Science and Sensibility – the illusion of proof

The Illusion of Proof

© By Madelyn Griffith-Haynie, CTP, CMC, A.C.T., MCC, SCAC
Foundational Concepts of the Intentionality Series

Observation, Anecdotal Report and Science

I have a love/hate relationship
with science.  

I’m hoping to encourage the readers of this blog to develop a similar approach to what we like to think of as “proof.”

I’d like to convince you of the wisdom of stepping away from black and white thinking to embrace the possibility of the pragmatics of gray.

(By the way, the perils of  black and white thinking is one of the most useful concepts I write about, so if you haven’t clicked over to read, don’t miss it!)


  • I LOVE the fact that long-term, repeated observations can be “scientifically validated.”  Eventually.
  • I ADORE the idea that a well-designed scientific experiment, coupled with new technology, can explain why things work the way they do.
    Sooner or later. 
  • I think it’s GREAT that a well-designed scientific experiment, coupled with new technology, can also discount the sacred cows that keep many of us in the “alphabet disorders” rank and file stuck in just-try-harder molasses, giving us “permission” to stop attempting what, for us, will never work very well.
  • I also LOVE it when others are finally willing to take long-term, repeated observations seriously after they have been scientifically validated . . .

. . . sometimes even while we are still young enough to build successful lives as a result of what science “proves” concerning what has been observed and reported for quite some time — by patients as well as the practitioners who work in the trenches rather than in the labs.

– links on this site are dark grey to reduce distraction potential while you’re reading.
They turn
red on mouseover. Hold before clicking for a window with more info

On the OTHER hand . . .

*attribution below

I can’t stand the idea that Skeptical followers of THE scientific way seem to discount evidence of the exceptions to the “rules” they’ve put together based on what “they’ve” discovered so far — until, that is, “they” discover and embrace scientific “proof” of how and why an exception exists.

That dynamic is especially unfortunate, given the length of time it takes for credible research to be peer reviewed and Journal published, with still more time before the for-the-public science writers get their articles into magazines that most of the populace has access to and reads. By that time, it’s old news.

  • I HATE the fact that the politics of the scientific field have enough power to keep credible research from being published in scientific journals at all — sometimes, as with Taub’s work and the other early neuroplasticity studies, for years!

Meanwhile, MANY too many individuals continue to struggle, brilliant life-potential is lost to chronic underfunctioning, and far too many give up and decide to end the struggle for good.

  • I truly despise the idea that evidence of what works – for ONE or for many – is routinely discounted until science “proves” that it’s okay to believe the observation that it does, in fact, “seem” to work.
  • It makes me BEYOND CRAZY that most people will skim a study, form an opinion out of their own confirmation bias, then spread their innacurate conclusions ALL OVER THE WEB under incendiary titles that spread utter nonsense faster than a deranged game of “Telephone.”

Confirmation bias is a term describing the tendency of people to favor information that confirms their hypotheses or closely held belief systems.

Individuals display confirmation bias when they selectively gather, note or remember information, or when they interpret it in a way that fits what they already believe.

The effect is stronger for emotionally charged issues, for deeply entrenched beliefs, when we are desperate for answers, and when there is more attachment to being right than being effective.

So, ANY time I cite a study, get out your salt-shaker!

Take the information with MORE than a grain of salt.

Unless you yourself take the time to read and understand every single word of the original study, you have no idea whether I have understood it effectively enough to “use it in a sentence,” whether I have reported it accurately, or whether the science itself was riddled with assumptive or sampling errors I chose to overlook on my way to “proving” my point.  DO YOU?

That warning goes DOUBLE for any site that doesn’t warn you against swallowing ANYONE’s opinion as if it were fact!

Because that’s what even a scientific “conclusion” is, you realize – an expert opinion.

So TRIPLE  that warning if a secondary source reports ANY study as an absolute.

You probably won’t find an original source that makes that mistake, but if you DO, ignore it completely.  It will be torn to shreds by the rest of the science field soon enough!


YOUR brain.

