View Full Version : Fallacies in the arguments used to support primarily genetic causation of ADHD.


Pages : [1] 2

Kunga Dorji
10-20-13, 11:25 PM
The following information is condensed from the appendices of Dr Gabor Mate's book "In The Realm of The Hungry Ghosts"

(Mate)
P { margin-bottom: 0.21cm; } The weighted emphasis on genetic causation in medical literature, particularly when it comes to mental dysfunctions and addictions is astonishing given the shaky logic on which the supporting studies are based.






A critical analysis of the assumptions of any adoption or twin study, coupled with the susseccion of the retractions of the genetic linkage studies, indicates that the evidence for the genetic basis of mental illness is far from overwhelming.
J.S. Alper and M.R Natowicz, “On Establishing the Genetic Basis of Mental Disease,” Trends in Neuroscience 16 (10) (October 1993):387-89





(Mate)
Gene based estimates rely on two assumptions that are not sustainable if we examine them closely:


That studies of adopted children can distinguish genetic from environmental effects
That we can separate out out genetic from environmental effects by looking at the similarities and differences between identical twins on one hand and fraternal twins on the other.



Twin and adoption studies provide convincing evidence for significant genetic effects in virtually all psychiatric disorders. Therefore genes that affect risk for these disorders must exist somewhere on the human genome.
K. Kendler, “A Gene for...” The Nature of Gene Action in Psychiatric Disorders,” American Journal for Psychiatry 162(July 2005) 1243-52



Mate's response:


The problem is insidiously circular: for someone to look at these studies and perceive genetic causation, one already has to have accepted the idea that genes cause.
….
As a leading behavioural geneticist points out “because parents share family environment as well as heredity with their offspring, parent offspring resemblance does not prove the existence of a genetic influence".
Robert Plomin, “Development, Genetics and Psychology” (Hillsdale, NJ, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1986) 9





This is where adoption studies come in. If a child is adopted, so the argument goes, he brings with him the genes he received from his parents, but he is now being raised in an entirely different environment.


Prenatal stresses affect the developing brain.(ref my thread on prenatal stresses), therefore to conclude from adoption studies that a predisposition to alcoholism “runs in the family” and must, therefore be genetic is to ignore all this evidence of environmental effects before birth. Again see comments on my thread on ADHD and addictions and later in this piece that demonstrate that the studies applicable to addiction are also applicable to ADHD.




Not all adoptions take place immediately at birth. In the largest, most oft quoted and perhaps most influential study “proving” a genetic cause for alcoholism, tha aopted children stayed with their parent (or parents) of origin for up to three years; the mean age of adoption was eight months. This study, which compared the adopted children of alcoholic biological parents with those of non alcoholic parents, concluded that the biological father's alcoholism had the greatest effect on the subsequent alcoholism of the male offspring.
C.R. Cloniger et al., Inheritance of Alcohol Abuse, Archives of General Psychiatry 38(1981) 861-68



Mate disposes of this argument thus:






Even if that is so it does not necessarily indicate a genetic cause. Given the long-term effects of pre-natal stress and the dominant influence of the environment on brain development following birth, is it surprising that infants of alcoholic fathers would also have a propensity to drink? We know from the Adverse Childhood Experiences (ACE) study that alcoholism is associated with many other immediate circumstances- for example, either parent being alcoholic increases the chance of the mother being battered by a factor of thirteen.


When we consider what it's like for a woman to live with an alcoholic male partner- the insecurity she experiences through the pregnancy and beyond, as well as the abuse she may be subjected to- we can see that the stresses on such a woman, both before and after birth would have been greater than the stresses on most other pregnant women (and mothers of young children).


Furthermore, if a child spent the first months of his or her life- and possibly the first three years-under such circumstances, it would mean that by the time his was adopted, his attachment-reward, incentive-motivation, and self regulation systems would have been significantly impaired, along with his stress response mechanisms. Such a study will tell us nothing about genetic effects. Similar objections, and a wide range of others, could be made and have been made, to the other adoption studies.




see:

JS Alper and MR Natcowicz “On Establishing the genetic basis of Mental Disease” Trends in Neuroscience 16 (10) (October 1993): 387-89
(for a paper exploring thes objections).





Twin Studies are accepted to be the gold standard of genetic surveys. Many genetic researchers believe that we can separate the effects of genes from the effects of the environment by comparing identical with fraternal twin pairs.
As a geneticist who has done many twin studies admits,




“our twin models assume that the exposure to relevant environmental factors was similar in monozygotic and dizygotic twins.”

K.S. Kendler et al., “ A Multidimensional Twin Study of Mental Health in Women” American Journal of Psychiatry 157 (April 2000): 506-13



In twin studies of addiction the concordance in findings between identical twins is about twice the rate for fraternal twins- a result that according to a review article “is consistent with addictive genetic factors”
M.A. Enoch and D. Goldman “The Genetics of Alcoholism and Alcohol Abuse,” Current Psychiatry Reports 3 (2002) 144-51




and Mate disposes of this argument thus:


But this finding is equally consistent with environmental factors. It is very obviously untrue that fraternal twins share the same environment. Fraternal twins are physiologically as different from each other as any pair of siblings and whatever they experience they will experience differently.
Secondly by far the most important aspect of the nurturing environment is the emotional interaction with the parent. Even with the best of good will in the world, parents are more likely to respond in the same way to identical twins than to non identical ones. (IE Will parents really look in the same way at non-identical twins with different genders and temperaments? Will the parent use the same tone of voice, or play in the same way with, say a smaller female child than with her larger and more robust male sibling or vice versa? Will they project the same fears, hopes and aspirations onto these different children.
Each child represents something different to each parent, and that means that the two children do not grow up under identical formative environments at home, in the playground or at school. So non identical twins are more likely to experience very different environments than identical twins- and the assumption underlying the value of the distinction between fraternal and identical twins in teasing out genetic causation collapses.
Even identical twins do not necessarily share the same environment.
(Another compounding factor is the intense psychological bonding between identical twins especially, but also to some extent fraternal twins. This bonding is shown to have already commenced in utero.




The final line of defense for the genetically minded: twin studies in which twins are separated at birth and brought up in seprate families, neither family being the biological one.


Again Mate correctly analyses the flaws in this argument:




The genetic perspective would postulate that any similarities must be dictated by genes and any differences by their rearing environment.


However, it is not the case that identical twins who are adopted and brought up by different families did not share the same fomative environment. They spent 9 months in the same uterus, exposed to the same biochemistry. At birth they were separated from the birth mother- the very opposite of the natural agenda, which has the mammalian infant immediately latch onto the maternal breast ( and experience intense bonding partially driven by massive oxytocin release).
By birth infants are sensitised to their mother's biorhythms, voice, heartbeat and energy, and to each other's.
Separation from the mother and from each other is a substantial psychological blow.


We know from animal studies that early weaning can have an influence on later substance intake. Rat pups weaned from their mother had, as adults, a greater propensity to drink alcohol than did pups weaned just a week later, at three weeks of age.
ref:

L.A. Pohorecky, “Interaction of Ethanol and Stress”: Research with Experimental Animals, An Update” Alcohol and Alcoholism 25 (2/3) 1990 263-276


No wonder that adopted children are generally more vulnerable to various developmental disorders- for example ADHD- that increase the risk for addiction.
No wonder that many adults who were adopted as infants harbour a powerful and lifelong sense of rejection, or that among adoptees the adolescent suicide risk is double that of non adopted children.
ref

G. Slap et al., “Adoption as a Risk Factor for Attempted Suicide during Adolescence” Pediatrics 108(2) (August 2001): E30








Finally, we have seen the pivotal necessity of a consistently present, emotionally available caregiver for proper brain development.
In some studies the adoption does not happen immediately after birth- the infants may be in a hospital and be cared for by nurses who work, at most, 12 hours shifts, and come and go in the infant's life with bewildering irregularity.
Other adoptees are cared for by foster parents, only to lose those familiar faces at the moment of adoption.
Taking all these factors into account, the assumption of a non shared formative environment is lopsided to say the least.
All identical twins slated for adoption have shared major environmental influences before the adoption takes place.

The final important environmental factor is that the world is very much more likely to respond in similar ways to identical twins- same gender, same physical features, and same inherited tendencies, than to fraternal twins.


Even the authors of another influential twin alcoholism study, who lean strongly towards genetic interrpretations, wrote that “at this point we are not sure that anything is inherited.
D.W. Goodwin. “Alcoholism and heredity: A Review and Hypothesis” Archives of General Psychiatry38 (1979) 57-61





Appendix 2
A close link ADHD and Addictions


The link between ADHD and a predisposition to addictions is, in fact inevitable. The connection has little to do with genetics. ADHD is no more genetically inherited than addiction is, despite the widespread assumption among ADHD experts that it is 'the most heritable of all mental disorders”. Ths same facts that make twin and adoption studies largely irrelevant to the undrstanding of addiction also discredit the genetic theories regarding ADHD.........


The basic point is that ADHD and addictive tendencies both arise out of stressful early childhood experience. Although there is likely a genetic predisposition towards ADHD, a predisposition is far from the same as a predetermination.


According to one recent study, 22% of ADHD symptoms in eight and nine year olds can be directly linked to maternal anxiety during pregnancy.
B.R. Vanden Bergh and A. Marcoen “ High Antenatal Maternal Anxiety Is Related to ADHD Symptoms, Externalising Problems in 8 and 9 year olds”, Child Development 74(4) (July- August 2004) 1085-1097


Abused children are far more likely than others to be diagnosed with ADHD, and the same brain structures affected by childhood trauma are most consistently abnormal in the brains of children with ADHD.
Martin H. Teicher, Wounds That Time Won't Heal: The Neurobiology of Child Abuse,” Cerebrum, The Dana Forum on Brain Science 2(4) (fall 2000)


My point is not that abuse is the cuse of ADHD, although it certainly increases the risk for it, but that early childhood stress is the major factor- abuse being only an extreme form of stress...


Stresses and interruptions in the infant- parent relationship lead to permanent alterations in the dopamine system of the midbrain and prefrontal cortex, disturbances that are implicated in both ADHD and in substance abuse and other addictions.
M.J. Meaney et al., “Environmental Regulation of the Development of Mesolimbic Dopamine Systems: A Neurobiological Mechanism for Vulnerability to Drug Abuse?” Psychoneuroendocrinology 27 (2002) 127-138




The personality traits of people with ADHD and addiction are often identical: poor self regulation, deficient impulse control, poor differentiation and a constant need to find distractions from distressing mental states. These distractions can be internal, as in tuning out, or external, as in the need to be stimulated by activities, food, other people, or substances.


Thus people with ADHD are predisposed to self medicate.

[/quote]


I would also note here that the personality and behavioural traits that we have as adults with ADHD are exactly the opposite of the traits that have been proven to required for effective parenting.
[Yes, - in due course I will provide you a summary of the references required for that statement. If any of you simply can't wait, refer to the book Affect Regulation and the Origin of the Self by Prof Alan Schore


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allan_Schore





The implications are twofold. First, it is important to recognize ADHD and treat it appropriately in childhood. As I point out in Scattered Minds, such treatment need not involve medication in every case, and in no case should medication be the only treatment.
ADHD is not a disease, inherited or otherwise:it is primarily a problem of development. The key question is not how to control symptoms, but how to help the child (adult) develop properly.


The studies are clear that those children with ADHD who are not treated are at higher risk for later addiction than those who receive stimulants.
ref

T.E. Wilens et al “Does Stimulant Therapy of Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder beget Later Substance Abuse? A meta analytic review of the literature,” Pediatrics 111(1) (January 2003) 179-185



So there we have it- the logical basis for the inferences made by scientists asserting the strength and centrality of genetic causation of ADHD are all refuted.

Kunga Dorji
10-20-13, 11:42 PM
A little more on Alan Schore for those who wish to follow up on the references:

A litle from Wikipedia

Schore is on the clinical faculty of the Department of Psychiatry and Biobehavioral Sciences, UCLA David Geffen School of Medicine, and at the UCLA Center for Culture, Brain, and Development. He is author of the seminal volume Affect Regulation and the Origin of the Self, now in its 11th printing, and two recent books Affect Dysregulation and Disorders of the Self and Affect Regulation and the Repair of the Self, as well as numerous articles and chapters. Schore is Editor of the acclaimed Norton Series on Interpersonal Neurobiology, and a reviewer or on the editorial staff of 27 journals.
Schore's activities as a clinician-scientist span from his theoretical work on the enduring effect of early trauma on brain development, to neuroimaging research on the neurobiology of attachment and studies of borderline personality disorder, to his biological studies of relational trauma in wild elephants, and to his practice of psychotherapy over the last 4 decades. He leads Study Groups in Developmental Affective Neuroscience & Clinical Practice in Los Angeles, Berkeley, Portland, Seattle, Boulder, Austin and Albuquerque; lectures internationally; and is a member of the Commission on Children at Risk for the Report on Children and Civil Society, "Hardwired to Connect".


The articles page on his personal website provides ample links to support any assertions re the requirement for appropriate parenting styles as an enabler of normal brain development in infants and children.

Just Google Dr Allan Schore.

Nicksgonefishin
10-21-13, 12:01 AM
Huh.... My odd just said no! And stomped it's feet.

Interesting data though.
Basically you're saying genetics isn't the only cause?
I could go for that.

Kunga Dorji
10-21-13, 01:36 AM
Huh.... My odd just said no! And stomped it's feet.

Interesting data though.
Basically you're saying genetics isn't the only cause?
I could go for that.

Not only not the only cause, but that at least in some cases it may not be a cause at all.

That would explain why the genetics figures are so muddy.

I am beginning to get my head around a causal model that will tie in all the likely cases that I can think of- and should be flexible enough to propose a model in which these various causes combine uniquely in any given ADHD individual to produce an identifiable difficulty with attention regulation.

SB_UK
10-21-13, 06:18 AM
Not only not the only cause, but that at least in some cases it may not be a cause at all.

That would explain why the genetics figures are so muddy.

I am beginning to get my head around a causal model that will tie in all the likely cases that I can think of- and should be flexible enough to propose a model in which these various causes combine uniquely in any given ADHD individual to produce an identifiable difficulty with attention regulation.

A blinkered animal pays attention to the road ahead; fails to see the guy in the HGV falling asleep at the wheel to his left.

'what we attend to reflects our reality'

SB_UK
10-21-13, 06:20 AM
ps Barliman - checked over all of your recent threads
- it doesn't really seem fair that you're working so much harder than anybody else on site.

The post above indicates what ADD is - a mind which sees the complexity of interactions in reality - and cannot make itself not see.

Amtram
10-21-13, 08:42 AM
I would give that a lot more credence if it weren't coming from Gabor Mate, who has consistently shown a fairly incomplete understanding of genetics.

Kunga Dorji
10-21-13, 09:36 AM
ps Barliman - checked over all of your recent threads
- it doesn't really seem fair that you're working so much harder than anybody else on site.

The post above indicates what ADD is - a mind which sees the complexity of interactions in reality - and cannot make itself not see.

It's not really work- it is satisfying my curiosity, and allowing me to resolve some of the glaring inconsistencies that I see in what I am expected to swallow by the senior people in my profession (you know- the ones who missed my ADHD for all those years).

Also- you are right in that it is an outworking of the natural talents of an Attention Difference mind that is finally drawing free of years of disorder.

Then there is the real opportunity of making a big enough reputation to address some of the serious harms done by the overemphasis on the genetic arguments (and to recover enough income to have something to retire on- as like most ADDers my finances are not great, and we are still stuck with having to deal with the money world, whatever its flaws are.

Mate's take on the harmful effects of the genetic arguments for behavioural disorders:

P { margin-bottom: 0.21cm; } The genetic argument is a simple explanation for a complex problem (and people in general, newspapers and politicians like simple answers- my addition)

There is also a powerful psychological reason for us to cling to it. We humans don't like feeling responsible: as individuals for our own actions, or asa society for our many failings. Genetic explanations get us off the hook. The possibility does not occur to us that we can accept or assign responsibility without taking on the useless baggage of guilt or blame.


The genetic argument is used to justify all kinds of inequalities and injustices that are otherwise hard to defend. It serves a deeply conservative function: if a phenomenon like alcoholism is determined mostly by biological heredity, we are spared from having to look at how our social environment supports, or does not support, the parents of young children and how social attitudes, prejudices and policies burden, stress and exclude certain segments of the population and thereby increase their propensity for addiction.


“It's all in the genes”, an explanation for the way things are that does not threaten the way things are. Why should someone feel unhappy or engage in antisocial behaviour if that person is living in the freeest and most prosperous nation on earth? It can't be the system! There must be a flaw in the wiring somewhere.
Louis Menand New Yorker June 26, 2006, 76

Kunga Dorji
10-21-13, 09:43 AM
I would give that a lot more credence if it weren't coming from Gabor Mate, who has consistently shown a fairly incomplete understanding of genetics.

Mate's material is well referenced and his arguments well constructed.
Your insistence on attacking his reputation rather than his arguments reflects badly on you-- and also suggests that you have no valid rejoinder to this argument.

Even if you were to propose that "he has shown a fairly incomplete understanding of genetics, you would need to reference the comment.
As it stands, such a statement made in Australia could easily see you on the wrong end of a libel suit- as it is patently unprovable.

Amtram
10-21-13, 12:45 PM
No, it's actually quite provable. He has done no research in genetics or epigenetics, has no published work of any kind except for trade books, and has made multiple statements that have been duly reproduced here on the forums that contain factual errors and misunderstandings of genetics and genetic mechanisms. I'd say that's supportive of the idea that he is not a knowledgeable authority on matters of genetics.

Lunacie
10-21-13, 01:55 PM
I think Dr. Gabor Mate raises some interesting questions, but I don't feel he
is an authority on genetics or epigenetics, and I don't agree with many of his
conclusions.

mildadhd
10-21-13, 04:02 PM
Virtually all the authors of popular books on the subject assert that ADD is a heritable genetic disorder.

With some notable exceptions, the genetic view also dominates much of the discussion within professional circles, a view I do not agree with.

I believe that ADD can be better understood if we examine people's lives, not only bits of DNA.

Heredity does make an important contribution, but far less than usually assumed.

At the same time, it would serve no purpose to set up the false opposition of environment to genetic inheritance.

No split exists in nature, or in the mind of any serious scientist.

If in this book I emphasize environment, I do so to focus attention on an area that most books on the subject neglect and none explore in nearly enough detail.

Such neglect frequently leads to crippling deficiencies in what people are offered by way of treatment.

There are many biological events involving body and brain that are not directly programmed by heredity, and so to say that ADD is not primarily genetic is not in any sense to deny its biological features--either those that are inherited or those that are acquired as a result of experience.

The genetic blueprints for the architecture and the workings of the human brain develop in a process of interaction with the environment.

ADD does reflect biological malfunctions in certain brain centers, but many of its features--including the underlying biology itself--are also inextricably connected to a person's physical and emotional experiences in the world.

There is in ADD an inherited predisposition, but that's very far from saying there is a genetic predetermination.

A predetermination dictates that something will inevitably happen.

A predisposition only makes it more likely that it may happen, depending on circumstances.

The actual outcome is influenced by many other factors.


Gabor Mate M.D., Scattered (1999), P 25-26.




i!i

Amtram
10-21-13, 04:16 PM
Quoting him does not help in asserting his case. It is from the many quotes already provided over the years that we have been able to gather his level of expertise when it comes to genetics and epigenetics. He has a philosophy about genetics. He has beliefs about how it works. He makes assumptions based upon his philosophy and beliefs, many of which run directly counter to what is known by experts in the field of genetics. He also takes snippets of what is known, then alters it to fit his philosophy and beliefs in such a way that it bears less resemblance to facts and more to ideology.

ginniebean
10-21-13, 06:00 PM
Oh great Andrew, now you've done it. If anything, Gabor Mate could have a clear case of copyright infringement. since 90% of his books have been printed out here.

Andrew, do you feel the weight of evidence would shift if we just got rid of those pesky neuroscientists, and adhd could then be declassified as a neurological disorder and plAced squarely in the realm of a social ill. Therefore freeing up space in the DSM for 'real' disorders? No docs, no meds, no accomodations!

Since we're cutting at the root of the tree here let's not make any pretense about it.
Why is this NEVER discussed?

Kunga Dorji
10-21-13, 06:09 PM
Quoting him does not help in asserting his case. It is from the many quotes already provided over the years that we have been able to gather his level of expertise when it comes to genetics and epigenetics. He has a philosophy about genetics. He has beliefs about how it works. He makes assumptions based upon his philosophy and beliefs, many of which run directly counter to what is known by experts in the field of genetics. He also takes snippets of what is known, then alters it to fit his philosophy and beliefs in such a way that it bears less resemblance to facts and more to ideology.

Now the point is that he observes that all other scientists also have a philosophy about genetics of one kind or another. You also have a philosophy aboiut genetics and so far you have not analysed any of the arguments here.

He quotes other scientists who have also observed that the prevailing philosophy about genetics has produced circular thinking in scientists who push the genetic barrow too hard.

This is perfectly appropriate in the context of observations such as this one
"For the moment, that which we observe becomes our reality"
Anton Zeilinger-- a quantum physicist.

Mate's understanding is totally consistent with the understandings of developmental neuroscience- and I have already referenced Allan Schore for you here.

This area of science is vast, and heavily research based.
This one chapter of a book by Schore will provide you with ample references to consider:

http://www.allanschore.com/pdf/SchoreRelationalTraumaBaradon10.pdf

[Relational Trauma and the Developing Right Brain: The Neurobiology of Developing Attachment Bonds]

Mate does not argue that there is no genetic influence, but he does argue that assertions that the heritability of ADHD may be as high as 77% are based upon flawed logic.

Mate's presentation, should you care to read them for yourself and cross reference them, demonstrate that he has a very good working knowledge of both sides of the genetics vs nurture debate, and that he has a metacognitive awareness of the nature of philosophical assumptions made by himself and by other scientists.

The pro-genetics lobby to me seem to lack this level of meta-cognitive awareness. At least I have never seen any of them properly discuss developmental neuroscience and developmental psychology properly.

So, my challenge remains--
I have put forward for everyone's consideration a series of well structured, well references arguments as to the limitations of the logic supporting the"predominantly genetic causation" theory.

If you disagree with the arguments, then take one of them, do your own research, and come up with a counter argument that can then be put to the forum for consideration. If you can't or won't do this, effectively you only end up undermining your position.

Lunacie
10-21-13, 06:23 PM
Amtram and others have in the past parsed out quotes from Dr. Mate and
explained why they disagreed with him, and backed up their arguments
with links to scientific research.

Why should she, or anyone else, be required to do it each and every time
a poster says they think Dr. Mate is off base in his conclusions?


And yay Ginnie! That's something I've been wondering for quite a while...
would Dr. Mate be flattered that his books are so quoted or would he be
upset about copyright infringement?

Dizfriz
10-21-13, 06:36 PM
Right now I do not have a lot of time to deal with this so I am going to only to address one point.

I am looking at the odds here.

Mate is scientifically unpublished general practitioner as far as I can tell. He has written several books exploring his beliefs on ADHD and what he feels to be the cause of the disorder. As far as I know he pretty much stands alone in his views on causation.

Basically he sees ADHD as a combination of genes and parenting. He is very plain on this. I have seen little or nothing of any current researcher supporting this idea.

On the other hand there are thousands of papers supporting the idea of ADHD being primarily genetic in nature (more than 50% genetic). Barkley calls the strength of the genetic component as a "fact in a bag", a done deal if you would. In other words, almost all in the field would support this.

None of this is saying that either Mate or the scientists/authorities are right or wrong. I am looking at the odds.

What are the odds of one being more correct than the other? What are the odds of Mate being right vs almost all of the scientific research and experts in the field?

It would, in my opinion, take some very strong evidence to over turn the current state of scientific knowledge and the conclusions of experts in ADHD. Keep in mind that extraordinary claims need extraordinary evidence. I don't feel Mate has presented this.

Again I am not saying in any way that Mate is "wrong", science just doesn't work that way. I am saying that the odds of Mate overturning the current consensus on causation of ADHD are not very good.

In my words, I think Mate the odds are very good that Mate's ideas on the causes of ADHD will not hold up while the odds of the views of scientists who study ADHD being well supported are very good.

Just one view on the subject, Take it for what you will.

Dizfriz

mildadhd
10-21-13, 07:18 PM
Dizfriz,


What are the odds that you have any evidence that ADD is primarily genetic?

I am not ruling out genetics factors.

Are you ruling out environmental factors?







Peripherals

Dizfriz
10-21-13, 07:54 PM
Dizfriz,


What are the odds that you have any evidence that ADD is primarily genetic?

I am not ruling out genetics factors.

Are you ruling out environmental factors?

I discussed some of my thoughts on this in this post.

http://www.addforums.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1553628&postcount=15

So to answer your question about the odds of my having evidence, it is really pretty good.

Since I don't have much time to get into this, so I refer you to Attention-Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (Third Edition) Russell Barkley 2006. Etiologies starts on page 219 and goes through page 247 and the section of Genetic Factors starts on page 226.

Dizfriz

mildadhd
10-21-13, 09:13 PM
I discussed some of my thoughts on this in this post.

http://www.addforums.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1553628&postcount=15

So to answer your question about the odds of my having evidence, it is really pretty good.

Since I don't have much time to get into this, so I refer you to Attention-Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (Third Edition) Russell Barkley 2006. Etiologies starts on page 219 and goes through page 247 and the section of Genetic Factors starts on page 226.

