Don’t care if there’s no "proof" | ADHD Information

I don't care if there's no "scientific" proof that I have ADD or if ADD even exists. All I know is that Adderall has completely changed my life for the better. I'm on the same dosage I started with over a year ago, I've never had to increase and it still works great. I'm now actually accomplishing things instead of just thinking about them and feeling like a lazy, low-achieving loser because I could never follow through with anything.

Some people on here have the attitude that all drugs are bad. What's so bad about taking a drug that improves your life? Maybe there's no long-term studies about the effects. There's no long-term studies on a lot of things that we use in every day life. There are no guarantees. To be truthful, I'd rather have this good life I have NOW. I have no interest in living to a ripe old miserable 100 just so I can say "I TOLD YOU SO!"

GlenW, Case in point - in the 80's AC/DC and Ozzy Oxbourne were supposedly the cause for kids killing themselves. They weren't even a drug. But if people don't like something they are quick to play the name-game and accuse it of being bad.

Heavy metal, drugs - Its all rocknroll to me.

(did any of that make sense?)

Parrit, the only reason I am even partially a nay-sayer is for me and not anyone else. I believe firmly that if it is helping you, then take it! For me, though, I had alot of undesirable side effects that outweighed any benefit so I don't want to have to be dependant on this drug if it's not making me feel 'normal' or better. But not everyone has side effects, or side effects that outweigh benefits. If the meds work, take them! But you have to keep in mind, though, that they only treat the symptoms, not the underlying cause. That's why I'm so hopeful about the theory described in "Stopping ADHD." Finally, someone has put forth some sort of theory, and maybe I can rid myself of the ADHD and not ever need drugs. Heidi - that does bother me and I hear it too often! MDs must be made aware of how important that visit is!! I just don't know what can be done - but I make my voice heard here hoping that all of us make the effort to get what's owed to us.

Yes - at first preferably weekly when starting a new med!

Here's the reason - on amphetamines - you can have trouble with blood pressure and heart rate. The MD or psych can check your heart to make sure you are not one of the rare ones that can have a major issue with them. The weight is another thing - they are supposed to weigh you to make sure you aren't being triggered in anorexia (has happened). How many have been weighed even once? I can make a guess and it's sad for me. I made sure to get the works - dammit I pay his salary I get what I want!!!

On strattera - it's important too - in the initial stages it can cause weight loss too (sometimes severe). Also - there are instances where it can cause changes in the brain that can be not so beneficial. Not so often - but hey why take the chances? For kids - weekly on strattera is a MUST! There are known instances where it actually stunts the child's growth! Says so in the documentation as one of the first lines actually.

If the care is there - why not take it?? All you lose is perhaps some cash and time. If you don't - you could lose more right?

[QUOTE=HeidiMarie]Parrit, the only reason I am even partially a nay-sayer is for me and not anyone else. I believe firmly that if it is helping you, then take it! For me, though, I had alot of undesirable side effects that outweighed any benefit so I don't want to have to be dependant on this drug if it's not making me feel 'normal' or better. But not everyone has side effects, or side effects that outweigh benefits. If the meds work, take them! But you have to keep in mind, though, that they only treat the symptoms, not the underlying cause. That's why I'm so hopeful about the theory described in "Stopping ADHD." Finally, someone has put forth some sort of theory, and maybe I can rid myself of the ADHD and not ever need drugs. [/QUOTE]

Exactly!

That's my point earlier - the benefit-to-risk ratio! It's a matter of percentages - how much good is made for how much danger to you? If it works wonders - you may be willing to put up with a slight chance of problems, or the jittery feeling some feel. some won't - they'll feel the risks are too high.

Most people who have trouble you can track back to an MD who isn't doing his/her job. They are to be there for you once a week at first - and paying attention to what's going on. If they don't - your side effects can't be altered!

To all - it's not an easy choice but don't go it alone! Talk to an MD or psychiatrist and get all the details on whatever path you take!

