kyrani99 wrote:

tolman wrote:
No, 'they' isn't whoever did the survey, since the survey was of diagnoses which had been made by others, specifically looking at the influence of class-relative age on diagnosis, and wasn't a diagnosing effort in itself.

I was highly confident that would be the case even before I saw the survey, based solely on your ramblings about it.
Which would seem to suggest that you literally don't know what you're talking about.

Possibly if you had a less 'us and them' (or, rather 'me vs. 'them') attitude, you'd be less likely to get so badly muddled.

I hadn't seen the paper at the time I said that so your criticism is just about attacking me. All I had at the time was what Frances had said. According to Dr Frances many of the children had been medicated. So it was reasonable to believe that the survey involved the people diagnosing.

So you think people surveying themselves diagnosing a 'very large number' of children is more likely than people doing a survey of how large numbers of children had been assessed by other people?

Why did you say 'they' (as in the 'they' you were talking about performing the survey) c'onsidered attention spans but never took age into account' when by definition they would have to have taken age into account in the survey to have come up with the results you were talking about in the first place

Bottom line is that not only were muddling up two different 'theys', but that you were doing that was fairly apparent to people simply reading your post even before they'd found the hard-to-miss paper on the Internet. It was certainly obvious to me, suggesting that while you had information in your head, you didn't seem to have been capable of rationally grokking its meaning.

kyrani99 wrote:It is hard not to think in terms of "them and us" partly because I am being seriously hassled for what I am saying.

Maybe if you talked less bollocks, that would be less of an issue.

kyrani99 wrote:
Rubbish. I am disliked because I have had paranormal experiences and believe in the paranormal.

I was going to write something longer but, really your not being liked boils down to you making comments like this. Comments which mean little more than "wah wah wah, you won't uncritically accept whatever I say, therefore you are bad people."

It is stuff like this which makes you disliked.

That and the obvious lying.

Sendraks wrote:

kyrani99 wrote:
Rubbish. I am disliked because I have had paranormal experiences and believe in the paranormal.

I was going to write something longer but, really your not being liked boils down to you making comments like this. Comments which mean little more than "wah wah wah, you won't uncritically accept whatever I say, therefore you are bad people."

It is stuff like this which makes you disliked.

That and the obvious lying.

Also, "hurt fawn".

tolman wrote:

kyrani99 wrote:

tolman wrote:
No, 'they' isn't whoever did the survey, since the survey was of diagnoses which had been made by others, specifically looking at the influence of class-relative age on diagnosis, and wasn't a diagnosing effort in itself.

I was highly confident that would be the case even before I saw the survey, based solely on your ramblings about it.
Which would seem to suggest that you literally don't know what you're talking about.

Possibly if you had a less 'us and them' (or, rather 'me vs. 'them') attitude, you'd be less likely to get so badly muddled.

I hadn't seen the paper at the time I said that so your criticism is just about attacking me. All I had at the time was what Frances had said. According to Dr Frances many of the children had been medicated. So it was reasonable to believe that the survey involved the people diagnosing.

So you think people surveying themselves diagnosing a 'very large number' of children is more likely than people doing a survey of how large numbers of children had been assessed by other people?

Why did you say 'they' (as in the 'they' you were talking about performing the survey) c'onsidered attention spans but never took age into account' when by definition they would have to have taken age into account in the survey to have come up with the results you were talking about in the first place

Bottom line is that not only were muddling up two different 'theys', but that you were doing that was fairly apparent to people simply reading your post even before they'd found the hard-to-miss paper on the Internet. It was certainly obvious to me, suggesting that while you had information in your head, you didn't seem to have been capable of rationally grokking its meaning.

kyrani99 wrote:It is hard not to think in terms of "them and us" partly because I am being seriously hassled for what I am saying.

Maybe if you talked less bollocks, that would be less of an issue.

At the time I answered that post I ONLY HAD the words of Dr Frances I did not have the paper.
HOWEVER I don't understand how you are quabbling about who they are when the only people that can prescdribe medication are the fucking psychiatrists.