Do your best to keep an open mind, reject fear-based conclusions, and don’t swallow anything hook-line-and-sinker – especially items that seem to support what you already believe.

Try on new points of view & don’t fall for the illusion of knowledge

  • Don’t mistake “unfamiliar” for “untrue.”
  • Likewise, don’t assume “the familiar” is necessarily “the truth.”
  • Familiarity does not necessarily equal understanding, and
  • The results of a scientific study are NOT the same thing as proof

Double-check everything you learn – here or anywhere else – by running it through your experience databanks. Integrate new learning into the knowledge-base of the one and only expert whose opinion truly matters where your health and your life are concerned: YOU.

Respect your own instincts and experience as ONE of the expert opinions you consider.

The fact that I’ve been working in the field for 25 years is a good indication that I’ve given the content I write about a great deal of thought, and that I have amassed a great deal of knowledge.

It doesn’t make me free from confirmation bias of my own – and NOBODY has time to read everything published on these topics anymore.

Likewise, remember that credible studies are good indications of how and why things work in the brains of those of us withalphabet disorders,” but even science that has been accepted for YEARS can be overturned – it happens frequently, in fact.

“Scientific” is a moving target

  • Expert scientists ALWAYS knew better, but most of the non-expert docs, even those who claimed to specialize in ADD, believed for almost twenty years that ADD was confined to children under the age of puberty: NO ADDults, dismissing the anecdotal report of thousands.  (Many too many docs still do, by the way!)
  • We believed until VERY recently that humans were born with ALL the neurons they would ever have, and that things went downhill from there – until death.  NOT SO!
  • The Neuron Doctrine, developed out of the research of science great Ramón Y Cajal, was overlooked in favor of Golgi’s interpretation for longer than made sense.  
  • Once the Neuron Doctrine became widely accepted, neurons were considered the brain’s only workhorses, completely ignoring the possible (probable?) importance of the four (or more?) types of glial cells that make up MORE THAN HALF of the human brain. We’re learning better only recently.
  • The concept of neuroplasticity was pooh-poohed for MANY years, despite the observable and anecdotal evidence that stroke and accident victims recovered functioning somehow, and credible research that Journals refused to publish for reasons of field politics and funding imperatives.
  • And what about the centuries where that Flat Earth theory (and the “fact” that the sun revolved around the earth) was accepted so absolutely that those “crackpots” who promoted the idea of a round earth in a solar system revolving around the sun were forced to recant?

As we learn more, we know more; as we know more, we learn more.  As knowledge expands, some of the things we thought we “knew” turn out to be misunderstood, misleading, or frankly false.

It’s quite amazing, actually, how many people overlook the following two points:

  • JUST because there has been a study citing correlation that indicates the possibility of causation, doesn’t mean that causation has been “proven”
  • And JUST because you cannot point to a scientific study “proving” that your experience of probable cause is valid, doesn’t mean that is is NOT true.

Try your dardest NOT to be one of the overlookers –
and try even harder not to take them seriously!

Oh yeah, ONE more thing: just because a science article is published with a photo of a brain-scan does NOT make it more “scientifically credible” than an article that doesn’t trot one out — that craziness is on the rise, so watch out for it!

For those who choose to believe otherwise, please note that this article is now accompanied by an Axial MRI slice at the level of the basal ganglia, showing fMRI BOLD signal changes overlaid in red (increase) and blue (decrease) tones — so it’s OK to take it seriously.  (© Creative Commons, Wikipedia)

Pretty silly “corroboration” of the value of the content, huh? 

  • Like I said in the “one more thing” paragraph, watch out for that idea. 
  • And, like I said earlier in this article, and in a number of other articles on this site, always read with your brain engaged.

Stay tuned & click around – other articles here on (and those to come) will help you build the beginning of a list of your very own practical ways to incorporate the principles of Intentionality into your very own life – absolutely free, with no strings attached (and only a brief reminder that you can hire me for coaching, a consultation, workshop or speaking engagement).