Dizfriz


Dizfriz,

Actually that does not answer my question.

I looked into that information in the past and ADD is 70% to 80 % hereditary.


ADD is 70% to 80 % hereditary.

Hereditary includes both environments and genes.

Nobody is arguing that ADD may be hereditary. (environments and genes)



Do you have any evidence that ADD is primarily genetic?



Peripheral

mildadhd
10-21-13, 09:46 PM
The study results also attach numbers to molecular evidence documenting the importance of heritability traceable to common genetic variation in causing these five major mental illnesses. Yet this still leaves much of the likely inherited genetic contribution to the disorders unexplained — not to mention non-inherited genetic factors. For example, common genetic variation accounted for 23 percent of schizophrenia, but evidence from twin and family studies estimate its total heritability at 81 percent. Similarly, the gaps are 25 percent vs. 75 percent for bipolar disorder, 28 percent vs. 75 percent for ADHD, 14 percent vs. 80 percent for autism, and 21 percent vs. 37 percent for depression.

http://www.nih.gov/news/health/aug2013/nimh-12.htm


This molecular research says the known common genetic variation for ADD is 28%?

If total heritability is 75%, then that leaves 47% unknown.



Peripherals

namazu
10-21-13, 10:03 PM
That's a great link, Peripheral -- thanks.

There's some additional commentary from the (U.S.) National Institute of Mental Health director, Thomas Insel. (He's made some controversial statements and policy decisions, including throwing his weight behind an initiative to depart from research framed around diagnostic labels and move towards looking at symptom clusters and their (presumed) biologic bases.)

Here's what he had to say about the gap between heritability estimates and what seems to b attributable to "common genetic variation": "In Search of the Missing Genetic Signals". (http://www.nimh.nih.gov/about/director/2010/in-search-of-the-missing-genetic-signals.shtml)

He specifically mentions copy number variants (CNVs -- which weren't included in that 28% figure) and epigenomic effects as important pieces of the heritability puzzle. These haven't yet been well-studied, but they may help explain some of the apparent gap between the chunk of variability that genetic studies already appear to account for, and the (larger) chunk of variability that makes up the difference between that 28% and the ~75% heritability estimated for ADHD at the population level.

mildadhd
10-21-13, 10:22 PM
Thanks Namazu,

Great link.



Another important area of focus will be epigenomics--the mechanisms through which environmental and experiential influences interact with genes to control their function. Epigenetic changes describe alterations to DNA structure and packaging that do not affect the underlying sequence. For example, a rare CNV associated with ASD deletes the gene that codes for the oxytocin receptor. In many individuals with ASD who do not have this deletion, the gene is silenced by epigenomic modifications, essentially producing the same outcome as a gene deletion.6 By combining epigenomic studies with refined genomic sequence analyses, we will be one step closer to understanding mechanisms of pathophysiology.

http://www.nih.gov/news/health/aug2013/nimh-12.htm

mildadhd
10-22-13, 12:01 AM
Another important area of focus will be epigenomics--the mechanisms through which environmental and experiential influences interact with genes to control their function. Epigenetic changes describe alterations to DNA structure and packaging that do not affect the underlying sequence. For example, a rare CNV associated with ASD deletes the gene that codes for the oxytocin receptor. In many individuals with ASD who do not have this deletion, the gene is silenced by epigenomic modifications, essentially producing the same outcome as a gene deletion.6 By combining epigenomic studies with refined genomic sequence analyses, we will be one step closer to understanding mechanisms of pathophysiology.

http://www.nih.gov/news/health/aug2013/nimh-12.htm

Are there two different ways to produce the same outcome, in the research example above?

1) "..rare CNV associated with ASD deletes the gene that codes for the oxytocin receptor."

2) " In many individuals with ASD who do not have this deletion, the gene is silenced by epigenomic modifications,

essentially producing the same outcome as a gene deletion"






Peripherals

sarahsweets
10-22-13, 04:21 AM
I often wonder why these arguments or maybe thats the wrong word-um-points come up so often about trying to prove that genetics has very little to do with adhd if at all. I see no fault in believing that genetics is a large part of adhd. I also think that based on the evidence it is more likely that genetics plays a larger role in the development of adhd than anything else. But still, no one should feel compelled to prove one thing or another; as long as we have established a base line of what evidence is acceptable to reference to support one's beliefs, and based on what everyone has said over and over, it seems that the genetic idea has been well researched and proven- but that also doesnt mean that its the only thing to consider when talking about adhd.

Kunga Dorji
10-22-13, 04:23 AM
Amtram and others have in the past parsed out quotes from Dr. Mate and
explained why they disagreed with him, and backed up their arguments
with links to scientific research.

Why should she, or anyone else, be required to do it each and every time
a poster says they think Dr. Mate is off base in his conclusions?


And yay Ginnie! That's something I've been wondering for quite a while...
would Dr. Mate be flattered that his books are so quoted or would he be
upset about copyright infringement?

Lunacie,
I have a private email correspondence with him and have his permission to quote him.
Did you not read that?

I only contacted him 2 weeks ago, and he is a really nice, positive, inclusive kind of guy.
He thought that posting the whole of his appendices was a very good idea.

In fact, he is currently considering placing all of his appendices to "In the realm of the hungry ghosts" online to his website.- following my request.

Now- if Amtram really has addressed these arguments before, I am sure she is organised enough to pull those references from previous posts.

If she cannot, I can only assume that she has not formally addressed these arguments in the past.

After all- all I have is your word that the arguments have been addressed.

By the way-- you have NOT addressed the arguments being proposed.

You have engaged in a sort of controversialism that avoids actually thinking about what has been said and coming up with an original response of your own.

Can you not see this?

Kunga Dorji
10-22-13, 04:34 AM
No, it's actually quite provable. He has done no research in genetics or epigenetics, has no published work of any kind except for trade books, and has made multiple statements that have been duly reproduced here on the forums that contain factual errors and misunderstandings of genetics and genetic mechanisms. I'd say that's supportive of the idea that he is not a knowledgeable authority on matters of genetics.


I have a long running discussion with a friend of mine (the former acting chief psychiatrist for the State of Victoria in Australia).

He comments that there is a real place for people who do no primary research of their own, but simply scout around looking for correlations in the previously published research.

There used to be a formal position in Universities for exactly this function. It was called "Reader". A "Reader" in Medicine could wander about following exactly what followed his interest and assembling the already completed research in a way that would compare and contrast the information already available,

Universities are now too focussed on productivity, and that position has disappeared. It is a shame, as much research nowadays simply replicates "prior art" while the researchers have NO IDEA of what has already been done.

People like Mate, and Myself, are "Readers" but we do not get paid, and we do get attacked at every opportunity.

Invariably our critics find ways to avoid addressing the arguments posited and instead attack the person who posits the argument.

This is intellectual cowardice and bullying of the worst kind.

Kunga Dorji
10-22-13, 04:39 AM
That's a great link, Peripheral -- thanks.

There's some additional commentary from the (U.S.) National Institute of Mental Health director, Thomas Insel. (He's made some controversial statements and policy decisions, including throwing his weight behind an initiative to depart from research framed around diagnostic labels and move towards looking at symptom clusters and their (presumed) biologic bases.)

Here's what he had to say about the gap between heritability estimates and what seems to b attributable to "common genetic variation": "In Search of the Missing Genetic Signals". (http://www.nimh.nih.gov/about/director/2010/in-search-of-the-missing-genetic-signals.shtml)

He specifically mentions copy number variants (CNVs -- which weren't included in that 28% figure) and epigenomic effects as important pieces of the heritability puzzle. These haven't yet been well-studied, but they may help explain some of the apparent gap between the chunk of variability that genetic studies already appear to account for, and the (larger) chunk of variability that makes up the difference between that 28% and the ~75% heritability estimated for ADHD at the population level.


Thanks.

Probably the truth lies between these extremes.
Remember though that the epigenetic effects may be activated/ de-activated at any time by an alteration in attitude to the problems that confront us in life.

Kunga Dorji
10-22-13, 04:48 AM
I discussed some of my thoughts on this in this post.

http://www.addforums.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1553628&postcount=15

So to answer your question about the odds of my having evidence, it is really pretty good.

Since I don't have much time to get into this, so I refer you to Attention-Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (Third Edition) Russell Barkley 2006. Etiologies starts on page 219 and goes through page 247 and the section of Genetic Factors starts on page 226.

Dizfriz

Dizfriz,
Barkely is one of the most biassed sources possible.
He actually admits himself that his view of ADHD has been skewed to deal with political considerations (or he has done so in private to Dr Ronald Barry, a psychiatrist in Melbourne in private practice with a special interest in ADHD. Ron would probably crucify me if he found me reporting this conversation in public-- but he can only do so by actively telling a lie in public).

If you wish I can formally identify mself and forward a copy of the conversation to Ron. I am sure it would cause him severe indigestion. He may even choke on his overly long beard.

If you do not have time to do a proper analysis of the material I have presented, why respond at all?

Do you not think that spitting out an off the cuff response without systematically responding to the core material is just slightly discuorteous?

Kunga Dorji
10-22-13, 05:10 AM
Right now I do not have a lot of time to deal with this so I am going to only to address one point.

I am looking at the odds here.

Mate is scientifically unpublished general practitioner as far as I can tell. He has written several books exploring his beliefs on ADHD and what he feels to be the cause of the disorder. As far as I know he pretty much stands alone in his views on causation.

Basically he sees ADHD as a combination of genes and parenting. He is very plain on this. I have seen little or nothing of any current researcher supporting this idea.

Dizfriz

Dizfriz,
I hate fighting and conflict- but the operative words are "I have seen little or nothing supporting this idea."

Now, as a result of a strange set of circumstances (mostly the outworkings of the incompetence of the Australian Health Practitioners Regulation Authority) I have found myself stranded on sick leave (with a very comfortable income) for 18 months and lots of time to research.

There is a very simple problem here- the people who specialise in developmental psychology and trauma therapy do not "believe in" ADHD and vice versa.

If you actually take the time to sit down and go through the material, you will find the same set of symptoms being described by different medical disciplines,using a different set of labels.

Do you not understand this?

What "you have seen" has more to do with the direction in which you have been looking than anything else!

Now I do not mean this in any aggressive or hostile way, as I know that you are a reasonable, decent, and intelligent person---- but all of us are in danger of being ensnared by our pre-exsting assumptions.

If you wish to comment on this thread PLEASE restrict yourself to responding to the arguments presented.

Otherwise- you are at risk of falling in line with the corporatist/ neo-fascist idea that only a person who is a recognised expert in his own field is qualified to comment on anything. Bear in mind that to be a recognised expert one has to be recognised by one's mates.

(In this context the "recognition " of the expert is through the approved professional body- and there is a circular logic established-- if you are not one of us (as defined by "our" rules,you have no right to comment).

The problems with this mentality were clearly laid out by the philosopher John Ralston Saul in his books "On Equilibrium" and "The Collapse of Globalism" and by the economist Milton Friedman in his essay "Medical Licensure"- searchable on the internet.

Kunga Dorji
10-22-13, 05:17 AM
Oh great Andrew, now you've done it. If anything, Gabor Mate could have a clear case of copyright infringement. since 90% of his books have been printed out here.

Andrew, do you feel the weight of evidence would shift if we just got rid of those pesky neuroscientists, and adhd could then be declassified as a neurological disorder and plAced squarely in the realm of a social ill. Therefore freeing up space in the DSM for 'real' disorders? No docs, no meds, no accomodations!

Since we're cutting at the root of the tree here let's not make any pretense about it.
Why is this NEVER discussed?

Allan Schore is a neuroscientist-- hardcore!!
The disorder is REAL whether the cause is a pathological society or a pathological genome.
Read closely all that I have said-- a neurological disorder can arise as a result of attachment problems.
All distinctions are falsely imagined.
PS Thanks for the hug you sent the other day, I did enjoy it.

However, I am really disappointed that I went to all this trouble to assemble a really well constructed argument, and virtually nobody, yourself included, has actually responded to what has been posited, rather than who it has been posited by

What is this?
Oppositional defiant disorder???!!!:eek:

daveddd
10-22-13, 07:20 AM
I agree about the same symptoms in different schools

In psychology there is the bio social model of cluster Bs. Impulsive subtype as opposed to callous

Psychoanalytic has alethymia type 2

Towards the end of freuds career he changed his view of repression being cause by sexual things to a biological anxiety that involved a strong sensitivity to threat of danger. Plus life events


Everyone agrees it would unethical to do controlled studies to prove it

Dizfriz
10-22-13, 08:40 AM
That's a great link, Peripheral -- thanks.

There's some additional commentary from the (U.S.) National Institute of Mental Health director, Thomas Insel. (He's made some controversial statements and policy decisions, including throwing his weight behind an initiative to depart from research framed around diagnostic labels and move towards looking at symptom clusters and their (presumed) biologic bases.)

Here's what he had to say about the gap between heritability estimates and what seems to b attributable to "common genetic variation": "In Search of the Missing Genetic Signals".

He specifically mentions copy number variants (CNVs -- which weren't included in that 28% figure) and epigenomic effects as important pieces of the heritability puzzle. These haven't yet been well-studied, but they may help explain some of the apparent gap between the chunk of variability that genetic studies already appear to account for, and the (larger) chunk of variability that makes up the difference between that 28% and the ~75% heritability estimated for ADHD at the population level.

I have read this before and it is a good article, thanks for posting it.

The research the Nimh and others are doing have the potential to revolutionize our view of mental illness and the causes. I hope they do as this would mean that we will have gained a better understanding of mental illness.

I like the last paragraph

The journey to discover the genomic risk factors for mental disorders continues to be full of surprises, such as finding new sources of variation. The journey is also speeding up, with the advent of faster and cheaper sequencing tools. Clearly, genomics is only part of the cause for serious mental illness, but it is a part that is finite and tractable and, in the near future, offers our best portal to the pathophysiology of these complex disorders. I also like the last paragraph from the article posted by Peripheral

It is encouraging that the estimates of genetic contributions to mental disorders trace those from more traditional family and twin studies. The study points to a future of active gene discovery for mental disorders” said Thomas Lehner, Ph.D., chief of the NIMH Genomics Research Branch, which funds the project. Exploring the genetic causes of mental illness is where the NIMH is going to be directing their research grants in the future. Personally, I think it is exciting.

Dizfriz

Amtram
10-22-13, 09:00 AM
Now- if Amtram really has addressed these arguments before, I am sure she is organised enough to pull those references from previous posts.

If she cannot, I can only assume that she has not formally addressed these arguments in the past.


Well, that's quite a novel assumption, considering that I have ADHD, have been on this forum since 2009, and have posted even more times than what shows in my stats in the upper right (because the Scientific Discussion area was significantly cropped when it was split into to sections.) I did give it the old college try, but the search here is less than optimal.

I wonder, though, why you would assume that I hadn't addressed it, since you yourself participated in several of the threads in which I did. If I am organized enough to have kept my own personal records of everything I've said here in the past four years, certainly you've done the same, n'est-ce pas? At the very least, you should remember having directly engaged me in at least a few of the threads in which I provided my arguments, and if you don't, that is not through any fault of mine.

Ironically, it appears that you consider me looking through tens of thousands of posts to find individual incidents of refutations to Gabor-Mate's ideas and credentials to be a simple matter, resolved with a few keystrokes. . .but you yourself have yet to provide a reference to the algorithm of scientific advancement you posited as a definitive predictor in another thread just last week, or a source for your statement that neuroscience is primarily concerned with gut reactions. Finding these would be far easier than searching through ADDF for things that other members here recall clearly without effort.

Dizfriz
10-22-13, 09:05 AM
The study results also attach numbers to molecular evidence documenting the importance of heritability traceable to common genetic variation in causing these five major mental illnesses. Yet this still leaves much of the likely inherited genetic contribution to the disorders unexplained — not to mention non-inherited genetic factors. For example, common genetic variation accounted for 23 percent of schizophrenia, but evidence from twin and family studies estimate its total heritability at 81 percent. Similarly, the gaps are 25 percent vs. 75 percent for bipolar disorder, 28 percent vs. 75 percent for ADHD, 14 percent vs. 80 percent for autism, and 21 percent vs. 37 percent for depression. http://www.nih.gov/news/health/aug2013/nimh-12.htm

A quick comment on this just for clarity.

As I understand it, he is not disagreeing with the twin studies. Notice the term likely in regards to the inherited genetic genetic contribution to the disorders.

What he seems to be saying is that while the twin and family studies show a high degree of genetic loading of possibly 81 percent, the known genetic linkages are only 28%. In other words, only 28% of the linkages of specific segments of the genome to ADHD are currently known. What he seems to be saying is that there is a lot of room for research and exploration here.

NIMH has said they are going to be putting their grant money on the study of the genetics of mental illness in the future. Again, I find myself excited about this.

Dizfriz

namazu
10-22-13, 09:07 AM
Remember though that the epigenetic effects may be activated/ de-activated at any time by an alteration in attitude to the problems that confront us in life.

I do believe this may be possible in some circumstances.

I agree that it's worthwhile to investigate this possibility further, and how to take advantage of it in clinical practice -- whether the mechanism for "alteration in attitude" leading to biologically-mediated changes in function stems from something like mindfulness meditation, structured cognitive-behavioral therapy, or other approaches that are showing promise.

Though I'm cautiously optimistic, I also suspect that such attitude changes may be neither necessary nor sufficient (nor possible) to result in meaningful clinical improvements in all cases, and not necessarily "at any time". (I won't deign to attempt to quantify...the data really aren't there yet.) Also, this may sometimes reflect reverse causality -- i.e., attitude changes may be a consequence, rather than a cause, of epigenetic changes mediated by as-yet-uncovered mechanisms.

So, I think we should milk this phenomenon for all it may be worth, and try to understand its full range of applicability and how to optimize it, as well as its potential limitations. However, overgeneralizing and oversimplifying and framing treatment as a simple issue of "attitude adjustment" makes me uneasy when -- although cognitive re-framing may be a legitimate part of it -- it may not always (or often) be that simple.

And although I understand that issues of attitude can become self-fulfilling prophecy, I am concerned about potential harm of framing this as a "simple" matter of "attitude adjustment" to people who have tried to will/positive-think themselves out of mental disorders without success, and to broader societal attitude about mental disorders. We need to be sensitive to those concerns, even as we pursue the full potential of emerging therapies.

Amtram
10-22-13, 09:15 AM
Invariably our critics find ways to avoid addressing the arguments posited and instead attack the person who posits the argument.

This is intellectual cowardice and bullying of the worst kind.

It is not an ad hominem to question someone's knowledge when it is clear that he/she cherry picks data to fit his/her agenda, and/or is not a specialist in a highly complex field but uses snippets of information from that field incorrectly to speculate that it supports his/her conclusions.

If someone does that consistently, to the point that it is the norm rather than the exception, then it is not an ad hominem to doubt his/her statements and conclusions because there is an established history of this behavior pattern that predicates that this person's information is going to be altered to be in line with his/her cognitive bias.

Intellectual cowardice is repurposing facts. Intellectual cowardice is explaining something highly complex to an undereducated public to make it sound like you are an expert in something you don't actually understand in order to make money.

Saying that Gabor-Mate's experience derives from his clinical work, that he has not done scientific research with proper variables and controls, that he misrepresents the limitations and potential of epigenetics in his books, is not an attack on his character. It is not bullying. It is an observation of fact based upon what he has written.

Amtram
10-22-13, 09:18 AM
Allan Schore is a neuroscientist-- hardcore!!
The disorder is REAL whether the cause is a pathological society or a pathological genome.


Allan Schore is a well-respected researcher whose work has been applied to many other areas. But he is a primatologist. Primates are a good source of ideas into how humans might work, but animal research does not automatically translate into identical findings in humans.

SB_UK
10-22-13, 09:54 AM
Would you be able to tell the difference between a computer running Windows and an identical computer running Linux, by opening it up and taking the motherboard out ?

Wouldn't it be easier just to switch the machines on and see what appears on the screen ?

And when we run Windows we'll find lots of software which requires payment.
And when we run Linux - we'll find lots of software which is free.

~ADD~

SB_UK
10-22-13, 09:55 AM
I'm suggesting that all you need to do to define the difference between ADDers and nonADDers is to talk to 'em

- we don't bite.

namazu
10-22-13, 10:00 AM
- we don't bite.
Speak for yourself! :D

SB_UK
10-22-13, 10:42 AM
Speak for yourself! :D
http://www.luardos.co.uk/blog/uploaded_images/gurning-732445.jpg

I'm not so sure that I can.

SB_UK
10-22-13, 10:43 AM
(bite that is)

SB_UK
10-22-13, 10:43 AM
... or speak for myself.

- am restricted to writing.

I don't know how anybody can speak meaningfully in real-time.

I don't know if anybody can.

ginniebean
10-22-13, 10:57 AM
Can anyone point me to a research study done by Dr Mate?

mildadhd
10-22-13, 11:12 AM
Can anyone point me to a research study done by Dr Mate?


Can you specify what you disagree with about Dr.Mate's work?

Dr.Mate refers to many of the top researchers in the world to back up his work, what "research notes" in his books do you disagree with?

So far nobody specifically disagrees with Dr.Mate's work?

Everyone agrees that ADD is both environment and genes.

What exactly are you disagreeing with?

The only problem I can find in all these debates/discussions, seems to be genetic fundamentalism, that doesn't acknowledge environmental factors.

Dr.Mate includes the whole picture, both environment and genes in his work.

Do you?





Peripherals

mildadhd
10-22-13, 11:17 AM
Does anyone have any evidence that ADD is primarily genetic?



Peripherals

mctavish23
10-22-13, 11:23 AM
With all due respect to Dr. Mate, one reference source doesn't outweigh the current

science behind the disorder, which strongly points to ADHD as being "primarily (but not

soley)" genetic in origin; beginning with Cook, et. al., 1995.

tc

mctavish23

(Robert)

Amtram
10-22-13, 11:24 AM
Can anyone point me to a research study done by Dr Mate?

Here you go:

The following term was not found in PubMed: Gabor-Mate.

mildadhd
10-22-13, 11:32 AM
With all due respect to Dr. Mate, one reference source doesn't outweigh the current

science behind the disorder, which strongly points to ADHD as being "primarily (but not

soley)" genetic in origin; beginning with Cook, et. al., 1995.

tc

mctavish23

(Robert)

McTavish

We had this discussion in the past, Cook, et al., 1995 refers to ADD as being approx 70% to 80 % hereditary, not genetic.

There is a huge difference.

Hereditary includes environments and genetics.

ADD is environments and genetics, I thought everyone agreed?





Peripherals

Amtram
10-22-13, 11:37 AM
Heritability is a quality of genetics. When scientists speak of heritability, they're talking about genetic heritability. You can't simply redefine scientific terms to suit your own purposes.

mildadhd
10-22-13, 11:52 AM
Heritability is a quality of genetics. When scientists speak of heritability, they're talking about genetic heritability. You can't simply redefine scientific terms to suit your own purposes.

Are you saying there is no environmental factors in heritability?

Are you saying there is no environmental factors in ADD.

I am not excluding any factors.

You seem to be? (the environment)


Peripherals

mildadhd
10-22-13, 11:54 AM
Why doesn't anyone just present research showing that ADD is primarily genetic, and show that we are wrong?

Everyone agrees that ADD is environments and genes.

What is wrong with saying ADD is environments and genes?





Peripherals

ginniebean
10-22-13, 11:57 AM
Here is a small FRACTION of the topics where GABOR MATE is discussed and his opinion of ADHD. You can't find hardly any discussions of the research behind adhd ONLY speculations by ADHD and various veterinarians and such.

http://www.addforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=119751
http://www.addforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=120052
http://www.addforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=137998
http://www.addforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=138416
http://www.addforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=137435
http://www.addforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=141055
http://www.addforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=138432
http://www.addforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=124982
http://www.addforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=124982
http://www.addforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=113363
http://www.addforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=104955
http://www.addforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=120052
http://www.addforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=112263
http://www.addforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=111907
http://www.addforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=112031
http://www.addforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=97693
http://www.addforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=96361

There has been a complete DELUGE of topics of Dr. Mate's opinons here, and counter arguments, so many in fact that many of them are now lost in the archives. So many you'd think that there's NOT one of his opinions that hasn't been printed. SO many in fact that it drowns out all other conversation about ADHD.

I don't have the stomach to go thru them all AGAIN, so if you care to see the MANY MANY MANY MANY MANY MANY MANY MANY MANY MANY MANY arguments brought forward by his supporters and the answers to them have at it.

I guess the rationale is if you shove stuff down people's throat long enough you'll erode all legitimate information or drown it in a sea of doubt such that only confusion can reign, or is it simply submission to Mate that's asked for?

mildadhd
10-22-13, 12:26 PM
Here is a small FRACTION of the topics where GABOR MATE is discussed and his opinion of ADHD. You can't find hardly any discussions of the research behind adhd ONLY speculations by ADHD and various veterinarians and such.

http://www.addforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=119751
http://www.addforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=120052
http://www.addforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=137998
http://www.addforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=138416
http://www.addforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=137435
http://www.addforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=141055
http://www.addforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=138432
http://www.addforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=124982
http://www.addforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=124982
http://www.addforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=113363
http://www.addforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=104955
http://www.addforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=120052
http://www.addforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=112263
http://www.addforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=111907
http://www.addforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=112031
http://www.addforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=97693
http://www.addforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=96361

There has been a complete DELUGE of topics of Dr. Mate's opinons here, and counter arguments, so many in fact that many of them are now lost in the archives. So many you'd think that there's NOT one of his opinions that hasn't been printed. SO many in fact that it drowns out all other conversation about ADHD.

