ADHD, vyvanse, hallucinations, brain itch

[inscribed]

ADHD is a made up disease.

[Dead Voodoo Doll]

Basically' date=' I'm going to lay down the skinny. You're either an idiot or an attention whore.[/quote']

They're good for the laughs. Keep posting brsingr

[Pali]

ADHD is a made up disease.

No, it is not. Nor are depression, anxiety, bipolar disorder, or a host of other mental problems. However, many of them are incredibly over-diagnosed, primarily the first two (ADHD and depression), which leads to serious problems (such as many people not even considering them to be real disorders). I will fully agree that many people will say they have them as an excuse, a way to avoid taking responsibility for just doing dumb ****, but that doesn't change that a fair number of people do legitimately have them. You are not the user of the ultimate computer as Kyzarius said, you ARE that ultimate computer... chemical imbalances and other physical defects in the brain change who you are, quite often for the worse, and often do require actual chemical treatment to compensate for them.

That is not me saying that any actions talked about in this thread necessarily fall under the above. I am not a neurologist, and even if I were there's far too little information posted here for a diagnosis.

[a-guitarist]

The issue is, as Kyz said, that there is no way to prove the chemical imbalances and what not. The odd thing is, is that I see many atheists who dispose the idea of taking things on faith advocating the treatment of disease which are theorized to be caused by "imbalances" which can not be proven or denied, and thusly, must be taken on faith. This is, probably, because it is viewed as a real science.

What should be a large indicator as to Psychiatry being a pseudo-science, as of the current stage of it, is that there is no absolute test to see if you have any of the diseases. Where in most biological ailments you can be tested for to confirm or deny their presence. Psychiatrics is the only arm of health care that fully relies on the "check list to diagnose", while others may follow that branch of finding out, they have other means in which to interpert hard data for factually supported proof of valid treatment.

I am not denying that Psychiatrics and medications for these diseases of the brain have helped, but they've either done no better for those taking them, or hurt, half the time. I harbour the greatest disdain for those who treated me as they did not tell me that theirs was not an exact science, and much of the treatments were (in the grand scheme of things) experimental. There is a vastly larger portion to it (in my case) than I mentioned, but I can not speak about it at this time.

The general issues that I want changed in the treatment of mental illnesses is that it has to be known and made perfectly clear (think Mac OS X idiot proof clear) that these drugs are not proven to work, and that they way they are thought to work isn't even proven. The thought of swallowing a pill a day for life to cure your woes is laughable, as I've never seen it work in any case for these conditions (ADD, ADHD, Schizophrenia (in all it's flavours), Borderline Personality Disorder, OCD, OCPD, and Depression).

What I find, going back through papers I was asked to sign while not in my right mind (due to "symptoms" and medication) I am finding the fine print wherein it says that this is not proven and that there is a large risk of damage. This, no doubt, is used to cover the *** of the health care provider, however... this starts to become corporate molestation of the mind of the sick in order to bolster profits of some company. Had I known that all my treatment (that I was paying for) for eight years was in essence a LARGE research paper, I would have not signed on for it, and neither would a vast majority of the people in the "treatment zone."

ADHD is thrown out as a diagnoses because it's profitable, and in today's service driven economy it is expected that a problem be solved quickly and effectivly for the right amount of cash. This is a good thing, however, not with half cocked ideas on treatment. Now when a parent sees an unruly, bastard of a child, they immediatly throw cause for alarm and get the kid medicated.... without realizing that their father probably just slapped the **** outta them when they did that as a kid. And it usually worked.

