Treatment can significantly contribute to avoiding ADHD
Denying and distorting the difficulties of ADHD in maintaining a new science. One of the most important reasons, besides some that simply do not want to have problems or take medicine, is that the basic new science is often overlooked. Most importantly, psychiatric labels failed to cope with the functional science of the brain. Current labels are too detailed, too descriptive and have no functional biological meaning.
The unfortunate result of these circumstances is: medical goals are inaccurate, significant goals for symptoms are missed, and are often simply used whimsically. If the documents do not have an exact goal, it is almost impossible to hit the target. The absence of a label directly correlates with encouraging negation.
These seven brief observations underpin some of the most complex public perceptions regarding the use of drugs used to treat ADHD.
The first three main points: the result of medical confusion and inaccurate use of drugs without specific measurements - the key word - iatrogenic - from my first post 2 years ago on the website below:
1. The correct diagnosis: if the diagnosis of ADHD is made with shallow observations, descriptively, not functionally, the goals of treatment seem vague, inconclusive and somewhat imaginary - like themselves with the description. Unfortunately, doctors daily struggle with these whims.
2. Proper treatment. Although many understand the pharmacology of stimulant drugs, many simply do not waste time. If the doc does not know the differences that he / she will not solve, and if he does not address the patient, the inevitable side effects will be the fault of the diagnosis and the specific medicine — and the client simply does not want to do it again.
3. Correct dosage: all ADHD medications require titration strategies to recruit them specifically. If titration strategies are not used, and many do not practice specific titrations, the treatment course confuses the highs, lows and internal outs. The treatment regimen itself becomes an obstacle to the long-term medical relationship needed to adjust the drugs. The therapeutic window, widely discussed in other articles, is often simply ignored as meaningful.
4. Belief systems: some documents simply do not believe in ADHD, and they challenge the care provided by other more informed documents. Science does not take into account - for many ADHD is characterized by a character or personality disorder, based on the will. This inadequate faith is encouraged by the cloud diagnostic process — led by those who correctly challenge the vagaries of the diagnostic process.
5. Use of antidepressants against stimulants. Some researchers who are interested in treating ADHD use 24-hour half-life thinking, for example, with antidepressants, these shorter drugs to stimulate half-life, which often last less than 12-14 hours. Stimulants must be specifically addressed.
6. Non-compliance: patients take the stimulant into their own hands, using drugs irresponsibly, have side effects, then accuse the doc, diagnosis or medications. Capricious dosage leads to capricious results and dissatisfaction. New, more effective remedies offer significant improvements in the process.
7. Previous bad experience: older medicines simply did not work, were too cumbersome and abused, thus turning the public into all possibilities of ADHD intervention. Some of the most significant refutations come from people identified with ADHD as children, and were then incorrectly divided into what is now antiquarian medicine. Caregivers regularly advocate for outdated drugs that provide less predictable results.
Accurate dosing, careful drug selection, knowledge of drug interactions and the assessment of multiple possible concomitant conditions will significantly improve results.
