What did you do before you had meds?

["couldbecousin"]

The kind in Breaking Bad.

I never watched the show, but I googled it and evidentially the show made it hip and trendy to put blue in real meth. 

  I wonder if Jesse Pinkman's earlier recipe inspired anyone to add "chili P." 

[odeon]

Disease?

Sorry, i'm worn down, definitely the wrong word   

I'm pretty skeptical about 'ADHD' though, or 'ODD'.  The health service here definitely hands out drugs way too easily, let alone how it is in the US.

They don't hand them out as easily here, it would seem. I've had trouble with some doctors not wanting to prescribe them to me.

The problem here seems to be that people equate ADHD meds with drugs, which they aren't.

That's a good thing, they should be the last resort.  I think if you've tried every other option and literally cannot cope, then you shouldn't be made to wait. 

A different type of drug i'd say.

Would you have diabetics test every other option before giving them insulin?

The medical industry knows far more about diabetes and insulin, than it does with mental illness and 'anti-depressants'.

So the criterion for handing out meds that are known to work is that you have to know how they work? And since when are we discussing mental illnesses and antidepressants? Moving the goalposts much?

You were the one who brought up diabetes, when we were discussing 'ADHD'!!   

"So the criterion for handing out meds that are known to work is that you have to know how they work?"  That would kind of help.  Especially when it's regarding a 'condition' we don't know much about or if it even exists.

ADHD is not a mental illness and we were not discussing antidepressants. It's obvious that you don't believe the condition exists, but it's to be expected. You are the village idiot and expected to act like one. A bit of target practice but not something I'd have a serious discussion with. That bit is best left to the grown-ups.

As an aside, there are quite a few meds out there given to people because they do work, but where the how is still unknown or debated. These include both new meds and existing ones, like those with an accepted off-label use. Google is your friend.

I never said it was a mental illness.  I called it an alleged "disease", but admitted it was the wrong word to use.  We weren't discussing diabetes either, but you felt like bringing it in out of nowhere and are oblivious to your hypocrisy.  You're acting like a child right now, trying to exclude opinions you disagree with, and resorting to insults because you cannot stick to the discussion, so in fact it is you who isn't capable of serious discussion.  Your stance is that you must believe exactly what we are told and take the drugs we are told to take for conditions etc that we don't even know exist.  Totalitarian states love people like that. 

Placebos have worked in some cases.  You do understand how important it is to be skeptical about medication and alleged illnesses when big drug companies are so corrupted and profit orientated?

Actually I use insults because you produce stupid posts. It's clear that you have no clue whatsoever. You move goalposts, you admit the use of the wrong word only to use another that is just as bad, you misquote, you mischaracterise and you misunderstand, yet you keep on posting your drivel without a second thought. You say "we" when you should only talk for yourself, considering how several of us rely on meds for conditions you imply don't even exist.

In so many words, I don't suffer fools but I sure love to see them suffer.

[WolFish]

I do wish we could have a serious discussion about this because the truth is that for some, placebos will work, but not because illnesses are invented or fake. There are all kinds of third variables like oxytocin, which makes it seem like a placebo works, but actually it's the attention the individual is receiving.

There is skepticism about big pharma, and then there is the guy who was funded by anti-pharma lawyers to do research that resulted in parents withholding vaccines from their children and a subsequent resurgence of childhood diseases.

My mother's skepticism about doctors and medications led to my not being treated for ADHD long enough that I've lost many opportunities to be a fully functioning member of society.

There is such a thing as a healthy skepticism that leads us to do research about what we're doing and take the least harmful, most effective route to success. There is also the issue of acceptable risk. That, however, is a whole other can of worms.

That said, success is differently defined in different places. Here in Canada, my doctors do not intervene even though I am at a lower level of functioning than would be acceptable in the U.S. This is doing damage to my body, but they don't have the foresight to understand this.

["couldbecousin"]

I do wish we could have a serious discussion about this because the truth is that for some, placebos will work, but not because illnesses are invented or fake. There are all kinds of third variables like oxytocin, which makes it seem like a placebo works, but actually it's the attention the individual is receiving.

