how much do you really know about either? Clearly not much. I don’t know how you can’t expect a post like that to not be removed.
As far as your claim that anti-med/pro-alternative posts get removed. You are simply wrong and haven’t been reading many posts on this board. There are plenty of posts questioning the safety of meds and whether or not there is enough long term research on them, there are even more posts on alternatives, from enzyme therapy, biofeedback, IM, diets, and the list goes on. The problem is not the subject matter per se. It’s all the crap you throw in with it. Your posts have simply been mean and nasty with the clear intent to provoke others. You don’t debate, there is no clear supportive facts for your claims, you simply throw out redicules, insulting, rude comments and expect what? Applause for your insight? I don’t think so. You are in a forum occupied mainly by parents of ADHDer’s, some with ADHD themselves. Honestly, we know what we are talking about, we live with this every single day. You most certainly are entitled to your opinion, but LDonline does not have to allow you to spew your hatefilled rhetoric.

So, you fail to argue science and fallback on attacking me. What “hate-filled rhetoric”? I challenge you to quote anything I’ve posted here that qualifies as “hate-filled”.

You wrote:

“Your posts have simply been mean and nasty with the clear intent to provoke others.”

Provoke others to what? How “mean and nasty”? Is it because I argue my point well? Is it because I expose your and other’s claims for “ADHD” medication as fraudulent? Are you now attacking me and my writing style because you feel humilliated in debate defeat? You needn’t feel that way. You never really had any solid ground to stand on.

I write here from a concern for the well-being of children everywhere. Where’s the hate?

Roxie:

One of the other frequent LDOnline posters referred us to a fascinating site,
sciencedaily.com

This site has a huge number of abstracts of a variety of research studies and would provide you with all the scientific backup you need. If you really, really wanted to find out all the nitty-gritty on a particular study, you could also buy a reprint using this info.
Some of the recent studies are using brain imaging to investigate both dyslexia and ADHD and yes, there is hard proof that these conditions do exist and can be observed and measured.

Now, now of this will help with Brian. He is a classic passive-aggressive. Passive-aggressives just love the net because they can play out their nastibess with no risk of real-world correction. If you agree with him he will be sweet as sugar, and if you dare to disagree he will attack you. And he will turn every argument around so that you look always in the wrong, and he will try to manipulate you with guilt and shame. Since this is his sad little way of functioning and getting his jollies by making himself look important by putting other people down, there is little you can do except to refuse to play his games. After he has not gotten a rise out of anyone for a while he will go away and look for other people to pester.

Thank you Victoria for mentioning Science Daily. I have been to that site. It can be a good starting point for information, and I like that it can be an easier way of being informed of new research. Personally, I don’t get medical journals, nor does my library carry them. I have to go to a medical library and don’t have the time to travel to do that. Because of that, I have learned to question the credibilty of the author that is reviewing a study. Without all information, results can be presented in a piece-meal manner to suggest something that the entire study doesn’t. A good example of that was a piece of research done by Nora Volkow comparing it with Cocaine. One needs to know that dosaging and the form a administration to understand the implications towards dosing a child or adult with methylphenidate for ADHD. In many reviews those things were left out, thus leaving the reader with an altered impression of what the study really was all about.
I understand what you are saying about Brian and his motives. While I haven’t been at this forum for very long, I spent about 7 years in another and saw plenty of others like him. Believe me, I have no delusions about convincing him that there is evidence of ADHD, he will believe nothing, even if there was the one indicator that could be tested and placed across the board as conclusive evidence of ADHD. But, I guess I can become too emotional about the subject. Maybe it’s immaturity on my part, maybe it’s b/c I’ve seen what that type of ignorance does to my dd when directed at her, and maybe it’s because I have a problem with those that have latched on to the anti-AHD, anti-Psychiatry crowds rhetoric. The arguments they use can easily be applied to many “physiological”, medical illnesses that they are more than willing to accept, but b/c this is something that occurs in the mind and can’t be seen or touched like a tumor, or a rash, etc. etc. They want to dismiss it. They ignore our “anecdotal” experience as pass it off as Munchausen’s (his was not the first claim I’ve seen of this, it’s rhetoric). I could go on, and did, but erased it. We all have our choices here, to respond or not respond, or to even skip reading all posts by certain posters. I’ve tried it all, and at this point I still feel the need to go to bat for my daughter, b/c she’s what it’s all about for me. Maybe I’ll grow up someday and learn to ignore, I haven’t gotten to that point yet.

Well, Roxie, you can choose to avoid him or choose to fight him. Hey, I’ve been the person to stand up and fight a couple of other people who came into another page on LDO and tried to give everybody the right way to think. If you’re going to fight, well, dig your heels in and be prepared for quite the battle because he is just looking for opportunities to be hurtful.

victoria wrote:

“Some of the recent studies are using brain imaging to investigate both dyslexia and ADHD and yes, there is hard proof that these conditions do exist and can be observed and measured.”

Again, more references to WHERE we might find “hard facts” and yet…no hard facts. Just more personal attacks on me. What you call “nasty”, people who are not afraid to live in the real world call, “The Real World” or, if you prefer, “The Truth”. It’s not nice and it can be nasty, epecially if you’d rather hide from it. However, just because you are too weak or, to use the phrase of one of your kind, “fragile”, a parent to face the truth, that won’;t stop me presenting you and anyone else who reads these posts with it.

You tell us that brain imaging has provided “hard proof” that “these conditions do exist and can be observed and measured”. I’d ask, what conditions? The bad or rebellious behaviour of children brought about by a general lack of responsibility in the adult population? Sure those behaviours exist. You don’t need a brain scan to know that! Sure they may be observed and measured. Some children are reponding to their bad environments more than others. What’s new? However, the “hard proof” that I’m looking for is that what has been labelled “ADHD” is the result of some kind of brain malfunction and responds favourably in the long term to treatment with Schedule II brain-altering drugs.

Just give us ONE definitive link directly to the site of any governmental authority that states unequivocally that it has been scientifically proven that “ADHD” has a physiological cause at it’s root. If you do, I’ll go away, never to be heard of again on this site or any other that deals with what has been labelled “ADHD”.

Now, that’s a great deal, wouldn’t you agree?