It's six thirty in the morning here, and I'm on another crusader rant of the ethical treatment of those with psychiatric conditions and the failure of the parental system in the current world. Yes, folks, it's time for me to log off before I start screaming and waking everyone in my house up. At least I'm sober now.

a-g

[Pali]

The issue is' date=' as Kyz said, that there is no way to prove the chemical imbalances and what not.[/quote']

Which is largely why, as I said, such are incredibly over-diagnosed. It is a result of lazy practice on the part of the doctors involved, who want to be able to say quickly "this is the problem, this should solve it" and move on to the next patient. A person who comes in complaining that they have trouble focusing on things is easy to deal with that way, partly because the placebo effect alone will ensure a certain degree of success regardless of the treatment. I am hardly saying that people should instantly be started on a trial and error course of drugs as the first option... for one, prescribing the wrong drug often causes serious side effects, for two the aforementioned placebo effect, and for three that the brain is not an entirely stagnant organ - neural pathways are constantly being reinforced or weakened by use or neglect respectively, so constantly making the effort to think positively and/or control your behavior actually alters the physical makeup of the brain.

And the constant search for "proof" before accepting a potential cure is foolish. Outside of infectious diseases, certain genetic defects and a few other diseases that can be directly tested for, many diseases cannot be known for certain to be the cause of an illness without invasive surgery. Few doctors are willing to go that route, because it costs the doctor time and the patient a great deal of money and risk. Most diseases are identified by their symptoms, NOT by a direct examination of the cause. It is a question of probabilities... given our current understanding of how the body works, what is most likely to account for the observed symptoms, and what is most likely to be effective in treating that. The inability to accept that uncertainty is our constant companion is one of the greatest weaknesses of the humany psyche. That addition or suppression of known neurotransmitters has a demonstrable (meaning a statistically significant increase over placebo) effect on treating numerous conditions is evidence that these symptoms are a result of the brain not producing enough/producing too many of said neurotransmitters... the same kind of indirect evidence is how we know gravity exists (we cannot see it directly, but we can observe its effects and interactions with us).

P.S. And trust me. Irrational atheists I find far more annoying than you do... they give the rest of us a bad name (do not get me started on alien abduction atheists, or ones who think the world is going to end in 2012 or that Bush planned 9/11).

[a-guitarist]

As we can see how suppression or the reverse of neural transmitters affect symptoms of disease, we can't prove that it is the case by a long shot. We can tell that gravity works, as we can see it work in a vast majority of the cases, and those we can't we can readily explain as to why. However, in all cases we can not prove that Dopamine effects this symptom or Serotonin this.

Now, I know we agree on a lot of points, and the last thing I want is this thread to heat up again, but you're always fun to talk to about things like this, so I'm going to go on with the banner of "No anger, no bad feelings". Further, I dont' know how much we're not parallel on in thought here, but I'm having much fun so I'm going for it.

With the "Check List Diagnosis" being my flag of alarm, it is because there is no other way to diagnose these illnesses. I am fine, when I go to see my doctor and in giving him a list of symptoms being told I have an infection in my salivary glands. He merely touched the afflicted area and listened to my words. After that, I was treated and cured without need of needles, cutting, or MRIs. And I'm fine with that, because I know if something were to change in the next few days I could go back in and get a biopsy or blood work to find out what's going on. And, I didn't have to pay the twenty five hundred for an MRI, or the fifteen hundred for a biopsy.

When it comes to the matters of the mind or brain, it doesn't make sense to call something a cure, or even a treatment, when you know that it does not work in all cases, or even a majority (my numbers and yours will be different on what constitutes effective treatment of the majority). And then when the treatment for diseases are drugs that remap how the brain works (changes levels of chemicals that drastically alter things from Mood to movement, modify domestic chemical production of unrelated functions, and how the brain actually looks) without knowing if the treatment is even working as believed to, it multiplies my confusion as to it's morality.

The ethical treatment of Patients is always a concern for doctors. But what I don't understand is how giving a patient a pill that will remove certain, basic human functions in hopes of destroying, masking, or suppressing atypical brain processes is ethical in the least. If a doctor has to cut off a patients leg to prevent death, that is fine as they know what caused it and they know that cutting the leg will stop death. If they are not sure it will stop death, but they are sure there is no other way currently, then I am fine with it (but to a lesser degree.)

