|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On May 19 2023 01:26 Fleetfeet wrote:
Regarding gender fairs in elementary schools - do you (BJ) honestly think that's a bad thing? Thinking back to my own past, I could see how such a thing would have been fairly life-altering for my young self, and not necessarily for the worse. I certainly grew up in communities where any non-cis gender presentation was treated as mental illness, and was railroaded into very masculine presentation because of it. If there were more education both to faculty and to students, I would have ended up a lot more neutral in my gender expression and a lot less of the bearded viking I am today. I don't think I would've volunteered to get my dick chopped off, and even if I tried to, I know it isn't an easy process to get approved for.
I don't think it's particularly good or bad. In as far as I think there's a social contagion aspect to the growing number of gender dysphoria a one off gender fair is not even a drop in the bucket to something as influential as TikTok alone. My theory is that Tiktok, social media, social contagion is driving a rise in a whole number of mental health issues for children and young adults. It's just that most people here want to ignore the large bulk of my theory for the one sliver of it they can express their selective outrage and virtue signaling.
By the way I should point out that I'm not for banning Tiktok. I'm not for banning drag queen story. I'm not for banning gender affirming care, etc. etc. Just because I find some merit in certain arguments that people use doesn't mean I agree with everything else they might say. A cliché example of this is that I believe life begins at conception but I'm pro-choice. For the longest time this was a major annoyance to me because, for example, people would ascribe arguments or positions to me that I didn't say and justify it with poor reasoning like "well you talk like a pro-lifer so you must be a pro-lifer." Now I've been active long enough that outside of a couple of particularly dense users most people don't ascribe things I didn't say to me and instead ascribe it to "the conservatives." Kind of irrelevant to your post but every so often I probably should state the things I don't support so people don't presume that I do.
|
On May 18 2023 22:52 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On May 18 2023 22:21 BlackJack wrote:Let me ask one last question for everyone in the thread before I bugger off. Some studies show that quite a few children with gender dysphoria desist in their thoughts by the time they reach adulthood. For example this study of 139 boys followed through to adulthood. Of the 139 participants, 17 (12.2%) were classified as persisters and the remaining 122 (87.8%) were classified as desisters Most of them just ended up becoming gay men. Can anyone offer an explanation of what caused the gender dysphoric thoughts in the children and then why they subsequently ceased later in life. edit: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyt.2021.632784/full Because children spend their childhood discovering themselves... Is this supposed to be some new revelation? How many children want to astronauts when they are 6, and how many still want it when they are 18? Does that mean we should stop telling them about astronauts when they are young? Children have feelings that they don't know what they mean, and its hard to advise them and figure out what its about because communicating feelings is incredibly difficulty. So yes a lot of times your going to have "what does this feeling mean, does it mean I feel more like a boy/girl then a girl/boy despite having X sexual organ" and have it end up being something else. That is what growing up it all about no? discovering who you are and where you stand. But that doesn't mean that you should hide such things from children. Let them know, help them deal with it and find out who they are. Its not for nothing that a lot of gender reassignment is held off on until they are adults. But conservatives aren't saying that we should help children find the personal truth of their feelings, they just want to hide the option from them so they spend their entire childhood wondering wtf is going on with them and why they feel 'different' to what the big wise man is telling them they should feel.
Ideally these distressing thoughts and feelings would be worked out at length with trained professionals. I fear what you are seeing more of now is they are working out these feelings with their friends, classmates, social media. Also my understanding of early gender-affirming care is that you don't actually spend a lot of time working out these feelings and you're supposed to accept their new identity quite readily.
|
In Thailand it was found that the majority of people with GD follow recommendations from their peers rather than from professionals, which is due to inaccessibility of legal treatment options.
It's proven time and time again that when we take away people's option to do something safely and more openly, they'll just go underground. Politicians need to stop being authoritarian about things, the world is rapidly moving on from the times of oppression as progress continues.