Don’t overlook scrolling down to read the comment section below (which now includes an interesting video posted by an MD who comments on  – ring in with your own thoughts on the matter too!

CLICK HERE for the next article in this Series: The Tragedy of Certainty,
written for my blog on the website of Hazel Owen’s Ethos Consultancy community site
(take time to read the comments – and follow the links – nifty stuff there!)

*attribution below

On The Other Hand logo for the On The Other Hand Podcast “which contains interviews, commentaries and rants with rational, scientific, evidence oriented practitioners in chiropractic, native medicine and healthcare. Dr. Brett L. Kinsler debunks some aspects of alternative medicine while highlighting people who present the best, but often overlooked, sides of their fields.”

CLICK HERE for the On Other Hand blog

As always, if you want notification of new articles in this series – or any new posts on this blog – give your email address to the nice form on the top of the skinny column to the right.  (You only have to do this once, so if you’ve already asked for notification about a prior series, you’re covered for this one too) STRICT No Spam Policy

If you’d like some one-on-one (or group) coaching help with anything that came up while you were reading this article (either for your own life, that of a loved one, or as coaching skills development), click the E-me link  <—here (or on the menubar at the top of every page) and I’ll get back to you ASAP (accent on the “P”ossible!)

Related Articles on

BY THE WAY: Since is an Evergreen Site, I revisit all my content periodically to update links — when you link back, like, comment (or follow), you STAY on the page. When you do not, you run a high risk of getting replaced by a site with a more generous come-from.

About Madelyn Griffith-Haynie, MCC, SCAC
Award-winning ADD Coach Training Field founder; ADD Coaching field co-founder; [life] Coaching pioneer -- Neurodiversity Advocate, Coach, Mentor & Poster Girl -- Multi-Certified -- 25 years working with EFD [Executive Functioning disorders] and struggles in hundreds of people from all walks of life. I developed and delivered the world's first ADD-specific coach training curriculum: multi-year, brain-based, and ICF Certification tracked. In addition to my expertise in ADD/EF Systems Development Coaching, I am known for training and mentoring globally well-informed ADD Coach LEADERS with the vision to innovate, many of the most visible, knowledgeable and successful ADD Coaches in the field today (several of whom now deliver highly visible ADD coach trainings themselves). For almost a decade, I personally sponsored and facilitated seven monthly, virtual and global, no-charge support and information groups The ADD Hours™ - including The ADD Expert Speakers Series, hosting well-known ADD Professionals who were generous with their information and expertise, joining me in my belief that "It takes a village to educate a world." I am committed to being a thorn in the side of ADD-ignorance in service of changing the way neurodiversity is thought about and treated - seeing "a world that works for everyone" in my lifetime. Get in touch when you're ready to have a life that works BECAUSE of who you are, building on strengths to step off that frustrating treadmill "when 'wanting to' just doesn't get it DONE!"

21 Responses to Science and Sensibility – the illusion of proof

  1. Pingback: Sleep Timing and Time Tangles | ADD . . . and-so-much-more

  2. Pingback: Emotional Mastery to help us move forward | ADD . . . and-so-much-more

  3. Pingback: Predicting Time to Manage Tasks | ADD . . . and-so-much-more

  4. Pingback: The Importance of Community to Health | ADD . . . and-so-much-more

  5. Pingback: I am NOT a Lab Rat! | ADD . . . and-so-much-more

  6. Nice post. I was checking continuously this blog and
    I am impressed! Extremely useful information particularly the last
    part 🙂 I care for such information much. I was looking for this particular info for a long time.
    Thank you and best of luck.


  7. Pingback: Our Mission – The Objective Review

  8. Pingback: Our Mission - The Objective ReviewThe Objective Review Citizen's Network

  9. Pingback: Our Mission | The Objective Review

  10. Instead of answering to each comment, I’d just like to mention there is a ton of information within the above comments and I’ve thoroughly enjoyed reading. Are you ready for the conference? Be good to yourself. BTW how’s the recently injured nurse and family doing?Take care and stay safe, Edie


  11. MindBody says:

    Thankyou Madelyn,
    I am very much better, after a very difficult year.

