New Data On ADHD And Behavioral Modification Vs. Drug Therapy...


Selene

Recommended Posts

I have always argued for behavior modfication as the more positive approach with the least possible damages that the psychotropics deliver, e.g., Adderol, Ritalin, etc.

Initial advantages of medication management alone or in combination with behavioral treatment over purely behavioral or routine community care waned in the years after 14 months of controlled treatment ended. However, Peter Jensen, M.D., Columbia University, and colleagues emphasized that "it would be incorrect to conclude from these results that treatment makes no difference or is not worth pursuing."

Apparently, it is a better path with the least damage to the child.

One important "discovery" is that:

To understand why the initial advantage of medication wore off, the researchers examined medication use patterns that emerged after formal treatment in the study ended. They found that children who had been assigned to intensive behavioral treatment were more likely to begin taking medication, while those who had been taking medication were more likely to stop. For example, among children originally in the behavioral treatment group, the incidence of high medication use increased from 14 to 45 percent.

Another conclusion by Dr. Molina, University of Pittsburg, in a forth article:

...reported that, despite treatment, the children with ADHD showed significantly higher-than-normal rates of delinquency (27.1 percent vs. 7.4 percent) and substance use (17.4 percent vs. 7.8 percent) after three years. Earlier evidence of lower substance use rates among children who had received intensive behavioral therapy had lessened by the third year. "These findings underscore the point that ADHD treatment for one year does not prevent serious problems from emerging later," noted Molina.

http://www.nimh.nih.gov/news/science-news/2007/improvement-following-adhd-treatment-sustained-in-most-children.shtml

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On the subject of ADHD:

Is there any evidence that this is a real disease? The fact that it is included in the DSM does not prove that it's a real disease. The DSM is mostly a work of fiction. Real diseases are discovered, not invented. What is the test for ADHD? Is it a blood test? MRI test? If it's just a bunch of questions, then it is not a real disease.

Why are there so many diseases in the DSM? Money, that's why. The more diseases they invent, the more money they make. Another reason might be political. If you disagree with the government, you probably have a disease listed in the DSM. Fiction diseases can be used as a political weapon.

This is part of what wiki says about diagnosis. Notice there is nothing objective.

ADHD is diagnosed by an assessment of a person's childhood behavioral and mental development; including ruling out the effects of drugs, medications and other medical or psychiatric problems as explanations for the symptoms.[14]:P.19–27 It often takes into account feedback from parents and teachers[7] with most diagnoses begun after a teacher raises concerns.[74] It may be viewed as the extreme end of one or more continuous human traits found in all people.[14]:P.130 Whether someone responds to medications does not confirm or rule out the diagnosis. As imaging studies of the brain do not give consistent results between individuals, they are only used for research purposes and not diagnosis.[91]

Here is a good money making plan.

1. Invent (not discover) a fiction disease.

2. Diagnose a kid with this fiction disease using a bunch of questions. Do not use any objective tests such as a blood test or a MRI test.

3. Prescribe a drug for the fiction disease.

4. If the parents will not allow the kid to take the drug, accuse the parents of child molestation and take the kid away from the parents and force the kid to take the drug.

5. The drug causes brain damage in the kid.

6. Now your reasoning is: See? The kid has brain damage; he needs the drug.

7. Anyone who tries to expose your plan is a conspiracy theorist. Being a conspiracy theorist is probably a disease in the DSM.

You will not be prosecuted by law. You will have the law on your side. The parents who try to protect the kid will be prosecuted by law. Nobody can stop your plan. Even psychiatrists with inside knowledge who try to warn the public can't stop your plan. Get a bunch of kids on drugs for life; make lots of money with little work and it's legal and the general population will sing the praises of medical "science" to high heaven.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have my doubts about whether it is a "real" dis-ease.

My understanding in all of the cases I have been involved in that a catscan is required to confim the "diagnosis" and almost none of the special end hearings that I have been involved in ever had a catscan.

A...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The decision on what a psychiatric disorder is, and what its diagnostic indications are, is done by a panel of psychiatric and then voted on, presumably by all the members of the American Psychiatric Association (or a subset).

This is why there are substantial changes in each edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual. So psychiatric disorders (the word, disease is no longer used). Although the claim is made that the revisions are based on "research," they also could be described as a popularity test, and are affected by what is "trendy" and what is not.

The primary use of the manual is to provide psychiatrist with a diagnostic numbered code which can be used for medical insurance billing.

So,...you have a problem with this method?........

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now