I don't have the stomach to go thru them all AGAIN, so if you care to see the MANY MANY MANY MANY MANY MANY MANY MANY MANY MANY MANY arguments brought forward by his supporters and the answers to them have at it.

I guess the rationale is if you shove stuff down people's throat long enough you'll erode all legitimate information or drown it in a sea of doubt such that only confusion can reign, or is it simply submission to Mate that's asked for?



You say there is no research to back up Mate, but can't/won't refute/discuss even one of the many researchers found in the back of his books.


Peripherals

daveddd
10-22-13, 12:33 PM
Is this more about genetics

Or about wether ADHD is an incurable brain disease that we are unresponsible for vs a matter of the mind

I believe mindfulness will prove it to be a matter of the mind

Lunacie
10-22-13, 12:34 PM
Can you specify what you disagree with about Dr.Mate's work?

Dr.Mate refers to many of the top researchers in the world to back up his work, what "research notes" in his books do you disagree with?

So far nobody specifically disagrees with Dr.Mate's work?

Everyone agrees that ADD is both environment and genes.

What exactly are you disagreeing with?

The only problem I can find in all these debates/discussions, seems to be genetic fundamentalism, that doesn't acknowledge environmental factors.

Dr.Mate includes the whole picture, both environment and genes in his work.

Do you?

Peripherals

That's not the problem I see.

"Genetic fundamentalism" is a straw man argument (https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/strawman),
it misrepresents the majority view on this forum.

It's dishonest to change someone else's position to look illogical
so that yours will look more logical in comparison.


To be clear, you say that some of us are claiming a "genetics only" cause
for ADHD, when in reality we are saying that research shows a significant
relationship between genetics and ADHD. But we also say there is a lot
that isn't known yet, which may be explained by environmental factors.

Lunacie
10-22-13, 12:39 PM
You say there is no research to back up Mate, but can't/won't refute/discuss even one of the many researchers found in the back of his books.
Peripherals

We are being accused of refusing to discuss the topics, when we've done
that many times in the past only to have our opinions are changed to mean
something different. It is futile to keep doing the same thing and expecting
a different result.

mildadhd
10-22-13, 01:27 PM
I am really interested in any research, that anyone has, that shows that ADD is primarily genetic?

I find comfort in the fact, that ADD is both environments and genes.





Peripherals

mildadhd
10-22-13, 01:33 PM
Barliman has served lots of research, but nobody is returning research?

The balls in your court.







Peripherals

Dizfriz
10-22-13, 01:48 PM
I am really interested in any research, that anyone has, that shows that ADD is primarily genetic?

I referred you to Barkley's book Attention-Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (Third Edition) Russell Barkley 2006. Etiologies starts on page 219 and goes through page 247 and the section of Genetic Factors starts on page 226.

The very extensive list of references starts on page 238 and goes on to page 247 (small print used in the book to save space).

You should be able to find what you are asking for there.

Dizfriz

Lunacie
10-22-13, 02:20 PM
Barliman has served lots of research, but nobody is returning research?

The balls in your court.


Peripherals

Nobody? Once again, you're being dishonest.

Ginnie took the time and effort to find nearly 20 links where research has
been shared and discussed. And Dizfriz has suggested a source of research.

mildadhd
10-22-13, 02:25 PM
I referred you to Barkley's book Attention-Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (Third Edition) Russell Barkley 2006. Etiologies starts on page 219 and goes through page 247 and the section of Genetic Factors starts on page 226.

The very extensive list of references starts on page 238 and goes on to page 247 (small print used in the book to save space).

You should be able to find what you are asking for there.

Dizfriz


Out of respect, I promise to look into the information and get back to you. (will need some time)

Out of respect, could you specifically note, what you disagree with Dr.Mate about?


Peripherals

mildadhd
10-22-13, 02:49 PM
Nobody? Once again, you're being dishonest.

Ginnie took the time and effort to find nearly 20 links where research has
been shared and discussed. And Dizfriz has suggested a source of research.



I don't remember anyone ever answering the question, when I asked what researchers/research notes people disagree with, in Dr.Mates books, in the past?

Please feel free to prove me wrong?


I am not denying genetic factors in ADD.

You are denying environmental factors in ADD.


More specifically, you agree that ADD is environments and genes, but disagree with Barliman/Mate, when they say ADD is environments and genes?


Nobody has helped me more with my ADD than Dr.Mate, and I still have lots to learn.

I don't think that my ADD is primarily genetic.

I don't think that anyone can prove that my ADD is primarily genetic.

My ADD is both environment and genes.

And I can even produce lots of research that could support the idea that my ADD is primarily environmental.

Some people may have a stronger genetic predisposition, but not all people with ADD have a strong genetic predisposition.

And not all people with a strong predisposition have ADD.


In my opinion when people say ADD is genetic, not all ADDers are represented.

If you said ADD is both environment and genes, then you would be including all ADDers in your hypothesis.





Peripherals

daveddd
10-22-13, 03:00 PM
In barkleys newest book on what executive functions are he says they are learned by watching

He also states ADHD are temperamental infants

How could something that is learned by watching be strictly genetic and biological

Can someone explain?

ginniebean
10-22-13, 03:11 PM
You say there is no research to back up Mate, but can't/won't refute/discuss even one of the many researchers found in the back of his books.


Peripherals

********. please search over the past two years where I have EVER said that there is NO research to back up Mate on at least SOME of his statements. I've said nothing while you've made ugly characterizations about me on open forum that were outright lies. I'm thru being mischaracterized because you have some weird grudge.


What has been said OVER AND OVER, is that RIGHT NOW (up to today) that the preponderance of research (1000's of studies) does not support Mate's opinions about etiology. This is true and you appear not to like this answer so you argue against what is fact.

Does this mean it NEVER will? We can't know that unless you got some psychic powers. No one knows what the future brings. This has also been stated over and over and over. Not good enough? People could make stuff up for you but what good would it serve?

I like Dr. Mate, his hearts in the right place. I'm impressed and amazed by him as a person. He's not a researcher, he's a person with an opinion. I haven't said he's wrong, I have said I'm not credulously jumping on the bandwagon simply because he has an engaging narrative. I like the narrative even, I just have a skepticism born of experience about all the.se warm and cuddly narratives that most often are salesmen trying to remove dollars from your wallet. I'm skeptical of the science as well. (and I've said all this many times as well)

BUT where are we with research right now? Don't know? Maybe because all we talk about is Mate.


When Mate's opinions are EVEN close to turning over the research paradigm then I see it useful to discuss it at length. Bringing every piece of scientific minutia as if it had merit (overturning the paradigm) is beyond my understanding and isn't useful for much except creating tension and STRESS.

ginniebean
10-22-13, 03:20 PM
In barkleys newest book on what executive functions are he says they are learned by watching

He also states ADHD are temperamental infants

How could something that is learned by watching be strictly genetic and biological

Can someone explain?

What's behind the ability to learn and watch? If something in the brain is interfering with this ability then that's where people need to look. I've been diagnosed now 46 years. In 46 years people have been telling kids with adhd to PAY attention, (to look and watch) that has yet to work in spite of probably hundreds if not thousands of years of harassment.

The reigning paradigm suggests that it is faulty regulation. Meaning people with adhd cannot regulate attention to learn and look. It's not that we have problems with learning, looking, or watching, its keeping it on the same thing long enough without tons of extraneous information being taken in at the same time. The ability to organize information and prioritizing is also said to be impacted. therefore is also filtering between what is important and what is extraneous is another barrier. There are others but that's plenty for a start.

mildadhd
10-22-13, 03:27 PM
In barkleys newest book on what executive functions are he says they are learned by watching

He also states ADHD are temperamental infants

How could something that is learned by watching be strictly genetic and biological

Can someone explain?

The higher cortical brain develops interacting in a relationship with the middle and lower subcortical (emotional) brain and the environment.



Sensitivity refers to how easily a child is disturbed by changes in the environment (see temperament/sensitivity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temperament#Sensitivity))


Hypersensitivity may be inherited or the result of suboptimal environmental conditions during early development (or both).

Depends on individual circumstances.


Peripherals

Amtram
10-22-13, 03:28 PM
You say there is no research to back up Mate, but can't/won't refute/discuss even one of the many researchers found in the back of his books.


Peripherals

That has happened, too. Having a bibliography and cherry-picking quotes from studies that don't necessarily even have anything to do with your topic does not confer expertise.

If there were research supporting Mate, it would be out there. However, Mate does not provide much in the way of material that can be subjected to the scientific method for anyone else to research. In fact, he makes many statements that conflict with well-supported evidence, and cites research that is completely unrelated to ADHD to shore up his statements about ADHD, as if they were equally interchangeable.

So it doesn't matter how many quotes or footnotes or bibliographical references you have if they aren't actually supportive of your hypothesis, or if it's clear that you misunderstand your source material.

Lunacie
10-22-13, 03:31 PM
That has happened, too. Having a bibliography and cherry-picking quotes from studies that don't necessarily even have anything to do with your topic does not confer expertise.

If there were research supporting Mate, it would be out there. However, Mate does not provide much in the way of material that can be subjected to the scientific method for anyone else to research. In fact, he makes many statements that conflict with well-supported evidence, and cites research that is completely unrelated to ADHD to shore up his statements about ADHD, as if they were equally interchangeable.

So it doesn't matter how many quotes or footnotes or bibliographical references you have if they aren't actually supportive of your hypothesis, or if it's clear that you misunderstand your source material.


I don't even bother to read the quotes from Dr. Mate anymore because I
also noticed that he bases his conclusions on studies that don't seem to
have anything to do with ADHD.

Meanwhile actual research into ADHD is dismissed by Peripheral and others.
Dr. Mate isn't the only one who cherry picks what he thinks supports his
conclusions no matter what source it comes from or if it's even related to
ADHD.

Amtram
10-22-13, 03:41 PM
Barkley is far from the only voice pointing out the research that supports the genetic heritability of ADHD. I've linked to several pieces by Joel Nigg, as well as multiple studies by other experts in the neuroscience behind ADHD, tons of individual studies, the list of highly suspect genes in OMIM, dozens of meta-analyses, lectures from CARTA and the MIND institute at UC Davis given by neuroscience movers and shakers, and countless links to neuroscience bloggers explaining the research that's still behind paywalls in terms non-neuroscientists can understand.

When you're saying that there is no genetic basis for ADHD, or attributing cause to some nebulous, undefined "environment", you are arguing not only against Barkley, but against pretty much every scientific researcher who's investigated ADHD. Compared to these research specialists, who design and conduct studies, subject their work to peer review, get published in reputable journals, and whose work is essential to the work of others in the field, Gabor-Mate simply brings nothing to the table.

daveddd
10-22-13, 03:41 PM
What's behind the ability to learn and watch? If something in the brain is interfering with this ability then that's where people need to look. I've been diagnosed now 46 years. In 46 years people have been telling kids with adhd to PAY attention, (to look and watch) that has yet to work in spite of probably hundreds if not thousands of years of harassment.

The reigning paradigm suggests that it is faulty regulation. Meaning people with adhd cannot regulate attention to learn and look. It's not that we have problems with learning, looking, or watching, its keeping it on the same thing long enough without tons of extraneous information being taken in at the same time. The ability to organize information and prioritizing is also said to be impacted. therefore is also filtering between what is important and what is extraneous is another barrier. There are others but that's plenty for a start.

So we can learn EFs. Is what your sayin?


It's not that we physically don't have EFs ?


Right?


Barkley said ADHD is ef problems. Attention is secondary to those

daveddd
10-22-13, 03:42 PM
Barkley is far from the only voice pointing out the research that supports the genetic heritability of ADHD. I've linked to several pieces by Joel Nigg, as well as multiple studies by other experts in the neuroscience behind ADHD, tons of individual studies, the list of highly suspect genes in OMIM, dozens of meta-analyses, lectures from CARTA and the MIND institute at UC Davis given by neuroscience movers and shakers, and countless links to neuroscience bloggers explaining the research that's still behind paywalls in terms non-neuroscientists can understand.

When you're saying that there is no genetic basis for ADHD, or attributing cause to some nebulous, undefined "environment", you are arguing not only against Barkley, but against pretty much every scientific researcher who's investigated ADHD. Compared to these research specialists, who design and conduct studies, subject their work to peer review, get published in reputable journals, and whose work is essential to the work of others in the field, Gabor-Mate simply brings nothing to the table.

Joel nig is genes plus environment

Home life mainly when involving the drd4 gene

mildadhd
10-22-13, 03:48 PM
Show us the research.

I've asked many times.

So we can discuss the topics?

I am not sure why anyone is holding back any research that would shut me up?

Unless you don't have any?

I don't even know what exactly you are arguing about?

You won't tell?

Why not?

Your included in my theories of ADD, even if you don't include me in yours.

I don't know what else to say.

I'm dizzy.

Dizfriz, I will get back to you.

I hope you let me know what specifically you agree and disagree with Dr.Mate about.

Nobody has made that very clear yet.

I'm stepping out of the discussion til then.


Peripherals

ginniebean
10-22-13, 03:53 PM
So we can learn EFs. Is what your sayin?


It's not that we physically don't have EFs ?


Right?


Barkley said ADHD is ef problems. Attention is secondary to those.

I don't know that, and we don't know that. We know that developmental delays can cause permanent problems. For example, a child not exposed to speech by a given developmental period will not learn speech fluently, same with sight. Many of the issues with adhd involve developmental areas in the brain and CNS. More research has to go into what the building blocks are, what order they need to be developed in, say you learn something out of order, I know I have, it makes everything messed up further along down the road.

All I know is I've tried my damndest to learn myself out of adhd. So far the results are not looking good. Now I can continue to abuse myself and say damnit the guy in Vancouver speculates I can do it so I'll just keep flogging a dead horse or I can work for some peace and self acceptance, to work with my condition instead of against it.

I could spend my life blaming my parents for their abysmal performance, I could pick over my own parenting to blame myself for having two children with adhd. I wasn't the mother goddess, I'll admit it, I'm human. But I can note I have a strong, wonderful and rewarding bond with two affectionate, happy and loving adhd men who were my children.

Why would I want to do this? Is the regular amount of parental guilt just not sufficient?

Not trying to be an *** here dave, but all this out in left field speculation is difficult.

Amtram
10-22-13, 03:53 PM
EVERYONE is genes plus environment, but they're SPECIFIC GENES that produce PREDICTABLE OUTCOMES OR PREDISPOSITIONS that may be triggered or exacerbated by VERY SPECIFIC ENVIRONMENTAL EXPOSURES.

The genes make the cells. The cells make the brain. The genes that make the cells that make the brain set up initial neural networks that connect the various brain areas. Despite neuroplasticity and learning, some things are not built or wired for optimum function.

If you know what these structural or functional differences are, then you can determine what effect SPECIFIC ENVIRONMENTAL EXPOSURES might have on those differently modeled brains.

If you ignore structural and functional differences and lump all SPECIFIC ENVIRONMENTAL EXPOSURES into an unspecified umbrella of "environment," then you're simply taking wild stabs in the dark and are not going to uncover any relevant data.

mildadhd
10-22-13, 03:57 PM
Joel nig is genes plus environment

Home life mainly when involving the drd4 gene

Thanks, Interesting I haven't studied Joel Nig.


Peripheral

ginniebean
10-22-13, 04:01 PM
Show us the research.

I've asked many times.

So we can discuss the topics?

I am not sure why anyone is holding back any research that would shut me up?

Unless you don't have any?

I don't even know what exactly you are arguing about?

You won't tell?

Why not?

Your included in my theories of ADD, even if you don't include me in yours.

I don't know what else to say.


Given the exhaustive attempts to discuss this topic with you where I don't think even ONE thread has passed without the reassurance that no one says that environment is excluded it's bizarre that you say you're excluded. You're beliefs about your own etiology are belief. NO ONE KNOWS yet including you.

Is it possible that you refuse evidence because of your belief? Your questions have been asked and answered so many times. I've heard the answers. (many times) It may not be that no one is answering you, it may be that you either don't understand, can't understand or some other issue that can't be understood. I dunno!

Amtram
10-22-13, 04:07 PM
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=Joel+Nigg
http://www.ohsu.edu/xd/education/schools/school-of-medicine/departments/clinical-departments/psychiatry/divisions-and-clinics/division-of-psychology/faculty-staff/nigg.cfm
http://media.mindinstitute.org/video/graphics/dls/2012/nigg_bioabstract.pdf
http://www.uctv.tv/shows/ADHD-Phenotype-and-Etiology-24424
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iqa9GL47Kv8


And I do believe I've linked to all of these before at some point or another. Every attempt has been made to "show the research." Claiming it hasn't been done is disingenuous.

daveddd
10-22-13, 04:12 PM
EVERYONE is genes plus environment, but they're SPECIFIC GENES that produce PREDICTABLE OUTCOMES OR PREDISPOSITIONS that may be triggered or exacerbated by VERY SPECIFIC ENVIRONMENTAL EXPOSURES.

The genes make the cells. The cells make the brain. The genes that make the cells that make the brain set up initial neural networks that connect the various brain areas. Despite neuroplasticity and learning, some things are not built or wired for optimum function.

If you know what these structural or functional differences are, then you can determine what effect SPECIFIC ENVIRONMENTAL EXPOSURES might have on those differently modeled brains.

If you ignore structural and functional differences and lump all SPECIFIC ENVIRONMENTAL EXPOSURES into an unspecified umbrella of "environment," then you're simply taking wild stabs in the dark and are not going to uncover any relevant data.

Yes everyone in psychology knows certain genetic temperments can lead to certain outcomes

They just aren't permanent

mildadhd
10-22-13, 04:21 PM
EVERYONE is genes plus environment, but they're SPECIFIC GENES that produce PREDICTABLE OUTCOMES OR PREDISPOSITIONS that may be triggered or exacerbated by VERY SPECIFIC ENVIRONMENTAL EXPOSURES.

The genes make the cells. The cells make the brain. The genes that make the cells that make the brain set up initial neural networks that connect the various brain areas. Despite neuroplasticity and learning, some things are not built or wired for optimum function.

If you know what these structural or functional differences are, then you can determine what effect SPECIFIC ENVIRONMENTAL EXPOSURES might have on those differently modeled brains.

If you ignore structural and functional differences and lump all SPECIFIC ENVIRONMENTAL EXPOSURES into an unspecified umbrella of "environment," then you're simply taking wild stabs in the dark and are not going to uncover any relevant data.

Amtram,

How do you rule out the environment as determining factor?

Why don't we use genetic tests to diagnose ADD?


Saying that ADD is not primarily genetic doesn't rule out any important role genes may have.

Genes simply don't work alone.

If we diagnosed ADD using common genes, many of us would never get diagnosed.

There is also people with a genetic predisposition, that don't have ADD.

Why not?

Just because a person has a predispostion doesn't make it fact that the person will have ADD.

Development involves more than just genes.

There is obviously more than one factor. (there are many factors)

Discussing genes only is not much of a help, unless, the person is already suspected of having ADD.



Its environments and genes

Not, genes or environment

I recommend you read Mate, if your interested in learning more about the relationship between environments, genes and ADD.


Fascinating to think most people who appose Dr.Mate's work, in so many threads, have never actually read his books.

It would be so much easier if I actually knew what some people where actually disagreeing about.



Anyway, have a nice day.


Peripherals

Lunacie
10-22-13, 04:30 PM
Amtram,

How do you rule out the environment as determining factor?

Why don't we use genetic tests to diagnose ADD?

Because ADD is not primarily genetic. Saying that ADD is not primarily genetic doesn't rule out any role genes may have.

If we diagnosed with common genes many of us would never get diagnosed.

Because many of us don't have with ADD, don't have common genes.

There is also people with ADD genetic predisposition that don't have ADD.

Genes are not much of a help unless, the person is already suspected of having ADD.



Its Environments and Genes

Not, Genes or Environment

I recommend you read Mate if your interested in learning more about the relationship between environment, genes and ADD.



Anyway, have a nice day.


Peripherals

This has been answered so often it's not even funny.

There are no diagnostic tests for ADHD because the science just isn't there
yet. There are much more deadly diseases that are heading the lineup, but
the research is being done only without as much urgency.



STOP with the strawman argument that anyone here is saying that it's
"genes or environment." There is no basis for this question to be asked
several times in each thread when NO ONE is saying this.
.

mildadhd
10-22-13, 04:48 PM
This has been answered so often it's not even funny.

There are no diagnostic tests for ADHD because the science just isn't there
yet. There are much more deadly diseases that are heading the lineup, but
the research is being done only without as much urgency.



STOP with the strawman argument that anyone here is saying that it's
"genes or environment." There is no basis for this question to be asked
several times in each thread when NO ONE is saying this.
.


Funny how your answer is based ,on having no answer, yet.

No wonder, I keep asking.

And nobody replies.

You don't know.





If you are saying environment and genes, then what are we disagreeing about?


Peripherals

Lunacie
10-22-13, 05:07 PM
Funny how your answer is based ,on having no answer, yet.

No wonder, I keep asking.

And nobody replies.

You don't know.





If you are saying environment and genes, then what are we disagreeing about?


Peripherals

What are you disagreeing about?

I haven't seen anyone here who doesn't say it's both genes + environment,
yet you keep bringing it up. :scratch:

What the rest of us are arguing about is the notion that environment is more
important than genetics. We just don't have any proof of that.

The forum is flooded with quotes from Dr. Mate who is sharing his personal
conclusions, and they don't coorelate with the data from research. He may
be right, but why argue about it when there's no proof either way?
.

mildadhd
10-22-13, 05:38 PM
He [Dr.Mate] may be right, but why argue about it when there's no proof either way?
.

Why say ADD is primarily genetic, when there is no proof either way?

I propose a 50:50 ideology (environments and genes), so all ADDers are represented in the ADD Spectrum, and promote better understanding of individual origin and therapy.


ADD is primarily the relationship between, environmental and genetics (50:50)






Peripherals

Lunacie
10-22-13, 05:47 PM
Why say ADD is primarily genetic, when there is no proof either way?

I propose a 50:50 ideology (environments and genes), so all ADDers and are represented in the ADD Spectrum, better linking origin and therapy.


ADD is primarily environmental and genetic (50:50)




Peripherals

Do you really think it's worth arguing about how much is genetics and how
much is environment when there's no real proof?

What difference does it make whether it's 50/50 or 60/40 or 70/30 as long
as we agree that both are factors?

When we say it's mostly genetic that doesn't mean we're saying it's
"genetic OR environment." Please don't say that we are.

Kunga Dorji
10-22-13, 05:54 PM
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=Joel+Nigg
http://www.ohsu.edu/xd/education/schools/school-of-medicine/departments/clinical-departments/psychiatry/divisions-and-clinics/division-of-psychology/faculty-staff/nigg.cfm
http://media.mindinstitute.org/video/graphics/dls/2012/nigg_bioabstract.pdf
http://www.uctv.tv/shows/ADHD-Phenotype-and-Etiology-24424
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iqa9GL47Kv8


And I do believe I've linked to all of these before at some point or another. Every attempt has been made to "show the research." Claiming it hasn't been done is disingenuous.

Nobody is claiming that the research has not been done Amtram.
What is being claimed is that the interpretation of that research that leads to "high end" estimates of the significance of the genetic component of causation in ADHD is fallacious.

Going back to my first post

In twin studies of addiction the concordance in findings between identical twins is about twice the rate for fraternal twins- a result that according to a review article “is consistent with addictive genetic factors”
M.A. Enoch and D. Goldman “The Genetics of Alcoholism and Alcohol Abuse,” Current Psychiatry Reports 3 (2002) 144-51


Now, I am afraid that this is just sloppy analysis of the sort that consigns this particular study to the realm of "junk science".

I do spend a good deal of time reviewing and dismantling scientific papers in a peer review group for mindfulness practitioners. i am also on the list of peer reviewers for the Magazine Australian Family Physician 9the official Journal of the Royal Australian College of General Practitioners)- so get my hands on some articles before they go to press. I have been responsible for revisions to papers submitted in that Journal.

Mate's comment about the analysis of the result is an equally valid interpretation of the same data- and illustrates perfectly his point that the researchers have chosen to go with the interpretation that fits their way of thinking:


But this finding is equally consistent with environmental factors. It is very obviously untrue that fraternal twins share the same environment. Fraternal twins are physiologically as different from each other as any pair of siblings and whatever they experience they will experience differently.
Secondly by far the most important aspect of the nurturing environment is the emotional interaction with the parent. Even with the best of good will in the world, parents are more likely to respond in the same way to identical twins than to non identical ones. (IE Will parents really look in the same way at non-identical twins with different genders and temperaments? Will the parent use the same tone of voice, or play in the same way with, say a smaller female child than with her larger and more robust male sibling or vice versa? Will they project the same fears, hopes and aspirations onto these different children.
Each child represents something different to each parent, and that means that the two children do not grow up under identical formative environments at home, in the playground or at school. So non identical twins are more likely to experience very different environments than identical twins- and the assumption underlying the value of the distinction between fraternal and identical twins in teasing out genetic causation collapses.
Even identical twins do not necessarily share the same environment.
(Another compounding factor is the intense psychological bonding between identical twins especially, but also to some extent fraternal twins. This bonding is shown to have already commenced in utero).