    Like you- I do not have a fixed position either for or against stimulants.
    The current evidence for neuroplasticity is very clear, as is the accumulating evidence for mindfulness practices in enhancing attention skills.

    Now in his book “Mindsight”, Dr Daniel Siegel lists a number of criteria for neuroplastic change.
    Above and beyond adequate nutrition etc the individual must be sufficiently aroused (alert) the task must be sufficiently novel and interesting, and the individual must have tha ability to focus on the task in a stable way.

    Now in my opinion that is a very clear suggestion that stimulants can be meaningfully used as adjuncts to mindfulness training to help stabilise attention on the task we are training in.

    IE Stimulants assist learning.
    Use stimulants to help learn about attention.

    On the Illusion of Proof- you may like this short video on “The Science Delusion” that was initially on TedX but was censored:

    There is enough there to challenge the more rigid thinkers in this world.


    • Have only raced through Mindsight so far, but did listen to a podcast recap and an interview. Good stuff – a more careful reading is on my list (I’m a Siegel fan).

      I agree with your logic about stims and mindfulness. What is mindfulness, after all, but directed attention in a practiced, sustained manner?

      JUST got the notification to moderate this comment (after 3:30 AM E.), so I’ll keep this brief enough to allow me to toddle off to bed (perchance to sleep?)

      I’ll watch the video tomorrow evening, and will come back to comment at that point. Increasing the flexibility of rigid thinkers is an admirable goal! Thanks for sharing.

      COMMENT can now be found below – VERY exciting stuff!


    • Noonish Sat: 3/23 — Well, MB, I don’t know whether to kiss you or kick you!! ::VERY big grin:: My schedule is now in shambles!!

      You could chalk it up to “hyperfocus” (or, if you’re Barkley, “perseveration”) — I am more inclined to say abject fascination more compelling than my to-do list which, at this particular juncture of my life has lost a great deal of its appeal for a number of reasons.

      Clicking for a quick listen to the video you posted, despite my intention to wait, the video above started me on a trek through the fields of morphogenesis – Sheldrake videos and interviews bumped practically everything else for the past 24 hours, playing in the background even as I slept. (I am listening to #62 of 80 as I type – “The Morphogenetic Universe”).

      At this moment, I am struck by five exciting thoughts primarily:

      #1 – that neuroplasticity could quite possibly turn out to be a function of morphogenetics – AND

      #2 – from that frame, that one of the functions of glial cells would seem to be to *boundary* morphogenetics, with sometimes unfortunate effects (as in spinal cord injury and MS);

      #3 – that Cartesian dualism and duality itself (including black and white thinking), could be explained as a product or quality of “field” phenomena (as with magnetic polarity) – although I’m not sure HOW one can successfully encourage folks to embrace “north” *AND* “south” vs. north OR south – much less to explore the “out of current paradigm” territory in between!)

      #4 – my abject admiration for the charge-neutral manner in which he is able to handle questions and interviews – Sheldrake remains unemotionally intellectual and good humored, even in the face of rising emotion and/or negativity from others; his unabashed disclosure of his own sprirituality from a Christian perspective, along with his simple assertion that he believes conflict between religion and science is totally unnecessary is IMPRESSIVELY courageous in today’s either/or climate.

      #5 – MOST IMPACTFUL – this maverick, rejected practically out of hand by most of the Skeptics and many of the guardians of the journal publishing “industry” (who seem to ignore the conflict with the objectives of science itself in rejecting Sheldrake’s work on psi **totally unread** because they do not believe that the topic is valid, since it does not fit within the current frames they have adopted – actually SAYING so on rejection – without, it would seem, any intellectual curiosity what-so-ever), Sheldrake has managed, none-the-less, to find his Tribe, including publishers willing to help him get his ideas into the world in book form.

      The fact that I was able to gather 80 examples of 30 to 90-minute interviews and talks without digging (evidence of this last point) is extremely encouraging to me.