But in the case with many of the people on these types of drugs, death is not a condition usually accompanying the symptoms. And when almost every drug on the market has a side effect of "increased risk of suicide", I don't see how it even helps when death is a very real end point on the chopping block. The line of thought that if you don't think like the rest of the world you are damage has always been one of contention in my head, but what makes me a little more ponderous is the one that people who are in their own world are actually suffering. We bend out society to help the mentally disabled work in the real world, as in cases of Autism, Downs Syndrome, and so on, but we do not force feed these people medications in hopes of making them less unruly (there may be cases that I'm not aware of).

But as soon as we see someone talking to a person who isn't there we ram a bottle of pills down their mouth. And it's because we are scared. I can't tell you how scary it was when I got to have a chat with a woman throwing her arms around violently and talking in strange riddles (that I'm not sure made sense to even her), but after I got to realize her methods and movements, she was of no threat. Don't even get me started on determining that those with mental illness has increased risk of hurting others. There is absolutely no good proof for this, aside form some jackass who knew someone that had a brother who's girlfriend stopped taking her pills and totally stabbed their cousin's best friend's dog. Like, really man, I almost saw it, pulled into the driveway a few days too late.

I've read the reports on illness/injury/crime/etc. I've lived them. I don't find them intelligently designed or carried out in precedent. Until someone does the study right, I can't follow their logic.

As for atheists (irrational or not), I was one for a long time. And I'm no where near religious in my life currently. I have my beliefs, but I can attest to the angle of all. But I just can't stand double standards (and I do not accuse you of holding such). As for the rest... I know Bush didn't plan 9/11, and where I can grasp the idea that aliens exist, I don't think we've been abducted, but I'm not sure of is if Bush spent the time everyone thinks he did planning 9/11 planning 2012. If there was an Antichrist, he'd be as good as the next guy.

a-g

[Telufial]

But bush did plan 9/11, and the world is probably going to end in 2012... heh.

[inscribed]

i've never seen a kid diagnosed with ADHD who also had decent parents. correlation or causation?

p.s. i worked in a elementary/middle school for 3 years

[Twinblades713]

i've never seen a kid diagnosed with ADHD who also had decent parents. correlation or causation?

p.s. i worked in a elementary/middle school for 3 years

My parents are two of the best people in the world and I was diagnosed with adhd. I just don't preach it cause I basically thought to myself **** that. I'm not gonna eat that label, that doctor can suck it.

[Pali]

i've never seen a kid diagnosed with ADHD who also had decent parents. correlation or causation?

p.s. i worked in a elementary/middle school for 3 years

Correlation, for a large part because it's anecdotal. I HAVE met ADHD people who had great parents. However, even if this were not the case, trauma during childhood can affect the development of the brain. Just because the cause is bad parenting instead of bad genetics doesn't stop the symptoms from needing treatment.

When it comes to the matters of the mind or brain' date=' it doesn't make sense to call something a cure, or even a treatment, when you know that it does not work in all cases, or even a majority (my numbers and yours will be different on what constitutes effective treatment of the majority).[/quote']

This is also true of most cancer, AIDS, and many other chronic disease prescriptions (no drug has an efficacy of 100%). Would you also dispute them being labeled as treatments?

However, in all cases we can not prove that Dopamine effects this symptom or Serotonin this.

In all cases we cannot prove that Tylenol will lower pain or swelling, but it's still used plenty for both (yes, I am aware that it has a higher efficacy and fewer negative side effects than the drugs we are talking about, but it suits my point). Now, I'm hardly saying that a drug cocktail should necessarily be the doctor's first treatment of choice here... as you mentioned, many of said drugs have negative side effects and can cause more problems than they would solve when administered for the wrong thing. Therapy would often be the better choice... except that it comes with the negative side effects of money and time being required for it, as well as the risks of a bad therapist (who can make things worse just as much as the wrong drugs can), or the patient not being willing to actually go see one (which, in effect, means no treatment is happening). In many cases, the drugs are more convenient, and their effectiveness can still be judged on the individual basis (drug A is having no positive effect, so treatment is discontinued and drug B is attempted, and so on).

