CAUTION: Spin Ahead! There is No Evidence That Psychostimulants Reduce the Risk for Infection with COVID-19

Yaakov Ophir, PhDYaffa Shir-Raz, PhD
23
1021

“The numbers make it look like an epidemic. Well, it’s not. It’s preposterous. This is a concoction to justify the giving out of medication at unprecedented and unjustifiable levels.” (New York Times, Dec. 14, 2013). This penetrating declaration was not said about the coronavirus pandemic. It was said about the soaring prevalence of Attention Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) by none other than the “father of ADHD,” the famous American psychologist Keith Conners.

Soon after the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (the CDC) published its 2012 estimate—according to which 11% of children ages 4-17 have been diagnosed with ADHD—Dr. Conners, who had set the initial standards for the diagnosis and treatment of ADHD, could keep silent no longer. He had devoted his entire life to the study of the disturbance, and by his own appraisal, 2%-3% of children, at the most, actually suffer from it. He warned from the podium at a convention of ADHD experts in Washington that the exaggerated number of diagnoses was “a national disaster of dangerous proportions.” A few years before his death, with a rare level of integrity, he hoped to vanquish the diagnostic “epidemic” that had been spread, among other causes, because of the many research studies that he had conducted.

But the virtual epidemic has only gathered steam, and today, in 2020, the prevalence of the diagnosis in certain places (e.g., Israel) exceeds 20%! This unbelievable prevalence has been observed in a very recent study (July 22, 2020), which relied on reliable medical records by a large care service in Israel named Leumit.

How could this be? Even if Dr. Conners was right, and we are dealing with a concoction to justify the giving out of medication, how could such a thing possibly be invented as a matter of science?

In this article we will reveal the answer.

The ADHD Article

A month ago, a particularly disturbing research study was published in the Journal of Attention Disorders—ironically, the journal that Conners had founded—according to which, “ADHD may be a risk factor for COVID-19 infection, independently of other risk factors.” Children and adults who are diagnosed with ADHD are more active and less obedient than others, so it is no wonder that they are infected more frequently by the coronavirus. But, not to worry, there is a medicine. According to Dr. Merzon and his colleagues (the authors of the study), psychostimulant medications for ADHD such as Ritalin can lower the increased risk of being infected by the virus.

The study, which was conducted by a group of Israeli researchers in 2020 during the initial months of the COVID-19 pandemic (February 1 through April 30), was based on the medical records of 14,022 patients insured by Leumit, the large care service mentioned above. It immediately entered the list of the most trending articles in the journal and received a large amount of media attention—not surprising in view of the fact that its conclusions concern today’s hottest topic, COVID-19.

On the one hand, we are dealing with sensational data, given that they imply that it is possible to significantly and easily reduce the risk of falling ill with the coronavirus among a very large segment of the population. And indeed, the researchers recommend diligence in applying medicinal treatment for ADHD, because it can “mitigate the spreading of the virus,” a virus that has disrupted life across the entire globe.

On the other hand, if the study’s conclusions are ill-founded, then the researchers’ recommendations are ethically problematic. The medications for ADHD work much like other psychostimulant substances. And in spite of the wide belief that they are absolutely safe, many studies have demonstrated that they are liable to cause physiological addiction and severe side-effects. Moreover, the recommendation would not be met happily by many parents, who prefer not to administer medications to their children at times when there is no school, whether because of lockdown or thanks to summer vacation.

In light of the importance of the subject, particularly in these complex and sensitive times, we have decided to examine the study in depth from a scientific viewpoint. This examination, we believe, will assist parents in deciding how to care for their children who have been diagnosed with ADHD, and will simultaneously expose how an “objective” research study is liable to create misrepresentations, to stir up fears, and perhaps even to cause an increase in diagnoses and prescriptions of medications for attention disorders.

After two requests to each of two first authors of the study (made through a third party uninvolved in controversy over ADHD), we have failed to obtain the raw data set on which the research was based. Our examination is therefore based on an analysis of the article itself, including its comparison with data that were presented in two additional studies, published just one day later, by the same first author along with one or two other authors.