When you read something like this"
"In 2011, the latest year for which data are available for both Medicaid and ESI populations, nearly 150,000 insured children aged 2–5 years received clinical care for ADHD, more than two-thirds of whom were Medicaid beneficiaries. Each year during 2008–2011, the percentage of children in Medicaid receiving care for ADHD was more than twice that for children with ESI. "
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/65/wr/mm6517e1.htm

How is it that you can quabble about some insignificant detail and not feel outrage ?

Children around the world are being medicated for being children! And the people doing this are psychiatrists.

Whether I had remembered things in a jumble or not the fact is I reacted to a paranormal experience of possible danger. I haven't criticized anyone for pointing out any inconsistencies. I haven't called anyone bad for their comments. So why the animosity?

kyrani99 wrote:[When you read something like this"
"In 2011, the latest year for which data are available for both Medicaid and ESI populations, nearly 150,000 insured children aged 2–5 years received clinical care for ADHD, more than two-thirds of whom were Medicaid beneficiaries. Each year during 2008–2011, the percentage of children in Medicaid receiving care for ADHD was more than twice that for children with ESI. "
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/65/wr/mm6517e1.htm

How is it that you can quabble about some insignificant detail and not feel outrage ?

Yes, it is outrageous that people on Medicaid have less access to treatment.

Children around the world are being medicated for being children! And the people doing this are psychiatrists.

No, they're being medicated for the disorder ADHD. Slight difference. Why are you not also "outraged" about all those kids being given behavior therapy for a disorder you don't believe exists?

kyrani99 wrote:Whether I had remembered things in a jumble or not the fact is I reacted to a paranormal experience of possible danger.

No, that's just another part of the jumble of a story you told, which is most likely a lie. You need to brush up on the correct meaning of the term "fact".

I haven't criticized anyone for pointing out any inconsistencies. I haven't called anyone bad for their comments. So why the animosity?

Aaand.... Once again, you are caught out in a bald-faced lie:

kyrani99 wrote:

Fallible wrote:And who do you think it says something about that a person presents a story with elements written as facts, and then later gives contradictory details or admits that they're perceptions which may or may not be true?

What you want to do is to slam me. I related an experience, which is quite emotional for me. The point of the matter however is not my emotional response and how I remembered stuff. The point is that I had a premonition and it turned out to be real. I would have been involved in the accident if I didn't pull off the road. This is what you really have a problem with because the premonition is evidence of the paranormal and you don't want to accept it for whatever reason.

Shrunk wrote:

kyrani99 wrote:[When you read something like this"
"In 2011, the latest year for which data are available for both Medicaid and ESI populations, nearly 150,000 insured children aged 2–5 years received clinical care for ADHD, more than two-thirds of whom were Medicaid beneficiaries. Each year during 2008–2011, the percentage of children in Medicaid receiving care for ADHD was more than twice that for children with ESI. "
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/65/wr/mm6517e1.htm

How is it that you can quabble about some insignificant detail and not feel outrage ?

Yes, it is outrageous that people on Medicaid have less access to treatment.

Children around the world are being medicated for being children! And the people doing this are psychiatrists.

No, they're being medicated for the disorder ADHD. Slight difference. Why are you not also "outraged" about all those kids being given behavior therapy for a disorder you don't believe exists?

Whether they can afford it or not is your concern I see.

Behavior therapy is not medication. The point is that children are children, boisterous and inquisitive and certainly can be stressful for adults but that doesn't mean we have a right to start labeling them and worse still medicating them.

kyrani99 wrote:

Shrunk wrote:

kyrani99 wrote:[When you read something like this"
"In 2011, the latest year for which data are available for both Medicaid and ESI populations, nearly 150,000 insured children aged 2–5 years received clinical care for ADHD, more than two-thirds of whom were Medicaid beneficiaries. Each year during 2008–2011, the percentage of children in Medicaid receiving care for ADHD was more than twice that for children with ESI. "
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/65/wr/mm6517e1.htm

How is it that you can quabble about some insignificant detail and not feel outrage ?

Yes, it is outrageous that people on Medicaid have less access to treatment.

Children around the world are being medicated for being children! And the people doing this are psychiatrists.

No, they're being medicated for the disorder ADHD. Slight difference. Why are you not also "outraged" about all those kids being given behavior therapy for a disorder you don't believe exists?

Whether they can afford it or not is your concern I see.

I can't see how you justify that conclusion from what I wrote above.

Behavior therapy is not medication. The point is that children are children, boisterous and inquisitive and certainly can be stressful for adults but that doesn't mean we have a right to start labeling them and worse still medicating them.

That's a non-answer.

Shrunk wrote:

kyrani99 wrote:Whether I had remembered things in a jumble or not the fact is I reacted to a paranormal experience of possible danger.

No, that's just another part of the jumble of a story you told, which is most likely a lie. You need to brush up on the correct meaning of the term "fact".

I haven't criticized anyone for pointing out any inconsistencies. I haven't called anyone bad for their comments. So why the animosity?

Aaand.... Once again, you are caught out in a bald-faced lie:

kyrani99 wrote:

Fallible wrote:And who do you think it says something about that a person presents a story with elements written as facts, and then later gives contradictory details or admits that they're perceptions which may or may not be true?

What you want to do is to slam me. I related an experience, which is quite emotional for me. The point of the matter however is not my emotional response and how I remembered stuff. The point is that I had a premonition and it turned out to be real. I would have been involved in the accident if I didn't pull off the road. This is what you really have a problem with because the premonition is evidence of the paranormal and you don't want to accept it for whatever reason.

You are the one calling out lying and from the evidence found on the net it is psychiatrists that are making it all up.. everything.. the whole DSM is a big lie. You are making it up as it suits you.

I did not call fallible "bad". I said she was looking to slam me for having a recollection that was not exactly in the right sequence that it happened. I remembered turning off the traffic land and the accident as I saw it when I walked down because these two events became fixed in my mind. When I wrote it down I had also the emotions of the time. It is notable and there is a mountain of research done on memories and how people recall them, which are different from how they actually happened. People connect things that are impressionable in mind and then recollect based on those connections. That does not make them liars.

kyrani99 wrote:At the time I answered that post I ONLY HAD the words of Dr Frances I did not have the paper.

Well, when all I had was what you wrote, my general understanding of reality led me to believe what turned out actually to be the case.

Which is why I say you didn't seem to understand what you were talking about.

kyrani99 wrote:HOWEVER I don't understand how you are quabbling about who they are when the only people that can prescdribe medication are the fucking psychiatrists.

Yet the obvious question would seem to be how diagnoses were made.

Clearly, when the relevant issue behind misdiagnosis appears to be how mature a child is relative to their classmates, information about that relative maturity would logically have to have some way of significantly influencing a diagnosis.

Did psychiatrists or their medical proxies actually sit in on each class over a period of time and rank children according to their relative maturity?
Did they interview children individually while assessing their apparent maturity relative not to expectations based on their age, but to expectations based on their school year?
Did they take assessments from teachers or other school staff as to the most inattentive or disruptive pupils as a factor in their diagnoses, and if so, how much?
Are there reasons other than simple age as to why a younger child in a class might become more disruptive or inattentive than they would have been at the same age if they were one of the older children in a class - could being 'behind' classmates purely in the sense of having lower competence actually result in meaningfully worsened behaviour and attention?

kyrani99 wrote:How is it that you can quabble about some insignificant detail and not feel outrage ?

Personally, I'd put understanding why something went wrong ahead of being outraged about it, as it seems to provide a path to fixing things as opposed to just whining about them.

Evidently, you put outrage ahead of comprehension.
But maybe you're just playing to your strengths.

I did not call fallible "bad".

You criticized her:

What you want to do is to slam me.... This is what you really have a problem with because the premonition is evidence of the paranormal and you don't want to accept it for whatever reason

Which is what you denied doing. If your response was "You're right, I forgot about that. Sorry," then maybe it's an honest mistake. Your continued transparent denial, however, moves this into an outright lie. This is not complicated.

In case it actually needs saying, she was wrong anyway. I wasn't looking to slam her because she had a recollection 'which was not exactly in the right sequence that it happened' (I don't need to, she trips herself up at every turn without my help), and I don't have a problem with kyrani having a premonition that turned out to be real, mainly because I don't have problems with things that never happened.

kyrani99 wrote:Whether I had remembered things in a jumble or not the fact is I reacted to a paranormal experience of possible danger.

No, dear, that's not a fact. You can scream that it is until you're blue in the face, but I'm afraid we're not obliged to accept it just because you weally weally believe it. Frankly I'm having a hard time believing that you would expect that to happen. In fact, I'm becoming more and more convinced that no one of your age and supposed life experience would really expect it.

I haven't criticized anyone for pointing out any inconsistencies. I haven't called anyone bad for their comments. So why the animosity?

Already addressed.

kyrani99 wrote:
I have had paranormal experiences and believe in the paranormal

I think what you label paranormal experiences are simply phenomena that you cannot rationally explain but all phenomena has a rational basis for it even if it is not understood or known. You are assuming a non rational explanation because you do not have a rational one. But can you say beyond all reasonable doubt that a rational explanation you do not yet know of can not possibly exist ? And if you can how then can you be so certain ?

kyrani99 wrote:
a mountain of research done on memories and how people recall them which are different from how they actually happened

Yes. Human memory is notoriously unreliable. Two or more people can see the same thing yet give varied or contradictory accounts of it. Which is why the testimony of eyewitnesses to crimes is much less reliable than digital or forensic evidence

tolman wrote:

kyrani99 wrote:At the time I answered that post I ONLY HAD the words of Dr Frances I did not have the paper.

Well, when all I had was what you wrote, my general understanding of reality led me to believe what turned out actually to be the case.

Which is why I say you didn't seem to understand what you were talking about.

How do you figure that. I answered "They is who ever did the survey I guess". I didn't say who did the survey because at the time I didn't know.

kyrani99 wrote:HOWEVER I don't understand how you are quabbling about who they are when the only people that can prescdribe medication are the fucking psychiatrists.

tolman wrote:Yet the obvious question would seem to be how diagnoses were made.

Clearly, when the relevant issue behind misdiagnosis appears to be how mature a child is relative to their classmates, information about that relative maturity would logically have to have some way of significantly influencing a diagnosis.

Did psychiatrists or their medical proxies actually sit in on each class over a period of time and rank children according to their relative maturity?

Did they interview children individually while assessing their apparent maturity relative not to expectations based on their age, but to expectations based on their school year?

Did they take assessments from teachers or other school staff as to the most inattentive or disruptive pupils as a factor in their diagnoses, and if so, how much?

Are there reasons other than simple age as to why a younger child in a class might become more disruptive or inattentive than they would have been at the same age if they were one of the older children in a class - could being 'behind' classmates purely in the sense of having lower competence actually result in meaningfully worsened behaviour and attention?

As can be seen in the paper none of these question were answered. And how surprising the lead author is only a master of arts!

But it is revealing what others had to say.
Firstly there is: http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/759900#vp_2
"From a scientific standpoint, this a reasonable study," Mark L. Wolraich, MD, CMRI/Shaun Walters professor of pediatrics and chief of the Section of Developmental and Behavioral Pediatrics at the University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center in Oklahoma City, told Medscape Medical News.

