Cookie Preferences
By clicking, you agree to store cookies on your device to enhance navigation, analyze usage, and support marketing. More Info
Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
May 15, 2021
Myth: ADHD medications "anesthetize" ADHD children.
The idea here is that the drug treatment of ADHD is no more than a chemical straightjacket intended to control a child's behavior to be less bothersome to parents and teachers. After all, everyone knows that if you shoot up a person with tranquilizers, they will calm down.
Fact: ADHD medications are neither anesthetics nor tranquilizers.
The truth of the matter is that most ADHD medications are stimulants. They don't anesthetize the brain; they stimulate it. By speeding up the transmission of dopamine signals in the brain, ADHD medications improve brain functioning, which in turn leads to an increased ability to pay attention and control behavior. The non-stimulant medications improve signaling by norepinephrine. They also improve the brain's ability to process signals. They are not sedatives or anesthetics. When taking their medication, ADHD patients can focus and control their behavior to be more effective in school, work, and relationships. They are not "drugged" into submission.
Myth: ADHD medications cause drug and alcohol abuse
We know from many long-term studies of ADHD children that when they reach adolescence and adulthood, they are at high risk for alcohol and drug use disorders. Because of this fact, some media reports have implied that their drug use was caused by treatment of their ADHD with stimulant medications.
Fact: ADHD medications do not cause drug and alcohol abuse
Some ADHD medications indeed use the same chemicals that are found in street drugs, such as amphetamine. But there is a very big difference between these medications and street drugs. When street drugs are injected or snorted, they can lead to addiction, but when they are taken in pill form as prescribed by a doctor, they do not cause addiction. When my colleagues and I examined the world literature on this topic, we found that rather than causing drug and alcohol abuse, stimulant medicine protected ADHD children from these problems later in life. One study from researchers at Harvard University and the Massachusetts General Hospital found that the drug treatment of ADHD reduced the risk for illicit drug use by84 a percent. These findings make intuitive sense. These medicines reduce the symptoms of the disorder that lead to illicit drug use. For example, an impulsive ADHD teenager who acts without thinking is much more likely to use drugs than an ADHD teen whose symptoms are controlled by medical drug treatment. After we published our study, other work appeared. Some of these studies did not agree that ADHD medications protected ADHD people from drug abuse, but they did not find that they caused drug abuse.
Myth: Psychological or behavioral therapies should be tried before medication.
Many people are cautious about taking medications, and that caution is even stronger when parents consider treatment options for their children. Because medications can have side effects, shouldn't people with ADHD try to talk therapy before taking medicine?
Fact: Treatment guidelines suggest that medication is the first-line treatment.
The problem with trying talk or behavior therapy before medication is that medication works much better. For ADHD adults, one type of talk therapy(cognitive behavioral therapy) is recommended, but only when the patient is also taking medication. The multimodal treatment of ADHD (MTA) study examined this issue in ADHD children from several academic medical centers in the United States. That study found that treating ADHD with medication was better than treating it with behavior therapy. Importantly, behavior therapy plus medication was no more effective than medication alone. That is why treatment guidelines from the American Academy of Pediatrics and the American Academy of Children and Adolescents recommend medicine as a first-line treatment for ADHD, except for preschool children. ADHD medications indeed have side effects, but these are usually mild and typically do not interfere with treatment. And don't forget about the risks that a patient faces when they do not use medications for ADHD. These untreated patients are at risk for worsening ADHD symptoms and complications.
Myth: Brain abnormalities of ADHD patients are caused by psychiatric medications
A large scientific literature shows that ADHD people have subtle problems with the structure and function of their brains. Scientists believe that these problems are the cause of ADHD symptoms. Critics of ADHD claim that these brain problems are caused by the medications used to treat ADHD. Who is right?
Fact: Brain abnormalities are found in never medicated ADHD patients.
Alan Zametkin, a scientist at the US National Institute of Mental Health, was the first to show brain abnormalities in ADHD patients who had never been treated for their ADHD. He found that some parts of the brains of ADHD patients were underactive. His findings could not be due to medication because the patients had never been medicated. Since his study, many other researchers have used neuroimaging to examine the brains of ADHD patients. This work confirmed Dr. Zametkin’s observation of abnormal brain findings in unmediated patients. Reviews of the brain imaging literature have concluded that the brain abnormalities seen in ADHD cannot be attributed to ADHD medications.
Wilens, T., Faraone, S. V.,Biederman, J. &Gunawardene, S. (2003). Does Stimulant Therapy of Attention-Deficit hyperactivity disorder Beget Later Substance Abuse? Aneta-Analytic Review of the Literature.Pediatrics111, 179-185.
Humphreys, K. L., Eng, T. &Lee, S. S. (2013).Stimulant Medication and Substance Use Outcomes: A Meta-analysis. JAMA psychiatry, 1-9.
Chang, Z., Lichtenstein, P., Halldner,L., D'Onofrio, B., Serlachius, E., Fazel, S., Langstrom, N. & Larsson, H. (2014). Stimulant ADHD medication and risk for substance abuse. J Child Psychol Psychiatry55,878-85.