  Thank you for this.  A friend of mine is skeptical about psych meds, partly because his parents
  took his younger brother to a doctor to be evaluated for possible ADHD (I think this was a pediatrician,
  not a psychiatrist), and the doc gave the boy "meds" which supposedly improved his behavior despite
  the fact that they were placebos.  I don't know what the point of this experiment was, if this pediatrician
  was one of the many doctors who "don't believe in" ADHD, but as a result, my friend now mistrusts
  psych meds in general and thinks they're all a scam.  Maybe it was indeed the attention being paid to his
  problems that helped this boy.  Anyway, my response to my own meds was immediate and continues
  to be beneficial, so I will continue using them.  I'm sorry your doctors don't take you seriously. 

[odeon]

I do wish we could have a serious discussion about this because the truth is that for some, placebos will work, but not because illnesses are invented or fake. There are all kinds of third variables like oxytocin, which makes it seem like a placebo works, but actually it's the attention the individual is receiving.

There is skepticism about big pharma, and then there is the guy who was funded by anti-pharma lawyers to do research that resulted in parents withholding vaccines from their children and a subsequent resurgence of childhood diseases.

My mother's skepticism about doctors and medications led to my not being treated for ADHD long enough that I've lost many opportunities to be a fully functioning member of society.

There is such a thing as a healthy skepticism that leads us to do research about what we're doing and take the least harmful, most effective route to success. There is also the issue of acceptable risk. That, however, is a whole other can of worms.

That said, success is differently defined in different places. Here in Canada, my doctors do not intervene even though I am at a lower level of functioning than would be acceptable in the U.S. This is doing damage to my body, but they don't have the foresight to understand this.

Agreed. We should have a serious discussion about this.

I'm betting that we don't yet know the true nature of ADD and friends. We don't know if it is one condition or several, if it actually is a comorbid of other conditions, if it's a spectrum of its own or part of another. We don't know.

We, as in those of us who are willing to discuss it without starting off by dismissing it as invented.

The first time I tried Concerta was an eye-opener. I had no idea my brain was all over the place until it stopped doing it for a few hours and allowed me to focus. The calm I experienced was amazing, and even more so because I had no idea what calm was.

Yet I'm essentially subclinical. I didn't meet all the criteria for ADHD. My doctor simply thought that I would benefit from the meds and he was right. I was lucky.

And at the same time, I can't help but wonder how much better I could have fared if I'd had the meds in my teens.

['andersom']

Two of my brothers got a kind of amphetamine as a kid to help them through learning difficulties. Especially for my younger brother the effect was massive. But he also got prismatic glasses, sensomotoric training, and our house was changed into a reading boot camp.
Funny how the meds had to be ordered. In those days amphetamines were treated as very dangerous hard drugs. The apothecary was not allowed to keep it in store for a few days. It had to be ordered and picked up the same day.

Both never used the meds again later in life. My youngest brother is very organised. But the meds helped him change from a technically as good as illiterate kid at age 11 to a very dyslectic kid at age 12.

[WolFish]

One of the other points of the argument that we miss (and keep missing) is that everyone is different. My brain doesn't get fixed. I was hoping because my psychiatrist told me that sometimes meds change the brain so that meds are no longer needed. He had clients who were able to stop taking meds when they got to high school or college.

As for me, without meds, by the time I was an adult I had very rigid systems in place to manage the ADHD symptoms. By the time I met my ex, they were extensive, yet they only took the edge off. I was able to develop these because my IQ is higher than average - and for the same reason, I was not diagnosed even though my parents took me to social workers and psychiatrists. To this day, because I have a PhD people don't believe that I could have any issues. My ex disrupted those systems and I have not recovered. I have only a few in place now. Although she is a licensed psychologist, my ex believed that I was being lazy and that I had a poor memory.

When I met Py she was skeptical of meds and she too thought that ADHD was the result of laziness. But she's been through two periods of me without any meds at all. Ask her now.

People who don't believe in things like ADHD have never been around someone who really suffers from it. BUT - the problem with this is that if they are exposed to such people, those people become the criteria for diagnosis and someone like odeon is dismissed because his symptoms are subclinical.

