The headline is broadly defensible, but the qualifications matter. Effect sizes vary by population, the strongest claims rest on shorter trials, and credible voices push back on how it's typically framed.
if it is disruptive if this is a difference in a child's education if this is a difference between a kid going to college and not if we believe that matters anymore or being successful in their career or not or having you know pro-social relationships versus not then maybe we accept the risks of medication
Every Sunday: the week’s new conflicts and verdict changes — and nothing else.
Native comments, Twitter mentions, and Reddit threads about this claim — surfaced together so the conversation isn't fragmented across platforms.
Bookmarking — the dossier-vs-overview split is the right call. Most of the time I want overview; sometimes I want receipts.
Would love a "what would change this verdict" RSS feed. Sign me up if it exists.
I think a person who's sophisticated would hopefully not make a judgment like that without understanding the fact base a little bit more would you agree that the best argument against that logic which is not an argument that says every kid should be on medication it's an argument that says you have to weigh the pros and the cons of being unmedicated and what the impact on your education is going to be um and the long-term success you're going to have as an adult as a well-adjusted adult versus the the accepted risks of any medication and the potential upside it has towards allowing that child to learn