Nakao, T., Radua, J., Rubia, K. &Mataix-Cols, D. (2011 ). Gray matter volume abnormalities in ADHD: voxel-based meta-analysis exploring the effects of age and stimulant medication. Am J Psychiatry168, 1154-63.
Rubia, K., Alegria, A. A., Cubillo, A. I., Smith, A. B., Brammer, M.J. &Radua, J. (2014). Effects of stimulants on brain function inattention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Biol Psychiatry76, 616-28.
Spencer, T. J., Brown, A., Seidman, L. J., Valera, E. M., Makris, N., Lomedico, A., Faraone, S. V. &Biederman,J. (2013).Effect of psychostimulants on brain structure and function in ADHD: a qualitative literature review of magnetic resonance imaging-based neuroimaging studies. J Clin Psychiatry74, 902-17.
.png)
Language is powerful. The words we choose not only reflect our understanding of the world but also actively shape it. Recently, this truth has been at the center of a growing debate in the mental health field regarding how we talk about ADHD.
In a recent paper published in The Lancet Psychiatry titled “The Power of Words: Respectful Language in ADHD Research,” French and colleagues advocated for a shift toward "neurodiversity-affirmative language”. Rooted in the social model of disability, their proposal encourages researchers to abandon traditional medical terminology, e.g., words like disorder and deficit, in favor of more neutral terms such as condition and challenge.
My colleague, Dr. Michael Miller, and I read this with great interest. We completely agree that revising language is essential to good science and that, both as researchers and as human beings, we are ethically bound to speak respectfully. However, we felt compelled to write a response. In our new paper, we argue that while language must evolve, it must do so scientifically.
The Two Prerequisites for Language Change
If we are going to fundamentally shift our scientific lexicon, two requirements must be met:
Currently, the proposal by French and colleagues meets neither requirement. While they claim consensus is accumulating that certain terms are disrespectful, they provide zero empirical evidence that this view is shared by the community of individuals living with ADHD. Even proponents of patient-centered language admit there is surprisingly little data supporting specific language changes.
More alarmingly, the recommended changes severely dilute the scientific accuracy of our field. Let’s look at two examples.
Why a "Deficit" is Not Just a “Challenge"
French and colleagues suggest replacing the term deficit with challenge. On the surface, challenge sounds softer and more affirming. But scientifically, these words are not interchangeable.
For decades, the term deficit has been defined by a specific performance metric that falls substantially below an expected level. It is a measurable reality. A challenge, on the other hand, refers to a new or difficult task that tests someone's ability.
Every single human being is "challenged" by complex neuropsychological tests, but only some individuals who face that challenge demonstrate scientifically significant deficits. If we relabel measurable deficits as universal challenges, we sacrifice the exactness required to communicate scientific findings and accurately measure the effects of life-changing treatments.
ADHD is a Disorder, Not Just a "Condition"
Another proposal is to replace the word disorder with condition.
In mainstream psychiatry, a disorder is a clinically significant disturbance that causes distress or disability. The word purposefully separates natural human variation from the suffering (pathos) that gives pathology its meaning.
Condition is a completely neutral term. Pregnancy is a condition. Being tall is a condition. Calling ADHD a condition distances the diagnosis from the profound suffering it can cause.
French et al. argue against framing ADHD as a disorder because it exists on a spectrum without a clear cutoff, its manifestation is context-dependent, and its definition evolves. But if we apply that logic across all of medicine, the concept of disease unravels:
The Real-World Danger of Imprecise Language
This is not merely an academic debate over semantics. The language we use has real-world implications. In the United States and across the globe, our healthcare, educational, and legal systems run on precise medical language. Terms like impairment, dysfunction, and disorder are legally and administratively required to justify support services, workplace accommodations, specialized educational therapies, and medications. The language of pathology in diagnostic manuals regulates the flow of these resources.
If we reclassify ADHD as a neutral condition characterized only by challenges, we risk erecting massive bureaucratic barriers. Imprecise language could easily be used by institutions or insurance companies to deny vital care to the people who need it most.
The Need for Lexical Discipline
Attempting to characterize a clinical disorder entirely through its strengths happens in a scientific vacuum. We cannot ignore the vast body of rigorous evidence confirming that ADHD meets the long-standing criteria used by mental health science to identify clinical disorders.
As professionals, our respect for the ADHD community demands a commitment to language that is clear, correct, and evidence-based. To build genuine consensus about how we talk about ADHD, we need meaningful, collaborative dialogue that integrates compelling empirical data and rigorous theory.
This standard of "lexical discipline" is not just a technical preference. It is a vital mechanism through which science and the mental health professions uphold their duty to society.
For many ADHD patients, getting properly diagnosed and starting meds is only half the battle. The next step is figuring out the exact right dose. Historically, clinical guidelines have provided scant guidance on this critical step. This lack of direction can inadvertently foster two extremes in clinical practice: therapeutic inertia (settling for a subtherapeutic dose that leaves symptoms undertreated) or uncritical escalation (driving doses higher and higher beyond licensed limits without meaningful benefit).
To clear up this pharmacological gray area, an international team of researchers published the first comprehensive dose-effect network meta-analysis of ADHD medications in The Lancet Psychiatry. By pulling together a massive vault of clinical trial data, they mapped out exactly how efficacy and tolerability shift as doses increase.
Traditional meta-analyses evaluate head-to-head, pairwise data, comparing one drug at a specific dose directly against a placebo. However, this study utilized an advanced Bayesian hierarchical network model using restricted cubic splines.
This mathematical framework allowed the researchers to combine both direct trial data and indirect evidence simultaneously across 113 double-blind randomized controlled trials (RCTs). In total, the study evaluated data from 14,138 children/adolescents and 11,016 adults. By standardizing various formulations into basic equivalents (e.g., converting amphetamines to dextroamphetamine equivalents), they created a clear, unified map of dose ranges.
The study yielded distinct dose-response curves depending on the patient's age and the specific medication class. Rather than a linear trend in which "more medicine equals more benefit," most treatments reach a clear statistical plateau or ceiling.
For Children and Adolescents (under 18)
In the pediatric population, medications hit clear peak efficacy boundaries:
For both amphetamines and guanfacine, escalating the dosage past these points resulted in U-shaped curves, meaning further dose hikes yielded diminishing group-level symptom reduction.
For Adults (18 and older)
Adult profiles showed slightly different trajectories:
The ultimate goal of this landmark analysis is to guide shared decision-making between clinicians, patients, and families. The results send a dual message to the medical community:
A medication's true efficacy hinges on its tolerability, typically measured by how often patients discontinue treatment due to severe side effects. For amphetamines, this dropout risk scales linearly with dosage, notably exceeding placebo in children above 25 mg/day and becoming prominent in adults past 50 mg/day. In contrast, methylphenidate shows no clear dose-dependent dropout risk in pediatric patients, whereas adults face a steep risk curve: increasing the dose from 60 mg/day to 90 mg/day raises the dropout risk from 7.3% to 10.0% for only modest symptom relief. Finally, youth taking guanfacine experience a sharp climb in discontinuation risks, reaching a 9.8% median risk at 4 mg/day before data limitations obscure further trends.
The authors strongly emphasize that these findings represent group averages. Because individual metabolism, genetics, and comorbidities vary widely, some specific patients may legitimately require and tolerate higher off-label doses. However, if an unusually high dose is needed, the study suggests it should prompt a careful clinical pause, either to reassess for co-occurring conditions (like anxiety, autism, or sleep disorders) or to manage realistic expectations regarding what the medication can achieve.
The persistent shortage of ADHD medications has been more than a simple annoyance for patients at the pharmacy; the inconsistent availability of these medications has had deep impacts on the daily lives of those struggling without them. While public discourse has pointed fingers at over-prescribing or at restrictive DEA quotas, a recent economic evaluation in JAMA Health Forum suggests we’ve been looking in the wrong direction for an answer to what is causing this.
The reality of the shortage is less about increased demand and more about a fragile, globalized supply chain that snapped at a critical link.
Debunking the "Quota Myth":
The prevailing narrative suggested that the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) was stifling production by refusing to raise quotas. However, the data tells a different story. In 2022, manufacturers collectively met only about 70% of their allotted production quotas.
So we know that the problem wasn't that this DEA quota ceiling was too low. In fact, most manufacturers couldn't even reach it. Even when accounting for exports and domestic retail, production remained significantly below the legal limit. Even if the DEA had doubled its quotas, these medications still likely wouldn't have magically appeared on pharmacy shelves.
The most striking finding in the study is the correlation between the shortage and a sharp decline in the import of raw Active Pharmaceutical Ingredients (APIs). For the past decade, Germany has accounted for over 85% of US amphetamine imports. In 2022, these imports dropped by approximately 36.7%. When the API doesn't arrive at the factory, production for medium and small manufacturers grinds to a halt. Unlike larger pharmaceutical giants, these smaller players often lack the inventory cushion or flexibility to quickly pivot to a new supplier.
When the primary supply of amphetamine-based stimulants (like Adderall) faltered, it triggered a secondary crisis. Patients and clinicians, seeking alternatives, shifted toward lisdexamfetamine (Vyvanse) and methylphenidate (Ritalin/Concerta).
If we view this shortage purely through a regulatory or clinical lens, we miss the underlying cause of the crisis. The pharmaceutical industry has become a victim of its reliance on "just-in-time manufacturing” and highly concentrated sourcing. Because over 30% of APIs for the US market are produced in just one or two facilities globally, the system isn't just inefficient; it’s brittle. We are, in a sense, trapped in a system that prioritizes cost-reduction over the resilience required for public health.
The researchers suggest several policy shifts to prevent a repeat of this supply chain failure:
The ADHD medication shortage wasn't a failure of clinical oversight or a sudden surge in "TikTok-driven diagnoses”, as many have suggested. It was a failure of logistics. It reminds us that the path from a lab in Germany to a patient's hand in the US is far more precarious than we realized.
_logo%201.svg)