We chose to refer to these two additional studies because both were based on medical records of the same care service (Leumit), and because each of these two studies exposed one side of the issue at hand. One study dealt with ADHD, and one study dealt with COVID-19. The study dealing with ADHD was published in the same journal, Journal of Attention Disorders, and examined the relationship between the disorder and shigellosis, a bacterial disease that primarily strikes children; the study that dealt with COVID-19 examined the relation between vitamin D and coronavirus symptoms. In fact, this last study was carried out on the very same set of 14,022 medical records that was used in the study on ADHD and COVID-19.

In the process of our examination, we could not believe what we discovered. The study on ADHD and COVID-19 suffers from a series of manipulations and spins that are inappropriate in scientific research that aspires to objectivity and that aims to reveal truths. From our consternation came our decision to write a full-length article, which could be judged by our colleagues in the scientific community. We uploaded this article to a designated preprint server for psychological science (the full article can be found at Psyarxiv) to receive feedback from fellow scientists and, in parallel, we submitted it for publication in the Journal of Attention Disorders (the same journal in which the study was originally published).

“What was the reaction of the journal?” you probably wonder. We will reveal this information soon, but first, let’s see what was so problematic in the study on ADHD and COVID-19. The study, as can be seen in our full-length paper, is based on a series of distortions or falsifications, which make it difficult not to conclude that they were meant, whether intentionally or unintentionally, to achieve desirable outcomes, and perhaps also to obscure results that did not match the study’s conclusions.

Our examination has exposed seven practices that can be divided into two main types: (1) manipulation of the way in which the researchers chose to measure the phenomena being studied, i.e., of the operational definitions of variables in the study; and (2) spin in the choice and presentation of the data and the results. The concept “spin” might perhaps strike you as pertinent only to the political/public sphere, but in recent years, with the increase of distortions in the medical sciences, it has begun to be used in leading scientific journals to describe practices that are intended to achieve desired results by questionable means.

Manipulation of Variables

For example, there was an astonishing manipulation of the central independent variable of the study—ADHD. How did the researchers choose to define “a person with ADHD”? They included in this category everyone who had ever been medically diagnosed as such. That might seem to be a reasonable decision; however, in the article on the disease of shigellosis, which, recall, was written by the same first author, a person with ADHD was categorized as such only if, besides the diagnosis, there were at least three documented prescriptions obtained for ADHD. Why did the researchers choose a different definition for each study? After all, both studies were based on the same trustworthy source of data (Leumit medical records); and both were published more or less at the same time in the very same scientific journal.

In order to answer this question, it is worth reading closely what the authors write in the shigellosis study: The diagnosis of ADHD, they explain, is “given temporally with referral of the patient to ADHD clinic.” In other words, the preliminary diagnosis by itself, according to the researchers themselves, is an operational classification which is unreliable as an indicator of the existence of ADHD. Why, then, do the very same researchers use this problematic definition in their study on ADHD and COVID-19?

It is important to understand that we are not engaging in a petty focus on details. From the moment when the researchers chose to define ADHD, huge and unexplained gaps were created between the rates of the diagnoses. While the shigellosis study reported rates of diagnosis between 8.6% and 10.6% among children aged 5-18, the COVID-19 study reported rates of 18.85% to 28.14% among those aged 5-20 (weighted average = 20.25%!).

We are dealing with magnitudes that are anomalous at an Olympic level. Not only are these estimates double those that were reported by the same first author and another co-author, but they are light years distant from the data documented in the literature on ADHD. They are far from the CDC data, and they are certainly far from the data of the DSM (Diagnostic Statistical Manual of the American Psychiatric Association), which states that 5% of children suffer from ADHD.

In practice, when such an anomalous number is obtained, it should become the prominent result in the study and turn into an urgent subject of discussion in the scientific community. Either way, if the basic variable of the research is erroneous, then the study is entirely problematic, and if the basic variable is accurate, then that means that we are at the height of a great epidemic of ADHD, much greater than the coronavirus epidemic.