The trouble is that that one sided and flawed conclusion “is consistent with addictive genetic factors” is then quoted by other sources as being an authoritatve source.

The process of going back to the literature and weeding out this sort of rubbish is very labour intensive, and is not done as often as it should be.

I will respond to the papers you linked to in a separate post- but it would help if instead of just posting a link you would highlight the parts that you think relevant.

Dizfriz
10-22-13, 06:03 PM
In barkleys newest book on what executive functions are he says they are learned by watching

He also states ADHD are temperamental infants

How could something that is learned by watching be strictly genetic and biological

Can someone explain?
Let me try at least as I understand it.

We have the mental/genetic ability to use the executive functions as described by Barkley. Much of the specific expressions of these are learned as behaviors as allowed by the genetic/brain make up. Humans can do this but cats for instance cannot because they don't have the brain structures determined by the genetic makeup make up to have executive functions. Most animals don't. Only a few species seem to have this, hominids such as chimps, porpoise and possibly some others. The rest operate mainly on Stimulus>Organism>Response (SOR).

What ADHD does is diminish the ability to use or apply these functions but does not diminish the ability to learn the behaviors based on them.

What I think Barkley is saying (as he so often does) is that ADHDers know what to do but have difficulty doing what they know and this is due to the brain make up. ADHD is seen here as a developmental delay in the ability to use or apply the executive functions the individual has learned.


Basically what we are looking at here is that our brain, as determined by genetics, gives us as humans the ability to learn and apply these functions. With the proper brain structure, we would not be able to learn much less use them.

Hope this helps a little. The issue of executive functions is complex and more than a little confusing at times.

Take care,

Dizfriz

Amtram
10-22-13, 06:09 PM
Please share the evidence and the statistics from research that shows that genes and "environment" (whatever that may mean) share exactly equally in the creation of the condition known as ADHD. What empirical proofs do you have to justify proposing such a thing?

I'll tell you - none. First of all, because you refuse to define "environment" in such a way that it can be evaluated for correlation to the development of ADHD. Second of all, because there is currently no well-defined environmental factor that has been scientifically measured that shows anything more than a slightly higher than normal correlation with ADHD, which is in no way significant enough to indicate causation. Third of all, because you also misrepresent the genetics end of it, insisting that there be a single gene that causes all the symptoms associated with ADHD and that has no relationship with any other conditions besides ADHD so that that one gene can be pointed to as "the cause of ADHD."

We have a lot of answers, we have a lot of potential avenues that might have answers, we have a lot of things that may be answered later when our knowledge expands and our technology improves. If we don't have every iota of information to provide a conclusive answer, then it doesn't mean that someone's pet theory deserves equal weight for consideration. There is evidence that genes (several, not just one) in different areas of the brain (not necessarily everywhere) build a neural structure that leads to several individual symptoms that may be associated with ADHD and/or other conditions that share symptoms.

OTOH, there is zero evidence that "environment" causes ADHD. We're all exposed to "environment." If "environment" caused ADHD, the incidence of ADHD would be close to 100%, since everyone experiences "environment."

mildadhd
10-22-13, 06:09 PM
When we say it's mostly genetic that doesn't mean we're saying it's
"genetic OR environment." Please don't say that we are.

I doubt you would agree, if we say ADD is mostly environmental, but that doesn't mean we're saying it's "genetic or environment."


I think a 50:50 split is more productive, on a macro scale, when discussing a global ADD Spectrum.

On a micro scale, when discussing individual diagnoses, I could see how a more accurate ratio (more or less) would be productive.








Peripherals

Kunga Dorji
10-22-13, 06:15 PM
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=Joel+Nigg
http://www.ohsu.edu/xd/education/schools/school-of-medicine/departments/clinical-departments/psychiatry/divisions-and-clinics/division-of-psychology/faculty-staff/nigg.cfm
http://media.mindinstitute.org/video/graphics/dls/2012/nigg_bioabstract.pdf
http://www.uctv.tv/shows/ADHD-Phenotype-and-Etiology-24424



And I do believe I've linked to all of these before at some point or another. Every attempt has been made to "show the research." Claiming it hasn't been done is disingenuous.

Amtram,
none of the links here links to a specific article or a specific commentary.

Secondly- what I am asking for is a point by point review of the arguments that have been put- with point by point refutations.
That is what you ask of me after all.

Please note also that I am not claiming that ADHD does not have a neurobiological basis, but am claiming that environmental influences account for a greater proportion of the neurobiology than is commonly recognised, and that claiming 77% genetic heritability of ADHD is flawed to the point of being fatuous.
Drilling down on the page listing some of Nigg's research- this is the first one that caught my eye as worth comment:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23357443

J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry. (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23357443#) 2013 Feb;52(2):163-171.e2. doi: 10.1016/j.jaac.2012.11.009.
Emotion regulation and heterogeneity in attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder.

Musser ED (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=Musser%20ED%5BAuthor%5D&cauthor=true&cauthor_uid=23357443), Galloway-Long HS (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=Galloway-Long%20HS%5BAuthor%5D&cauthor=true&cauthor_uid=23357443), Frick PJ (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=Frick%20PJ%5BAuthor%5D&cauthor=true&cauthor_uid=23357443), Nigg JT (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=Nigg%20JT%5BAuthor%5D&cauthor=true&cauthor_uid=23357443).
Source

Oregon Health and Science University, Portland, OR 97239, USA. mussere@ohsu.edu

Abstract

OBJECTIVE:

How best to capture heterogeneity in attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) using biomarkers has been elusive. This study evaluated whether emotion reactivity and regulation provide a means to achieve this.

RESULTS:

The ADHD-typical-prosocial group displayed atypically elevated parasympathetic reactivity (emotion dysregulation) during positive induction, along with increased sympathetic activity (elevated arousal) across conditions. In contrast, the ADHD-low-prosocial group displayed reduced parasympathetic reactivity and reduced sympathetic activity (low emotional arousal) across baseline and task conditions. Thus, both ADHD groups had altered patterns of autonomic functioning, but in two distinct forms.
CONCLUSION:

Although ADHD is heterogeneous clinically, results suggest that ADHD is also heterogeneous with regard to physiological indices of emotion and regulation. Future studies of emotion, regulation, and ADHD should take this into account. Further study of physiological responding in ADHD may yield clinically and etiologically distinct domains or groups.







I have trimmed this a little to nod towards copyright, but it is publicly available.
Two points
1)the association of emotional regulation with autonomic system regulation is exactly the argument put forwards by developmental neuroscientists like Alan Schore.
2) While Nigg is calling for further studies of physiological responses in ADHD, much of the required work has already been done in other areas of psychiatric research, and the operationalising of an approach to correct dysfunctional autonomic reactivity has already been achieved by mindfulness practitioners, and use of biofeedback machines such as the emWave, developed by the institute of Heart Math.

Do you see what I mean about the fact that the overspecialisation in medicine has led to fragmentation and duplication of work?

Re the TV and You tube clips- watching them is very labor intensive.
If you can highlight the key minutes of them or find a transcript, I would be happy to comment.

I will finish this post here- or it will get too long and complex.

If you find another individual paper that you wish to discuss, please bring it forward.

The point is that we are ALL scientists- and I am pushing everyone here to draw their own conclusions, not just accept some pre-digested conclusion handed out on a plate by some authority.

Please understand that in doing this, I am showing everyone on the forum the respect of assuring you that you have the power to make your own analyses.

Dizfriz
10-22-13, 06:20 PM
Out of respect, could you specifically note, what you disagree with Dr.Mate about?
Peripherals

I have been over this with you many, many, times. I disagree with Mate's ideas on what causes ADHD. He feels that it is, as he has stated, genetics and parenting. I disagree on the parenting part.

Dizfriz

mildadhd
10-22-13, 06:24 PM
Please share the evidence and the statistics from research that shows that genes and "environment" (whatever that may mean) share exactly equally in the creation of the condition known as ADHD. What empirical proofs do you have to justify proposing such a thing?

I'll tell you - none. First of all, because you refuse to define "environment" in such a way that it can be evaluated for correlation to the development of ADHD. Second of all, because there is currently no well-defined environmental factor that has been scientifically measured that shows anything more than a slightly higher than normal correlation with ADHD, which is in no way significant enough to indicate causation. Third of all, because you also misrepresent the genetics end of it, insisting that there be a single gene that causes all the symptoms associated with ADHD and that has no relationship with any other conditions besides ADHD so that that one gene can be pointed to as "the cause of ADHD."

We have a lot of answers, we have a lot of potential avenues that might have answers, we have a lot of things that may be answered later when our knowledge expands and our technology improves. If we don't have every iota of information to provide a conclusive answer, then it doesn't mean that someone's pet theory deserves equal weight for consideration. There is evidence that genes (several, not just one) in different areas of the brain (not necessarily everywhere) build a neural structure that leads to several individual symptoms that may be associated with ADHD and/or other conditions that share symptoms.

OTOH, there is zero evidence that "environment" causes ADHD. We're all exposed to "environment." If "environment" caused ADHD, the incidence of ADHD would be close to 100%, since everyone experiences "environment."


Some ADDers may have stronger genetic predisposition factors, than other ADDers.

Some ADDers may have stronger environmental factors, than other ADDers.

Calling ADD 50% genetic covers the idea that genes cause ADD. (and rightly protects the primary caregiver(s))

Calling ADD 50% environmental covers the idea that environments cause ADD.(helping people who have ADD indirectly due to suboptimal stress)

A 50:50 ratio represents all ADDers.

Until proven otherwise, anything else is reptilian, in my opinion.



Peripherals

Kunga Dorji
10-22-13, 06:52 PM
Oh great Andrew, now you've done it. If anything, Gabor Mate could have a clear case of copyright infringement. since 90% of his books have been printed out here.

Andrew, do you feel the weight of evidence would shift if we just got rid of those pesky neuroscientists, and adhd could then be declassified as a neurological disorder and plAced squarely in the realm of a social ill. Therefore freeing up space in the DSM for 'real' disorders? No docs, no meds, no accomodations!

Since we're cutting at the root of the tree here let's not make any pretense about it.
Why is this NEVER discussed?

Hi Ginniebean,
I am not 100% sure if I have responded directly to you on this.
However- I have been in direct email communication with Dr Mate, and have his permission to use his material.
I have discussed with him the difficulties in getting a balanced debate going on what is a highly influential forum for many ADHD individuals.
He is currently considering posting the entirity of the appendices to"In the Realm of The Hungry Ghosts" on his website- to make them freely available for access.

In any case- there is a question of 'fair dealing" that allows quotation from copyright material for the purpose of clarifying particular arguments.

Secondly- both the genetic and environmental camps agree that there is a neurological basis to the attention problem- it is just that the environmental camp debates the proportion of the neurological problem that is genetically encoded, and the proportion of the problem that is immutable.

Thirdly- what is wrong with a model that acknowledges that social ills create a toxic environment for neurological maturation?

The real problem all along is linear, single cause and effect, thinking.

Currently I have a list of about 7-8 major contributory causes to ADHD.
I will post it soon.
Andrew

mildadhd
10-22-13, 07:13 PM
I have been over this with you many, many, times. I disagree with Mate's ideas on what causes ADHD. He feels that it is, as he has stated, genetics and parenting. I disagree on the parenting part.

Dizfriz




Please quote where you claim, that Dr.Mate said, that ADD is caused by parenting?

Dr.Mate is so nice, he doesn't even blame the genes.

I do not think it is a matter of bad genes or bad parenting, but I do believe it is a matter of genes and parenting.

-Gabor Mate M.D., Scattered, Introduction.







Peripherals

Amtram
10-22-13, 07:33 PM
Amtram,
none of the links here links to a specific article or a specific commentary.

None of them were supposed to. They were in response to Peripheral saying he had not been exposed to any of Joel Nigg's research.

Secondly- what I am asking for is a point by point review of the arguments that have been put- with point by point refutations.
That is what you ask of me after all.

No, you are asking me to repeat things I have said before, even things that you read before and are now pretending to not have seen. I asked for the sources of two (count 'em, two) definitive statements you made as fact that seemed dodgy.

The emwave? Really? A phone app that's going to cure ADHD? Some speculative product that has no linked research but does have an electronics device quack Miranda warning. . .

The emWave and the given exercises are intended as tools for stress reduction, individual balance, optimal performance and personal growth. This is not considered a medical device. It has been found to be very safe and helpful when used as intended for educational and entertainment purposes.

The emWave is based on hard science and incorporates the same patented HRV measurement and coherence scoring process found in the Freeze-Framer® Interactive Learning System, HeartMath's award winning PC based product that is being used by ten's of thousands of people in over 50 countries.


THIS is more promising than all the research that's been done by scientists in biology, genetics, neuroscience, psychiatry, psychology. . .a device that doesn't even say what it does or how it does it or present any information that verifies it actually does anything? A device that comes right out and says that it doesn't do anything, but it helpful for entertainment purposes? Are you getting a commission on these?

I have a 17 page Word document of links to specific studies on ADHD, which show not only promising findings, but also demonstrate the good science that led to successful research. All of the links were posted by me at some point in these forums. I have links to brain science stickied at the top of these forums (meadd has the opening post in the thread) and one of them is to a thread of nothing but genetic studies - there are pages and pages of those, single spaced. Even this is merely a partial list, the ones I was able to read myself over the past 4 years. And you're saying a product whose description consists almost entirely of weasel words has all the answers.

Color me dubious. I'm skeptical about honestly presented results. I absolutely do not lend any credence to a product that makes vague, unsupportable claims.

Lunacie
10-22-13, 07:37 PM
>>trimmed<<


The point is that we are ALL scientists- and I am pushing everyone here to draw their own conclusions, not just accept some pre-digested conclusion handed out on a plate by some authority.

Please understand that in doing this, I am showing everyone on the forum the respect of assuring you that you have the power to make your own analyses.

Then please show us the respect of accepting that we may have drawn a
different conclusion than you - one which isn't necessarily "pre-digested?"

Kunga Dorji
10-22-13, 07:56 PM
I have been over this with you many, many, times. I disagree with Mate's ideas on what causes ADHD. He feels that it is, as he has stated, genetics and parenting. I disagree on the parenting part.

Dizfriz

He states more that it is genetics and environment- but that the attachment relationship is an important part of that.

I will post another thread soon that relates to an acquired injury that can make children more difficult to parent,and also introduce serious neuromotor problems as well.

My own comment regarding the outcomes with my children would be that we had good attachment with our children but both had significant anxious personality traits that were passed on to our children.

What is significant is what happened when our children went to school.
You can follow the photos year by year as they both became unhappier and unhappier.

If we accept that a person with an attention problem will have a late maturing brain- then it is no great logical leap to understand that such a child may not be "school ready" until one or two years later than his chronological age, and that in that setting that child is not ready to be spending long times out of the attachment relationship with his/her parents.

This happened with me- I was quite immature when I started school and always getting into trouble socially- in fact it led to a period of 9 years of intense bullying, and serious psychic trauma.

Mate discusses this better in the book he co-authored with the psychologist Gordon Neufeld: 'Hold on to your kids, Why parents should matter more than peers'.

Where Mate does discuss parenting he does this in the context that our society is not supportive of good parenting.

I am aware of your time constraints Dizfriz, but I am sure you would be most interested if you actually read his books in detail.

The big problem we are facing is that of people referencing third party criticisms of another individual's work.

Kunga Dorji
10-22-13, 08:00 PM
Then please show us the respect of accepting that we may have drawn a
different conclusion than you - one which isn't necessarily "pre-digested?"


You know, I always used to get in trouble in maths classes for skipping three lines of working and doing them in my head. I corrected that error, and topped the state in year 12 Pure Maths.

In these threads- I am "showing you my working".

Accordingly I will respect any opinion you put forwards where you "show me your working" in refuting my working!

That is how scientific method works.

ana futura
10-22-13, 08:04 PM
Environment is about far more than parenting. The term "parenting" is confusing. I prefer "life experience".

In my own life, I think a lot of the emotional bits attached to ADHD come from growing up with ADHD= environmentally informed genetics.

The academic type stuff, the brain freezes, the impulsive movements and speech- that seems like it would be there with or without environmental interference- it was always there.

Kunga Dorji
10-22-13, 08:12 PM
None of them were supposed to. They were in response to Peripheral saying he had not been exposed to any of Joel Nigg's research.



No, you are asking me to repeat things I have said before, even things that you read before and are now pretending to not have seen. I asked for the sources of two (count 'em, two) definitive statements you made as fact that seemed dodgy.

The emwave? Really? A phone app that's going to cure ADHD? Some speculative product that has no linked research but does have an electronics device quack Miranda warning. . .

The emWave and the given exercises are intended as tools for stress reduction, individual balance, optimal performance and personal growth. This is not considered a medical device. It has been found to be very safe and helpful when used as intended for educational and entertainment purposes.

The emWave is based on hard science and incorporates the same patented HRV measurement and coherence scoring process found in the Freeze-Framer® Interactive Learning System, HeartMath's award winning PC based product that is being used by ten's of thousands of people in over 50 countries.


THIS is more promising than all the research that's been done by scientists in biology, genetics, neuroscience, psychiatry, psychology. . .a device that doesn't even say what it does or how it does it or present any information that verifies it actually does anything? A device that comes right out and says that it doesn't do anything, but it helpful for entertainment purposes? Are you getting a commission on these?

I have a 17 page Word document of links to specific studies on ADHD, which show not only promising findings, but also demonstrate the good science that led to successful research. All of the links were posted by me at some point in these forums. I have links to brain science stickied at the top of these forums (meadd has the opening post in the thread) and one of them is to a thread of nothing but genetic studies - there are pages and pages of those, single spaced. Even this is merely a partial list, the ones I was able to read myself over the past 4 years. And you're saying a product whose description consists almost entirely of weasel words has all the answers.

Color me dubious. I'm skeptical about honestly presented results. I absolutely do not lend any credence to a product that makes vague, unsupportable claims.

Firstly- it makes no claim to "cure ADHD".
Secondly the science on heart rate variability is clear cut- if you can use a biofeedback device to train into a stable sinus arrrhythmia, there are demonstrable improvements in stress levels and concentration.
There are proven benefits in reduction in circulating cortisol levels (doing the exercise for 5 minutes has been shown to reduce cortisol levels for 6 hours).

I would comment though that the phone app is probably the least useful version.
I prefer the desktop one.

It is straightforwards and uncontroversial to observe that even for people with ADHD attention is better when not stressed, so it takes no great intellectual leap to understand the applicability of the device.

The parent website has ample research links.

The improvement in function associated with stress reduction is commented on by the psychiatrist Lydia Zylowska in her book "The Mindfulness Prescription for Adult ADHD".

You are entitled to be skeptical, but I have found many times in my life that my skepticism has held me back from exploring useful avenues for treatment and diagnosis.

Had I been less skeptical I would have had much better control of my ADHD years ago, and I would not be filing papers for my divorce from my beloved wife today.

ana futura
10-22-13, 08:20 PM
Barliman- have you ever stopped meditation long enough to notice some symptoms return?

If I have been practicing regularly and I meditate for an hour the night before a class, I can go to school without medication the next day- I can pay attention very well for the entire class. I'm also far less impulsive in speech and action.

I have to meditate consistently for this to happen though. If I stop meditating for a month, all of the progress I make in regards to academics and impulse control goes away.

That's not the case for emotional regulation and self awareness though- these behaviors, while not at the peak levels of control during the two months I spent meditating consistently, remain greatly improved if I stop meditating. This appears permanent, and the research on meditation and depression/ anxiety seems to say the same thing.

Lunacie
10-22-13, 08:26 PM
You know, I always used to get in trouble in maths classes for skipping three lines of working and doing them in my head. I corrected that error, and topped the state in year 12 Pure Maths.

In these threads- I am "showing you my working".

Accordingly I will respect any opinion you put forwards where you "show me your working" in refuting my working!

That is how scientific method works.

That has been done in many threads, generally started by Peripheral.

I don't believe we should have to go through all over again just because a
different poster brings up the same issues one more time.

Kunga Dorji
10-22-13, 08:28 PM
Oh great Andrew, now you've done it. If anything, Gabor Mate could have a clear case of copyright infringement. since 90% of his books have been printed out here.

Andrew, do you feel the weight of evidence would shift if we just got rid of those pesky neuroscientists, and adhd could then be declassified as a neurological disorder and plAced squarely in the realm of a social ill. Therefore freeing up space in the DSM for 'real' disorders? No docs, no meds, no accomodations!

Since we're cutting at the root of the tree here let's not make any pretense about it.
Why is this NEVER discussed?

You know I should have picked up on this ages ago:
It is on Peripheral's sig;
"..Many children with ADD are subjected to overt disapproval and public shaming in the classroom for behaviors they do not consciously choose. These children are not purposively inattentive or disobedient. There are emotional and neurophysiological forces at play that do the actual deciding for them.." (-Gabor Mate M.D. (http://drgabormate.com/), Scattered, P 15).

So there is Mate, acknowledging a neurophysiological problem.

If you cross reference my post on ADHD and addictions you will see a reference where he clearly acknowledges that stimulants have a role in the management of ADHD, and directs our attention to research that stimulant treatment in children reduce the risk of addictive tendencies in adults.

The trouble here is that people form opinions of him based on second hand accounts of his work.

mildadhd
10-22-13, 09:12 PM
Thanks for the reminders Barliman.

"..Many children with ADD are subjected to overt disapproval and public shaming in the classroom for behaviors they do not consciously choose. These children are not purposively inattentive or disobedient. There are emotional and neurophysiological forces at play that do the actual deciding for them.." (-Gabor Mate M.D., Scattered, (1999), P 15).






Peripherals

Amtram
10-22-13, 09:21 PM
The parent website has ample research links.



Funny, I looked at the site map, and the most comprehensive information I found was "how to buy."

Kunga Dorji
10-22-13, 09:49 PM
Funny, I looked at the site map, and the most comprehensive information I found was "how to buy."

Given that it is a commercial website- posting the link would contravene forum rules-- but
Google Institute of Heart Math
The top bar has a series of links
The first link ion the left is titled research:

It has the following sections:
Research Sections:



(http://www.heartmath.org/research/research-library/research-library.html)
Research Library
Many of this sections’ extensive listings and summaries of IHM’s 22 years of research publications can be downloaded here, including works on heart-rate variability, heart coherence, stress management, heart-brain interactions, emotional physiology and intuition.




Featured Research

The IHM Research Center is committed to increasing the scientific knowledge of the heart and global coherence. We invite you to read about many fascinating research topics featured and archived in this section.




The Science of the Heart
This insightful, comprehensive section, discusses heart-rate variability, heart-brain interactions and how the heart affects brain function, emotional experience, perception, etc. It includes brief summaries of research by IHM and many independent entities.




Scientific eBooks

The science behind IHM’s research is presented in downloadable scientific monographs. These overviews contain technical discussions and cite studies on positive emotional physiology, stress- and emotion-management, heart coherence, heart-rate variability and energetic communications.



I lost count at around 200 papers.

Kunga Dorji
10-22-13, 10:00 PM
Funny, I looked at the site map, and the most comprehensive information I found was "how to buy."

Here are a couple more good links on heart rate variability for you.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Porges

In 1994 he proposed the Polyvagal Theory, a theory that links the evolution (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution) of the autonomic nervous system (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autonomic_nervous_system) to the emergence of social behavior. The theory provides insights into the mechanisms mediating symptoms observed in several behavioral, psychiatric, and physical disorders. The theory has stimulated research and treatments that emphasize the importance of physiological state and behavioral regulation in the expression of several psychiatric disorders including autism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autism) and provides a theoretical perspective to study and to treat stress and trauma.

The first to quantify and use heart rate variability both as response and individual difference variable in psychophysiological research.

The Polyvagal Theory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polyvagal_Theory) introduces a new perspective relating autonomic function to behavior that includes an appreciation of the autonomic nervous system (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autonomic_nervous_system) as a "system," the identification of neural circuits involved in the regulation of autonomic state, and an interpretation of autonomic reactivity as adaptive within the context of the phylogeny of the vertebrate autonomic nervous system.[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Porges#cite_note-2) The polyvagal perspective explores new questions, paradigms, explanations, and conclusions regarding the role that autonomic function has in the regulation of affective states and social behavior. Foremost, the polyvagal perspective emphasizes the importance of phylogenetic changes in the neural structures regulating the heart (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heart) and how these phylogenetic shifts provide insights into the adaptive function of both physiology (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physiology) and behavior (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Behavior). The theory emphasizes the phylogenetic emergence of two vagal systems: a potentially lethal ancient circuit involved in defensive strategies of immobilization (e.g., fainting, dissociative states) and a newer mammalian circuit linking the heart to the face that is involved in both social engagement behaviors and in dampening reactivity of the sympathetic nervous system (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sympathetic_nervous_system) and the Hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal_axis).


from:
http://www.stephenporges.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=23&Itemid=23

Porges SW, Raskin DC. (1969). Respiratory and heart rate components of attention. Journal of Experimental Psychology 81:497-503.

Porges SW, Arnold WR, Forbes EJ. (1973). Heart rate variability: An index of attentional responsivity in human newborns. Developmental Psychology 8:85-92.

Porges SW. (1974). Heart rate indices of newborn attentional responsivity. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly 20:231-254.