There is always a downside to everything. But the downsides are worse on the restrictive side. Less access tends to cause significant problems. It's typically better to be a little more lenient than a little more restrictive.
The ADHD matter is the same. It's better to have more accessibility rather than less. The fact that more cases have been popping up tells us very little. The research has found that over- or under-prescription is a question mark. No one truly knows if it's one or the other, or to what degree. The evidence is unclear. And we don't answer the question by restricting access to adderall.
There will always be some level of abuse of individual freedom. But the abuse of too little individual freedom outweighs that. We should tend to the exceptions case by case, not use the legal hammer to strike them all down, and in the process ruin it for the majority of valid cases.
|
On May 19 2023 10:37 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On May 19 2023 10:11 Sermokala wrote:On May 19 2023 08:56 BlackJack wrote:On May 18 2023 23:24 KwarK wrote:
I do often wonder if the entire transitioning thing could be skipped if we were able to make a less arbitrary and exclusionary society.
If we break down gender identity to its most basic and reductionist form then we’re essentially at “boys like blue and girls like pink”. It’s wholly arbitrary, it’s disconnected from biological sex, and there’s not even any measurable truth in it. It’s just a social meme. It wasn’t even around for most of our history and in the recent past it was reversed (blue was feminine, associated with the Virgin Mary whereas red was the colour of blood but was toned down for boys to pink).
So we’ve got this entirely constructed idea of an identity that exists in parallel to biological sex. And because it’s not reflecting anything real it doesn’t always work. Sure, you can probably convince a lot of boys growing up that they like blue but some are just going to prefer pink and they won’t be able to change that because you can’t choose how your brain appreciates some light wavelengths over others. And that means absolutely nothing because the whole thing is completely arbitrary.
But we’re social creatures with a very strong desire to fit in and follow the norms of the group and that’s going to make the blue preferring girls and the pink preferring boys feel like outsiders. We’re going to ostracize the boys wearing pink, we’re going to use micro aggressions to constantly draw attention to their otherness, we’re not going to let them forget that they’re different, that their physical sex coding doesn’t match their social gender coding. And our society has actually made it easier to get a boob job so that people stop judging you for wearing pink than for us all to just be accepting.
I wonder if gender dysphoria is imposed. That trans women don’t have an innate need for breasts to feel normal but rather they have the same innate social need for group acceptance that we all have and have come to recognize that the group won’t let them feel normal without breasts. It’s our collective disorder, not theirs. Yes, agree with this post and the one on the last page. A lot of boys that like pink or playing with their sister's dolls would just grow up to be gay. A lot of tomboy girls that like sports and wearing their hair short would grow up to be lesbians. Now they have the idea that because they have these non-conforming behaviors and feel discomfort over them they may actually be members of the opposite gender. Maybe instead of teaching boys that like dolls they are going to hell or teaching boys that like dolls they are actually girls, we can just teach them there's nothing wrong with boys liking dolls outside of the bullshit gender norms we made up. Who do you think is telling them they're going to hell and telling them that it's not okay for boys to like dolls and enforcing bullshit gender norms at the threat of imprisonment and execution? Who do you think has based his entire platform on enforcing these gender norms and going to war on anyone anything or any company who advocates that there is nothing wrong with boys liking dolls? There’s lots of people that fit in either of these groups. Do you want me to list them all? Or maybe you can just say what you think instead of posting in moronic riddles? Here’s the answers I think best fit your questions: 1) Islamic extremists and 2) Jerry Falwell. But let me guess, you were looking for Evangelicals and Trump.
See you can answer questions that wasn't so bad was it? Think of all the frustration we could have missed if you started this earlier. The answer was desantis but I'm glad that you've completed your self realisation about your hero worshipping.
|
On May 19 2023 14:22 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On May 19 2023 10:37 BlackJack wrote:On May 19 2023 10:11 Sermokala wrote:On May 19 2023 08:56 BlackJack wrote:On May 18 2023 23:24 KwarK wrote:
I do often wonder if the entire transitioning thing could be skipped if we were able to make a less arbitrary and exclusionary society.