Another disturbing example of manipulation of the definition of variables can be seen in the way that the researchers defined the ages of the participants of the study. In order to verify that the risk for COVID-19 infection is indeed related to ADHD and not to other variables (for example, gender or socioeconomic status), the researchers must ascertain that the increased risk of infection is maintained even when they control statistically for socio-demographic variables.

In order to control for the age of the participants, the researchers divided them into four groups: youth up to age 20, 21-40 year-olds, 41-60 year-olds, and seniors over age 60. This division, however, does not fit the study framework because there is no rationale for including children, teens, and youth in the same basket, particularly in a study that deals with COVID-19 and ADHD. ADHD is far more common among children, according to both the scientific literature and the researchers’ own data.

Young age (i.e., up to age 20) was found in the study as the most dominant risk factor for catching COVID-19, a risk that was 50% higher than the one that was reported for ADHD. If, therefore, we wish to know what the real source of infection risk is, we must examine the differences within the first, young age group. Otherwise, we have no way of knowing what actually raised the risk, the diagnosis or the age. Is the source of the behaviors that contributed to the infection (e.g., often runs about, often leaves seat) in the ADHD or in the young age of the person diagnosed?

Beyond the fact that we have here an erroneous methodological decision, the fact that the researchers had access to the actual age of the subjects raises the suspicion of inappropriate manipulation, because they could easily have controlled for this variable as a continuous variable, as is appropriate statistically, or at least created a more appropriate division, such as kindergarten age, elementary school age, middle school, high school, and youth age 18 and up.

Spin in Reporting Results

An example of spin in the report of data and results is especially disturbing. Towards the end of the article, the researchers note “a major weakness” of the study and admit that “data regarding the presenting symptoms and severity of COVID-19 infection, as well as adverse clinical outcomes (hospitalization and mechanical ventilation) were not assessed.”

This choice of words (“not assessed”) is, in fact, quite problematic. After all, the authors had access to the medical records, which included, according to their own words, “medical visits, laboratory tests, hospitalizations, and medication prescriptions.” Furthermore, in the study that dealt with vitamin D and COVID-19, which was based precisely on the same data set of 14,022 medical records, and which had three of the same authors, the researchers did assess the symptoms and severity of COVID-19 infection.

Is ADHD related to complications of COVID-19? Why did the researchers choose not to assess these complications? They had the data. The decision to ignore the complications is disturbing for two reasons. First, at this stage of the epidemic, we know very well that the coronavirus is especially dangerous for the elderly, while children seldom develop severe symptoms. The significance of this is that if the researchers had considered the complications of COVID, they would have been liable to discover that the group of individuals with ADHD was the group with the lowest risk for complications, simply because they were significantly younger than the rest of the sample (here is yet another example of the importance of statistical control for the age variable).

It is certainly reasonable to assume that precisely the group of individuals with ADHD, even if they had a valid diagnosis, did not suffer from severe, if any, symptoms of COVID-19, and certainly they had no need for hospitalization or ventilation. The omission of such a result, one not suiting the general narrative of the article, is the very definition of spin.

Second, without the data on COVID-19 complications being shown, we cannot evaluate the safety of the medications for ADHD. Is it proper to prescribe ADHD medications during a global infectious epidemic? Even the supporters of medical treatment for ADHD recently launched, in the medical journal Lancet Child and Adolescent Health, special guidelines for “starting ADHD medications during the COVID-19 pandemic.”

According to the new guidelines, in the time of COVID-19, medicinal treatments should not be started if the patient with ADHD has a background of breathing problems and/or heart problems. Not only that, but there is evidence from studies on psychostimulants (including methamphetamines, which are similar in chemical constitution and in their effects to the stimulant medications for ADHD), that they are liable to harm the blood-brain barrier and to increase the risk of the penetration of dangerous bacteria and viruses into the brain, such as HIV.

These three examples are only some of the manipulations and spins which we discovered in the study at hand, although even these alone, as we have shown, already refute the researchers’ conclusion that makes it seem that there is evidence for ADHD being a risk factor for infection by the coronavirus. The editor of the journal was exposed to four more distortions and yet, he chose to reject our manuscript.