With the "Check List Diagnosis" being my flag of alarm, it is because there is no other way to diagnose these illnesses. I am fine, when I go to see my doctor and in giving him a list of symptoms being told I have an infection in my salivary glands. He merely touched the afflicted area and listened to my words. After that, I was treated and cured without need of needles, cutting, or MRIs. And I'm fine with that, because I know if something were to change in the next few days I could go back in and get a biopsy or blood work to find out what's going on. And, I didn't have to pay the twenty five hundred for an MRI, or the fifteen hundred for a biopsy.

The problem here is that for brain problems, as you say, there isn't an option of an MRI or biopsy being used to confirm things. So let's remove them from the table for a little thought experiment... for our purposes, these things do not exist. You have a swollen gland near the jaw. There are a number of possible causes for this... hormone imbalances, infection, and allergic reaction are the most likely. Now, given our current state of medical knowledge, the doctor can make a guess as to which is most likely given your symptoms (in this case, let's say he says infection's most likely). He then prescribes antibiotics to treat that, knowing that a person on antibiotics when they don't need to be can suffer negative side effects and possibly they'll just make you sicker (there are millions of bacteria in your system that you depend on for your body to keep working properly, and antibiotics kill pretty indiscriminately... that's why they often cause nausea). Is he not justified in giving this diagnosis and prescription?

Now, the antibiotics don't work. So he can rule out bacterial infection (antibiotics do nothing to viruses) as the problem and attempt a new treatment. This time he gives you antihistamines to attempt to treat it as an allergic reaction, because that is judged to be the next most likely thing. Is he not justified in doing this? He's giving you the best treatment he can for what is most likely to be the cause based on our current level of medical knowledge. This doesn't mean that the cause of your illness IS infection or allergies... it means that those are understood to be likely causes, and as there is no way to confirm the best he can do is prescribe a treatment and hope it works. If the antihistamines don't work, then he can cross off allergic reactions and start attempting antiviral drugs, and if those don't work then he'll start attempting hormones, and if those don't work he'll start looking for less likely causes of the swollen glands (maybe an insect laid a bunch of eggs under your skin while you slept and the antibiotics weren't of use against it).

This is very much the way things go with mental illnesses. We simply do not have the technology to scan the brain and determine for sure that there certainly is a shortage of this specific neurotransmitter that requires a boost. There is no way to make an exact diagnosis here, any more than there would be for your swollen glands prior to MRIs and biopsies. All that can be done is to judge the symptoms, figure out what we understand to be the most likely cause, and attempt to treat that and see if it works. Yes, it isn't ideal. Yes, there are risks. But for now, it is all that can be done.

[Kyzarius]

now dont neglect to notice that i said that some people do have legitimate disorders while most however just need to grow a pair and take control of their own lives.

I am an individual that when I went to my DR to talk about having trouble sleeping I refused to be prescribed some knock-yer-***-out drug and opted to research dietary changes and mental exercises that could (and did) solve the problem.

[mya]

dietary changes and mental exercises

Mind sharing what worked for you ?

I had a few problems in the past sleeping due to work related stress.

[Kyzarius]

well simple things like not eating right before bed and activly closing your day so you dont go to bed pondering work and other stressful things in your life.

best to google it and read some articles.

[a-guitarist]

This is also true of most cancer' date=' AIDS, and many other chronic disease prescriptions (no drug has an efficacy of 100%). Would you also dispute them being labeled as treatments?[/quote']

These are chronic conditions and can not get better in many of the cases you've put up. No cure aids, some cancers are terminal, autoimmune diseases such as lupus, etc. it is simply a case of making the patient comfortable. If someone is going to die, then you are duty bound to relieve pain as best you can, or if there is no cure and it's pain management, then you've got a different course of action. However in mental illnesses there is no outcome off death (in the biological sense, no hallucination is going to 'cause the brian to stop working. A related heart attack due to stress being not an exact case.)