Wha? Weekly?? My doctor, at the first appointment, gave me a test that was on an adderall brochure, diagnosed me, and put me on 20mg adderall and said come back in a month. I completely forgot about the next appointment and only made it for the last 10 minutes of it, where he doubled it to 40mg. [QUOTE=paritthead]

[/QUOTE]

AMEN!!!!!!!

I agree with weekly visits. It gives the patient peice of mind and can help if side effects are great and changes need to be made. If you have an appointment a month down the road and side effects are bad people will just give up. That won't lead to a high sucess rate. I know docs are pushed to ram more patients through there doors but an ethical doc will take the time to help the patient, regulate their meds and try to make an improvement in their quality of life. A bad doc will think of the patient as another number to help him/her meet their number goals. Sad.....good for u parrithead and i am glad u are doing well and it has worked for you....keep us posted as to how u r doingdead on. parritthead.

exactly.

there has been this bullsh*t attitude about drugs this last century and who knows why? before it was no big deal - you could go to Harrods (a UK dept store) and order your opium or cocaine. and what??? apparently the fictional detective Sherlock Holmes pipe was an opium pipe or something i forget the actual drug now but it wasn't a big deal in those days.... now they imply it was tobacco but it wasn't. and perhaps a hundred years in the future they will be horrified we had such easy access to tobacco and cigarettes and have those down as illegal/jail sentence drugs like marijuana. it is ridiculous.

we can still buy alcohol - that's a drug. and cigarettes. and think nothing of it. if it works it works. no problem. all the better if it is legalised - means some of the profits are taxed and go back into the system. it means it is well regulated. it means they constantly test the product and look into ways of improving it. it means you always know the quality of what you will be getting.

at last! people will not be jailed for getting something to help them get through life.

although i have my doubts about giving it to children because they are still growing and at a much more vulnerable stage (but what i do i know) but it is not just physically worrying --- children also have no say in the matter. i hate to read that a parent is forcing the medication on the child when the children actively say they don't want it. if THEY are happier on it - then good. but if you are FORCING them to take it against their will, that definitely worries me a lot. like a lot, a lot. it doesn't seem quite right. especially some parents will report that their child is writing suicidal messages and carving into the bedboard 'i hate myself' and so on and they don't want to take the medication..... yet they have no choice in the matter. that i find worrying.

but i have no children so am unlikely to know the full story. and am always open to being 'put right' - as it were. there is always more than one valid viewpoint.

Great attitude! Well - there's more than ample proof scientifically that ADHD exists. Like anything - they gather a group of people - figure out the common symptoms and rule out other things it could be.

One thing the naysayers either don't understand or refuse to acknowledge is that when a large group of people take anything - you will find people who have adverse affects that don't hit the majority. That's when you see things like suicide, depression, heart failure, etc. Most won't - but if you have tens of millions of people taking something then you get things like this happening. Hell - even tylenol can cause death when taken properly by some - but it's like a miniscule number.

So when a handful of people have heart failures due to the meds - the activists get out and freak everyone out. It's like a thousand or less out of 20 plus million - it works out to something like 0.00005 percent or something. And the ones who don't fit that are not being monitored by their doctors like they are required to be. Most aren't - and they should.

It's like prozac and the "connection" to homicidal behavior. People on prozac: 38 million. Kids who shot up schools while on prozac and the kooks are trying to blame it: 3. Suicides, odd behavior - well it's a big stretch to blame a med on it as all the things they blame the meds on could come from other reasons.

It's all benefit to risk. As long as the benefits outweigh potential risks - then it's a great med. When they found that an arthritis med can cause increase in heart problems they dropped one and restricted the other. Risks ended up outweighing the benefits.

Ignore the callers of wolves. They mean so little to life that they can be brushed aside.

[QUOTE=paritthead]

[/QUOTE]

No argument here!