If we break down gender identity to its most basic and reductionist form then we’re essentially at “boys like blue and girls like pink”. It’s wholly arbitrary, it’s disconnected from biological sex, and there’s not even any measurable truth in it. It’s just a social meme. It wasn’t even around for most of our history and in the recent past it was reversed (blue was feminine, associated with the Virgin Mary whereas red was the colour of blood but was toned down for boys to pink).
So we’ve got this entirely constructed idea of an identity that exists in parallel to biological sex. And because it’s not reflecting anything real it doesn’t always work. Sure, you can probably convince a lot of boys growing up that they like blue but some are just going to prefer pink and they won’t be able to change that because you can’t choose how your brain appreciates some light wavelengths over others. And that means absolutely nothing because the whole thing is completely arbitrary.
But we’re social creatures with a very strong desire to fit in and follow the norms of the group and that’s going to make the blue preferring girls and the pink preferring boys feel like outsiders. We’re going to ostracize the boys wearing pink, we’re going to use micro aggressions to constantly draw attention to their otherness, we’re not going to let them forget that they’re different, that their physical sex coding doesn’t match their social gender coding. And our society has actually made it easier to get a boob job so that people stop judging you for wearing pink than for us all to just be accepting.
I wonder if gender dysphoria is imposed. That trans women don’t have an innate need for breasts to feel normal but rather they have the same innate social need for group acceptance that we all have and have come to recognize that the group won’t let them feel normal without breasts. It’s our collective disorder, not theirs. Yes, agree with this post and the one on the last page. A lot of boys that like pink or playing with their sister's dolls would just grow up to be gay. A lot of tomboy girls that like sports and wearing their hair short would grow up to be lesbians. Now they have the idea that because they have these non-conforming behaviors and feel discomfort over them they may actually be members of the opposite gender. Maybe instead of teaching boys that like dolls they are going to hell or teaching boys that like dolls they are actually girls, we can just teach them there's nothing wrong with boys liking dolls outside of the bullshit gender norms we made up. Who do you think is telling them they're going to hell and telling them that it's not okay for boys to like dolls and enforcing bullshit gender norms at the threat of imprisonment and execution? Who do you think has based his entire platform on enforcing these gender norms and going to war on anyone anything or any company who advocates that there is nothing wrong with boys liking dolls? There’s lots of people that fit in either of these groups. Do you want me to list them all? Or maybe you can just say what you think instead of posting in moronic riddles? Here’s the answers I think best fit your questions: 1) Islamic extremists and 2) Jerry Falwell. But let me guess, you were looking for Evangelicals and Trump. See you can answer questions that wasn't so bad was it? Think of all the frustration we could have missed if you started this earlier. The answer was desantis but I'm glad that you've completed your self realisation about your hero worshipping.
Ah yes… my heroes Donald trump and Jerry Falwell. Lmfao
|
United States41960 Posts
I take adderall for ADD. It’s absolutely medically necessary for me. Prescribing rates have gone up as education has improved and understanding of the symptoms, particularly as it presents in girls, has improved. Previously people didn’t know they could get something to help them with their brains. That doesn’t mean it’s a conspiracy. The number of people wearing glasses increases as literacy and lens grinding spread but it poor vision wasn’t created by big lens.
|
Norway28553 Posts
On May 19 2023 08:56 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On May 18 2023 23:24 KwarK wrote:
I do often wonder if the entire transitioning thing could be skipped if we were able to make a less arbitrary and exclusionary society.
If we break down gender identity to its most basic and reductionist form then we’re essentially at “boys like blue and girls like pink”. It’s wholly arbitrary, it’s disconnected from biological sex, and there’s not even any measurable truth in it. It’s just a social meme. It wasn’t even around for most of our history and in the recent past it was reversed (blue was feminine, associated with the Virgin Mary whereas red was the colour of blood but was toned down for boys to pink).
