Sunday, August 7, 2022

Comments by JD

Showing 3 of 3 comments.

  • Ok fair enough gold star. I certainly don’t know everything. Please explain the three and eight year data for the MTA study. Also, can you help me understand why a significant portion of patients in the MTA study NO LONGER MET CRITERIA FOR ADHD at the 8 year mark? Is ADHD a vanishing brain disease? Did these children’s neural pathways heal as they matured? Did their deficiency of dopamine at the synapse correct itself when they were no longer medicated? And what do you make of these other studies (Raine, OSU) which also fail to demonstrate significant long term benefit for stimulants in treatment of ADHD? Thank you!

  • Mischaracterizing Motivational Interviewing (MI). I certainly agree that the sort of disease mongering and drug pushing AbbVie engages in is deplorable. However, this is in no way indicative of the MI approach to patient care. “We work on pushing them to desire a change in treatment, because now they’re expecting a little bit more, and then we follow that with explaining how Humira could be the solution,” Marty Caniff of Intouch explained. In MI there is NO pushing and NO persuasion. See Miller and Rollnick (2013) or What AbbVie is doing is cheap and dirty persuasion, not MI.

  • I (I’m a mental health counselor) was recently chastised by a psychiatrist for telling the mother of a patient about the MTA outcomes–he stated I was taking advantage of this uneducated (his word) woman and that I also misunderstood the implications of the MTA study. He said we are “supposed to be working together” and that I undermined him by talking about risks of medications and lack of long term evidence for benefit. I mark it as a significant moment in my career– the system was wagging its finger at me. I thought I might lose my job. Still employed though.