The formal justification for the rejection was the fact that we uploaded the manuscript to another publication venue (the Psyarxiv preprint service). This is of course a legitimate editorial decision. Yet, it is important to know that uploading manuscripts to preprint services is a conventional scientific practice. Preprint services were constructed to enhance scientific transparency and to allow researchers to receive responses from the scientific community as early as possible. These services are especially important in cases where the uploaded articles have time-sensitive implications, such as the articles that address the current pandemic.

Approximately, 6,000 COVID-19 related scientific articles were hosted by preprint servers within a period of 4 months since the beginning of the pandemic, thus emphasizing the unprecedented role of preprints in the dissemination of COVID-19 science.

In our response letter, we therefore reminded the editor of the journal of these facts (the common practice and the unique role of preprint services) and mentioned again the unfounded, biased, and even dangerous conclusion that was made by the authors of the study on ADHD and COVID-19: “adherence to anti-ADHD treatment should be encouraged in an attempt to reduce the spread of COVID-19 infection.”

We asked the editor to reconsider his decision not to accept our article and suggested that even if he remains with this decision, that he will objectively consider the severe manipulations and spins that we have documented when he decides whether to keep or retract the study on ADHD and COVID-19 from the journal.

The study on ADHD and COVID-19 did not prove that medications can lower the risk for COVID-19 infections. Even if these distortions were not deliberate, we are convinced, given the data they had, that the researchers’ recommendation to be diligent in applying medicinal treatment for ADHD during the COVID-19 pandemic is not ethical.

Besides the futility of trying to get many parents to give their children medicinal treatment at times when there is no school, the medications for ADHD, like all medications, come with side-effects. Even though it is customary to consider them as safe, an up-to-date literature review of 260 studies of medications for ADHD, conducted in 2018 by Cochrane,1 revealed that most of the children who use medications for ADHD experience at least one side-effect, including, for example, dizziness, anxiety, nervousness, nightmares, restlessness, sadness, and tics.

Further, around one percent of diagnosed children experience severe side-effects, including cardiovascular problems and psychotic or manic episodes. One percent might sound like a small number, but as we saw at the beginning of this article we are dealing with a great number of children, the millions of children across the world who are diagnosed with ADHD and are using medications for it.

Now we can understand what Dr. Keith Conners referred to. Overdiagnosis and overtreatment can be born of distorted and biased research studies. It is indeed possible that the study of COVID-19 and ADHD is anomalous in that so many manipulations and spins have clustered in it, but, as we wrote at the beginning, such distortions are not new to the scientific community, especially in the bio-medical field.

The bio-medical field is replete with biases, the most famous of which are publication bias—selective publication of studies that support the effectiveness of a medication and hiding of studies that do not support it; outcome/data reporting bias—exaggeration of positive results, and concealment of negative results, such as side-effects or limited effectiveness; selective analysis and presentation, and more.

These biases are not always intentional, but it seems that they may often happen because of unhealthy connections between scientists and pharmaceutical companies. These connections, as many physicians, investigators, and scientists warn, pollute the medical sciences and endanger public health. They are fundamentally immoral—all the more so in the case of medications for ADHD that are given to millions of children across the world.

****

The authors wish to thank psychologist Gideon Weisz for his major contribution to the translation and improvement of the current article.

Show 1 footnote

  1. Cochrane is an international scientific organization that conducts high quality unbiased systematic meta-analyses of medical science topics.

***

Mad in America hosts blogs by a diverse group of writers. These posts are designed to serve as a public forum for a discussion—broadly speaking—of psychiatry and its treatments. The opinions expressed are the writers’ own.

Previous articleCOVID-19 and the Telepsychology Boom
Next articleDecolonizing Research Methods Can Improve Psychological Treatments
Yaakov Ophir, PhD
Yaakov Ophir, PhD, is a clinical psychologist and a post-doctoral researcher at the Technion- Israel Institute of Technology. His main field of research concerns the detection and treatment of distress from social media. Dr. Ophir is also a leading Israeli critic of ADHD whose critiques serve to undermine the scientific validity of ADHD and challenge the efficacy and safety of its pharmacological treatments.
Yaffa Shir-Raz, PhD
Yaffa Shir-Raz, PhD, is a risk-communication researcher and a teaching fellow in the University of Haifa and the Interdisciplinary Center Herzliya in Israel. Her research focuses on health and risk communication on topics including Emerging Infectious Disease (EID). She examines the practices used by pharma and health authorities and organizations to promote health issues and brand medical treatments.

