[adadadadadad]

> We shouldn't stop making peoples lives better in the short term.

> I think "scientism" in medicine has been very harmful

That's what they said when they were drilling holes in people's skulls and doing lobotomies.

Now we are giving children meth and yelling down anyone who wants to discuss long-term side-effects.

The obvious reality is ADHD is a means to sell meds and psych appointments. You cannot escape homeostasis and you just end up with people dependent on a drug for the entire life where the effectiveness has completely waned and they are worse than when they started.

It's unbelievable that ADHD diagnoses are increasing at the same time almost everyone is completely addicted to social media. If you start prescribing stimulants for ADHD when all they needed was to get off social media...you are going to fuck up an entire generation.

The neurodevelopment dopamine theory is the reason why ADHD people get these smart drugs and no one else does. It makes them safe from addiction. But its entirely unproven.

[theADHDfounder]

I agree that we should study the more extended time effects of this medication. I started in 8th grade and stopped 2 years after college because I was worried about building a dependency. When I stopped taking my meds, my symptoms were way worse, so I almost had to take meds. Since I've stopped, I've been able to manage my symptoms well.

Meds are a great starting place to give you momentum, but we should slowly transition away from them as we develop better habits.

That's why I launched ScatterMind.

[UniverseHacker]

I get why you have this perspective because I shared it a few months ago, before my kid was diagnosed, and then I did a deep dive into the research, and more or less did a 180.

You are dead wrong, and have some serious misconceptions, which can't really be explained in a short reply here, but I will outline the main things I think you are missing, if you are open to looking into it.

-There are a lot of non-stimulant treatments and medications that work for ADHD. The reason stimulants are the most widely used is because they have high effectiveness, and low side effect risk. There is tons of research, discussion, and concern on long term side effects and there are risks, but they are less than the extra risks of untreated ADHD.

-Tolerance does not negate the effectiveness of stimulants, it does keep working long term for most people.

-Addiction and dependence on stimulants has mostly to do with the rate at which the effects come up. Doses and protocols used for ADHD don't cause addiction in ADHD people or the general population, because the levels don't come up enough to cause any euphoria.

-Social media and smartphone/internet addiction, etc. do harm executive function in everyone, and make ADHD worse but the effect is tiny compared to the baseline impairment in a person with ADHD.

-The "neurodevelopment dopamine theory" you're talking about is not a mainstream concept among neurologists and neuroscientists anymore. Current research and ideas on executive function and ADHD have moved a long long way from that. If you're seeing a psychiatrist that thinks like this, find someone that has read some literature in their field in the last few decades.

-Your response to my comment about scientism shows you don't know what I mean by scientism. I'm not critical of using science to advance medicine, but in doing the same old thing and pretending it's science, with nonsense explanations. The "neurodevelopment dopamine theory" is scientism.

[adadadadadad]

> the effect is tiny compared to the baseline impairment in a person with ADHD.

I'd be interested to read this study if you have it.

> The "neurodevelopment dopamine theory" you're talking about is not a mainstream concept among neurologists

Are you saying its not neurodevelopmental?