      Glory Hallelujah! There ARE more than a few small pockets of educated people on this planet who are *eager* to seriously consider and discuss “maverick” ideas and possibilities in an endeavor to move science and humanity forward — including citizens of a number of related fields as well as “unrelated” individuals who are “merely” fond of THINKING as an activity.

      Increasingly so, I have become more than weary of the imposition of organizational infrastructure on the coaching field to which I have mortgaged my life, as I watch more and more of my colleagues “toe the line” (some of whom trained with ME).

      For the past few years, I have been in the process of deciding how, where and whether to aim further efforts of MY life as I move forward.

      Marketing and administrative objectives seem to me to have superseded practically everything else in the coaching/training field, and the explosion of turf wars makes both my head and heart hurt – especially given my objectives when I put together the first ADD Coach Training on the planet, including personally funding the expenses that early tuitions could not BEGIN to cover for the first EIGHT trainings, simply because I was convinced of the importance of trained ADD Coaches to ADDers everywhere. (Use the search box for “The Goose Story” if you’re interested)

      Groomed in the “vanilla” coaching environment initially, and focused on my Vision, I was totally unprepared for the shock of what came back at me via competition and lack of support from coaches I PAID to train!

      Getting outside the cash as king paradigm was one of the reasons I started this blog – but it now seems that, even for free, I have chosen a community with insufficient drive, interest, time – or WHATEVER – to become forces for global change – EVEN to the level of helping to spread the word of this blog’s existence. (It has not been lost on me that MOST of the folks who link BACK to my links to them are *NOT* ADD coaches, or even ADDers themselves)

      As a result of repeated observations of the dynamic above in the two years of the existence of, I have been in a funk bordering on depression and hopelessness for the past year, and point #5 has perked up my mood considerably!!

      I still am in the process of deciding how to spend my energies for the remainder of my life, but I am SO GRATEFUL to you for the much needed “wind beneath my wings” afforded as a result of your posting of the video above.

      Kisses, kisses, KISSES!!

      Madelyn Griffith-Haynie, CMC, SCAC, MCC
      – ADD Coaching Field co-founder –
      (ADDandSoMuchMore and ADDerWorld – dot com!)
      “It takes a village to transform a world!”


      • Well that is quite the nicest reply I have had for some time ! 🙂
        I did not realise that Sheldrake was Christian. I am Buddhist- and his ideas fit just as well into my understanding of the world.
        I agree with you 100% about the importance of sidestepping the money economy. Ultimately if we do what we care about, for the benefit of all, then the financial side of things will sort itself.

        Now on the subject of neuroplasticity and morphogenetics- one curious idea that does occur to me repeatedly, is that I have at least two quite different modes of functioning. One is super focussed, well organised, structured, can pull in all sorts of ideas from all sorts of memories- and the other is just a mess.

        I see it with plenty of other ADDers.
        One of the big concerns I have about the whole ADD idea is that the “Russell Barkely” approach just convinces a whole lot of people that they have far bigger problems than they really do have.

        Now as far as Sheldrake’s tribe goes- I can suggest a few other names you should look at:
        Bruce Lipton (The Biology of Belief), Gregg Braden (The Divine Matrix) and Doc Childre and Howard Martin of “The Institute of Heart Math”. Put these individuals together and a powerful way of reinventing our future rapidly becomes available to all of us.
        thanks again


        • Lipton I know, Heart Math I know OF (on my list) but have not yet investigated beyond a primary awareness through a talk by Lipton and Dr. Rick Leskowitz (director of Integrative Medicine Taskforce at Spaulding Rehabilitation Hospital in Boston —

          Braden is brand new & now on my list. THANKS.

          Others for you: If you missed my Brain Science Podcast (<==link) article, go there for links to some interesting reviews of foundational ideas along with interviews with many of the authors of the books written about them — science-based, skeptical with a small "s" – but inquisitive and open minded. Not solely materialists — like Damasio (Self Comes to Mind), nice interview with Fields (The Other Brain), etc. Links to current and past show-notes, mp3s and pdfs on the site linked to article.