If the anti-inflamitories for Lupus caused heart failure rates to drop, like atypical antipsychotics (New England Journal of Medicine today, oddly enough), then I would have the same issue. But here is the largest problem I have with the current treatment of these disorders. Aside from them having a success rate, if the patient decides to not take them they can be forced to be medicated. If a cancer patient decides to not take the treatment, they are allowed such. If a child with ADHD, a person with Schizophrenia or depression does not wish the treatment, they have a very real chance of having it forced on them.

The problem is, even with the proven record of these drugs, the published risks of heart failure, neurological disorders, blood issues related to treatment (thickening of the blood), diabetus, etc. the patient should have 100% right opt out of treatment in every case. Mental illnesses are not contagious, so no one is at risk of getting them. A person with AIDs can trasmit the disease, but has the ability to not take their pills should they decide and only forced into a place of not being able to infect another if they've attempted to. One may claim that it is in the mentally ill's best interst they take their meds, and that they are not of the right mind if they don't, but what does it speak to the person that would rather die painfully over painfree or lessened pain.

It is very true that we have no idea how exactly how Tylenol, and many other drugs, work. But they've had many years of testing, or many years in the public flow in where the effects are known. Quinine being one such. Drugs such as Cocaine started with medical uses, but after long enough in the public it became obvious of the damage it did and was thusly removed. Had Tylenol been shown to do more harm than good, it would have been removed from legal circulation.

And you are right on the money with drugs not being the primary course for treatment. In almost every case of mental illness, treatments such as talk-therapy, DBT and other Cognitive Therapies have a far greater success rate. I've recently gotten a list of all my prescriptions I've taken, and the cost. One months supply of one neuroleptic medication cost over $1,500. Add in the odds of another drug being added to treatment (usually the case), you can double that number quickly. In my case I was spending on average over $4,000 a month (which is a typical case). The problem woudln't be as great, pricewise, if the patents on these drugs were not held for so long, and cheaper, generics could be made available. But, we can't change the capitalistic system based on how it hurts a minority of the population, and I do not fault doctors or procedure for this. Just more of a lament.

In many cases, though, MRI's are options for tracking down some diseases. Schizophrenia, for example, has been proven to cause "holes" in the brains of many of those afflicted. Now, this isn't all cases, but if the ability of a pill to work is acceptible in 25% of the cases (with the addition of the other pills bringing it higher), a majority of Schizophrenics having the same "holes" is a good indicator.

I'm going to say your antibiotic argument is flawed, as the negative side effects are not on the same scale as the pills used in mental health. Another problem with it, is that at any point the doctor could have taken a sample of discharge from the area, taken a withdrawl of fluids, done blood work to test for infection, viruses, etc. The constant firing off of treatment is costing the patient money, and time, and health. An indiscriminate firebombing of pills is malpractice.

And I don't deny that there needs to be some sort of treatment for those in pain, but it should be the most effective treatment, and baring that, the treatment that causes the least amount of damage.

a-g

[f0xx]

Mind sharing what worked for you ?

I had a few problems in the past sleeping due to work related stress.

As K said, it is quite good for your health if you don't eat before going to bed, I personally do not eat after 6 PM.

Going to the gym/fitness 3-4 times a week is also a good way to let some steam out besides it makes you feel great afterwards.

[Twinblades713]

And also asphyxiation.

[Pali]

These are chronic conditions and can not get better in many of the cases you've put up.

Also true of many mental illnesses... they can be controlled, but not cured.

If the anti-inflamitories for Lupus caused heart failure rates to drop, like atypical antipsychotics (New England Journal of Medicine today, oddly enough), then I would have the same issue. But here is the largest problem I have with the current treatment of these disorders. Aside from them having a success rate, if the patient decides to not take them they can be forced to be medicated. If a cancer patient decides to not take the treatment, they are allowed such. If a child with ADHD, a person with Schizophrenia or depression does not wish the treatment, they have a very real chance of having it forced on them.

