I'm Free! And i'm Normal?

Post Reply New Topic

The psychiatrists and psychologists told me that the old therapeutic drugs used to damage people badly but "they weren't like that anymore." They told me the same thing about their therapy in general. That was in 1977. I'm sure that patients heard the same spiel in 1947.

Here is the tell all sign if you are in the office of a drug pusher;

Look at their not pads, calenders, posters, pens, etc... they will all be labelled with a parmecuetical Co. name or brand name drug.

Here's my recent story;

I took my daughter to a head Doc. at the recommendation of her pediatrician. I went so that i could interview him. We were told that he was cutting edge and didn't use dope to solve issues in children. Basically my job was to analyze the analyzer.

He did these computer tests on her while she was sober. then he gave her a pill and had her test again after the onset of the drug happened. The results were obvious (before they began) he made a huge deal about her AFTER results falling all over himself , praising her genius. "Marika is clearly in the top 5% of the population, once she is able to focus," he said.


I asked him that i was worried about the lessons that a prescription would present to my 6 year old daughters' psyche. i argued that it would likely teach her that at a young age that she would need a mind altering substance to give her any sense of normalcy. I also stated that the ritoline generation began 30 years prior and certainly they have had a chance to do follow up tests on a portion of these early experimental children. And then i asked if the results supported my argument.


This was his reply, "oh, no! on the contrary, if she doesn't have the drug now then she will seek drugs later in life in an effort to achieve the balance that she lacks."

This man obviously didn't know who he was dealing with. I must have seemed like a common hillbilly who didn't know much more than iv'e been told to accept.

Needless to say that at the price he put on my daughters head, and me be a little sensitive to the issue. Coupled with the fact that i Abhor lies and illogical arguments. He needed to call security to silent my rantings and ravings over his illegal activity. The scene i caused, whilst telling him that he was no better than the corner crack dealer caused him quite a bit of embarrasment. And clients, at least the ones who were scheduled, thay may have come back.

I also have difficulty doing anything half assed. So i went home did a little research of my own and wrote letters to 14 different agencies about the experience. He is currently under review and may have his license yanked. Do i feel sorry for him? NO, i feel soory for all the poor placid children which he treated.

Although he was prescribing legal drugs, it seems he was violating his hippocratic oath when he lied to me about the results of the prior generation of children. There is no accepted literature, studies, or tests which supported his lame argument. He was winging it, and apparently he's not allowed to.

Incidently, what i did learn was that there was an extraordinarily high amount of ritoline (early ADHD) treated children who were adults with dependancy problems on drugs and/or alcohol. Furthermore my research showed that over 70% of these children were improperly diagnosed.

If you could point me in the direction of your research on lack of meds and later alcohol use, I'd be interested in reading it. It runs counter to other research I have seen although I can't find that now. I'll look again if you would like to see it.

Also, the 70% misdiagnoised seems high. If I could see your research on it?

Just so you know my bais, one of my sons started meds for ADD in 7th grade. It seems to be a god-send for him. Rather than think he "needs drugs" to be "normal," he sees it as a way to balance his brain in such a way that he can excerise control so that his true ablities can show. His has elected to continue his meds. I think meds are something that should be approached with caution and on a case by case basis.

BeeBee

It is quite possible to give a child a sugar pill and tell her that she will improve, then she will improve exactly as expected. There isn't any need to use amphetamines or Ritalin to cause that improvement. I've believed for a long time that it's often because it improves the behavior of parents and teachers that the student improves.

If there are fewer drug users among those who have been forced to use drugs, it may be because they have become so disgusted with drug use that they don't want to do it anymore. I am really uncomfortable with that as a rationale for forcing them to take drugs. It really isn't right.

i must make a retraction and apologize for an error.

I should be a little more careful when citing statistics.

I had pushed the #7, when i had intended on punching the #4. The actual wording in my resaerch was, "It is estimated that as high as 4 out of 10 adhd diagnosed children are misdiagnosed, according to a recent study."

Next time i cite i will give credit. As much as i depise dishonesty, i am even more fearful of being inconsistent in my own behaviour. And would dwell on that obsessively, if i felt accused of that behavior. I probably will anyways.

I will need to go through my back-up CD's to find the info you requested. My family has upgraded our Computer since then and put most items on back-up to maintain the integrity of the speed of our system.