So we’ve got this entirely constructed idea of an identity that exists in parallel to biological sex. And because it’s not reflecting anything real it doesn’t always work. Sure, you can probably convince a lot of boys growing up that they like blue but some are just going to prefer pink and they won’t be able to change that because you can’t choose how your brain appreciates some light wavelengths over others. And that means absolutely nothing because the whole thing is completely arbitrary.
But we’re social creatures with a very strong desire to fit in and follow the norms of the group and that’s going to make the blue preferring girls and the pink preferring boys feel like outsiders. We’re going to ostracize the boys wearing pink, we’re going to use micro aggressions to constantly draw attention to their otherness, we’re not going to let them forget that they’re different, that their physical sex coding doesn’t match their social gender coding. And our society has actually made it easier to get a boob job so that people stop judging you for wearing pink than for us all to just be accepting.
I wonder if gender dysphoria is imposed. That trans women don’t have an innate need for breasts to feel normal but rather they have the same innate social need for group acceptance that we all have and have come to recognize that the group won’t let them feel normal without breasts. It’s our collective disorder, not theirs. Yes, agree with this post and the one on the last page. A lot of boys that like pink or playing with their sister's dolls would just grow up to be gay. A lot of tomboy girls that like sports and wearing their hair short would grow up to be lesbians. Now they have the idea that because they have these non-conforming behaviors and feel discomfort over them they may actually be members of the opposite gender. Maybe instead of teaching boys that like dolls they are going to hell or teaching boys that like dolls they are actually girls, we can just teach them there's nothing wrong with boys liking dolls outside of the bullshit gender norms we made up.
As a note to this I remember being very surprised when I learned that Iran was the country, behind Thailand, where gender affirming surgery was the most common.
I then learned the reason and it became less surprising; this is how Iran can be 'a country with no gays' (to paraphrase Khomeini).
|
On May 19 2023 15:11 KwarK wrote:
I take adderall for ADD. It’s absolutely medically necessary for me. Prescribing rates have gone up as education has improved and understanding of the symptoms, particularly as it presents in girls, has improved. Previously people didn’t know they could get something to help them with their brains. That doesn’t mean it’s a conspiracy. The number of people wearing glasses increases as literacy and lens grinding spread but it poor vision wasn’t created by big lens.
It’s not mutually exclusive. Rates can be going up because more people are being legitimately diagnosed and also more people are being illegitimately diagnosed.
|
On May 19 2023 14:42 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On May 19 2023 14:22 Sermokala wrote:On May 19 2023 10:37 BlackJack wrote:On May 19 2023 10:11 Sermokala wrote:On May 19 2023 08:56 BlackJack wrote:On May 18 2023 23:24 KwarK wrote:
I do often wonder if the entire transitioning thing could be skipped if we were able to make a less arbitrary and exclusionary society.
If we break down gender identity to its most basic and reductionist form then we’re essentially at “boys like blue and girls like pink”. It’s wholly arbitrary, it’s disconnected from biological sex, and there’s not even any measurable truth in it. It’s just a social meme. It wasn’t even around for most of our history and in the recent past it was reversed (blue was feminine, associated with the Virgin Mary whereas red was the colour of blood but was toned down for boys to pink).
So we’ve got this entirely constructed idea of an identity that exists in parallel to biological sex. And because it’s not reflecting anything real it doesn’t always work. Sure, you can probably convince a lot of boys growing up that they like blue but some are just going to prefer pink and they won’t be able to change that because you can’t choose how your brain appreciates some light wavelengths over others. And that means absolutely nothing because the whole thing is completely arbitrary.
But we’re social creatures with a very strong desire to fit in and follow the norms of the group and that’s going to make the blue preferring girls and the pink preferring boys feel like outsiders. We’re going to ostracize the boys wearing pink, we’re going to use micro aggressions to constantly draw attention to their otherness, we’re not going to let them forget that they’re different, that their physical sex coding doesn’t match their social gender coding. And our society has actually made it easier to get a boob job so that people stop judging you for wearing pink than for us all to just be accepting.