23 COMMENTS

  1. So a fake disease is yet another addition to the list of COVID “co-morbidity” factors.

    We need serious guidance from Steve and MIA about exactly when and where we are allowed to discuss the COVID phenomenon, since doing so is frowned upon in most posts, even though it is in the background of everyone’s consciousness.

    I have suggested a running thread for MIA readers to discuss and debate COVID and COVID policies. Hopefully we aren’t supposed to ignore and compartmentalize what comprises the essence of our daily lives.

    • Posting as moderator: COVID is a valid point of discussion if it is relevant to the article at hand. In this case, there is a claim that COVID is somehow moderated by psychostimulants, so that would be the topic of the conversation. Clearly, comments relating to COVID would be germane to the discussion. However, if the thread gets hijacked into talking about related issues that go too far afield from the article’s topic, I might end up asking folks to end the discussion, particularly if the discussion is becoming repetitive and escalating into personal attacks, as happened in the thread I believe you are referring to.

      I have never said that talking about COVID is off limits, just that we need to stay on the topic at hand and be respectful to each other in the discussion. The difficulty seems to come in when instead of sharing their perspective, folks begin to assert “truths” that are not objectively established and telling others who disagree with them that they are fools or dupes for believing it. I think we can all agree there has been a lot of disinformation about COVID coming from various people with political or personal agendas. I would just call for restraint in staying on the topic of the article and allowing for the possibility that our viewpoint may not be “right” in an absolute sense of the word.

      • It’s not that cut & dried though, and I think if the word “COVID” is used anywhere in an article then all bets are off in terms of what direction the discussion may be expected to take. For example

        there is a claim that COVID is somehow moderated by psychostimulants, so that would be the topic of the conversation

        Except there are tangential topics of concern evoked by such a supposition, such as “what sort of mentality would conjure up such insane claims?” — which then inevitably would lead into the conflicting narratives about what COVID is, where it came from and why, etc.

        This is why I think MIA should try something new and institute a thread entitled “COVID Discussion” with no time limit, that doesn’t fall off the home page, and in which people can express anxiety, outrage, questions, “conspiracy theories,” etc. Like I said, we’re going to be thinking about it anyway.

        The difficulty seems to come in when instead of sharing their perspective, folks begin to assert “truths” that are not objectively established

        And exactly how does this differ from any other MIA discussion?

        • POSTING AS MODERATOR: Oldhead, you cut off the part of the last sentence you quoted about insisting that others agree with their personally-derived “truths.” MIA is and should continue to be a place to explore the truth, but when the discussion itself becomes increasingly authoritarian as it progresses, there is a point at which it is no longer productive of truth, as both sides are merely stating and restating their own ‘truth’ in a louder and louder voice, and things get more personal and insulting and it gets plain ugly.

          Admittedly, it is hardly an objective standard, but in the thread I asked people to let go of, it was most definitely getting into that realm and very far afield from the original topic.

          Sorry, there are no black and white rules in moderation! But I’m not moderating for content, except to the degree that off-topic conversations on any subject, when they become unproductive and backbiting, will be discouraged.

          Your idea of a different place to have this discussion is a good one. Not sure exactly how to bring that about, though. I’ll give it some thought.

          Steve

          • Not that you aren’t by far the best moderator MIA has ever hired, but if there are “no black and white rules” that’s a problem, since that means moderation decisions are subjective, hence biased. I thought the posting guidelines were supposed to be “black & white.”

            On the COVID thing all that needs to be done besides getting permission from RW is to institute a blog entitled “COVID discussion” and let it rip. The only difference would be that it wouldn’t get bumped off the page to make room for a newer blog.

          • POSTING AS MODERATOR: I challenge you to find an objective way to decide whether someone’s comments are “shaming” or make generalizations based upon a label or are an attack on a person vs. on what that person said. Moderation is unavoidably subjective, no matter how objective I try to make it. If we are in grey areas, I tend to use consultations with others, but again, not purely objective. Sometimes I pass something through and it ends up offending others for reasons I could not have understood until explained to me, and I have to reconsider.

