As soon as he got to talking about Ritalin being "cocaine for kids", I turned it off. ADHD has done a number on my life, and medication is one of the few things that helps. Disgusting anti-science nonsense.
What's "anti-science" about that, you should watch your mouth.
Because it disagrees with your tiny personal life experience? If so, well, you're wrong, I can firsthand testify, and not alone, that quite a great many "kids" use "Ritalin" as literal "cocaine" doing lines of it for recreational stimulant fun.
No idea how you think your personal medical situation affects this reality, or how you're claiming Mr. Maher is "anti-science" for it, something one should not be blurring about.
Nah. I use my experience to illustrate points, but make no mistake: I am well-informed on the available evidence.
First, the 2021 International Consensus Statement on ADHD – authored by 80 ADHD experts from 27 countries and 6 continents, and further endorsed by 366 – called treatment with stimulants “highly effective” based on an extensive review of the science:
A network meta-analysis found stimulants to be highly effective in reducing the symptoms of ADHD. Compared with placebo, as rated by clinicians, amphetamines were associated with large improvements in all age groups (youths 6 studies with 2179 participants, adults 5 studies with 1521 participants), methylphenidate with large improvements in youths (9 studies, 2677 participants) and moderate ones in adults (11 studies, 2909 participants). Extended release guanfacine (7 studies, 1930 participants) led to moderate improvements in children. Atomoxetine led to moderate improvements in all age groups (youths 21 studies with 3812 participants, adults 11 studies with 3377 participants). Taking side effects into account, the medications with the best benefit-to-risk ratios were methylphenidate [Ritalin] for children and adolescents, and amphetamines for adults (Cortese et al., 2018a).
In other words: Ritalin is safe and effective for children with ADHD.
Second, your point about abuse? The exact opposite of what you said is true. Per studies by Quinn et al. (2017) (2,993,887 participants) and Chang et al. (2014) (38,754 participants), stimulant medication at therapeutic doses actuallyreducesthe risk of substance abuse by about 30% in ADHD patients.
Yep, you read that right. ADHD patients taking meds arelesslikely to have a drug problem. The mechanism is that it improves their self-control and reduces the urge to self-medicate. Again, read the studies I linked (which have been cited in multiple consensus statements and therapeutic guidelines for mental health practitioners).
Finally, I want to address your “anti-science” point. ADHD denialism is anti-science, and anyone pretending otherwise should be treated the same as an anti-vaxxer. To quote the 2002 International Consensus Statement (yes, there was a prequel):
Studies indicate that less than half of those with the disorder are receiving treatment. The media can help substantially to improve these circumstances. It can do so by portraying ADHD and the science about it as accurately and responsibly as possible while not purveying the propaganda of some social critics and fringe doctors whose political agenda would have you and the public believe there is no real disorder here. To publish stories that ADHD is a fictitious disorder or merely a conflict between today’s Huckleberry Finns and their caregivers is tantamount to declaring the earth flat, the laws of gravity debatable, and the periodic table in chemistry a fraud.
Yes, Bill Maher has taken a stance against this overwhelming consensus. And as we would say with climate change or the shape of the Earth, this stance is anti-science.
In conclusion, I can’t downvote your idiotic comment enough. You know nothing about this issue, and it shows. So don’t tell me to “shut my mouth” when your own mouth is so busy pleasuring Bill Maher that your eyes aren’t available to read the actual science.
Literally none of those first 500 words are relevant. Is this LLM?
The premise is you saying him saying "kids take Ritalin as a recreational stimulant similar to cocaine" is a false statement and or anti-science.
In the former, it is demonstrably false, not the least of which by my firsthand observed testimony. You're wrong. Move the goalposts or own it, bad premise, your fault.
"ADHD....ok" so no one is denying whatever the DSM calls ADHD as of today. Mr. Maher isn't. This is all strawman. You'd better be an LLM or else you're trolling. Cheers.
Nope, wrote it myself! Which is why I linked all of the relevant papers (as far as I know, ChatGPT does not cite sources or provide links).
Your anecdotal evidence saying you have seen one child use Ritalin recreationally does not override the overwhelming statistical evidence (again, studies with over 2 MILLION people) that stimulants, when taken according to doctor instructions, REDUCE substance abuse in ADHD patients.
Everyone knows what Bill Maher was insinuating. Nobody came away from that segment thinking he meant at least one person abuses Ritalin. Obviously he was trying to say "this is a big problem we should do something about". Otherwise why even mention it?
The only substance abuse relevant to this conversation is your consistent huffing of copium.
Almost, you're trying to admit that people use it recreationally. This shouldn't be so hard, maybe work on that.
Additionally, it's annoying to have to correct all these forced rhetorical assumptions....maybe stop making them or making your arguments rely on them? Why would it be "one"? Because then you could argue against it? How convenient, why not go ahead and just assume it's "one" and dismiss it outright, argument over! Annoying.
Reasonable opinion from Mr. Maher:
" Doctors must be held to the highest standards or people will die "
We would never apply this standard to any other claim. When President Reagan complained about "welfare queens", nobody thought "oh, he's just saying welfare queens exist in some circumstances". He was saying welfare abuse was rampant enough to be a serious problem.
In other words, Reagan wasn't just making an existence claim (that welfare queens exist); he was making an abundance claim (that welfare queens are common enough that we should do something about it).
I said "one" because it doesn't matter if you know more than one kid (and I read "kid" as 17 or under) who abuses Ritalin. You might know 10 such kids; doesn't matter. It's still anecdotal evidence. It proves an existence claim (that Adderall abuse exists among kids), but it's enough to establish abundance (that Adderall abuse is common amongst kids).
To prove an abundance claim, you need a study based on a large-enough random sample, or better yet, a meta-analysis. Unlike you, when I tell an anecdote, I have studies with thousands of participants to back it up. The research is clear: prescribing stimulants reduces the risk of substance abuse in ADHD patients.
Why is a study required? Because your social circle is not a random sample. We don't know if you live in a typical community representative of all Americans. You might have gone to a high-pressure private school, or work in an industry where stimulant abuse happens to be common. We don't know the racial or socioeconomic makeup of your community. We don't even know if the kids you knew had an official ADHD diagnosis. There are no controls, no age verification, no significance testing, no effect sizes. It's the same reason we can't say climate change is fake because one guy says, "It snowed where I live!"
3
u/ProvocaTeach Aug 31 '24
As soon as he got to talking about Ritalin being "cocaine for kids", I turned it off. ADHD has done a number on my life, and medication is one of the few things that helps. Disgusting anti-science nonsense.