I wonder if gender dysphoria is imposed. That trans women don’t have an innate need for breasts to feel normal but rather they have the same innate social need for group acceptance that we all have and have come to recognize that the group won’t let them feel normal without breasts. It’s our collective disorder, not theirs. Yes, agree with this post and the one on the last page. A lot of boys that like pink or playing with their sister's dolls would just grow up to be gay. A lot of tomboy girls that like sports and wearing their hair short would grow up to be lesbians. Now they have the idea that because they have these non-conforming behaviors and feel discomfort over them they may actually be members of the opposite gender. Maybe instead of teaching boys that like dolls they are going to hell or teaching boys that like dolls they are actually girls, we can just teach them there's nothing wrong with boys liking dolls outside of the bullshit gender norms we made up. Who do you think is telling them they're going to hell and telling them that it's not okay for boys to like dolls and enforcing bullshit gender norms at the threat of imprisonment and execution? Who do you think has based his entire platform on enforcing these gender norms and going to war on anyone anything or any company who advocates that there is nothing wrong with boys liking dolls? There’s lots of people that fit in either of these groups. Do you want me to list them all? Or maybe you can just say what you think instead of posting in moronic riddles? Here’s the answers I think best fit your questions: 1) Islamic extremists and 2) Jerry Falwell. But let me guess, you were looking for Evangelicals and Trump. See you can answer questions that wasn't so bad was it? Think of all the frustration we could have missed if you started this earlier. The answer was desantis but I'm glad that you've completed your self realisation about your hero worshipping. Ah yes… my heroes Donald trump and Jerry Falwell. Lmfao
Again the answer was de santis but I'm glad to hear that you're distancing yourself from him seeing how you are saying now that you're against his stances and policies as well as those of the republican party. It's a hard road to looking in a mirror and realizing who you really are and I'm happy you found your way to a better place.
|
On May 19 2023 15:28 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On May 19 2023 15:11 KwarK wrote:
I take adderall for ADD. It’s absolutely medically necessary for me. Prescribing rates have gone up as education has improved and understanding of the symptoms, particularly as it presents in girls, has improved. Previously people didn’t know they could get something to help them with their brains. That doesn’t mean it’s a conspiracy. The number of people wearing glasses increases as literacy and lens grinding spread but it poor vision wasn’t created by big lens. It’s not mutually exclusive. Rates can be going up because more people are being legitimately diagnosed and also more people are being illegitimately diagnosed.
There's no evidence for that, as I posted a while ago.
|
Norway28553 Posts
On May 19 2023 15:11 KwarK wrote:
I take adderall for ADD. It’s absolutely medically necessary for me. Prescribing rates have gone up as education has improved and understanding of the symptoms, particularly as it presents in girls, has improved. Previously people didn’t know they could get something to help them with their brains. That doesn’t mean it’s a conspiracy. The number of people wearing glasses increases as literacy and lens grinding spread but it poor vision wasn’t created by big lens.
Rates differ significantly for different countries though, and not in a linear path coinciding with how well educated countries are. I'm reading that rates for 6 year olds are 8.1% in the US and 1.8% in Norway. While I'm no expert, I'm suspecting that this is also a diagnosis with both a biological and cultural basis, and where the biological element should be fairly constant across countries. Then I'm sure it's possible that American and Norwegian children differ in their early childhood experiences in a way that makes ADD trigger more frequently in American children. However, I'm also inclined to believe there's also probably some difference in where the line is drawn for diagnosing it, and that there are a bunch of 'borderline' cases that might get a diagnosis in the US while they don't get one in Norway (or most of Europe for that matter). I'm not confidently stating that the US is overdiagnosing, it might well be that Norway is underdiagnosing, but seeing this big of a difference does make me partial to the side that thinks at least some overdiagnosing is happening on your side of the Atlantic.