Now we're going into an entirely different area here. I agree that in the vast majority of cases, the patient should not have such treatments forced upon them (the exception being if they have already proven through their actions to be a threat to others... in my opinion, they should have the right to be a threat to themselves). In the case of children it's a little more complicated, as children do not understand the consequences of refusing treatment... I'd say leave it to the parents to make that choice, but so many parents are so freaking stupid that I really don't want to do that either.

The problem is, even with the proven record of these drugs, the published risks of heart failure, neurological disorders, blood issues related to treatment (thickening of the blood), diabetus, etc. the patient should have 100% right opt out of treatment in every case. Mental illnesses are not contagious, so no one is at risk of getting them. A person with AIDs can trasmit the disease, but has the ability to not take their pills should they decide and only forced into a place of not being able to infect another if they've attempted to. One may claim that it is in the mentally ill's best interst they take their meds, and that they are not of the right mind if they don't, but what does it speak to the person that would rather die painfully over painfree or lessened pain.

Agreed 100%. Informed consent should be required unless the person has shown themselves to be a threat to others. The idea that the state, or the hospital, should make people's choices for them is one I am wholeheartedly against.

It is very true that we have no idea how exactly how Tylenol, and many other drugs, work. But they've had many years of testing, or many years in the public flow in where the effects are known. Quinine being one such. Drugs such as Cocaine started with medical uses, but after long enough in the public it became obvious of the damage it did and was thusly removed. Had Tylenol been shown to do more harm than good, it would have been removed from legal circulation.

It isn't like psychoactives don't get testing before they start getting prescribed, you know. That's how we know the side effects, the approximate risk factors, and how effective they are at treating certain symptoms.

And you are right on the money with drugs not being the primary course for treatment. In almost every case of mental illness, treatments such as talk-therapy, DBT and other Cognitive Therapies have a far greater success rate. I've recently gotten a list of all my prescriptions I've taken, and the cost. One months supply of one neuroleptic medication cost over $1,500. Add in the odds of another drug being added to treatment (usually the case), you can double that number quickly. In my case I was spending on average over $4,000 a month (which is a typical case). The problem woudln't be as great, pricewise, if the patents on these drugs were not held for so long, and cheaper, generics could be made available. But, we can't change the capitalistic system based on how it hurts a minority of the population, and I do not fault doctors or procedure for this. Just more of a lament.

The pharmacological system is certainly broken with regards to costs. You will find no argument from me there.

In many cases, though, MRI's are options for tracking down some diseases. Schizophrenia, for example, has been proven to cause "holes" in the brains of many of those afflicted. Now, this isn't all cases, but if the ability of a pill to work is acceptible in 25% of the cases (with the addition of the other pills bringing it higher), a majority of Schizophrenics having the same "holes" is a good indicator.

Again, you're bringing in conditions that had until now been outside the scope of our discussion. ADHD and depression are very, very different conditions than schizophrenia.

I'm going to say your antibiotic argument is flawed, as the negative side effects are not on the same scale as the pills used in mental health. Another problem with it, is that at any point the doctor could have taken a sample of discharge from the area, taken a withdrawl of fluids, done blood work to test for infection, viruses, etc. The constant firing off of treatment is costing the patient money, and time, and health. An indiscriminate firebombing of pills is malpractice.

You missed my point. I'm asking you to consider the hypothetical that your condition is in no way testable. There are no blood tests to check for infection, no MRIs or biopsies for examination of the gland to examine the source. In such a case, I'm asking if the doctor is justified in taking what knowledge he does have (namely, the symptoms) and making a diagnosis based on our knowledge of what is most likely to cause those symptoms and making a prescription based on what is understood to be most likely to fight that diagnosed illness. It's not indiscriminate firebombing, it is going down the list, one at a time and picking what is at each step of the way the best prognosis given the limited information available. I am saying this is analogous to how mental illnesses are treated, as most cannot be directly tested for and are identified through their symptoms. Should a patient be started off on a dozen different meds for the hope that one of them will fix them? No, not at all. But attempting one, then if it unsuccessful another, and so on is simply the best course of treatment available. Again, it is far from ideal, but it is all we've got.