But i can tell you that when i used a search engine to find the stats, i typed in these key words;
Dependency and ADHD
Ritaline
Hyperactive
hyperactivity

The results were easy to obtain, although i do tend to throw myself into projects.

Also, and i do not mean to be accusatory, but i did not find anything close to support for the idea that ADHD children (limited by category searched) were less than susceptible to future chemical addictions than non drugged kids. Nor, did my research yield any evidence that the percentages were too close to make any judgements.

And on a personal note, it also makes more logical sense, even if you were to reason it out within your own thoughts that they would be more likely to depend on mind altering substances, throughout life than others who do not use prescriptions to even the balance.
Remember 5-6 year olds are just past infancy, nearing elderly toddlerhood, these are very formative years.

The 40 percent sounds somewhat reasonable. You need not spend time looking for support on that.

When I get a chance I will try to find the research about ADHD/ADD meds and later depenancy. It may take up to a week, sorry for the delay. It doesn't intuitively make sense to me that they would be more likely to use non=prescribtion drugs than the general population. Nor less likely for that matter.

For young children, it is normal to have trails with meds and a placebo. At least in this area. Neither the parent nor the child know when they are taking meds and when they are taking the placebo. That seems like a reasonable way to handle it.

BeeBee

Here is one article from Yahoo news, but its old, almost six years old. I was sure I'd seen a more current one from Johns Hopkins but I couldn't immediately find it.

The thing is, SB2, I'm sure we will both find studies supporting our views. As adults, and especially as parents, we need to make the best decisions we can for our children. Some times that may mean meds and sometimes it may not. This is a highly personal decision.

Treatment of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) with Ritalin and other stimulant medications may help protect children against substance abuse in later life, researchers report.
``While some clinicians have expressed concern about giving stimulants to children with ADHD because they fear it might increase the risk that these children will abuse stimulants and other drugs when they get older, this study shows exactly the opposite,'' explained Dr. Alan Leshner, director of the National Institute on Drug Abuse, which helped fund the study. The report is published in the August issue of Pediatrics.

Experts estimate that between 3% to 5% of children are affected by ADHD, which is characterized by a short attention span and excessive fidgeting. Treatment with Ritalin or other medications can reduce children's symptoms, resulting in improvements in grades as well as interpersonal relationships.

Some experts have expressed concern, however, that use of ADHD stimulants might encourage later substance abuse. In their investigation, Dr. Joseph Biederman and colleagues at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, compared rates of drug and/or alcohol use among three groups of boys over 15 years of age. One group of 56 boys had undergone ADHD drug therapy for at least 4 years, a second group of 19 boys were diagnosed with the disorder but had never received medication, and a third group of 137 boys were unaffected by ADHD.

According to the researchers, children who received Ritalin or other drugs to control ADHD symptoms were at an 85% lower risk of substance abuse compared with ADHD children who went without medication.

These results mirror previous findings from studies conducted in adults. Those studies found that adults receiving drug therapy for ADHD symptoms had lower rates of substance abuse compared with their untreated peers.

The results of the Boston study ``have extraordinary public health implications and should reassure the families of children receiving these therapies,'' said Biederman in a statement from Massachusetts General Hospital. He speculated that ``children with ADHD who are medically treated will have fewer problems resulting from their disorder and more successful lives, probably giving them fewer reasons to experiment with substance abuse.''

Biederman and his colleagues caution, however, that only a large, follow-up study that includes a diverse patient population can confirm these early findings.

SOURCE: Pediatrics 1999;104. Article appeared on Yahoo Daily News

Several other studies have been conducted. Results continue to indicate that stimulant therapy is associated with a reduced risk of substance abuse problems. Research Review Report.

Correlation is not causation. People who feel that they have been successfully treated will do better, and not abusing themselves with drugs is doing better. Just something to keep in mind. This whole thing, this benefit, may be obtainable without the use of any drugs. The drugs are supposed to affect the mental state anyway, right?

There is one other thing to consider doing for these children, just off the top of my head, because it was an issue that I didn't know existed when I was a child. I suggest that they never take any form of caffeine late in the day. I always had ice tea with supper and I didn't know it was keeping me up all night. That stuff still does it to me. I never built any tolerance. I would go for months at a time deprived of sleep because I couldn't sleep until 1 a.m. How much is giving these children stimulants like adults having their morning pick-me-up? Is carefully regulated caffeine use better and maybe safer? Sleep at night is very important, and so is being able to wake up right in the morning.