Coles MGH, Porges SW, Duncan-Johnson CC. (1975). Sex differences in performance and associated cardiac activity during a reaction time task. Physiological Psychology 3:141-143.
Porges SW, Walter GF, Korb J, Sprague RL. (1975). The influence of methylphenidate on heart rate and behavioral measures of attention in hyperactive children. Child Development 46:727-733.

Of course there are many more- but Porges and the Heart Math people are fishing in the same pond.

Amtram
10-22-13, 11:03 PM
Yes, they gathered quite a bit of information from alternative, low IF journals that would improve the saleability of their heart rate game.

Polyvagal theory seems to be lovingly embraced by the spiritual and alternative medicine crowd, which raises red flags for me, but I don't feel like investigating yet another thing only to find that it has little scientific support or relevance to ADHD.

ginniebean
10-22-13, 11:24 PM
You know I should have picked up on this ages ago:
It is on Peripheral's sig;
"..Many children with ADD are subjected to overt disapproval and public shaming in the classroom for behaviors they do not consciously choose. These children are not purposively inattentive or disobedient. There are emotional and neurophysiological forces at play that do the actual deciding for them.." (-Gabor Mate M.D. (http://drgabormate.com/), Scattered, P 15).

So there is Mate, acknowledging a neurophysiological problem.

.

Caused by bad parenting! OR inferior parenting. Or what ever is in vogue on Dr Mercola this week.

Kunga Dorji
10-22-13, 11:42 PM
Caused by bad parenting! OR inferior parenting. Or what ever is in vogue on Dr Mercola this week.

Sadly you misinterpret the argument

mctavish23
10-22-13, 11:50 PM
The Chicago newspaper headline for Cook et.al. 1995 (at the time) read...

"Genetic Marker For ADHD Found."

The study itself specifically deals with DAT1 and DRD.

THAT's what I'm repeating here.

Either way, the current science behind the disorder remains that ADHD is primarily

genetic.

tc

Robert

Kunga Dorji
10-22-13, 11:55 PM
Yes, they gathered quite a bit of information from alternative, low IF journals that would improve the saleability of their heart rate game.

Polyvagal theory seems to be lovingly embraced by the spiritual and alternative medicine crowd, which raises red flags for me, but I don't feel like investigating yet another thing only to find that it has little scientific support or relevance to ADHD.

Pubmed is not a complete source of all high quality research.

There are issues that favoured journals often do not have appropriately qualified staff on their reviewer list to review material presented.

In any case
Porges IS on pubmed
His data re heart rate variability is on pubmed
It only takes about 3 trys with using the computer version of the device to be able to demonstrate that entrainment of heart rate variability is achievable- and then it only takes another few weeks to become physically aware of when entrainment is occurring and how much better you focus in that state.

Additionally - your comment that the Heath math material comes from "low quality journals, so can be safely ignored is a variant of "argument by authority" a basic clear thinking error.

Finally- your previous post stated that all you could find was "marketing material" and no research. If you were being more open- you could admit your error.

ana futura
10-23-13, 12:01 AM
Caused by bad parenting! OR inferior parenting. Or what ever is in vogue on Dr Mercola this week.

If you substitute "the socioeconomic climate" for "parenting", the environmental aspect makes a whole lot more sense. I resisted acknowledging the environmental aspects for some time- but that was because I kept equating it with parenting, and hey, my parents were pretty awesome.

It's really just about what a poor fit this culture is for us, and how being raised in a culture that is such a poor fit (where the ability to seek out long term rewards is prized) - how could you not develop trouble with emotional regulation?

I really think that the emotional aspects of my ADHD (which are effectively treated by medication) stem from my environment, 100%. That's the thing that got me diagnosed (or at least, into a therapist's office)

My "brain type" though (hyper, impulsive, easily distracted, enthusiastic, focused on short term rewards) is genetic. ADHD is the merging of the two in my opinion.

Kunga Dorji
10-23-13, 01:36 AM
The Chicago newspaper headline for Cook et.al. 1995 (at the time) read...

"Genetic Marker For ADHD Found."

The study itself specifically deals with DAT1 and DRD.

THAT's what I'm repeating here.

Either way, the current science behind the disorder remains that ADHD is primarily

genetic.

tc

Robert

Hi Robert,
I would love to look at the paper, but the link is not suficient to pursue.

There are background issues here though.
1)Correlation/vs Causation -- and Mate's work deals with the many reasons that can lead to a misattribution of correlations found.

2) Papers that draw overstated conclusions from a set of results. The one I quoted before - where the researchers prejudices led them to declare the results "consistent with a genetic cause" when another look at the same data could have also found them consistent with a social cause.

3) How many times has the "accepted science" been overturned?

4) there is a real danger in a situation where the devotion to "expertise" disempowers us individuals from looking at the data ourselves and assessing it.

There are a few issues in understanding the fine points of statistical analysis as used in analysis of scientific papers-- but overall it is not too hard, if you wish to do it.
If one does not wish to do it- then one more or less disqualifies oneself from saying anything other than "these guys are on my side, and I barrack for them, so they must be right!".

(I do not mean that in an offensive way in regard to your attitude btw).

I have yet to see a bullet proof case that supports the current claims that ADHD has a primarily genetic cause.

Dizfriz
10-23-13, 08:53 AM
Even though I have discussed my thoughts on Mate's views on causation *many many* times and posted these quotes also *many* times especially the first, I will do it again just to clarify.

Here are two quotes that I feel best represent Mates view on the causes of ADHD.

I believe that ADD originates in stresses that affect the mothering parent's emotional interactions with the infant. They cause the disrupted electrical and chemical circuitry of ADHD. Attachment and attunement, two crucial aspects of the infant-parent relationship, are the determining factors. Scattered P69-70


I do not think it is a matter of bad genes or bad parenting but I do believe it is a matter of genes and parenting Scattered xvii.

To put it in my words, as I understand him, he believes that the stresses of society result in a disruption in the parent/child bonding process which then causes ADHD in genetically susceptible children. Incorrect or faulty attachment and attunement, both a part of parenting, are what he sees as the key factors that result in child being ADHD. Stress and genetic predisposition appear to be seen as contributing factors but, in his view, it is the parent's bonding with the child that in the final analysis is proposed as the cause of a child being ADHD.

This blaming of ADHD on parenting is what I object to.

Dizfriz

Amtram
10-23-13, 09:29 AM
Pubmed is a database of research from around the world. Pubmed is a database of all research published in all journals that meet the standards of the NCBI and apply for inclusion - even some of the really substandard ones like the Journal of Alternative Medicine, which appeared quite frequently in the references for the biofeedback game app. (The product, BTW, which costs $169, on sale from $225, measures only your breathing and your heart rate. . .) The Mayo Clinic outlines far more comprehensive methods of biofeedback, but has this to say about them in general:

Experts aren't entirely sure how biofeedback works. But if biofeedback is successful for you, it may help you control symptoms of your condition or reduce the amount of medication you take. Eventually, you can practice the biofeedback techniques you learn on your own. You may need to continue with standard treatment for your condition, though.


On the downside, learning biofeedback can take a lot of time and, if it's not covered by your health insurance, it can be personally expensive. In some cases, biofeedback may be no more effective than other simpler, less expensive relaxation techniques, such as yoga.



And if the cases for genetic roots aren't bulletproof, the environmental causation cases are like cardboard boxes in a heavy downpour.

mildadhd
10-23-13, 09:52 AM
Even though I have discussed my thoughts on Mate's views on causation *many many* times and posted these quotes also *many* times especially the first, I will do it again just to clarify.

Here are two quotes that I feel best represent Mates view on the causes of ADHD.

Scattered P69-70


Scattered xvii.

To put it in my words, as I understand him, he believes that the stresses of society result in a disruption in the parent/child bonding process which then causes ADHD in genetically susceptible children. Incorrect or faulty attachment and attunement, both a part of parenting, are what he sees as the key factors that result in child being ADHD. Stress and genetic predisposition appear to be seen as contributing factors but, in his view, it is the parent's bonding with the child that in the final analysis is proposed as the cause of a child being ADHD.

This blaming of ADHD on parenting is what I object to.

Dizfriz

Note that blaming the parents is your interpretation.

And Dr.Mate doesn't say that.

You even admit this time that Suboptimal stress and genetic predisposition are factors.

What you seem to be underestimating is the role primary caregivers role in a hypersensitive child's life.

So many times, I have read parents come here not knowing what to do with their emotionally hypersensitive children.

Telling them is genetic, is of little help.

Your twist, turning the issues into a blame game and bad parenting, doesn't address reality, in my opinion.

ADD is environment and genes.

Everyone agrees.


Have a nice day!


Peripherals.

Lunacie
10-23-13, 10:47 AM
If you substitute "the socioeconomic climate" for "parenting", the environmental aspect makes a whole lot more sense. I resisted acknowledging the environmental aspects for some time- but that was because I kept equating it with parenting, and hey, my parents were pretty awesome.

It's really just about what a poor fit this culture is for us, and how being raised in a culture that is such a poor fit (where the ability to seek out long term rewards is prized) - how could you not develop trouble with emotional regulation?

I really think that the emotional aspects of my ADHD (which are effectively treated by medication) stem from my environment, 100%. That's the thing that got me diagnosed (or at least, into a therapist's office)

My "brain type" though (hyper, impulsive, easily distracted, enthusiastic, focused on short term rewards) is genetic. ADHD is the merging of the two in my opinion.

What culture is a good fit for those with ADHD?

Is there any culture anywhere at this time that is a good fit?

daveddd
10-23-13, 10:48 AM
Let me try at least as I understand it.

We have the mental/genetic ability to use the executive functions as described by Barkley. Much of the specific expressions of these are learned as behaviors as allowed by the genetic/brain make up. Humans can do this but cats for instance cannot because they don't have the brain structures determined by the genetic makeup make up to have executive functions. Most animals don't. Only a few species seem to have this, hominids such as chimps, porpoise and possibly some others. The rest operate mainly on Stimulus>Organism>Response (SOR).

What ADHD does is diminish the ability to use or apply these functions but does not diminish the ability to learn the behaviors based on them.

What I think Barkley is saying (as he so often does) is that ADHDers know what to do but have difficulty doing what they know and this is due to the brain make up. ADHD is seen here as a developmental delay in the ability to use or apply the executive functions the individual has learned.


Basically what we are looking at here is that our brain, as determined by genetics, gives us as humans the ability to learn and apply these functions. With the proper brain structure, we would not be able to learn much less use them.

Hope this helps a little. The issue of executive functions is complex and more than a little confusing at times.

Take care,

Dizfriz

i see it similiar

accept i dont believe its a brain problem that makes our executive functions "hot"

i believe its a constant distress state that is brought on by the inability to regulate emotion

daveddd
10-23-13, 10:54 AM
Environment is about far more than parenting. The term "parenting" is confusing. I prefer "life experience".

In my own life, I think a lot of the emotional bits attached to ADHD come from growing up with ADHD= environmentally informed genetics.

The academic type stuff, the brain freezes, the impulsive movements and speech- that seems like it would be there with or without environmental interference- it was always there.

exactly it

a psycho social cascade

but one that can be reversed

midnightstar
10-23-13, 11:43 AM
Barliman is it ok if you open your PM box for a few minutes so I can PM you? :grouphug:

Sorry to hear you are having a rough time, I'm reading through this thread now :grouphug:

mctavish23
10-23-13, 12:11 PM
Having read that study at least 4 times now, I don't think that was an exaggeration or

embellishment.

Also, keep in mind that Peripheral's earlier statement regarding 80% genetic, is essentially

the same thing as my saying "primarily."

The data for this is overwhelming.

tc

mctavish23

(Robert)

Lunacie
10-23-13, 12:12 PM
Barliman, it sounds like you feel that you've had a wake up call. That's
awesome and I hope you learn some things that will really be helpful. But
until there is more scientific evidence it will be very difficult for others to
accept this as wisdom.

I've said before, when I first joined this forum there wasn't much evidence
yet that Omega 3 is an effective treatment for ADHD for some people. All
I knew was that it had worked for me for a couple of years already. I just
mentioned it now and then, and gave it some time. Eventually there has
been more research and people are more open to the idea that stimulant
meds are not the only effective treatment.

I don't think I insulted anyone for being "impervious to new ideas" or
having "a closed mind." It takes time for a new idea to prove it's worth.
I hope you can stay excited about learning, even if you end up going in
a different direction over time.

daveddd
10-23-13, 04:29 PM
Having read that study at least 4 times now, I don't think that was an exaggeration or

embellishment.

Also, keep in mind that Peripheral's earlier statement regarding 80% genetic, is essentially

the same thing as my saying "primarily."

The data for this is overwhelming.

tc

mctavish23

(Robert)

so 80% of people with adhd have a genetic component

does that not mean the component was activated?

or the vulnerability was exposed?

or is this supposed to mean its a biological unchangeable trait like height


obesity has a genetic component, but as dizfriz says genetics isnt destiny


this is the part that i feel im lost in this debate

daveddd
10-23-13, 04:43 PM
pretty much all psychological disorders have a genetic factor over 50 %

including personality disorders

what is the argument here

Abi
10-23-13, 04:44 PM
"Genetic component" is not a .... monolithic(?) ... that's the best word I can come up with... term...

Sickle Cell Anaemia is genetic. If both your parents are carriers, you have a 25% chance of getting it. IF both your parents are sufferers, you have a 100% chance of getting it. Finito.

Predisposition to TYPE II Diabetes is also genetic, but whether the disease actually manifests, age of onset, severity, outcome is very much based on lifestyle/environmental factors.

Basically what it boils down to is the Dizfriz/Amtram/Lunacie/Abi camp argues the aetiology of ADHD more like that of SCA, whilst the Peripheral/Davedd group argues that the aetiology of ADHD is closer to that of Type 2 Diabetes.

I'm not expressing myself well.... Okay, I tried :o

daveddd
10-23-13, 04:48 PM
thats what i thought


to be clear i know its the parent argument that bothers people

and im not really on that side

ive honestly never read a book by gabor mate

and ive literally read thousands of psych texts

but i will argue that adult adhd isnt a permanent irreversible brain disease

daveddd
10-23-13, 05:39 PM
a lot of possibilities with gene by environment

a read by joel nigg

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2928573/

mctavish23
10-23-13, 07:34 PM
No, it means that, on "average," the heritability of ADHD is 80+%. However, the range

of data I've seen stretches between 62 or 63%, all the way to 97%. Meanwhile, the

heritability of Intelligence (IQ) = 55%, while Human Height = 80%; meaning ADHD's is

GREATER than both of those. Why is this so hard to understand ?

tc

mctavish23

(Robert)

daveddd
10-23-13, 07:41 PM
No, it means that, on "average," the heritability of ADHD is 80+%. However, the range

of data I've seen stretches between 62 or 63%, all the way to 97%. Meanwhile, the

heritability of Intelligence (IQ) = 55%, while Human Height = 80%; meaning ADHD's is

GREATER than both of those. Why is this so hard to understand ?

tc

mctavish23

(Robert)




everyone has stated that adhd had a genetic piece

no one has proved that its only genetic

Dizfriz
10-23-13, 07:48 PM
no one has proved that its only genetic

Possibly because no one is trying to. No one and I mean no one that I am aware of in the field thinks that ADHD is genetic only. The research has long gone past that.

I really don't know why this keeps coming up.

Dizfriz

mctavish23
10-23-13, 07:49 PM
NO ONE HAS SAID THAT IT's SOLELY GENETIC. Jeez.

You can ACQUIRE ADHD at any point in your life, via Traumatic Brain Injury.

Here's what people need to understand...

ADHD is THE MOST GENETIC / INHERITED OF ALL PSYCHIATRIC DISORDER'S.

How's that ??

tc

mctavish23

(Robert)

daveddd
10-23-13, 07:50 PM
well thats what i was asking, and thats not what was answered


so no one knows anything, that was obvious

daveddd
10-23-13, 07:50 PM
getting snippy doesnt help

Amtram
10-23-13, 07:53 PM
The results section from the article:

Relatively consistent evidence points to the interaction of genotype with psychosocial factors in the development of ADHD. The next step is to identify the mechanisms on the environment side and the gene combinations on the genetic side accounting for this effect. By contrast, evidence for gene-environment interactions involving pre- and peri-natal risk factors is generally negative or unreplicated. The aggregate effect size for psychosocial interaction with genotype is more than double that for the interaction of pre- and perinatal risks with genotype. Only a small fraction of candidate environments and gene markers have been studied, and multivariate methods to integrate multiple gene or environment markers have yet to be implemented.

Note that the starting point is the genotype. What Nigg is saying (and he's one of the most reliable sources out there) is that there is an ADHD genotype - people who have whatever genetic material that causes the brain to behave with symptoms of ADHD - and that environmental aggravators can worsen the ADHD. (He also mentions that pre- and peri-natal factors are not relevant to the development of ADHD. Remember that.)

So the gist of the article is that a person who is born into the ADHD genotype will react differently to psychosocial risk factors differently from someone not of the ADHD genotype. He also mentions the potential false positives, and the fact that some environmental factors will not affect the person with the genotype, but originate because the person belongs to that genotype.

Compare his measured approach to the difficulty of assessing cause and effect in this paper to some of the absolutist views that get expressed on the forums. This study illustrates well the great care that researchers take on determining and giving weight to various risk factors.

With this in mind, how are genes and environments to be selected for study? One approach is to examine “candidates” (both “G” and “E”) that have shown some evidence of a main effect on the disorder or its constituent symptoms, to see if these effects are magnified by interactions among them. Note, however, that although this is one opening strategy, interactions can completely mask main effects. Thus, premature closure of a candidate list based only on main effects is likely ill-advised.

Yet in the case of ADHD, numerous such candidates are available for initial examination. On the genetic side, more success has emerged for ADHD than most psychiatric disorders in the identification of associated gene markers. Results of a recent meta-analysis are summarized in Table 1 (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2928573/table/T1/). These markers either show reliable meta-analytic main effects, heterogeneity of effect (which could indicate, among other possibilities, presence of GxE), or both. Candidate chromosomal regions have also been identified in meta-analysis of GWA studies, particularly on chromosome 16. In addition, the search is now on for multiple rare variants (e.g., copy number variants) that may occur in some families with ADHD. Clearly there will be no shortage of genetic markers to pursue in ADHD.

Unlike genes, which are relatively defined for our purposes (despite ongoing controversy about their boundaries), “environment” is poorly defined and has very different connotations in different health and medical sub-literatures. Here, we use the term environment to indicate any biological or psychosocial experience, or proxy thereof, impinging on the child (as we noted earlier, these can be correlated with genotype and not always purely environmental). A systematic analysis of which environments are likely candidates for ADHD is needed (and is currently lacking) to ground this type of research theoretically. Nigg provided the most comprehensive effort to evaluate relevant environments on theoretical and empirical grounds. That review showed that the candidates for environmental effect on ADHD range from well supported to highly speculative in regard to their potential to yield major GxE findings. In Table 2 (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2928573/table/T2/), we informally summarize and catalogue the most often suggested environmental contributors to ADHD, grouped by pre-, peri-, and post-natal timing in development. The candidate environments listed are in many instances correlated or even overlapping (e.g., low birth weight increases risk for perinatal problems). Yet their joint influence is not well understood. (my bold above.)

This is a good paper to read through, not only to understand what is known so far and why research is progressing in the direction it is, but also to see why nobody who understands the science is coming out and stating absolutely and without equivocation that "ADHD is caused by (fill in the blank" and that anyone who does doesn't understand the science.

Dizfriz
10-23-13, 07:54 PM
or is this supposed to mean its a biological unchangeable trait like height


Our potential for height is pretty much fixed by genetics but the actual height acquired is dependent of many things such as diet or disease. As with ADHD, it is the expression of the genetics involving height that is influenced by environmental factors.

You are correct, heredity is not destiny and this is an important point to keep in mind.

mctavish23
10-23-13, 07:55 PM
This entire line of thought seems to stem from one reference source, which makes for

an interesting discussion. However, people seem to think that somehow gives it an

"etched in stone quality," which is simply not the case.

tc

mctavish23

(Robert)

daveddd
10-23-13, 07:58 PM
thats how i view it

its why i ask when anybody proposes an interaction theory

everyones argument is "its 80% genetic"

thats not actually arguing

mctavish23
10-23-13, 08:03 PM
My frustration is due to repeating the same thing over and over again, only to have a

different thread pop up with the same question, which has been answered by the current

research behind the disorder many times over many years, as though it had never been

addressed before. I've responded to this issue many times in here.

Now, as the the original thread question by the OP, whom I greatly respect, that's a

very different proposition to me. I have NO PROBLEM with possible fallacies being dis-

-cussed, because that can lead to some very interesting dialogue. The problem though

in an internet setting such as this, is that the main reference source begins to take on

added statistical significance, to the point where it's viewed as transcending all the data

upon which the current science behind the disorder is based; which is irrational.

tc

mctavish23

(Robert)

daveddd
10-23-13, 08:04 PM
Our potential for height is pretty much fixed by genetics but the actual height acquired is dependent of many things such as diet or disease. As with ADHD, it is the expression of the genetics involving height that is influenced by environmental factors.

You are correct, heredity is not destiny and this is an important point to keep in mind.

do you have a certain environmental factor you believe contributes largely?

mctavish23
10-23-13, 08:05 PM
I wasn't arguing earlier. My concern is that other issues which, don't have that degree of

significance, are presented as being equally compelling, which is not the case.

tc

mctavish23

(Robert)

daveddd
10-23-13, 08:09 PM
ahh

well it would be an interesting discussion to talk about possible environmental factors

theoretically that is

Dizfriz
10-23-13, 08:14 PM
do you have a certain environmental factor you believe contributes largely?
Not really at least in the context of this thread. I can give you one however that can have a significant effect of the expression of ADHD-parenting styles. There are many others but this might give you a place to explore.

Dizfriz

daveddd
10-23-13, 08:16 PM
whats that?

mctavish23
10-23-13, 08:17 PM
dave,

That's one of the issues which previosly occupied multiple threads + pages of dialogue;

only to be re-phrased and asked in a slightly different way. It's a "free country" as they

say, so that's up to ya'll.

tc

Robert

daveddd
10-23-13, 08:21 PM
maybe another time

i know though, my emotional sensitivities or what is barkleys ?

difficulty in bottom up anger regulation?



i know that has interacted with so many things throughout my lifespan and completely altered my presentation

ive learned a bit through insight and acceptance (even that it caused my tics) but i need to know more

Amtram
10-23-13, 09:12 PM
thats how i view it

its why i ask when anybody proposes an interaction theory

everyones argument is "its 80% genetic"

thats not actually arguing

When they say 80% genetic, it doesn't mean that 80% of ADHD comes from genetic factors. It means that in 80% of all people who have ADHD, there are other immediate family members who also have ADHD. It means that out of all the people who have ADHD, only 20% don't have immediate family members with ADHD. This is a common misinterpretation.

mildadhd
10-23-13, 09:58 PM
When they say 80% genetic, it doesn't mean that 80% of ADHD comes from genetic factors. It means that in 80% of all people who have ADHD, there are other immediate family members who also have ADHD. It means that out of all the people who have ADHD, only 20% don't have immediate family members with ADHD. This is a common misinterpretation.

Who says ADD is 80% genetic?






Peripheral

mctavish23
10-23-13, 10:47 PM
I thought you'd acknowledged that earlier, but the "answer" lies in the average of the

multitude of research on the subject. You can read more on pages 13-15 of Russ's ...

http://www.greatschools.org/pdfs/2200_7-barktran.pdf?

tc

Robert

mildadhd
10-23-13, 10:59 PM
I thought you'd acknowledged that earlier, but the "answer" lies in the average of the

multitude of research on the subject. You can read more on pages 13-15 of Russ's ...

http://www.greatschools.org/pdfs/2200_7-barktran.pdf?

tc

Robert


I didn't read anywhere that says "ADD is 80% genetic"?

I read the pages you recommend.

Could you quote where it says ADD is 80% genetic, for me?




Peripherals

mctavish23
10-23-13, 11:07 PM
Try the 2nd paragraph on p. 14 That answers your ? btw, who says it's not ?

I'm really tired of this. Why not take it up with Russ instead?

ps

correction = page 14

Lunacie
10-23-13, 11:10 PM
I didn't read anywhere that says "ADD is 80% genetic"?

I read the pages you recommend.

Could you quote where it says ADD is 80% genetic, for me?




Peripherals

Page 14 of McTavish's link - 2nd paragraph:


All right, what do we find in studies? Well for comparison, let me give you some statistics. The genetic contribution to IQ is .55. The genetic contribution to human height is .81. The genetic contribution to AD/HD is .80 to .97. The smaller number is from studies done back in the ’70s that didn’t use DSM criteria. If you use the DSM list of criteria, the heritability of AD/HD is 97 percent. This trait is more inherited than human height. This trait is more inherited than any dimension of human personality. This trait is more inherited than any other psychiatric disorder. The only other disorder that is this genetically affected is autism.

mildadhd
10-23-13, 11:17 PM
Try the 2nd paragraph on p. 13. That answers your ? btw, who says it's not ?

I'm really tired of this. Why not take it up with Russ instead?



Dr.Barkley never said ADD was 80% genetic, that I know of?

Why would I bring it up with Russ?

I'm asking the posters here, who are saying ADD is 80% genetic, where they got the information to back up the claim.

Like some people have said, I have repeated myself many many many times.

Who says ADD is 80% genetic?





Peripherals

mildadhd
10-23-13, 11:22 PM
Page 14 of McTavish's link - 2nd paragraph:


Where does it say that ADD is 80% genetic?