          This (primarily monthly) podcast is one of the ways I keep up with my reading, serving as "Cliff Notes" for books and ideas I have not had time to devour as yet. Since she reversed her opinion on ADD after interviewing Ratey for Spark and had him back to talk about ADD, I never miss it (both interviews are good, btw).

          From one of the talks in my recent marathon I learned that Sheldrake is an Anglican – raised so, lapsed for years as he studied many other religions (including Buddhism), then returning to his Church after 7 years in India. As you might imagine, he is not a fundamentalist, and sees no conflict among the world religions, embracing the major themes of all — for him, the choice was more in keeping with cultural resonance.

          Re: "sidestepping the money economy" – it's not that I am unaware of the importance of currency (and am currently deciding how I want to spend my time making enough to fund my life as I age). I doubt that housing lords or electric companies etc. could (or will) ever be run on a traditional barter economy, and we can't ALL grow what we eat!

          Valued even relatively appropriately, money is a handy medium of exchange that makes it possible for each of us to focus our livelihoods in ways that suit our interests and talents, pooling our resources, so to speak.

          NOR do I have a problem with income disparity PER SE (i.e., heart surgeons make more than hotel maids per hour, not because an hour from one is WORTH more than an hour from the other, but because there's a lot more involved in the delivery of one service vs. another). I also believe that individuals willing to assume the risks and time-consuming headaches involved in, for example, starting and running companies that employ others, also deserve a bigger piece of the pie they bake together.

          How MUCH bigger is where things begin to fall apart for me. I don't believe that the "open the books" idea will prove to be a panacea, since many folks truly believe they are entitled to "vote" on what another needs and desires, more often than not without an understanding of the total picture — and legislating the generosity meme will continue to prove impossible.

          What disgusts me is more along the lines of "the love of money as the root of evil" — cash as king to an extent I consider "money-grubbing." I have no answers, even for myself, but I have long realized that I have no understanding of (or interest in hanging out with) individuals who unwilling to give back to those who support them — any more than I have the time of day for bigots or more overt narcissists

          My thinking on the fluctuations of functionality is outlined in my TaskMaster Series – see the following links for some basics (sorry – WordPress won’t “hold” the “open in new window” currently, so you’ll have to use your browser’s back button to come back here):
          * The Importance of Closing Open Loops (review of concepts – more detail below)
          * Taking Your Functional Temperature
          * Juggling Invisible Balls

          I'm LOVING this conversation with you, but I MUST move on. WordPress is not working (AGAIN! groan – weekends and nights, ALWAYS, when I have time to write new posts or attend to blog details at length) – continually bumping me, making me relog IN, THEN not taking my password — grrrr (yeah, clear cache! – as if THAT ever works! – means “don’t bother us with your problems!”) — so it has taken FOREVER to get this comment up.

          ALSO, as of last night, I have a new phone (yay!) I must now figure out how to use or I'm in bigtime trouble tomorrow (boo!) — BEGINNING with unlocking the keyboard!!

          I swear, I spend WAY too much time feeling like an old lady in her buggy totally confused by those new-fangled cars!


  12. MindBody says:

    I might also add that the issue of pharmaceuticals is particularly conflicted because of the ample evidence that the pharmaceutical companies bury any studies that do not support whatever drug they are currently trying to sell.


    • Good point! ALL businesses do that, btw., and we must always remember that pharmaceutical companies are businesses (peopled with a great many individuals who are truly in it to make a difference AS WELL AS the unfortunate few “at the top” who set policy based on economics primarily.)

      We could also BOTH probably blog for months on the unbelievable number of hoops (and HUGE expense) involved in getting a drug to market. I’m sure at least *some* of the policy makers of “Big Pharma” justify their decisions with an eye toward remaining viable economically to be ABLE to stay in business to help anybody at all.

      Like it or not, and admit it in print or not, the entire medical field has been built on the backs of those MANY unfortunate individuals who served as test subjects for any number of techniques and medications.