Dr. Mark Wolraich goes on to say:
"I'm not surprised by the results because behaviors found in children are going to come from a combination of their environment and their biologic makeup. So the school environment has an impact," said Dr. Wolraich. "However, I disagree with the extent that age is emphasized in a child's diagnosis."
In some article on my travels I found this guy seems to be saying under-diagnosis not over-diagnosis and when we consider that he is consultant to Shire, Lilly, Shinogi, and Nextwave then it seems there is conflict of interests!
It seems it doesn't matter what is published in one paper when you are a drug company you can simply get someone with more credentials to slam the results.

But then there is this:
http://www.cmaj.ca/content/184/7/755.fi ... _el_714996
second item from the bottom of the page is this:
Influence of relative age on diagnosis and treatment of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder in children

Lionel D Traverse, paediatrician Clinical Associate Professor UBC
says:
"Thank you! Thank you! Thank you! Finally a proper study that shows that this pseudo disorder has nothing to do with the child but everything to do with the environment in which the child has to live.

I have practiced paediatrics in BC for more than 25 years and fought this ADHD nonsense for as long."

And further down he writes:
"A child who is too young to be put in a cohort of other children and learn material he/she can't, will misbehave. Similarly, the familial environment is more than too often "in-adapted" to the child's needs and the child, of course misbehaves. I have seen so many children put on one of these poisonous drugs because they lived in an environment no adult could survive intact!

A child who misbehaves always has a good reason to do so. Sometimes it is a trivial reason that is easy to remedy, a reason the child perceived as traumatic but is not an abnormal situation; other times it is a genuine and really traumatic problem that must be addressed. Medicating these children and telling them they have a "brain disorder", is wrong in both cases. Neuro-stimulant medication should be the exception instead of the rule."

He restores one's faith that there are some good, i.e., humane doctors, doctors who are not greed driven.

kyrani99 wrote:How is it that you can quabble about some insignificant detail and not feel outrage ?

tolman wrote:Personally, I'd put understanding why something went wrong ahead of being outraged about it, as it seems to provide a path to fixing things as opposed to just whining about them.

Evidently, you put outrage ahead of comprehension.
But maybe you're just playing to your strengths.

Outrage comes first and it is the impetus to make one investigate and look at the issue more closely.. then comes comprehension. Children are being medicated for bad parenting or bad teacher ability to teach and for just being children.
The drugs that are given are chemical sledgehammers and they are given to toddlers. This is criminal and after comprehension even more outrage.. if you have some humanity.

I understand alright. The question is do you understand?

Shrunk wrote:

I did not call fallible "bad".

You criticized her:

What you want to do is to slam me.... This is what you really have a problem with because the premonition is evidence of the paranormal and you don't want to accept it for whatever reason

Which is what you denied doing. If your response was "You're right, I forgot about that. Sorry," then maybe it's an honest mistake. Your continued transparent denial, however, moves this into an outright lie. This is not complicated.

Criticism you're complaining off. So what are you doing?
Why should I say sorry when all along I am being slammed?
I've made no transparent denials. I have thought about it some more and clarified the situation better.

kyrani99 wrote:

Shrunk wrote:

I did not call fallible "bad".

You criticized her:

What you want to do is to slam me.... This is what you really have a problem with because the premonition is evidence of the paranormal and you don't want to accept it for whatever reason

Which is what you denied doing. If your response was "You're right, I forgot about that. Sorry," then maybe it's an honest mistake. Your continued transparent denial, however, moves this into an outright lie. This is not complicated.

Criticism you're complaining off. So what are you doing?

I'm criticizing you. Difference is, I never denied doing so. You did. Can you follow that?

kyrani99 wrote:As can be seen in the paper none of these question were answered.

But that's not what the paper was (or presumably was intended to be) about - it was essentially about large-scale data collection.

kyrani99 wrote:And how surprising the lead author is only a master of arts!

Personally, I'd be wary of jumping to conclusions based simply on 'MA', particularly with regard to someone's actual areas of trained expertise.

Even when it comes to medical research studies, an 'MD' certainly wouldn't mean someone was necessarily the better-qualified person for much of the study work.