            Sorry, but there will always be grey areas in moderation. Nature of the beast.

          • Posting as Commenter:

            I challenge you to find an objective way to decide whether someone’s comments are “shaming” or make generalizations based upon a label or are an attack on a person vs. on what that person said.

            Challenge not accepted, as you are basically making my point. There is of course no objective way to be subjective or vice versa, the question is more why one would try to do the impossible.

            Straying from the point a little, people need to realize that excessive “insecurity,” and sensitivity to whether or not one is being “shamed” or disrespected, is a form of egotism. Without such unnecessary concerns discussions could proceed in a more reasoned, logical and intelligent manner.

            The other side of this coin is that certain terms (including “bully” and “fascist” among others) have clear and highly charged ad hominem implications and should not be considered by the moderator as analytical; without sufficient explanation and documentation they should be deleted.

          • POSTING AS MODERATOR: So we are in agreement that black and white rules of moderation are not possible?

            I tend to agree with you that using terms such as “fascist” out of context would constitute ad hominem attacks. I will continue to try and be more sensitive to this kind of language, and will appreciate people reporting posts where I have missed such statements. Of course, it is quite legitimate to say, “My therapist was a bully, because s/he would tell me I was stupid every time I questioned her.” Or to say, “This person subscribes to fascist ideology, as indicated by his references to quotes from Mussolini and his use of nationalistic slogans and identification of external threats as excuses to curtail civil liberties,” or that sort of thing. The issue would come if the person is trying to discredit an author or another poster by the use of such terms to refer to them or their writings without any such context. My preference is for folks to simply refer to the offending comment, such as “Mr. X uses the term ‘redskin,’ which I and I think most people consider racist” rather than “Mr. X is a racist because he said the word ‘redskin.'”

            So there is always a degree of subjectivity. But I don’t think we want a community where someone can say, “Oldhead is a slimy bag of feces” without being called out on it. Nor do I think we want a site where someone can’t say, “I think vaccine policy is highly influenced by unethical government agents in cahoots with the drug industry” without being called names or shunned or having his/her opinion censored just because their position may be viewed by others or MIA staff as controversial. Which is why we have the posting guidelines. But again, they’re guidelines, not rigid laws, and the goal is to have a free-flowing conversation while avoiding as far as possible unnecessary personal hostility, bigotry, and hurt feelings. As long as we keep that goal in mind, I think we can all live with the uncertainty of it. And as you know, I am always willing to listen to and discuss if anyone feels they are being treated unfairly. I am not sure how we can do any better than this.

          • I’m mainly contemplating and philosophizing, lest you be under the impression that we’re arguing about something. My most serious point is the need for a specific place on MIA where general COVID discussions are NOT off the table.

  2. Thank you Yaakov and Jaffa and thanks MIA.
    An excellent article. Of utmost urgency.
    We already know that very little within psychiatry is trustworthy. I applaud Dr Connors for trying, perhaps he had faith that was misplaced, in the psychiatric system.
    And honestly, we no longer need “experts”, because “ADHD” as well as other “disorders” have brainwashed the public so much that we merely need a teacher who is used to the new rule of order, where kids sit still, or are engaged. One word from a teacher or parent is as good as a “diagnosis”, since rarely do “experts” not give a label. After all, it makes them a real doctor.
    They have not yet caught up to regular medicine which has no diagnosis or prognosis, no cures, no controlling agents for a variety of suffering or annoyances.
    Although regular medicine has been around much longer, and yet it seems psychiatry sped ahead with “medications”, knowledge of “diseases” “disorders” and “illnesses”. Amazing science runs as fast and smoothly in only one single area. To know the most complicated seat of human existence and to have drugs to treat such maladies is phenomenal.

    It is not surprising in the least that they have to resort to spin. No wash, rinse, repeat. Just spin.
    But it’s not just the manipulation of words and sentences, it is born of power. Power to manipulate masses of people, media and laws being the very important vehicles to block or promote.