So I mean, I absolutely believe you when you say it's necessary for you and that it has helped you out a lot, and I've heard stories from friends who ADD who say it just changed everything for the better. Then I've also read stories from children psychologists who raise the alarm bells because rather than try to diagnose children who differ from the norm so we can medicate them so they'll be more suitable to follow the societal mold we've made for them perhaps we should instead create a society with more room for being hyperactive (here, we can substitute hyperactive for x behavior that deviates from the norm and see that it is indeed possible to find some parallels to other ongoing topics  ). I don't have a strong opinion on who is right or wrong here tbh, not my field of expertise, but I guess I'm leaning a bit towards 'maybe the issue some of these children (or boys) have is that society has set some unrealistically high demands for how much time should be spent quietly learning while what some of them desperately need is to be given more practical assignments'. Again, obviously there are also a bunch of legitimate cases where medication is experienced as hugely beneficial.
Anecdotally I also used to have a colleague who was an entirely functional amphetamine addict, he was a 50 year old dude who had been using speed daily for like, two decades. But I'm a good 99.9% certain he had an undiagnosed ADHD. And I've worked in elementary schools with children who did not have diagnosed ADD/ADHD but where it seemed kinda evident that they actually had just that. However in those cases I did experience that, indeed, they would thrive if they were given some practical task out in the forest.
|
On May 19 2023 15:42 Magic Powers wrote:Show nested quote +On May 19 2023 15:28 BlackJack wrote:On May 19 2023 15:11 KwarK wrote:
I take adderall for ADD. It’s absolutely medically necessary for me. Prescribing rates have gone up as education has improved and understanding of the symptoms, particularly as it presents in girls, has improved. Previously people didn’t know they could get something to help them with their brains. That doesn’t mean it’s a conspiracy. The number of people wearing glasses increases as literacy and lens grinding spread but it poor vision wasn’t created by big lens. It’s not mutually exclusive. Rates can be going up because more people are being legitimately diagnosed and also more people are being illegitimately diagnosed. There's no evidence for that, as I posted a while ago.
The fact that several telehealth companies popped up during the pandemic that advertise online and seemingly diagnose and treat anyone that's willing to pony up the cash which has sent demand for adderall soaring is some evidence that it's being overprescribed. It may not be conclusive evidence but it's not none either. Although I've long since accepted that our understanding of the word none is wildly different.
|
When I'm saying the evidence is inconclusive, that's exactly what it is. It doesn't tell us whether there's over- or under-diagnosis or neither.
There are two problems with the claim of the rates being too high. Firstly we don't know the true rate of ADHD. We only know the diagnosis rate. Secondly matching the diagnosis rate to the true rate is not the solution - because the diagnosis can include a false positive or leave out a true positive (both of which has most likely been the case for many years).
This is why talking about rates is very, very meaningless. What really matters is that the research improves, and for that purpose there's no use in capping the distribution of adderall. We should instead focus on funding good research that accounts for confounding variables like age differences in class and other such things. Rates are meaningless by themselves.
|
Just to be clear, my belief that ADHD is being over diagnosed and thus Adderall is being over prescribed is not just hinged on an increase in the rate. It's hinged on an increase in rate in combination with telehealth companies that popped up to profit off an easing of rules requiring prescribers to see their patients in person during the pandemic. From a bloomberg piece featuring former employees of the telehealth company Cerebral worth $5 billion~ and having over 200,000 registered patients: www.bloomberg.com
In meetings with managers, Chief Medical Officer David Mou has said 95% of people who see a Cerebral nurse should get a prescription, according to two people familiar with his remarks. He was equally emphatic, according to the former employees, that the rate cannot be 100%—saying the company would be a “pill mill” at that rate. Campbell said the 95% figure “refers only to the subset of patients who have received a clinical mental health diagnosis that warrants a prescription as first line treatment,” but the former employees say no such distinction was made. Cerebral said, through a letter from its lawyer, that it does not set any prescription target for its clinicians. “Regarding prescriptions,” the letter said, “the criterion for prescribing medical professionals is that they follow evidence-based and clinical-quality guidelines in making diagnoses and deciding whether medication is warranted.”