Peripherals

mctavish23
10-23-13, 11:36 PM
Do the Math between .80 to .97 and average it = 88.5%, which is exactly what Russ has

said for 13 years now. You keep questioning that, so you need to ask him why, or simply

deal with that as part of the accepted standard. But I'm not going to argue an accepted

point.

Lunacie
10-23-13, 11:57 PM
Dr.Barkley never said ADD was 80% genetic, that I know of?

Why would I bring it up with Russ?

I'm asking the posters here, who are saying ADD is 80% genetic, where they got the information to back up the claim.

Like some people have said, I have repeated myself many many many times.

Who says ADD is 80% genetic?



Peripherals

Yes, Barkley did say that - in the link McTavish shared - in the paragraph
that he specified - the same paragraph that I quoted.


It's right there in your face and yet you still deny it. I just don't get that. :doh:


Who says ADD is 80% genetic?

Dr. Russell Barkley says that ADHD more than 80% genetic.

And he is getting this number from many studies that have been done.

If you want specifics on those studies to read for yourself, either look in
the back of Barkley's books, or write to him and ask him (as McTavish
suggested).

ana futura
10-24-13, 12:12 AM
What culture is a good fit for those with ADHD?

Is there any culture anywhere at this time that is a good fit?

The idea is that in the right the society, the disorder is less likely to manifest. Certain societies might make it less likely that someone with ADHD genetics will develop something we recognize as a disorder-


A propensity for attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) might be beneficial to a group of Kenyan nomads, according to new research published in the open access journal BMC Evolutionary Biology. Scientists have shown that an ADHD-associated version of the gene DRD4 is associated with better health in nomadic tribesmen, and yet may cause malnourishment in their settled cousins.

A study led by Dan Eisenberg, an anthropology graduate student from Northwestern University in the US, analyzed the correlates of body mass index (BMI) and height with two genetic polymorphisms in dopamine receptor genes, in particular the 48 base pair (bp) repeat polymorphism in the dopamine receptor D4 (DRD4) gene.

The DRD4 gene codes for a receptor for dopamine, one of the chemical messengers used in the brain. According to Eisenberg "this gene is likely to be involved in impulsivity, reward anticipation and addiction". One version of the DRD4 gene, the '7R allele', is believed to be associated with food craving as well as ADHD. By studying adult men of the Ariaal of Kenya, some of whom still live as nomads while others have recently settled, the research team investigated whether this association would have the same implications in different environments.

While those with the DRD4/7R allele were better nourished in the nomadic population, they were less well-nourished in the settled population. Although the effects of different versions of dopamine genes have already been studied in industrialized countries, very little research has been carried out in non-industrial, subsistence environments like the areas where the Ariaal live, despite the fact that such environments may be more similar to the environments where much of human genetic evolution took place.

Eisenberg explains, "The DRD4/7R allele has been linked to greater food and drug cravings, novelty-seeking, and ADHD symptoms. It is possible that in the nomadic setting, a boy with this allele might be able to more effectively defend livestock against raiders or locate food and water sources, but that the same tendencies might not be as beneficial in settled pursuits such as focusing in school, farming or selling goods".

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2008-06/bc-aaa060608.php

mildadhd
10-24-13, 12:30 AM
Yes, Barkley did say that - in the link McTavish shared - in the paragraph
that he specified - the same paragraph that I quoted.


It's right there in your face and yet you still deny it. I just don't get that. :doh:




Dr. Russell Barkley says that ADHD more than 80% genetic.

And he is getting this number from many studies that have been done.

If you want specifics on those studies to read for yourself, either look in
the back of Barkley's books, or write to him and ask him (as McTavish
suggested).


There is no Doh!


This discussion isn't over.

We are just getting to the topics posted by the OP.


Show me one study that considers the suboptimal emotional stress of the adoptions?

DSM doesn't even consider emotions in ADD?

I am really curious to know if the criteria Dr.Barkley uses considers the suboptimal emotional stress of the adoption?

Anyone know?

I know Dr.Barkley encourages people to reintroduce emotions and ADD.

I wonder if any research used to determine ADD heritabilty considers suboptimal emotional stress of the adoption, when determining heritability rate?

Since he uses the old numbers, I going to guess not.

I wonder what the heritability rate would be if emotions and stress where considered?


They use adoption twin studies to determine ADD is heritable.


But suboptimal emotional stress of the adoption, is not considered in the criteria?


Back to the same old circular debate.

Heritability includes epigenetics.

Epigenetics includes environments and genes.

Not just genes.

ADD is environments and genes.



Peripherals

mctavish23
10-24-13, 12:43 AM
You Just Changed The Subject, W/o Acknowledging Your Question Was Answered.

YOU Brought Up The Epigenetics Question After Demanding An Answer, Which You Got

And Then Ignored.

mildadhd
10-24-13, 12:49 AM
Do the Math between .80 to .97 and average it = 88.5%, which is exactly what Russ has

said for 13 years now. You keep questioning that, so you need to ask him why, or simply

deal with that as part of the accepted standard. But I'm not going to argue an accepted

point.

McTavish,

Do you consider emotions and suboptimal stress of adoptions in determining heritability rate?

Is there any research that you know of that does?



Peripherals

mildadhd
10-24-13, 12:52 AM
Thanks,

One of my questions was answered, (where you got the information).

Now, I want to know how they determined the heritability rate,

and why they didn't include suboptimal emotional stress of the adoption?



Peripherals

mildadhd
10-24-13, 12:57 AM
You Just Changed The Subject, W/o Acknowledging Your Question Was Answered.

YOU Brought Up The Epigenetics Question After Demanding An Answer, Which You Got

And Then Ignored.


Sorry I missed the post, then reread later, I was replying to Ana Futura about epigenetics.

But the question about epigenetics goes to everyone.

I already planned to ask the epigenetics question.

Am I only aloud to ask one question?




Peripherals

ana futura
10-24-13, 01:05 AM
Sorry I missed the post, then reread later, I was replying to Ana Futura about epigenetics.


Me? What did I say?

mildadhd
10-24-13, 01:18 AM
Me? What did I say?

McTavish was commenting on me ignoring Lunacies post where they got the information.

And I was going to post about epigenetics, then I reread and noticed Lunacie's quote.



I kind of bunch everything in one reply, sorry for the confusion.

You didn't say anything, i was confusing, my mistake.

My point was that heritability includes environment, genes (epigenetics) and other factors.

Heritability is not just genes.



Peripherals

sarahsweets
10-24-13, 04:27 AM
Peripheral:

I am not sure I am understanding what heritability means. Maybe it doesnt mean what I think. Can you give me your layman's definition of what it means and how environment is a part of that ?

McTavish was commenting on me ignoring Lunacies post where they got the information.

And I was going to post about epigenetics, then I reread and noticed Lunacie's quote.



I kind of bunch everything in one reply, sorry for the confusion.

You didn't say anything, i was confusing, my mistake.

My point was that heritability includes environment, genes (epigenetics) and other factors.

Heritability is not just genes.



Peripherals

daveddd
10-24-13, 06:06 AM
When they say 80% genetic, it doesn't mean that 80% of ADHD comes from genetic factors. It means that in 80% of all people who have ADHD, there are other immediate family members who also have ADHD. It means that out of all the people who have ADHD, only 20% don't have immediate family members with ADHD. This is a common misinterpretation.

no, i get that

what i meant was it doesnt rule out an interaction model

SB_UK
10-24-13, 06:15 AM
I don't understand why there's any support for genetics in a world where we can sequence whole genomes in a few hours.
Somebody should just take a cohort of sever ADDers - and before the week is out
- you'll find that there're no obvious genetic differences to controls.

Or maybe there are.

But either way - we've the technology to kill off ADD = genes vs environment in milliseconds

- but nerves / logical structure (pattern of understanding) will remain.

Just saw this buying stuff for my science leaving celebration in the local shop:
http://s9.postimg.org/sc32j0033/002902d1.jpg


The more we probe brain, the less we understand mind.


It doesn't bode well.

SB_UK
10-24-13, 06:17 AM
The more we probe brain, the less we understand mind.

What do we need to understand ?

The brain/mind needs education.
It needs education in a set of globally logically consistent procedures compatible with human wellbeing.
At some point education leads to the mind completing (wisdom).
At which point - you are free.

[from tyranny of mind]

To be fair - I have repeated over and over - that all that modern molecular research has showed - is that we're REALLY REALLY REALLY complicated
- drawing an analogy between molecular genetics and [physical] disease cure - and neuroscience and [mental] disease cure.

Prevention is the only option.

daveddd
10-24-13, 06:41 AM
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24048243

i believe adhd has a genetic trait that interacts with the environment to create the disorder as a whole


like this study on BPD

daveddd
10-24-13, 08:27 AM
EVERYONE is genes plus environment, but they're SPECIFIC GENES that produce PREDICTABLE OUTCOMES OR PREDISPOSITIONS that may be triggered or exacerbated by VERY SPECIFIC ENVIRONMENTAL EXPOSURES.

The genes make the cells. The cells make the brain. The genes that make the cells that make the brain set up initial neural networks that connect the various brain areas. Despite neuroplasticity and learning, some things are not built or wired for optimum function.

If you know what these structural or functional differences are, then you can determine what effect SPECIFIC ENVIRONMENTAL EXPOSURES might have on those differently modeled brains.

If you ignore structural and functional differences and lump all SPECIFIC ENVIRONMENTAL EXPOSURES into an unspecified umbrella of "environment," then you're simply taking wild stabs in the dark and are not going to uncover any relevant data.

gene with a predictable outcome?
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21893938

mildadhd
10-24-13, 09:25 AM
Peripheral:

I am not sure I am understanding what heritability means. Maybe it doesnt mean what I think. Can you give me your layman's definition of what it means and how environment is a part of that ?


Hi SarahSweets,


Having biceps is heritable and involves genetics, differences in people's biceps is how they are used and what they experience. (use it or lose it).

The brain is the same way.


See two examples in Post 24 (http://www.addforums.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1557136&postcount=24),

There is also more than one way for the same outcome to be produced.

Heritability includes epigenetics.

...epigenomics--the mechanisms through which environmental and experiential influences interact with genes to control their function. Epigenetic changes describe alterations to DNA structure and packaging that do not affect the underlying sequence. ( See Post #24 (http://www.addforums.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1557136&postcount=24))


Side Note I am not ruling out genetic predisposition, that is part of the picture.

And that some people have a stronger genetic predispostion, that may make ADD more more likely.

Especially in the second epigenetic example, in post #24, it is the environment that is the primary factor, not the gene.


I wish I had time to discuss the topics more, I am interested in discussing the topics more later tonight.

This is layman, please room for error.


Have a nice day


Peripherals

Amtram
10-24-13, 09:40 AM
daveddd-
Yep. We don't know all of them - there are millions, and they act differently in different cells, they act differently depending on where they are located in the genome and if they are in close proximity to other genes in the DNA, but we have isolated many, many genes and studied them in particular anatomical structures in animal models, including altering them to see the outcome.

The genes that are suspect in contributing to ADHD are in the OMIM (http://omim.org/entry/143465) specifically because they have been subject to extensive research and have returned predictable, statistically significant results indicating that they are likely contributing genetic factors to building an ADHD brain.

And, in fact, it is not only Barkley who's advocating the GxE model and using those percentages - go back and read the Joel Nigg article you posted.

Not only is Barkley not the only one saying that ADHD is 80% heritable, but he isn't even the FIRST. He's recapping data that has been collected over decades and confirmed by research over and over again.

So, Peripheral, who says 80% heritability? Every scientist who researches ADHD. That's why the heritability factor is the focus of the research. It provides more promise of significant results than anything else.

Lunacie
10-24-13, 10:15 AM
Thanks,

One of my questions was answered, (where you got the information).

Now, I want to know how they determined the heritability rate,

and why they didn't include suboptimal emotional stress of the adoption?



Peripherals

You were given the answer to this question.

Check the appendix in Dr. Barkley's books, ask the people who did the
studies that he based his conclusions on. Or just ask Dr. Barkley himself.

SB_UK
10-24-13, 10:18 AM
they didn't include suboptimal emotional stress of the adoption?

The cell danger response (CDR) is the evolutionarily conserved metabolic response that protects cells and hosts from harm. It is triggered by encounters with chemical, physical, or biological threats that exceed the cellular capacity for homeostasis.

The systemic form of the CDR, and its magnified form, the purinergic life-threat response (PLTR), are under direct control by ancient pathways in the brain that are ultimately coordinated by centers in the brainstem.

Psychological trauma, particularly during childhood, can also activate the cell danger response (CDR).
Psych stress crossing over mind/body at level of brainstem -> CDR-like response

->- disease

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1567724913002390

SB_UK
10-24-13, 10:21 AM
So - the point'd be that ---

psych stress has the capacity to drive the physical body into an awful state

- the very same state which we associate with full on microbial invasion.

Disease arises.

An understanding of the CDR permits us to reframe old concepts [= genetic causation of common disorders] of pathogenesis for a broad array of chronic, developmental, autoimmune, and degenerative disorders. These disorders include autism spectrum disorders (ASD), attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), asthma, atopy, gluten and many other food and chemical sensitivity syndromes, emphysema, Tourette's syndrome, bipolar disorder, schizophrenia, post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), chronic traumatic encephalopathy (CTE), traumatic brain injury (TBI), epilepsy, suicidal ideation, organ transplant biology, diabetes, kidney, liver, and heart disease, cancer, Alzheimer and Parkinson disease, and autoimmune disorders like lupus, rheumatoid arthritis, multiple sclerosis, and primary sclerosing cholangitis.

SB_UK
10-24-13, 10:35 AM
IE

di (stress) is gonna' getcha

-- and the diseases of Western living are caused by di (stress)

- where the major cause of di(stress) is living life in a hierarchy.

Marx/Proudhon were correct.

SB_UK
10-24-13, 10:43 AM
Abnormal persistence of the CDR ultimately leads to altered organ function and behavior, and results in chronic disease**."Psychological trauma, particularly during childhood, can also activate the cell danger response (CDR)."

The systemic form of the CDR, and its magnified form, the purinergic life-threat response (PLTR), are under direct control by ancient pathways in the brain that are ultimately coordinated by centers in the brainstem.
** All of them

SB_UK
10-24-13, 10:46 AM
Define psychological trauma
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unnatural_Causes:_Is_Inequality_Making_Us_Sick%3F)
Unnatural_Causes:_Is_Inequality_Making_Us_Sick (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unnatural_Causes:_Is_Inequality_Making_Us_Sick%3F)

SB_UK
10-24-13, 11:14 AM
ps

CDR

The CDR includes the endoplasmic reticulum (ER) stress response (Liu et al., 2008 (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1567724913002390#bb0340)), the unfolded protein response (Lee and Glimcher, 2009 (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1567724913002390#bb0320)), the mitochondrial unfolded protein response (Haynes et al., 2013 (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1567724913002390#bb0205)), the heat shock protein response (Kim et al., 2006 (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1567724913002390#bb0280)), the integrated cell stress response (Silva et al., 2009 (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1567724913002390#bb0560)), the oxidative stress response (Lushchak, 2010 (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1567724913002390#bb0360)), the oxidative shielding response (Naviaux, 2012 (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1567724913002390#bb0415)), innate immunity (West et al., 2011 (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1567724913002390#bb0590)), and inflammation (Zhou et al., 2011 (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1567724913002390#bb0630)).

Lunacie
10-24-13, 05:45 PM
Some people believe stress causes hair to turn gray or white. Not true.

It's mostly due to genetics and aging.

http://msnvideo.msn.com/?channelindex=1&from=en-us_msnhp#/video/82be3a91-5ae3-4e30-a44e-4fa8daab4f0a

So many things seem to be due to genetics, eh? Even ADHD.

mctavish23
10-24-13, 06:00 PM
Peripheral,

As long as anyone acknowledges receipt of the information they requested, as well as

the point that was trying to be made, then I'm fine. Otherwise, it can turn into a

combination of "Bait & Switch Meets Whack A Mole," which I can't stand. That approach is

evasive and lacks integrity.


Now... I'd like to apologize to the OP (Barliman) for getting off track.

Here's the way I see this (and all other similar discussions) ...

What we're talking about here with respect to the heritability of ADHD, REPRESENTS THE

CURRENT (EVIDENCE BASED) ACCEPTED STANDARD, FOR THE CURRENT SCIENCE BEHIND

THE DISORDER. This is the prevailing view. Anyone can dislike or disagree with it, but

YOU CANNOT INVALIDATE DATA BASED ON SUBJECTIVE PERSONAL OPINION; which is

exactly how it feels to have demands place to essentially "prove" what's already been

established as the accepted standard. IMO, that detracts from the OP's point. It is

really be the other way around; with Dr. Mate's theories needing to be "proven" first.

That's not a knock on him, it's just the way the scientific method works.

If you'd like to know where those data came from, then I'd again suggest contacting Dr.

Barkley. (Seriously).

Hope that helps.

tc

mctavish23

(Robert)

meadd823
10-25-13, 06:05 AM
Even genetics is caused by environment unless one is capable of immaculate conception. Available sexual partners are a product of the environment.

Copulation has to do with enviroment, as it is external to ourselves -

The off springs surviving and manner there of is determined by enviroment.

Genetics can be coded so that one is genetically designed to be six foot four built like a brick out house but if one starves because the environment fails to produce enough food for those genes to be expressed then all the genetic coding means nothing!!! Growth will be stunted. . .

Grey hair some environments are such as few live long enough to acquire such a thing . . . .Most genetic expressions are triggered or suppressed by the environment.

Geez no need to consult Barkley for that = Captain Obvious!

Genetics are nothing more than coded possibilities but it is the enviroment that determines the expression or lack of!!!


Arggggggg

meadd823
10-25-13, 07:15 AM
Is any one here in the genetic pro-camp going to address the issues SB has raised in his post - This is from link one

Endoplasmic Reticulum (http://biology.about.com/od/cellanatomy/ss/endoplasmic-reticulum.htm)

Endoplasmic Reticulum (ER) Stress Response and Its Physiological Roles in Plants (http://www.mdpi.com/1422-0067/14/4/8188)

Plants have two arms of the UPR signaling pathway, an arm involving the proteolytic processing of membrane-associated basic leucine zipper domain (bZIP) transcription factors and an arm involving RNA splicing factor, IRE1, and its mRNA target. These signaling pathways play an important role in determining the cell’s fate in response to stress conditions.

so stress effects cell transcription factors - the way cells tell other cells to reproduce if the xanax hasn't completely stripped my mind of all intellectual capacity to comprehend . . .


Even if following this is beyond one comprehension or computer time all one has to do is freaking LOOK at the reference page in links one to discover this little gem located on the same page -

This is what I call the meadd823 cliff note version for the simple minded. . . .



A Research Strategy to Discover the Environmental Causes of Autism and Neurodevelopmental Disabilities (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3404655/)


Exploration of the environmental causes of autism and other NDDs has been catalyzed by growing recognition of the exquisite sensitivity of the developing human brain to toxic chemicals (Grandjean and Landrigan 2006).

This susceptibility is greatest during unique “windows of vulnerability” that open only in embryonic and fetal life and have no later counter-part (Miodovnik 2011). “Proof of the principle” that early exposures can cause autism comes from studies linking ASD to medications taken in the first trimester of pregnancy—thalidomide, misoprostol, and valproic acid—and to first-trimester rubella infection (Arndt et al. 2005; Daniels 2006).

This “proof-of-principle” evidence for environmental causation is supported further by findings from prospective birth cohort epidemio-logical studies, many of them supported by the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS).

These studies enroll women during pregnancy, measure prenatal exposures in real time as they occur, and then follow children longitudinally with periodic direct examinations to assess growth, development, and the presence of disease. Prospective studies are powerful engines for the discovery of etiologic associations between prenatal exposures and NDDs.

They have linked autistic behaviors with prenatal exposures to the organophosphate insecticide chlorpyrifos (Eskenazi et al. 2007) and also with prenatal exposures to phthalates (Miodovnik et al. 2011). Additional prospective studies have linked loss of cognition (IQ), dyslexia, and ADHD to lead (Jusko et al. 2008), methyl-mercury (Oken et al. 2008), organophosphate insecticides (London et al. 2012), organo-chlorine insecticides (Eskenazi et al. 2008), polychlorinated biphenyls (Winneke 2011), arsenic (Wasserman et al. 2007), manganese (Khan et al. 2011), polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (Perera et al. 2009), bisphenol A (Braun et al. 2011), brominated flame retardants (Herbstman et al. 2010), and perfluorinated compounds (Stein and Savitz 2011).


To begin formulation of a systematic strategy for discovery of potentially preventable environmental causes of autism and other NDDs, the Mount Sinai Children’s Environmental Health Center, with the support of the NIEHS and Autism Speaks, convened a workshop on “Exploring the Environmental Causes of Autism and Learning Disabilities.” This workshop produced a series of papers by leading researchers, some of which are published in this issue of Environmental Health Perspectives. It also generated a list of 10 chemi-cals and mixtures widely distributed in the environment that are already suspected of causing develop-mental neuro-toxicity:

~Underling in source documentation added by me~

Most of the study reference are less than ten years old with many being just a year or two meaning the information is new and relevant. . .


Soo based upon the response to threads dealing with possible environmental cause of ADHD am I to understand that environmental causes should be blown off as misinformation because Barkley says ADHD is genetic - Surely any one who has followed me any time at all knows I simply do not care what Barkley says, I never have been a fan myself. . . .

As time progresses the role of environmental impact upon genetic expression gaining more and more scientific backing any one who claims differently is not keeping up with the latest research

Genetic we have limited control over but effecting our environment happens to be a human strong suite. Why not use it for some thing beside screwing up the planet with pollutions -

Why should we stand by letting our children and their children continue to be exposed to things in the enviroment that are endangering them from becoming all they were designed by nature to be simply to appease a few self proclaimed ADHD experts and prevent parenteral guilt!!!

Even if SB genetic study offerings are above your head as they are mine at 5:53 in the morning minus sleep never mind a cup of coffee please do not claim failure of scientific backing in the face of so much documentation as to make the head swim {secret code for hey SB can ya dummie it down a bit for me please}

This is link one I accessed I did not even go past that -

CURRENT (EVIDENCE BASED) ACCEPTED STANDARD, FOR THE CURRENT SCIENCE BEHIND

THE DISORDER. This is the prevailing view.

Anyone can dislike or disagree with it, but

YOU CANNOT INVALIDATE DATA BASED ON SUBJECTIVE PERSONAL OPINION; which is

exactly how it feels to have demands place to essentially "prove" what's already been

established as the accepted standard

So you are saying we are to submit our understanding of ADD based upon the popular point of view reached some ten years ago.

Are you criticizing people for daring to think for themselves even if those ideas are based upon the latest scientific research?

I want to see the point raised above challenged directly - Do you have any evidence that stress can not impact the developing cells in the brain of a fetus because according to the crap loads of research I just pulled up some fifteen scientist who are not being persuaded by their personal interest in ADHD are saying other wise -

Address the issues or quit accusing people of not having any scientific backing when the fact is they have crap loads of it and it is being ignored in favor of dogma!!!

My challenge is:

Hold a candle up to the darkness with in the ignorance we all share or please do not claim to be espousing the light of objective scientific enquirer!

This is me being sick of the same false accusations. SB presented a crap loads of scientific backing for his ideas Right or wrong here is what it is NOT. It is NOT a personal experience invalidating scientific evidence.

I would call it an extrapolation based upon scientific evidence - which opens huge gapes for intellectual debate - So if now if you disagree then by all means where in his extrapolation did he go wrong - for this you must connect the dots another way or you must show where his dots are connect in error which by the way has nothing what so ever to do with popular opinions - Foot meet boot - Yes I want to know after years of criticism if you understand the information being presented because I have worked my a** off to do so. I want to know if the critics who are professional in their own right are actually attempting to understand the points being made or has criticism simply become a habit around here?

While I do not always understand SB or Barilman nor do I always agree with them when I do understand I have learned a great deal more than I would have blindly believing expert opinions.






. . ..

Dizfriz
10-25-13, 10:22 AM
Soo based upon the response to threads dealing with possible environmental cause of ADHD am I to understand that environmental causes should be blown off as misinformation because Barkley says ADHD is genetic - Surely any one who has followed me any time at all knows I simply do not care what Barkley says, I never have been a fan myself. . . .
Meadd, I do not understand this. There has been a lot of research on chemical exposure being linked to ADHD behaviors. Just Google "chemical exposure adhd" and you can get a sampling.

This is nothing new so I cannot understand where you see environmental causes as being blown off.

It still does not impact the well supported idea that ADHD is still mostly genetic (including epigenetics) in nature. This is the result of a *lot* of research but no one is denying that other factors can be involved it is just that genetics has the greatest impact.

I don't keep up with Autism all that much but I suspect the picture is not all that different for that disorder.

Keep in mind that even if ADHD is in the order of 80% heritable this still leaves around 20% for other factors including environmental ones.


Take care,

Dizfriz

Lunacie
10-25-13, 10:56 AM
I've seen much speculation about how chemicals in the environment may
be the reason more cases of autism and other developmental disorders are
being seen.


I've seen quotes from literature indicating that ADHD was recognized as a
difference in human behavior more than a century ago. Is there one 'family'
of chemicals that is responsible for turning on the ADHD genes, that have
been around for well over a hundred years?