So I think part of this boils down to rights. Do we have a right to be high functioning? Clearly people who are against treating subclinical symptoms with medication would say no - take some counseling and call me in five years. It's an interesting dilemma - who knows what we're missing by refusing to treat people who want to achieve? One thing we'd be missing is this place.

[odeon]

I think we do have the right to be high-functioning. I certainly hope we do because it makes sense if we buy all that other nonsense about everyone being born equal and whatnot, and it's part of what makes me not want to tolerate someone like Benji, because that is what he is saying, isn't it? We don't have that right because people think we are faking all this shit. And I guess that must mean I'm not faking it all that well either.

['andersom']

I am probably subclinical like Odeon. I asked for testing on AD(H)D. First time I asked I was referred to a very chaotic lady, she forgot appointments and was all over the place. She also was very much against meds. She was willing to test me, but never managed to do that. She was so chaotic they had to sack her. Then I got referred to someone knowing what he was doing. He did not get me tested for AD(H)D. He said he was part of the group not diagnosing it next to ASD. But that did not mean he did not take my issues serious. So, he referred me to a doctor to find medication that could help me.

Before people had wanted me on anti-depressants, on wellbutrin, on other stuff, all kinds of things that scared me and made me think it was not right for me.

A low dosage of methylphenidate helps me. I do not like the side-effects of being too organised in my head, so I use it a few weeks in a row, till things are stabilised enough again to keep going without for a while.

It does make a difference for me. And others can tell when I forget to take the afternoon dosage.

[odeon]

The only reason I was tested was because it was part of the ASD evaluation. It was not something I asked for or even thought about.

[WolFish]

To this day no one believes I should be tested.
The psychiatrist I saw listened to my symptoms and probably my incessant speedy talking and tried me on Wellbutrin. After that didn't work we went to methylphenidate with me insisting on the lowest dose because I didn't need it (really). Ended up on a prodigious amount. Asked him about ASD but he said he wasn't sure about it as his expertise was ADHD and serious mental illness.

[renaeden]

I was lucky, my GP believed me when I said I was having problems. He did a mini ADHD questionnaire on me and I answered yes to all the inattentive questions. I had never experienced anything like that before.

At that time (2004), my doctor referred me to a psychiatrist and also to have a SPECT scan. This was using the Dr Amen method of diagnosis which a lot of people think is rubbish but oh well. Anyway, I was put on meds and suddenly found it was easier to concentrate while driving and my supervisor at work complimented me on improved performance (he had before accused me of being on drugs before because I was so spacey).

About a year later I got my autism dx. At that time it was one dx or the other as primary dx according to the DSM. But now it says in the DSM 5 both dxes can exist together.

[benjimanbreeg]

Disease?

Sorry, i'm worn down, definitely the wrong word   

I'm pretty skeptical about 'ADHD' though, or 'ODD'.  The health service here definitely hands out drugs way too easily, let alone how it is in the US.

They don't hand them out as easily here, it would seem. I've had trouble with some doctors not wanting to prescribe them to me.

The problem here seems to be that people equate ADHD meds with drugs, which they aren't.

That's a good thing, they should be the last resort.  I think if you've tried every other option and literally cannot cope, then you shouldn't be made to wait. 

A different type of drug i'd say.

Would you have diabetics test every other option before giving them insulin?

The medical industry knows far more about diabetes and insulin, than it does with mental illness and 'anti-depressants'.

So the criterion for handing out meds that are known to work is that you have to know how they work? And since when are we discussing mental illnesses and antidepressants? Moving the goalposts much?

You were the one who brought up diabetes, when we were discussing 'ADHD'!!   

"So the criterion for handing out meds that are known to work is that you have to know how they work?"  That would kind of help.  Especially when it's regarding a 'condition' we don't know much about or if it even exists.

ADHD is not a mental illness and we were not discussing antidepressants. It's obvious that you don't believe the condition exists, but it's to be expected. You are the village idiot and expected to act like one. A bit of target practice but not something I'd have a serious discussion with. That bit is best left to the grown-ups.