If the goal is to write prescriptions for 95% of your patients and not that last 5% because you don't want to be seen as a pill mill, then guess what, you're a pill mill. If you want to believe that there's no evidence for illegitimate diagnoses when there are companies that will diagnose and treat almost everyone that forks over the cash then that's your right. We all get to determine what we think is true.
+ Show Spoiler +Also noticing a trend where I'm the only required to provide conclusive evidence to support my theory but other people get to state their theories with equal or greater confidence and they are not asked for any evidence let alone conclusive evidence.
|
Posting links doesn't mean your argument is valid. The premise wasn't just about the diagnosis rate, it was the idea that limiting adderall supply would somehow help minimize overdiagnosis. It doesn't. When a false positive occurs, it's because of insufficient diagnostic tools. For that purpose, good research needs better funding. Limiting adderall adds nothing to that, it can only shove the problem under the rug. This is because, as I explained with reason two, matching the diagnosis rate to the true rate doesn't mean overdiagnosis no longer happens, but it can result in both over- and under-prescription at the same time, which is not an overall benefit.
Whether or not over-diagnosis is happening at all isn't the question. We know there are false positives just like we know there are false negatives. And there are also undetected cases. And this is where reason one comes in: we don't know the true rate of ADHD. As long as we don't have a sufficient diagnostic tool for all cases, we can't know the true rate, and therefore it wouldn't make sense to even try to match the diagnosis rate to the true rate, even if we ignore reason two. We only have an estimate of the true rate of ADHD, but until our tools improve we can't say if our estimates are accurate.
This is why the legal hammer is not the solution and should not be our first option. Limiting adderall can only interfere with the research. The scientific debate isn't settled, so we should let the scientists do their research first before the law steps in. This can take years or maybe decades.
Oh and in case you didn't catch it: if the law missteps and limits adderall supply too much, guess what happens? The Thailand scenario that I explained earlier. People will go underground to get their adderall, and it'll become less safe and less professional. But this scenario can also happen if the law works perfectly. In a scenario where adderall demand is greater than supply, even if some of the buyers don't have ADHD they'd be better off in a situation where they can go get a prescription. This is simply because they'll be encouraged to get good information and good treatment from a specialist they trust, rather than from a shady black market without any regulations. In one case at least we can better help people who abuse a drug, in the other case we cannot.
|
I'm a bit confused why you two are arguing when you are just talking about entirely different things that can both be true at the same time:
BlackJack: during Covid, we dropped the limit on in-person visitation being required to diagnose ADHD and prescribe drugs for it. In response, telehealth companies started to diagnose anybody who wanted to and allowed them to buy Adderall at will. This is bad, because these people might not have ADHD and are taking advantage of prescription drugs that other people need. The DEA limiting availability of adderall is because of these dubious diagnostics allowing anybody who wants amphetamines for any reasons to get easy access, and is detrimental to people who actually need it for real medical reasons.
Magic Powers: we don't know enough about ADHD to decide what diagnostic measures are accurate. We need to spend more research on learning about ADHD, develop better diagnostic methods and ensure that we prescribe adderall to the people who actually need it without limiting it. The DEA limiting it is detrimental to everybody, because regardless of how they were diagnosed, without further research we should just give the patient and doctor the benefit of the doubt and assume they need Adderall.
You both agree:
- Diagnostics might not be as good as they need to be.
- The DEA is limiting access to Adderall for people who need it.
You disagree:
- On whether some online companies are pill mills or legitimate medical institutions.