      So let’s hear it for KEEPING YOUR BRAIN ENGAGED when you engage in *any* medical decision for yourself and those you love!!



  13. MindBody says:

    “Respect your own instincts and experience as ONE of the expert opinions you consider”.
    Now that, Madelyn, is a very old concept. It goes right back 2,500 years to the “Kalamma Sutra” in which the Buddha recommends that nobody accepts anything until they have road tested it for themselves.

    The issue of malignant skepticism that you are describing (as in the “show me the evidence” gang”) is well discussed in the recent book “Antifragile” by N. N. Taleb.

    His exact and wonderful comment is “the canned-naive-academized and faux-expert response “do you have evidence that this is harmful?” (As in the examples of do you have evidence that polluting is harmful, or that smoking is harmful?).

    He is very much in favour of treatments and foods that have been around a long while. Now in that regard we do need to bear in mind that dexamphetamine is one of the older medications around.


    • @ MindBody: (MB is a doctor who chooses to blog in anonymity, currently, given the politics of the field – click over to his site to read some good stuff from his point of view)

      GREAT to hear from you again! I hope that means you are feeling better.

      How wonderful that you have taken the time to ring in on this discussion. Of COURSE there is nothing new here, but how nice to have a “fellow travel buddy” to help cite sources. Thank you. The rise in visibility of the “Science is Proof” Skeptics and a recent communication prompted the timing of this post in answer.

      To clarify for others reading (re: MB’s dex comment above), I am in NO way anti-meds (or, ipso-facto, “anti-” much of anything except for arrogance or ignorance masquerading as information). I have taken dex meds for focus since they were first prescribed to me (2 decades ago now). I have also explored a number of “alternative” treatment options, both alone as well as in combination with stims (my personal preference, currently).

      Nor do I advocate FOR medication to those who don’t want them in their bodies (although I, personally, have found them to be a godsend and I DO advocate for INFORMED CHOICE vs. fear-based reaction as one makes his or her own personal decision on the matter).

      Where kids are concerned, my call for informed choice gets louder — urging an understanding and balancing of the daunting risks of NOT medicating a child who needs it with the risks of medication. Although, thankfully, I never fell victim to the high risks of drug addiction or lawlessness that might land me in prison, my trajectory of what could have been a BRILLIANT life was forever altered by the 38 years I struggled, undiagnosed and unmedicated.

      I say that to offer some balance for parents who are agonizing over the medication decision – I would give ANYTHING to have been dx’d and medicated at 8 vs. 38!

      Science only THINKS it knows how stims work, btw – the long-term body of research has been limited to the neuron half of the brain. Doug Field’s work on glial cells [<==link] makes that painfully obvious, at least to me. In prep for an upcoming Brain-Based Coaching curriculum, I am currently studying The Other Brain like a textbook — exploring the very real possibility that ADD is a disorder of glial [mal]functioning!!!).

      HOWEVER stims work, *I* know they DO, in fact, work – for me and for many others who are fortunate enough to be “medication responders.” (Dr. Charles Parker, blogging at CorePsych [<==link] has found that regulating metabolic glitches increases the number of responders, btw.)

      In a few other posts I have said, hyperbolizing (but only slightly 😀 ), that if you tried to take away the meds that keep me functional and thinking, I’d have to shoot you. I have currently let myself run out (HATE the fact that this is, by law, a monthly to-do with a number of hoops to jump through!). I can’t TELL you how much I am struggling to function well enough to get them back on board, without dropping every other ball I am currently juggling.

      NOR do I believe ADD stimulant medications, metaphorically, do more than glasses help those who wear them learn to read – stims provide mental focus, glasses provide visual focus. One not only has to expend the time and energy to LEARN to “read,” one must ALSO expend the time and energy to READ! Medication makes it possible to learn, it doesn’t automatically inject learning at a swallow.

      Thanks again for ringing in, MB (and yes, I have made the link to other communications – simply respecting your current choice re: visibility).



And what do YOU think? I'm interested.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: