Paul Tough

That was after 14 months of treatment. And what they showed was that the most effective treatment for behavior, for symptoms, was Ritalin. That the kids who had taken Ritalin were doing significantly better than the other groups.

So there were two things that were really troubling James Swanson. And one was that that initial expansion of diagnoses from about a million kids to about 2 million kids, that made sense to him. Because scientists thought that about 3% was the most accurate guess of what percentage of children sort of naturally had ADHD. And 2 million was pretty close to 3%. But then it kept going up.

So there were two things that were really troubling James Swanson. And one was that that initial expansion of diagnoses from about a million kids to about 2 million kids, that made sense to him. Because scientists thought that about 3% was the most accurate guess of what percentage of children sort of naturally had ADHD. And 2 million was pretty close to 3%. But then it kept going up.

So there were two things that were really troubling James Swanson. And one was that that initial expansion of diagnoses from about a million kids to about 2 million kids, that made sense to him. Because scientists thought that about 3% was the most accurate guess of what percentage of children sort of naturally had ADHD. And 2 million was pretty close to 3%. But then it kept going up.

So as the study was going on, it went up to 5%, to 6%, and he couldn't see a reason why that was happening. The other thing that he found disturbing was that he and the other scientists that were running the MTA study continued after those 14 months to carefully study the children who were in the original group.

So as the study was going on, it went up to 5%, to 6%, and he couldn't see a reason why that was happening. The other thing that he found disturbing was that he and the other scientists that were running the MTA study continued after those 14 months to carefully study the children who were in the original group.

So as the study was going on, it went up to 5%, to 6%, and he couldn't see a reason why that was happening. The other thing that he found disturbing was that he and the other scientists that were running the MTA study continued after those 14 months to carefully study the children who were in the original group.

And what they noticed was that the advantage that the kids in the Ritalin group had had after 14 months, it started to really fade. And by 36 months, there was no difference in the symptoms of any of the groups. The kids who had taken Ritalin weren't doing better in terms of their symptoms than the children who had been assigned to the behavioral group.

And what they noticed was that the advantage that the kids in the Ritalin group had had after 14 months, it started to really fade. And by 36 months, there was no difference in the symptoms of any of the groups. The kids who had taken Ritalin weren't doing better in terms of their symptoms than the children who had been assigned to the behavioral group.

And what they noticed was that the advantage that the kids in the Ritalin group had had after 14 months, it started to really fade. And by 36 months, there was no difference in the symptoms of any of the groups. The kids who had taken Ritalin weren't doing better in terms of their symptoms than the children who had been assigned to the behavioral group.

And they weren't even doing better than the kids who had not been given any treatment at all.

And they weren't even doing better than the kids who had not been given any treatment at all.

And they weren't even doing better than the kids who had not been given any treatment at all.

Yeah, I think mostly what he's concerned by is that that original study of the 14 months got a lot of attention, and the message really went out that Ritalin works, that it's the right treatment for most kids, but that the second study, the one that found that over time those effects fade, that it did not get the same type of attention, and that it's not reflected in the way that a lot of practitioners are now treating ADHD.

Yeah, I think mostly what he's concerned by is that that original study of the 14 months got a lot of attention, and the message really went out that Ritalin works, that it's the right treatment for most kids, but that the second study, the one that found that over time those effects fade, that it did not get the same type of attention, and that it's not reflected in the way that a lot of practitioners are now treating ADHD.

Yeah, I think mostly what he's concerned by is that that original study of the 14 months got a lot of attention, and the message really went out that Ritalin works, that it's the right treatment for most kids, but that the second study, the one that found that over time those effects fade, that it did not get the same type of attention, and that it's not reflected in the way that a lot of practitioners are now treating ADHD.

One of the things that's so striking in talking to scientists, including neuroscientists who have studied this, is that they say that they actually understand the biology of ADHD less than they did 20 years ago. So normally, the course of science is that as time goes on, they get a better and better understanding of what's really going on in the brains of children with a particular diagnosis.

One of the things that's so striking in talking to scientists, including neuroscientists who have studied this, is that they say that they actually understand the biology of ADHD less than they did 20 years ago. So normally, the course of science is that as time goes on, they get a better and better understanding of what's really going on in the brains of children with a particular diagnosis.

One of the things that's so striking in talking to scientists, including neuroscientists who have studied this, is that they say that they actually understand the biology of ADHD less than they did 20 years ago. So normally, the course of science is that as time goes on, they get a better and better understanding of what's really going on in the brains of children with a particular diagnosis.

And in this case, that's just not true. So 20 years ago, there was this belief that there were clear biomarkers, clear indications in the brain in terms of electrical signals or a particular gene that would predict ADHD or differences in the size and shape of certain parts of the brain that you could say, this kid has that biomarker. He does have ADHD and this one does not.