And the latter point is by far the least interesting thing in your discussion, so just agree that there are both pill mills and legitimate medical institutions offering online diagnostics, and call it a day?
|
On May 19 2023 20:22 Acrofales wrote:
I'm a bit confused why you two are arguing when you are just talking about entirely different things that can both be true at the same time:
BlackJack: during Covid, we dropped the limit on in-person visitation being required to diagnose ADHD and prescribe drugs for it. In response, telehealth companies started to diagnose anybody who wanted to and allowed them to buy Adderall at will. This is bad, because these people might not have ADHD and are taking advantage of prescription drugs that other people need. The DEA limiting availability of adderall is because of these dubious diagnostics allowing anybody who wants amphetamines for any reasons to get easy access, and is detrimental to people who actually need it for real medical reasons.
Magic Powers: we don't know enough about ADHD to decide what diagnostic measures are accurate. We need to spend more research on learning about ADHD, develop better diagnostic methods and ensure that we prescribe adderall to the people who actually need it without limiting it. The DEA limiting it is detrimental to everybody, because regardless of how they were diagnosed, without further research we should just give the patient and doctor the benefit of the doubt and assume they need Adderall.
You both agree:
- Diagnostics might not be as good as they need to be.
- The DEA is limiting access to Adderall for people who need it.
You disagree:
- On whether some online companies are pill mills or legitimate medical institutions.
And the latter point is by far the least interesting thing in your discussion, so just agree that there are both pill mills and legitimate medical institutions offering online diagnostics, and call it a day?
Except for the fact that BJ compared ADHD to GD and attempted to call people out on their double standard. There is no double standard, and BJ compared two things that aren't of the same nature. His argument wasn't that the rise in ADHD diagnosis was caused by the pandemic, it was that people are only concerned regarding GD but not ADHD. If his argument had been that the pandemic caused overdiagnosis of ADHD, then he should've simply stated that to begin with without the implication of a double standard.
These unproductive discussions happen because BJ is using bad faith tactics to try to win something, not because we're talking past each other.
|
|
|
Despite there being talk of universities becoming too liberal, too woke, and too trans-inclusive, it seems that there are still some religious/conservative private colleges moving in the other direction, such as this one:
"Administrators at Houghton, which is affiliated with a conservative branch of the Methodist Church, asked Ms. Zelaya and Mr. Wilmot, two residence hall directors, to remove the words “she/her” and “he/him” from their email signatures, saying they violated a new policy. When they refused to do so, both employees were fired, just weeks before the end of the semester.
Houghton’s firing of the two staff members has dismayed some of its alumni, nearly 600 of whom signed a petition in protest. And it comes as gender and sexuality have become major fault lines in an increasingly divided nation, and after other faith-based organizations, including Yeshiva University in Manhattan, have argued that First Amendment protections of religious freedom allow them to treat gay and transgender people differently than others.
As Republican lawmakers across the country have sought to energize their base by passing laws restricting gender-transition health care and banning drag performances and classroom instruction about sexual orientation and gender identity, Christian colleges have become staging grounds in these escalating debates.
In particular, institutions like Hillsdale College in Michigan and Liberty University in Virginia have taken central roles, both producing and attracting leaders of the movement."
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/05/19/nyregion/houghton-university-employees-pronouns.html?smid=fb-nytimes&smtyp=cur&fbclid=IwAR0iBiKz7cGyOnPPlw4Ziwc8Vg9MrpqPIaP5AXCFYBHQs7A5q-uBxdWwW5o
|
United States41960 Posts
You’re not legally allowed to just get a recurring prescription for stimulants. The prescriber is required to represcribe it every few months because of how controlled it is. This is obviously nonsense. For me those appointments go “how’s it going” “good” “any changes?” “no” because I’ve been in the same formula with the same dose for years.
Yet they can bill my insurance a few hundred for that 20 second exchange. So yes, telehealth prescribers exist and make bank for it. It’s because it’s too controlled, not because it’s too easy to get. When you’re legally required to get something you neither want nor need then the government is manufacturing a need for box ticking minimalist compliance services. That’s what those telehealth adderall providers are. They’re a symptom of bad lawmaking and nothing more.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