As an aside, there are quite a few meds out there given to people because they do work, but where the how is still unknown or debated. These include both new meds and existing ones, like those with an accepted off-label use. Google is your friend.

I never said it was a mental illness.  I called it an alleged "disease", but admitted it was the wrong word to use.  We weren't discussing diabetes either, but you felt like bringing it in out of nowhere and are oblivious to your hypocrisy.  You're acting like a child right now, trying to exclude opinions you disagree with, and resorting to insults because you cannot stick to the discussion, so in fact it is you who isn't capable of serious discussion.  Your stance is that you must believe exactly what we are told and take the drugs we are told to take for conditions etc that we don't even know exist.  Totalitarian states love people like that. 

Placebos have worked in some cases.  You do understand how important it is to be skeptical about medication and alleged illnesses when big drug companies are so corrupted and profit orientated?

Actually I use insults because you produce stupid posts. It's clear that you have no clue whatsoever. You move goalposts, you admit the use of the wrong word only to use another that is just as bad, you misquote, you mischaracterise and you misunderstand, yet you keep on posting your drivel without a second thought. You say "we" when you should only talk for yourself, considering how several of us rely on meds for conditions you imply don't even exist.

In so many words, I don't suffer fools but I sure love to see them suffer.

You mean you disagree with me?  You mean I make mistakes? (the only difference being is that I admit them).  See, this is your problem, I haven't 'implied' anything.  Dust the sand out of your vagina and just stick to a serious a discussion, if you're not capable of it, then don't bother addressing me. 

[benjimanbreeg]

I think we do have the right to be high-functioning. I certainly hope we do because it makes sense if we buy all that other nonsense about everyone being born equal and whatnot, and it's part of what makes me not want to tolerate someone like Benji, because that is what he is saying, isn't it? We don't have that right because people think we are faking all this shit. And I guess that must mean I'm not faking it all that well either.

You think in extremes.  I never said everyone was born equal, or that people are faking it.  You're taking stuff personally, and you're misunderstanding my points.  I was saying that we don't know enough about the alleged conditions (as in, the label, and not that the person doesn't have a problem) or the treatments. 

[WolFish]

I think we do have the right to be high-functioning. I certainly hope we do because it makes sense if we buy all that other nonsense about everyone being born equal and whatnot, and it's part of what makes me not want to tolerate someone like Benji, because that is what he is saying, isn't it? We don't have that right because people think we are faking all this shit. And I guess that must mean I'm not faking it all that well either.

You think in extremes.  I never said everyone was born equal, or that people are faking it.  You're taking stuff personally, and you're misunderstanding my points.  I was saying that we don't know enough about the alleged conditions (as in, the label, and not that the person doesn't have a problem) or the treatments.

But the same holds true for many natural treatments and conditions that are not understood. For example, it was not known until recently that St. John's Wort reduces the effect of the anticoagulant Coumarin, or that grapefruit juice could interfere with your allergy or pain medicine.

If we continue to use diabetes as an example, then we can say that before we knew about insulin and how blood sugar worked, the symptoms in some cases were considered to be fabricated/laziness or the individual was diagnosed with something that required treatment with, say, leeches, or further back in history, things like urine or human blood.

While it's true that we don't know everything about ADHD and about the medicines that treat it, we can alleviate pain with what we know. When you say we don't know enough, you say that the years of scientific testing are not valid, that something more is needed. "Enough" is arbitrary. If "we" is a body of experts then I am willing to hear what is their standard. We (meaning psychologists, psychiatrists and researchers) actually know a lot about the chemistry involved in ADHD and its treatments. A point for your side is the current introduction of brain plasticity into the mix. We certainly don't know "enough" about brain plasticity, which is why its use with ADHD is limited at this time. I am hoping for fast development of this alternative since I hate taking meds.

I dislike labels as much as the next person who's covered in them, but they are useful. They are useful to me (as a psychologist) as heuristics for constellations of conditions that otherwise might require too much decoding time. It gives me a place  to start. We find each other and our remedies with labels. I agree that the labels are often misused, but that doesn't mean they don't have meaning for those for whom they are appropriate.