Even someone who does not care what Dr. Barkley says surely wouldn't
blow off all of the research he bases his conclusions on, would they?

mctavish23
10-25-13, 11:53 AM
meadd,

"Research isn't personal. It's either valid and reliable over time, or it isn't. If it changes, then I'll change with it."

I'm saying that you can't summarily dismiss the current accepted standard on the basis of anecdotal, subjective personal

opinion; which happens all the time in here. You MUST substitute equally compelling data to the contrary = the Scientific

Method. What invariably happens is that emotions run rampant, and the existing accepted standard is treated like it doesn't

exist. I DON'T CARE WHAT THE SUBJECT MATTER IS, OR WHETHER I AGREE WITH IT OR NOT, YOU SIMPLY CANNOT THROW

IT OUT JUST BECAUSE YOU DISAGREE. Research doesn't work that way. If this is the "Scientific Discussion Section", then

the Scientific Method (concerning ALL research) MUST be the prevailing baseline.

As for plants, I'm not going there, because this isn't about plants, or autism. Granted, there's a tremendous amount of

overlap and connection between the two disorders. In fact, if you'll turn to the page I qouted from Barkley's presentation, he

comments on the heritability of autism in that very paragraph.

In closing, NOWHERE HAVE I ATTACKED DR. MATE OR HIS THEORIES. What I've done is to speak out against the research

equivalent of "Throwing the baby out with the bath water."

tc

Robert

SB_UK
10-25-13, 02:09 PM
I guess I'm simply stating that the 'cell danger response' is the cell (all cells) reaction to stress -- and when stress becomes chronic stress / chronic di(stress)
- the essential 'stress' mechanism for re-establishing homeostasis breaks.

And then - simply to suggest that the ADDer is 'sensitive' to stress -
- that sensitivity to stress - including psychological stress (see above)
- leads to immersion within chronic stress in situations which nonADDers wouldn't find stresful.

And that the dysfunction in ADHD is - in effect a stress response.

A tiny bit more - 'd be that we're (ADDers as a social organism) tuned to social reward (anterior cingulate cortex and not prefrontal cortex reward)
-- and so our sensitivity may come from simple incapacity to gain social reward because of the society we're living in.

So - if you imagine we're addicted to reward from properly social behaviour - and don't get our 'fix' - then it's more than possible that we overcrank the pre-frontal cortex reward system to get our 'fix' (ie standard stimulants)
- where it's not that we're broken - we're simply tuned to a different reward paradigm - and so appear to have a propensity to addiction - in the absence of social reward exposure.

-*-

Summarising
So - that CDR thing is a wrapper around a whole buncha' mechanisms which kick in when the cell is being 'attacked'.
The cell reacts that way when under microbial attack, or under saturated fat attack, or under cortisol exposure - and apparently under neural signals from the brainstem if the individeual is under psych. stress.

I'm simply suggesting that we're under psych. stress and so are fielding a stress response - giving us the characteristic features of ADD-I and ADD-H - ie zoning out when under stress, moving when under stress
- these are classic responses to stress

... ... and *importantly* - the reason we're so stressed - is that we require social reward to float our boat
- ie social reward activates our dopaminergic system
- but we're not able to access that reward system in current society

... ... so we turn to other methods of activating the reward system - most notably the drugs of addiction which activate the PFC reward mechanism
- and we become addicted.

It's OK to become addicted to properly social behaviour - there're no nasty side-effects to it ... ... to the drugs of addiction ... however - there are many.

Anybody want a simplerr summary ?

That's funny - I didn't choose to underline that question.

SB_UK
10-25-13, 02:14 PM
The 1 line summary is that ADDers represent the emergence of a social species.

We actually derive 'reward' from social behaviour.

And we become stressed when we can't, because the drive to be social is wired into the dopaminergic system - which is an imperative
- and when we circumvent an imperative

- we need to activate reward (the dopaminergic cirsuit) in another way
- the other way (far from ideal)

is the use of the materialism paradigm (drugs) eg stimulants to supply us with reward
- but of course, that's not ideal - because of 'tolerance' ... ...

... anyway - it seems to make sense.

I like the way that it pushes our 'shrivelled' EF/PFC [the paradigm of selfishness] into a social setting.

SB_UK
10-25-13, 02:19 PM
What doesn't make sense ?

Well - it sounds a bit woo! at first to have the emergence of a new species.
But, I think people were hoping for a buncha' people like the X-men and not just a social species.

It's a bit boring really.

However - the good part is that if we work together fully collaboratively - we'll be able to have lots of communal toys like a fast public transport system, fast wireless internet, no more 9-5's etc etc ... ... so it's not without its advantages

... ... but ultimately - I think people'll be a little bit disappointed with what evolution has thrown up.

It is though what you'd expect - given the pattern of evolution towards complexity/species ... ... and as Stabile describes - and with reference to the boson - there's simply a guiding principle - which he calls the social impuls e- which guides evolution to complexity/evolution by abstraction layer to occur.

SB_UK
10-25-13, 02:32 PM
So wrapping all previous arguments into one.

ADDers represent the emergence of a social species.
The social species is defined by a shift from PFC to ACC reward system.
The ADDer is sensitive to social interaction - and wants to obtain social reward.
In the absence of social reward - the ADDer behaves like an addict ie in need of dopaminergic circuit activation - turns to standard addictive pursuits ... ... but it's not that we're in great need of any of those - it's that they're the next best thing to social reward, but that (and as we all know)
- the next best thing isn't good enough.

We become addicted.

And then it all falls apart.

-*-

The ADDer cannot feel social reward until social hierarchy is dismantled.

This requires something like a guarantee of basic survival essentials to all people of the planet by virtue of birthright, and through contributing personal effort.

And that's all there is to it... ... ...

SB_UK
10-25-13, 02:37 PM
So - what about your ideas about AND vs. OR mind ?
That holds.

What about your idea about dietary requirements ?
Well - I seem to be best suited to the vegan ketogenic / vegan ultra-low carb/ vegan hypoglycaemic food diet - where all foods are 'real' ... ...

- but I think the ADDers as emergence of social organism idea takes first place.

Why ?
Because if we're collaborative - we'll find that we converge on the moral course of action ie we won't need to consider structure of mind - as the structure of mind (globally logically consistent) - will just form / be applied anyway.

And in a fully collaborative planetary paradigm - you won't be sold low quality food ... ... and so - we'll gravitate towards the diet I'm describing ... ... noting that many of the foods which kill us are stress-relievers (animal protein, processed carbs, sugar, fat)
- which won't attract us so, in a world without stress (see Rat Park, Peripheral).

mctavish23
10-25-13, 02:48 PM
SB,

Awesome!! I envision a "movie" concept here, although it would quickly get

turned into a Walking Dead type thing like = The ADHD APOCALYPSE :faint:

Or perhaps INVASION OF THE IMPULSIVES :eyebrow: or maybe even...

SUNSET OF THE SCT's :rolleyes: or NIGHTMARE OF THE NT's :yes:

Lots of potential here. Only there has to be a UK version like Shaun of the

Dead :D I could see Flory kungfuing some NT's in that one.:yes:

Thanks.

Robert

SB_UK
10-25-13, 03:17 PM
SB,

Awesome!! I envision a "movie" concept here, although it would quickly get

turned into a Walking Dead type thing like = The ADHD APOCALYPSE :faint:

Or perhaps INVASION OF THE IMPULSIVES :eyebrow: or maybe even...

SUNSET OF THE SCT's :rolleyes: or NIGHTMARE OF THE NT's :yes:

Lots of potential here. Only there has to be a UK version like Shaun of the

Dead :D I could see Flory kungfuing some NT's in that one.:yes:

Thanks.

Robert

Nightmare of the NTs
-- just when you thought it was safe to think straight - out burbled a stream of incoherent nonsense.
Well - you've heard Vogon poetry :o

SB_UK
10-25-13, 03:21 PM
Loved this music for the longest time.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7rOMGIbY-9s#t=74

mctavish23
10-25-13, 08:44 PM
SB,

Thank you. High praise indeed.

tc

Robert

mildadhd
10-26-13, 02:43 AM
Meadd, I do not understand this. There has been a lot of research on chemical exposure being linked to ADHD behaviors. Just Google "chemical exposure adhd" and you can get a sampling.

This is nothing new so I cannot understand where you see environmental causes as being blown off.

It still does not impact the well supported idea that ADHD is still mostly genetic (including epigenetics) in nature. This is the result of a *lot* of research but no one is denying that other factors can be involved it is just that genetics has the greatest impact.

I don't keep up with Autism all that much but I suspect the picture is not all that different for that disorder.

Keep in mind that even if ADHD is in the order of 80% heritable this still leaves around 20% for other factors including environmental ones.


Take care,

Dizfriz




Dizfriz and McTavish,



Please don't blow of the fact that "environmental and experiential influences interact with the genes to control their function".

(See link below, I have posted it a few times already, but you must have missed it, no worries it happens to us all, but please read the link)


Please don't blow of the fact that heritability includes epigenetics.

Please note that the environment and experiences can control the genes.

Please note that would make the environments and experiences, in some cases of epigenetics, the primary factor.

Please see post # 24 (http://www.addforums.com/forums/showthread.php?p=1557136#post1557136).

It also explains how there is two different ways to produce the same outcome.

Environment and experiences are part of heritability rate.

That means 80% of ADD is not primarily genetic.







Peripherals


Another important area of focus will be epigenomics--the mechanisms through which environmental and experiential influences interact with genes to control their function. Epigenetic changes describe alterations to DNA structure and packaging that do not affect the underlying sequence. For example, a rare CNV associated with ASD deletes the gene that codes for the oxytocin receptor. In many individuals with ASD who do not have this deletion, the gene is silenced by epigenomic modifications, essentially producing the same outcome as a gene deletion.6 By combining epigenomic studies with refined genomic sequence analyses, we will be one step closer to understanding mechanisms of pathophysiology.

http://www.nih.gov/news/health/aug2013/nimh-12.htm

mildadhd
10-26-13, 03:01 AM
By combining epigenomic studies with refined genomic sequence analyses, we will be one step closer to understanding mechanisms of pathophysiology.

http://www.nih.gov/news/health/aug2013/nimh-12.htm




Peripherals

SB_UK
10-26-13, 04:31 AM
Understanding the epigenome will be too hard.

Manipulating the system changes it.

We may be able to get some information on 'methylation' status around and about - but we won't be able to translate it into context.

The easy stuff is simply sequencing the genome; the next stage is someplace between extremely difficult and impossible.
And even if it were possible - because we're looking at the wrong abstraction layer ie backwards instead of forwards
- it won't ever lead anywhere.

-*-

Just as well - then that we *don't* need to.

All we need is a fair society in which equality is enforced.
Thereafter all of our problems'll go away.

If there's a guy with an ice pick lodged in his head - we can either try and fix his head (unlikely!!) or stop the guy who lodged it there from being so inclined.

A fair society would do just that.

-*-

Genetics has simply been the flavour of the last 50 or so years - because it was easy.

Neuro- (real-time activation of the neural system) and Logico- (structure of an individual's mind) - don't even need to be considered.

Everything's solved by Socio-
- which is why I'm using social epidemiological research only, as the sole basis to the idea.

Molecular 'stuff' can be used to join the dots - but -- it shouldn't take a huge amount of dot joining to realise that the mechanism of chronic distress exposure leads to disease.
The animal experiments have been performed - and sure enough - constant stress damages the organism.

If I had to put why ? into words - nice and simply - it'd simply be that stress 'accelerates' our demise by in effect speeding up our longevity clock for the period under stress.
And the last experiment I saw this idea alluded to - was in telomeric shortening/telomerase in parents of severely sick children for life.

It's also REALLY easy to understand.

If Tom charges Dick rent - then Harry is likely to work for Tom and evict Dick.
If Napoleon forces The Animals to work - then the dogs are likely to work for Napoleon to repress the people.
If politicians force the people to work (necessary to survive, cut benefits) - then the police/taxmen are likely to work for the politicians to enslave people.

It's all just a question of social hierarchy - where the lower the more stressed / the more uncertain life is - the more diseases suffered
- where to be properly human requires an abandonment of social hierarchy where survival of the lower tiers is determined by the higher.

Multiple ways of doing it - survival essentials to all people by collaborative effort
- or eliminate law/money.

Make people autonomous and law/money will collapse - as there's no way of making anyboddy do anything - if they don't require whatever it is you have power over.

People'll just ignore you.

It would be lovely to ignore the politician; they don't use words which mean anything.

And intentionally so - because the global monetary system pulls their strings.

And the global monetary system is very much on its last legs; Japan will collapse in the very near future - and it'll take down the rest of the world with it.

dvdnvwls
10-26-13, 04:35 AM
All we need is a fair society in which equality is enforced.
Thereafter all of our problems'll go away.
But if equality is enforced, first problem is that no enforcers can ever be allowed, because being an enforcer is inherently unequal. So to make the problems go away you've simply created a worse problem.

This has all been tried before - Mussolini, Stalin, etc etc; we know how it turns out, it's not workable, and it's evil. Your evil plan is not even as good as theirs were.

SB_UK
10-26-13, 04:52 AM
http://rsbl.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/3/2/128.full
Telomeres are DNA–protein complexes at the ends of chromosomes that control genomic integrity but appear to become shorter with age and stress. To test whether stress causes telomere attrition, we exposed the offspring of wild-caught house mice (Mus musculus) to stressful conditions and examined the changes in telomere length over six months. We found that females exposed to males and reproductive stress (either with or without crowding) had significantly shorter telomeres than controls, and males exposed to crowding stress had shorter telomeres than males that were not crowded. Our results indicate that stress alters telomere dynamics, causing attrition and hindering restoration, and these effects are sex dependent. Telomeres may thus provide a biomarker for assessing an individual's cumulative exposure or ability to cope with stressful conditions. You don't thrive on stress - you die prematurely on stress.
Epidemiology teaches us what is distressful - factors associated with reduced lifespan etc.
And so epidemiology teaches us what we need to eliminate.

Take the entire list of epi's suggestions - and we'll find that just 1 intervention will eliminate ALL of the rest.

GENERATE A FAIR SOCIETY.

We'll thereby eliminate all of the many other (di)stressors identified by epidemiology
- from industrial pollution, to having to work all hours, to not being able to exercise, to attraction to addictive substances, to happier children, to an elimination of worries associated with acquisition of survival necessities.

From Evolution 101 - the evolutionary mechanism seeks to ensure survival - we're stressedd if our own survival is compromised - and so eliminate fears of basic survival - and the single key stressor which has driven the evolutionary process to sculpt organisms of forever increasing complexity
- 'll abate.

All that's requried is a globally logically consistent with the wellbeing of all individuals in the species societal infrastructure.

Thereafter there will be no disease - until point of death.

We all dies of something - those telomeres will shorten with each cell division - but at least - let's die quuickly - at an advanced age
- than begin dying from the 5 years of age when asthma and ADHD first rear their head in an unpleasant competitive schooling and more generally (sport etc) environment.

Note - ADDers = enforcedly social organism with predisposition to moral mind - in time.

SB_UK
10-26-13, 04:54 AM
But if equality is enforced, first problem is that no enforcers can ever be allowed, because being an enforcer is inherently unequal. So to make the problems go away you've simply created a worse problem.

This has all been tried before - Mussolini, Stalin, etc etc; we know how it turns out, it's not workable, and it's evil. Your evil plan is not even as good as theirs were.

http://bowtielaw.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/robot-traffic-cop.jpg?w=300&h=300

Traffic lights enforce efficiently - and can probably be made to enforce efficiently/elegantly based on polling levels of traffic
- of course - public transport would circumvent the need for traffic lights - though trains do use a similar system

-- though it very much looks as though we're on the verge of a new high speed mode of transport where AT LAST - the device which relays man will be of similar size to man.

Whoever decided to build a 1000 kg car etc for a 50 kg human being was completely off his head - and people just don't seem to see how ridiuclous it is.

Even yearn for bigger and bigger cars - somehow tying the two to prestige
- where the greatest mark of prestige 'd not be to have a car.

Epidemiology will have information on particulates which presumably the larger the car - the more the particulates - the greater the damage to man.

Silly silly human beings !

mildadhd
10-26-13, 05:01 AM
Another important area of focus will be epigenomics--the mechanisms through which environmental and experiential influences interact with genes to control their function. Epigenetic changes describe alterations to DNA structure and packaging that do not affect the underlying sequence. For example, a rare CNV associated with ASD deletes the gene that codes for the oxytocin receptor. In many individuals with ASD who do not have this deletion, the gene is silenced by epigenomic modifications, essentially producing the same outcome as a gene deletion.6 By combining epigenomic studies with refined genomic sequence analyses, we will be one step closer to understanding mechanisms of pathophysiology.

http://www.nih.gov/news/health/aug2013/nimh-12.htm



Also note in the quote above from post #24, Oxytocin


Peripherals




(more about Oxytocin below)




Many other body chemicals serve multiple purposes--and the more evolved the organism, the more functions a particular substance will have.

This is true even of genes: in one type of cell a certain gene will serve one function; elsewhere in the body, it will be assigned quite a different duty.

In his book Affective Neuroscience , Dr. Jaak Panksepp gives a fascination example of the role played in reptiles by vasotocin--a primitive version of the protein oxytocin, which triggers labour contractions and breastfeeding in female mammals.






...Vasotocin is an ancient brain molecule that controls sexual urges in reptiles.This same molecule...also helps deliver reptilian young in the world.
When a sea turtle, after thousands of miles of migration, lands on its ancestral beach and begins to dig its nest, an ancient bonding system comes into action...Vasotocin levels in the mother turtle's blood begin to rise as she digs a pit large enough to receive scores of eggs, and reach even higher levels as she deposits one egg after the other. With her labors finished, she covers the eggs, while circulating vasotocin diminishes to insignificant levels. Her maternal responsibilities fulfilled, she departs on another long sea journey. (*8)









Mammalian mothers do not get off so easily--they stay with their helpless young.

And oxytocin--a more sophisticated version of vasotocin--plays a much more diverse role than its reptilian counterpart.

It not only induces labor but also affects a mother's moods and promotes her physical and emotional nurturing of infants.

In mammals of both sexes oxytocin also contributes to orgasmic pleasure and, more generally, may be considered one of the "love hormones".

Just like opioids, oxytocin can reduce separation anxiety when infused into distressed young animals.


Significantly, oxytocin also interacts with opioids.

It is not an endorphin, but it increases the sensitivity of the brain's opioid systems to endorphins--Nature's way of making sure that we don't develop a tolerance to our own opiates.

(Remember that tolerance is the process by which an addict no longer feels the benefit of previously enjoyable doses of a drug and to seek more and more.)


Why is it essential to prevent tolerance to our natural reward chemicals?

Because opioids are necessary for parental love.

The infant's well being would be jeopardized if the mother became insensitive to the effects of her own opioids.

Nurturing mothers experience major endorphin surges as they interact lovingly with their babies--endorphin "highs" can be one of the natural rewards of motherhood.


Given the many thankless tasks required in infant and child care, Nature took care to give us something to enjoy about parenting.

Tolerance would more than rob of us those pleasures;

it would threaten the infant's very existence.

"It would be disastrous," writes Professor Panksepp," if mothers lost their ability to feel intense social gratification from nurturance when children were still quite young." (*9)

By making our brain cells more sensitive to opioids, oxytocin allows us to remain "hooked" on our babies.


Gabor Mate M.D., In The Realm Of Hungry Ghosts, P 153-154.



Notes

(*8) J. Panksepp, Affective Neuroscience: The Foundations of Human and Animal Emotions (New York: Oxford University Press, 1998), P 250

(*9) Ibid, P 256



i!i

SB_UK
10-26-13, 05:13 AM
http://clevrcat.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/futuramatubes.jpg http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/02643/Hyperloop-1_2643285b.jpg

SB_UK
10-26-13, 05:33 AM
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10026808
Central administration of oxytocin facilitates and administration of an oxytocin antagonist inhibits partner preference formation in female prairie voles.

Must mean that 'pair-bond' induces oxytocin production - and maybe epigenetic loss of marks which lead to silencing ... ...
if pair-bond formation were to be extended through the species - which certainly is possible - since by virtue of language - each individual within the human species has the potential to affect another
- ie a global family/village

- the potential is there for the basic mechanism of pair-bonding as proven between mother-child, prairie vole partners - to be extended throughout all individuals within a species.

-*-

How would this feel like ?

It'd simply feel like an additional impetus to be social.

So - we'd be linking in the heavy description of the dopaminergic system (anterior cingulate cortex), dopaminergic/opioid system (Panksepp,Peripheral) and posterior pituitary -- into a unifying mechanism for sculpting a social species.

SB_UK
10-26-13, 05:39 AM
What's the point ?
A social organism doesn't really have the option to be anti-social.

We need to build a mechanistic model for man which ensures that man cannot revert.

So - if we take a look at society out there - we don't appear to be behaving socially - but also - we're being inflicted - and at incredible rates with diseases which it really does seem - are related to stress from behaving anti-socially.

So - what's the problem ?
We haven't put 2 + 2 together and worked out that our disease is arising because of the incompatibility between morality and our daily lives.

And when we understand ?
We can change global society in a small way (eliminate social hierarchy) and thereby have an even playing field for all people to be the best that they can be.

So - all of that sounds great - what's the problem ?
People who're higher in the current social hierarchy are scared of losing their privileged position ie are scared of becoming as poor as all of the many poor people who're paraded on TV ... ...

And ?
and - well they'd better get used to change - because money isn't going to last much longer.

But ?
But - most people in privileged positions will know that change is required
- and so whether it be through embracing change or fear of collapse of the current economic system

- either ways - it's all change in the very near future - so why not make it now ?

SB_UK
10-26-13, 05:52 AM
So what's wrong with the whole causation of ADHD by gene ?

Well - there isn't really that much wrong with us - outside of context of society.
IE - I could shape a lifestyle - outside of current society - in which I'd be fine.
I'm sure we all could do.

This clearly indicates that there's nothing wrong with us.

What's wrong with us - is simply our interaction with other people.

Now either we're broken in our interaction capacity, or nonADDers are broken.

As far as I can see - everything that I object to - is rational - and relates in some manner to immoral systems embraced by society currently.

So - why do I care to the point of disorder ?
Well - presumably I'm (ADDers're) wired not to behave inconsistently with species wellbeing.

How ?
See social organism (ADDer) through mechanism involving dopaminergic/opioid/posterior pituitary and particularly oxytocin - in re-inforcing our nature.

But ?
But what ?

Lunacie
10-26-13, 11:07 AM
http://bowtielaw.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/robot-traffic-cop.jpg?w=300&h=300

Traffic lights enforce efficiently - and can probably be made to enforce efficiently/elegantly based on polling levels of traffic
- of course - public transport would circumvent the need for traffic lights - though trains do use a similar system

-- though it very much looks as though we're on the verge of a new high speed mode of transport where AT LAST - the device which relays man will be of similar size to man.

Whoever decided to build a 1000 kg car etc for a 50 kg human being was completely off his head - and people just don't seem to see how ridiuclous it is.

Even yearn for bigger and bigger cars - somehow tying the two to prestige
- where the greatest mark of prestige 'd not be to have a car.

Epidemiology will have information on particulates which presumably the larger the car - the more the particulates - the greater the damage to man.



You generalize too much here. Not all cars are big and heavy. Some people
have families and need a bigger car. Some need pickups for work and to
save on money/environment they use it for personal driving instead of
buying a second vehicle.

Cars are safer when they are built of steel instead of plastic or aluminum.
And they last longer. We once had a car with an aluminum cam shaft - we
replaced that sucker three times before we gave up and traded it in.

If we had mass transit where I live I'd certainly use that, but not everyone
has access to public transportation. And my health doesn't permit me to
walk long distances.

mildadhd
10-26-13, 11:18 AM
SB_UK,

Would you agree that primarily the brain works as a whole?


These topics are complex, it is fascinating to think there are even more than 2 ways to develop ADD.

In addition to this discussion.

I think everyone would agree, no matter what camps they may prefer.

This discussion is circular.


The study of primary-process brain mechanisms of emotions, best pursued in animal models, provides a bridge that can help settle such debates. A primaryprocess/basic emotion view may prevail in many subcortical regions, and constructivist/dimensional approaches may effectively parse higher emotional concepts as processed by the neocortex (Table I (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3181986/table/TI/)). In other words, such debates may simply reflect investigators working at different levels of control.

Affective neuroscience of the emotional BrainMind: evolutionary perspectives and implications for understanding depression
(http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3181986/?report=classic)


Always specifying the age of the individual, is one way to help clarify which processes/level of control is being discussed.

For example, in terms of amount, rate, and sensitivity of brain development, what may be true at age 3, may not be true at age 33.

I would like to present the links/information in this post as part of a solution, to any differences in opinions, that have repeatively gone from discussion to debate.

Depends on the level of control being discussed. (see links, tables...)

(All layman)


Have a nice day!


Peripherals

Amtram
10-26-13, 01:15 PM
And so little of this actually has anything to do with ADHD.

mildadhd
10-26-13, 05:33 PM
And so little of this actually has anything to do with ADHD.


Sorry to be so personal, I am curious to know how many different ways there is to develop ADD.

Which parts are and are not part of your ADHD?




Peripherals

mildadhd
10-26-13, 06:26 PM
Many still believe in James-Lange's 125-year-old conjecture that emotional feelings reflect neocortical “readout” of bodily autonomic arousals. For a sampling of such opinions from prominent investigators see the video of Charlie Rose's 8th Brain Series on May 26, 2010.7 Regrettably, this time-honored theoretical vision has essentially no consistent support...