    We cannot expect anything else from the industry, since they are there for one purpose, it’s a job.
    And of course we know that the 3% of ADHD kids never deserved the “treatment” or “diagnosis” that they received to begin with.

    Let us ask one important question. What do you or anyone else think psychiatry should do? Tell the truth? It is an occupation born out of suffering, different behaviour than X wants, and a massive dose of prejudice against “expression”. Morality does not enter the picture since there is absolutely no morality involved in being comfortable to feed crazy chemicals to anyone under the age of 22.

  3. I’m trying to get this straight, to follow this, and wonder whether this is right:

    When you increase the percentage of children that are apt to get referred to as having ADHD, and also given that children are more likely to have covid, you dramatically increase over a whole arena the amount of correlation with ADHD and covid, because children are more likely to have it regardless of diagnosis. And then include this with age groups where covid is more dangerous, without making age differences, that adds to the scare. Then also negate to add that the younger group which is added to the total, is less likely to get any severe symptoms of covid, although they are included with the total of people that are more likely to get severe symptoms, and you can say that ADHD can lead to covid, and the ADHD should be medicated. And then the correlation with ADHD medications leading to severe symptoms – it breaks down the blood brain barrier, and also shouldn’t be subscribed if children already have breathing problems and/or heart problems – that’s also left out. As is the evidence that ADHD medications in general have troubling side effects, and can give severe side effects, and can lead to further diagnosis which wasn’t the case before such medications were so highly used.

    And I wonder how much I’ll be targeted as “non-reality-based,” would I point out that ADHD medications have created a whole pandemic in itself; leading to future diagnosis, disability, loss of life expectancy etc. and this whole setup is quite profound; because they’re dealing with a definition of an illness that’s not objective (there isn’t any real proof of a chemical imbalance), and what fixes the problem without such an assumption also isn’t acknowledged, added to that the “medications” for the disease aren’t seen to be fixing anything but a behavior that’s critiqued – although that quite marginally, and weighs more on the observance of those dolling out the medications than the person themselves or their family – and there’s no concrete evidence that that leads to better health physically, in fact it’s the opposite; and to go into the extreme, although I’m dolling out a comparison that undoubtedly would be used to make out I’m extremist, it’s like saying that putting your child on a leash, or in a straight jacket and locking him or her up in a closet is helpful when they are in danger of catching something running around too much and being hyperactive, while pushing to the side and suppressing what happens when you actually talk to the child in a way that they can relate to rather than just trying to control them.

    Beyond that in countries where they don’t have $$$$$$$ for medications, and inmates are treated in inhumane ways, they have more recovery; which isn’t to support inhumane treatment, it’s what “medications” really do.

    Or should we bring back the rod to get rid of covid. And is there compelling evidence that locking your children up will send the common flue into outer space where NASA sent a “vinyl” recording of the Queen of the Night aria?

    And would that be a “capitalist” setup to sell record players to the space aliens, or in this case vaccines against the flues that might end up infecting the rest of the Universe, which I do think is a problem.

    Now….

    sorry about that….

    This becomes very sad when children that just possible need a little bit of legroom are rounded up and used as evidence that because they get covid more often and survive it, that giving them “medications” that would compromise their ability to survive it would help others who already are more compromised.

  4. I can’t help but think the research could have been funded in part by pharma. It seems in line with a sentence in the article the authors link to in The New York Times:

    “The Food and Drug Administration has cited every major A.D.H.D. drug — stimulants like Adderall, Concerta, Focalin and Vyvanse, and nonstimulants like Intuniv and Strattera — for false and misleading advertising since 2000, some multiple times.”

    Even if they weren’t involved, their marketing permeates the culture, and perhaps the minds of researchers.

  5. I’m more at risk for dying if I contract Covid-19 due to my autoimmune disease caused by years on SSRIs.

    Why is it surprising that STIMULANTS which wear the body down by artificially boosting energy levels make kids more prone to infection and poor prognosis from the infection?

    Does forcing a child to drink 5 cups of coffee and a 6 pack of Mountain Dew every flu season make them less at risk for infection?

LEAVE A REPLY