... However, evidence that affective feelings arise directly from medial subcortical networks is consistent and substantial.8 The primary-process networks for emotional instincts run from midbrain periaqueductal gray (PAG) regions to medial diencephalon to various basal ganglia nuclei (amygdala, bed nucleus of the stria terminalis, nucleus accumbens, etc) that interact with paleocortical brain functions (eg, cingulate, insular, as well as medial- and orbitofrontal cortices) and more indirectly with certain neocortical regions to provide integration with higher cognitive activities. The subcortical locus of affect generation strongly suggests that the foundational principles of human emotions can be understood by studying these brain structures and functions in other animals.9

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3181986/

SB_UK
10-27-13, 02:50 AM
Would you agree that primarily the brain works as a whole?


The nerve underwent emergent evolution to generate a brain - the brain is greater than the sum of its parts.
I think brainS underwent emergent evolution to generate a mind - the mind is greater than the sum of its parts.

So - the brain is an emergent property, as is the mind
- with the mind being an emergent property above brain.

Now - the nerve arises only after lower eukaryote (characteristic eukaryotic genomic structure ,mitochondrion) - and carried with it something new.

So - we've:
physics
chemistry
gene <- we're arresting here
nerve
brain
mind
social structure <- we should be concentrating here

It's a bit like there's an elephant on our car - and we're trying to work out why it doesn't work by pumping the tyres up with more air.

The gene restricts itself with chemical processes - and the essential problem with the gene and the reason for the chemistry to informational switch, of endocrinology to neural processes
- is speed and complexity of communication.

Endocrinology is slow compared Neural communication.

And the pattern continued up from brain to mind - where 'communication' - whether it be classical - by language or the telepathic communication which is provided by Theory of Mind/Mirror neurone system.

So so so ... ... we're looking at the progressive generation by evolution of an ever increasingly more complex informational (communicating structure)
- in which there's a pattern (described as the pattern of male archetype, female archetype, regression to the mean)
- underlying each stage of the evolutionary process.

SB_UK
10-27-13, 03:05 AM
Simplifying the previous post.

Brain is the integral of Nerve
Mind is the integral of Brain

So - the integral (sum of the total) of nerve gives rise to emergent property of brain.
The integral (sum of the total) of brain gives rise to emergent property of mind.

Just the mechanism by which emergence occurs.

BUT THE ALL IMPORTANT THING TO SEE - is that as of higher emergent property emergence - the goal is to optimise (ie generate the integral) of it.

Society is the integral of mind
-- that is - the sum total of minds needs to converge upon a logical series of rules whereby the single entity society can be made to form.

So ... ... there is such a thing as society - and society represents the integral of rationalised into logical consistency - minds
- whereby all that's requires is an 'equality' structure of man - realised by - in the first instance - survival essentials to all people by all people's own efforts.

-*-

It's to be expectedd that the 'boson' at the level of species will apply when the species structure (structure of mind) forms.

A social organism will then have evolved.

Where - the ADDer mind is particularly predisposed to all of this - and I think it's incumbent on us to turn that type of society around and fast
- because if we don't - our own social organism programming will result in a stress response (we're stress sensitive) beign fired - which'll kill US.

Not kill the people who're pursuing a materialist (money, power, knowledge) thrust
- but us.

Because it's really stressful having the eyes to see what people are doing - and unbelievably stressful being forced to engage in these behaviours
- in order to earn money
- in order to survive.

So - the ADDer's social organism imperative - to be moral - clashes with the acquisition of money (required for survival)

- the ADDer's prime directive is not compatible with survival in the current sociaetal infrastructure of only money.

That's not good.

-*-

But - why ? if all of this is true - are young ADDers diseased - they're too young to understand any of this.

Because - ADDers have a different mind (take longer to learn better) and are predisposed towards a social environment and so are stressed out by violent competitive play and schooling.

The transition from above - into having a mind which can see the evils inflicted by man on fellow man/and of the evils of self on others through societal convention

- give us the stress response from first mind to adulthood
- which gives us the classical stress responses which're seen in ADD-H and ADD-I.

So ... ... all people (nonADDers/ADDers) are able to express the ADD-H and ADD-I phenotype
- however in ADDers - the sensitivity to stress is vastly increased

- and this is caused by the under-the-cover changes in our structure which give rise to our social-organism-ness.

SB_UK
10-27-13, 03:07 AM
Brain is the integral of Nerve
Mind is the integral of Brain
Society is the integral of Mind.

The boson (an interactive force) holds together structures at point of emergence of higher emergent structure.

That is - there's a mechanism to evolution - and the 'boson' is simply
resonant synchrony with ... ... ...

... ... ... fundamental substance/God/consciousness.

-*-

The gene ended its really interesting lifespan - when the mitochondria settled into the microbe and gave us the capacity for mitochondrial aerobic respiration
- thereafter we certainly did continue use of the gene - but only for 'more of the same'.

It's interesting that the CDR (described above) or the cell danger response (ie the cell thinking its under attack) was to become so closely associated with mitochondrial reactive oxygen species production.
Very definitely of very great importance to the evolution of man - but many stages of abstraction back.

Evolution works unidirectionally towards informational/communicative complexity
- and so we should be looking ahead (to generate society integral (all inclusive) of minds (ALL MINDS))
-- and not at the level of physics, chemistry, gene, nerve, brain ... ...

-*-

All about mind within context of species.

And agree with me, or I'll find some physicists who'll sink you under triple integral partial differential equations !

SB_UK
10-27-13, 03:17 AM
"Stephen Hawking chose not to follow his father into medical research, because of what he perceived as a lack of precision in biology."And so he put in the precision - by showing that the basic mechanism guiding subatomic evolution - applies at each and every level of evolution.

The boson = social impulse.

eg forum search - Stabile, social impulse.

SB_UK
10-27-13, 04:07 AM
All that we need to do - to eliminate the disorder element of ADHD is to:
[1] Create a fair society (in which all people are equals)
<- social level intervention
[2] Teach natural sciences in a manner which makes sense (hook teaching off the boson)
<- mental level intervention

Since:
Society is the integral of Mind.
- we're thereby sculpting the two aspects of man involved in our current evolutionary abstraction level (mind, society) - towards completion.

That is - we're working 'forwards' and not - as we do in studies of the actual gene, nerve or even brain
- but backwards

-- on previous abstraction layers - which by virtue of the emergence of mind - we must have surpassed/transcended.

-*-

When a novel emergent property appears - previous layers are 'fixed' -
the new level brings with it new demands (in our case how to understand reality, set up a perfect society) ... ... and that's where we should be heading.

Natural science meets social epidemiology.

mildadhd
10-27-13, 10:07 AM
Foundation of the mind is primarily emotional.

Pre-executive.

Primarily, infant "needs" and "wants" required for survival. ("requisite stimulation")

Before the age of two, in a relationship with the environment, arousal mechanisms are established.

Hyperactivity, inattention , attention...

Depending on individual experiences, and tendencies.


(In Layman)






Peripherals

Dizfriz
10-27-13, 10:26 AM
I am curious to know how many different ways there is to develop ADD.

Peripherals

The reference I gave you to Barkley's book has a good survey of different causes of ADHD in the Etiologies chapter.

http://www.addforums.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1557388&postcount=61

Dizfriz

mildadhd
10-27-13, 10:45 AM
..The neural components of vision already present at birth would atrophy and become useless if this child did not see light for about five years.

Why?

Neural Darwinism.

Without the requisite stimulation during critical period alloted by Nature for the visual system's development, the child's brain would never have received the information that being able to see is needed for survival.

Irreversible blindness would be the result.


What is true for vision is also true for the dopamine circuits of incentive-motivation and the opioid circuitry of attachment-reward, as well as for the regulatory centers in the prefrontal cortex, such as the orbitofrontal cortex...

...In the case of these circuits, which process emotions and govern behavior, it is the emotional environment that is decisive.

By far the dominant aspect of this environment is the role of the nurturing adults in the child's life, especially in the early years.


Gabor Mate M.D., "In The Realm Of Hungry Ghosts", P184.


i!i

Amtram
10-27-13, 10:48 AM
I'm seeing lots of fallacies. Tons and tons of fallacies. Oh, well, carry on.

dvdnvwls
10-27-13, 10:54 AM
Peripheral - would you be willing to begin to discuss, instead of endlessly present and present and present unrelated (or at best loosely-related) new material?

We can't build a structure of knowledge just by forever increasing the sand-pile of loose unrelated facts. (Many of which are not even facts)

Lunacie
10-27-13, 10:59 AM
Gabor Mate M.D., "In The Realm Of Hungry Ghosts", P184.


i!i

A child not seeing any light for the first five years of it's life would be really extreme.
It's also extremely rare for a child not to be given any love and support in the first
five years of it's life.

Can a stressful environment stunt a child's development? Sure
Can a stressful environment cause ADHD. It's not likely.

daveddd
10-27-13, 11:03 AM
I don't understand why there's any support for genetics in a world where we can sequence whole genomes in a few hours.
Somebody should just take a cohort of sever ADDers - and before the week is out
- you'll find that there're no obvious genetic differences to controls.

Or maybe there are.

But either way - we've the technology to kill off ADD = genes vs environment in milliseconds

- but nerves / logical structure (pattern of understanding) will remain.

Just saw this buying stuff for my science leaving celebration in the local shop:
http://s9.postimg.org/sc32j0033/002902d1.jpg


The more we probe brain, the less we understand mind.


It doesn't bode well.

this has destroyed psychology imo

along with the endless categories

im sorry, if something was a physical problem we would have found it by now

mildadhd
10-27-13, 11:03 AM
"..Behavior management is primarily composed of teaching parents effective parenting skills for working with ADHD children.

Very powerful stuff and quite effective.

Dizfriz



http://www.addforums.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1558526&postcount=12



i!i

SB_UK
10-27-13, 12:19 PM
im sorry, if something was a physical problem we would have found it by now

-- across the board in all common, complex supposedly 'genetic' disorders.

It's just that easy to find genetic variation these days.

It's not even very expensive - at least on a research funding scale.

-*-

It's time to call the whole thing off.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WLkSaEOfJy0


'genato, environmento,
neurato, logato,

sociolo, potato
tomato, banano

uhhh!

-- let's just call the global monetary system off'
and ALL of our problems will go away.

meadd823
10-27-13, 03:02 PM
Meadd, I do not understand this. There has been a lot of research on chemical exposure being linked to ADHD behaviors. Just Google "chemical exposure adhd" and you can get a sampling.

This is nothing new so I cannot understand where you see environmental causes as being blown off.

It still does not impact the well supported idea that ADHD is still mostly genetic (including epigenetics) in nature. This is the result of a *lot* of research but no one is denying that other factors can be involved it is just that genetics has the greatest impact.

I don't keep up with Autism all that much but I suspect the picture is not all that different for that disorder.

Keep in mind that even if ADHD is in the order of 80% heritable this still leaves around 20% for other factors including environmental ones.


Take care,

Dizfriz

I'm going to begin with responding to the direct answer to my post before this thing goes haywire again - I can not see how dumping megatons of crap into our enviroment can NOT have an impact upon the population living in the middle of the pollution. Surely coming into contact with a bunch of un-natural crap is going to have an effect upon human genetic expression one way or another.

SB has provided megatons of links to research with regards to how stress effects DNA /RNA transcription although I will admit some of it is hard for me to follow given my limited computer time - My failure to understand is not the same has having a lack of scientific relevancy in which to based his opinion on.

More obvious is the notions that

What is inheritable is cause by environmental factors. What survives in an enviroment long enough to reproduce is determined by how well traits navigate the enviroment -genetic traits themselves are neutral

This does not count the more obvious that impairment is also determined by environmental factors so how can people not only claim ADHD is 80% genetic but dare to scream it at me as if not agreeing renders me some variety of wishful thinking idiot.


If I was hyperactive in a vacuum it would not be an impairment it would be simply a lot of physical activity that would have nothing to compare it to therefore is determination as to whether or not the activity level were "hyper" would not even exist - therefore I would not be hyperactive - hyper and hypo are determined by the norm = majority. The majority is an external factor and requires comparing my traits to that of others - Comparing me to others is an environmental link NOT a genetic one. 99.9% of my genetics is identical to that of other humans - I have a 97% identical genetic pattern to that of apes but the last time I tried to swing from a tree I had to get several stitches in my head. :p


ADHD and it's very diagnosis is done by comparison with peers - this is not a genetic comparison but one that is compared in context of others who are the same age in the same enviroment.

Even the actual diagnosis is contextual not genetic.

You nor any one else for that matter can not point to a chromosome and say that chromosome is causing you to be ADHD - varieties of alleles are not even 100% determining with regards to the diagnosis of ADHD.

No one is arguing nor has there ever been an argument against genetic predisposition being present - That certain genetic predispositions render one more or less likely to be diagnosed ADHD - I think we can all agree that a predisposition must be present however the determine factors of expression are the point of contingency - for me any way.


I have expanded upon some of SB's point which I will agree with to a certain extend although I must admit I do not hold that westernized living has been the bane of all human existence - If you see the pollution of the Ganges river one might conclude that westernized living is evil. I use this as an example because I just read about it and saw some horrible pictures of it. . . .Even though SB is from the UK when I saw the pictures of this river in India they reminded me of his postings about the evils westernized living - okay so disconnected thinking is also part of being ADHD but the pictures did illustrate why one just might see westernized living as evil.


I live in a rural area that is relatively clean but my mobility is dependent upon vehicles my ability to communicate with most of the outside world is via the internet and use of cell phones so I may not come to the same conclusion regarding westernized living.


Our very points of view are determined by our environmental experiences, so how can any one fail to see that our genetic expression is also influenced by the enviroment.

I have also used two very obvious ways in which the enviroment influences genetic predisposition thus whether or not one has a predisposition to the genetic trait expression that will eventual cause one to be diagnosed with ADHD.

The 80% thing is based upon a twenty year old twin study which is out dated and fails to take a number of pre-birth factors into consideration because back when the studies were done knowledge of these things did not exist as part of medical scientific knowledge.

Failure to agree is fine, it is expected - Opinion diversity it is a large portion of interaction, with regards to idea comparison and exchange

It is the manner in which the disagreement arises that I find problematic - The failure to move along with the rate of scientific discovery is frightening especially when done to such extreme that discontent or disagreement is seen as a danger and attempts to drown it out by screaming and talking down to others are employed -

I am tired of the claim that other/ alternate opinion lack scientific bases when I am swimming in studies in which the opinion offered are being based. My agreement or lack there of hasn't thing one to do with whether or not the opinion is scientifically based.

News Flash:
A decades old consensus does not over ride extrapolation based upon scientific knowledge - Last I checked biology is a portion of science - If one disagrees fine then do so employing rational civilized methods which by the way do not include SCREAMING and dictating that this is the way it like it or not.

Blind belief in authority is the greatest enemy of truth = Albert Einstein

I have been silent a long time it seems I may need to come out of retirement briefly - for no other reason that to help facilitate the voice of the minority and their rights to speak as peers whose opinion are to generate equal degrees of respect even the face of disagreement.

This need for respectful disagreement applies to both sides of the debate equation.

SB_UK
10-27-13, 03:11 PM
I have expanded upon some of SB's point which I will agree with to a certain extend although I must admit I do not hold that westernized living has been the bane of all human existence - If you see the pollution of the Ganges river one might conclude that westernized living is evil. I use this as an example because I just read about it and saw some horrible pictures of it. . . .Even though SB is from the UK when I saw the pictures of this river in India they reminded me of his postings about the evils westernized living - okay so disconnected thinking is also part of being ADHD but the did illustrate why one just might see westernized living as evil.

I think that's why I've tried to change from disorders of Western living
- to disorders of Western-style living.

The world now is characterised by Western-style living.

The last 3 nurses I've talked to have come from India, Mauritius and Nigeria [relocated to the UK] - and in all 3 cases - they've described how Type II diabetes (and friends) is running rife.

The Western disorder is now a global problem.

For sure.

Amtram
10-27-13, 03:20 PM
im sorry, if something was a physical problem we would have found it by now

What makes you say that? Are you aware of the incredible complexity, and the amount of data that simultaneously creates new questions as it answers old ones? If you follow the science of brain research and understand the nature of evolution, then you are well aware that it will never be possible to know everything about the human brain until humans are extinct and therefore no longer changing - and not even then, because the behavioral models will all be dead.

Amtram
10-27-13, 03:29 PM
ADHD is not 80% genetic in individuals. Your ADHD traits are not 80% genetic and 20% something else. This is one of the big fallacies I'm talking about in this thread.

ADHD is 80% genetic because 80% of all cases have blood relatives who have ADHD. ADHD is 80% genetic because we can predict that children who have blood relatives (parents or siblings, especially) have a significantly higher chance of having ADHD or ADHD symptoms. 80% genetic refers to hundreds of studies that show that 80% or more of people who have ADHD are related to or directly descended from people who have ADHD. 80% genetic means that the figures that indicate heritability are so high, that we can conclude with certainty that 80% (or more) of the population with ADHD have it because of a genetic inheritance from a familial genome that predisposes that ADHD will be passed on to children.

mildadhd
10-27-13, 04:10 PM
Amtram, (and Mctavish)

Not all people with ADD, have known genetic tendencies.(predisposition)

And not all people with known genetic tendencies, have ADD.


Also known genetic common tendencies are 28% not 75%, according to molecular genetics.

(I learned this from research information that Amtram has posted)









Peripherals

Amtram
10-27-13, 05:18 PM
http://drgrcevich.files.wordpress.com/2011/05/slide061.jpg

http://www.adhd-institute.com/burden-of-adhd/aetiology/heritability/

http://www.cnsspectrums.com/userdocs/articleimages/137/Spencer1big.jpg

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/09/100929191312.htm

http://www.slideshare.net/Pammy98/adhd-diagnosis-and-etiology

So there's just a few things. The 20-30% heritability studies are the ones that look at children of mothers who have ADHD.

meadd823
10-27-13, 05:30 PM
If one is going to argue Barkley we may have to begin another thread - I have lots of problems with his work - lets begin here page 14 - I won't touch the other ten points I disagree with presented on other pages but this one has already been presented in this thread

Please do remember you opened the door.

All right, what do we find in studies? Well for comparison, let me give you some statistics. The genetic contribution to IQ is .55. The genetic contribution to human height is .81. The genetic contribution to AD/HD is .80 to .97. The smaller number is from studies done back in the ’70s that didn’t use DSM criteria.

If you use the DSM list of criteria, the heritability of AD/HD is 97 percent. This trait is more inherited than human height. This trait is more inherited than any dimension of human personality.

This trait is more inherited than any other psychiatric disorder. The only other disorder that is this genetically affected is autism.



Say what :eek:-

ADD and Autism share genetic difference with several other conditions - The fact that ADD and autism spectrum disorder are more open to individual clinical diagnostic application is key.


Is Bipolar Disorder Genetic? (http://www.webmd.com/bipolar-disorder/guide/bipolar-disorder-causes)

Studies at Stanford University that explored the genetic connection of bipolar disorder found that children with one biological parent with bipolar I or bipolar II disorder have an increased likelihood of getting bipolar disorder. In this study, researchers reported that 51% of the bipolar offspring had a psychiatric disorder, most commonly major depression, dysthymia (low-grade, chronic depression), bipolar disorder, or attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). Interestingly, the bipolar parents in the study who had a childhood history of ADHD were more likely to have children with bipolar disorder rather than ADHD.

Hello????

It would appear that bipolar may in fact be more prevalent in the genetic effects category. At the very least it lays to waste the notion that ADHD is more inheritable than other "disorders".

Another point of contingency is the notion of shared genetic difference found between several conditions

Five 'mental disorders' may have genetic links (http://www.nhs.uk/news/2013/02February/Pages/Five-mental-disorders-genetic-links.aspx)

Conclusion

This study suggests that autism, ADHD, clinical depression, bipolar disorder and schizophrenia may have common genetic risk factors. The five conditions examined in this study were selected on the basis of the availability of a large genetic data set.

It is unclear at this stage whether other relatively common mental health conditions (such as anxiety disorder or obsessive compulsive disorder) are also affected by these genetic variations, or whether there is overlap with other conditions.

Perhaps most importantly, these variations cannot on their own predict or explain the development of autism, ADHD, depression, bipolar disorder or schizophrenia. The researchers point out that – as with almost all genome-wide association studies of complex conditions – the effect of the individual variations identified in these four regions was small, and cannot predict or diagnose these mental health conditions.


Again genetic demonstrates a possible out come or sustability - Not one of them claims that genetics is the end all and be all of the diagnostic out comes. I have yet to see a percentage offered - Serious scientist who do NOT have a personal poodle in the puddle of ADHD research tend to agree on this key point


However, in the light of this report it would be simplistic to assume that mental health conditions such as depression or schizophrenia are purely genetic – environmental factors are also thought to play a part.


Now I do not know how many more ways I have to go about in providing evidence that Barkley has a personal vendetta with ADD and therefore can not be seen as being an objective authority regarding it than to shine the light of his claims against objective scientific results reached by those who have no personal / finical attachment to the condition.

As far as using the DSMV lets look there for a minute - One would have had to share a cave with Barkley NOT to know that the DSMV criteria have changed substantially over the past two decades This means that any and all numbers and stats using the DSMV are going to change as well, without actually having a base line change in over all human traits


If I want to measure tall first I have to define tall - The number of tall people can be manipulated based upon said definition

Example - if 6 foot {1.8 meters} is my definition of tall I am going to find less of the human population can be defined as "tall" than if I change my definition of tall to those over five foot six inches {1.6 meters}. If I used the 5'6" {1.6 meter} definition then statistically speaking I will find more people qualify for the category of tall.

This is naturally a simplified version of stats manipulation based upon changing categorization criteria but I think it adequately expresses my point.

meadd823
10-27-13, 06:16 PM
Having a parent with ADHD is also an environmental factor a well as a genetic one

While we can not modify genetics directly we can modify the enviroment. In fact environmental modification happens to be a human specialty - Why such a resistance to the notion of improving our over all social enviroment especially by those who have the most to gain from such modification is beyond my comprehension


Maternal Type 2 Diabetes and Low Income Significantly Increase Risk for ADHD in Children (http://www.mountsinai.org/about-us/newsroom/press-releases/maternal-type-2-diabetes-and-low-income-significantly-increase-risk-for-adhd-in-children)


Mount Sinai researchers have found that low socioeconomic status and gestational diabetes together increase the risk of ADHD in children 14-fold.

At age six, the children were evaluated again using behavioral and emotional clinical scales, along with neuropsychological tests, to measure several functions, including hyperactivity, aggression, anxiety, and attention. Independently, gestational diabetes or low SES doubled the risk for ADHD. Collectively, the risk increased 14-fold.

Since ADHD is a disorder with high heritability, the study authors conclude that clinicians should make stronger efforts to help families take steps to prevent the nongenetic factors that contribute to its development. Nutrition and psychosocial counseling may help modify the risk, during pregnancy and in early childhood.



Amtram studies appreciate however you are still using Barkley information. Perhaps I need to be more clear regarding my request .

I am looking for non-Barkely collaborating studies - If his word holds true there should be other research studies that conclude the same thing independently.

We have been constantly reminded that empirical science requires independent corroboration from non-related groups. Okay this means finding unrelated Barkely studies that come to the same conclusions shouldn't be a problem.





. . . . .

Lunacie
10-27-13, 06:28 PM
<< snipped

The 80% thing is based upon a twenty year old twin study which is out dated and fails to take a number of pre-birth factors into consideration because back when the studies were done knowledge of these things did not exist as part of medical scientific knowledge.




News Flash:
A decades old consensus does not over ride extrapolation based upon scientific knowledge - Last I checked biology is a portion of science - If one disagrees fine then do so employing rational civilized methods which by the way do not include SCREAMING and dictating that this is the way it like it or not.


snipped >>

Do you have some more recent studies that rule out those 20 year old studies?

Time alone does not invalidate information. We have quite a bit of scientific
knowledge that has been overturned as time goes by, but we also have some
scientific knowledge that has stood the test of time.


:confused: Who has been SCREAMING on this thread?

mildadhd
10-27-13, 08:03 PM
From the first link (http://www.adhd-institute.com/burden-of-adhd/aetiology/heritability/) in your statistics posts.


Despite a wealth of evidence supporting the involvement of genetics in ADHD, very few studies have withstood replication, and a meta-analysis of genome-wide association studies found no significant associations, suggesting that any gene variant for ADHD must have a small effect.13,14 Moreover, the largest genetics study of ADHD to-date (the International Multicentre ADHD Genetics [IMAGE] project) estimated that much larger sample sizes (around 10,000–20,000 individuals) were required to detect significant effects at the genome-wide level.13,14 - See more at: http://www.adhd-institute.com/burden-of-adhd/aetiology/heritability/#sthash.JDIrGwqt.dpuf

Nobody is disputing that genes are involved.

Epigenetics seems a much more likely possibility.

Once again your own research does not promote ADD as being primarily genetic?

Once again the research doesn't rule out suboptimal emotional stress of the adoptions?

This quote above is from the link you provided.

I started studying these topics a few years ago.

In my opinion the trend seems to promote ADD as being primarily epigenetic, more and more.

It certainly doesn't rule out epigenetics. (environments and genes)

Time will tell, Dr.Mate's theories haven't changed and evidence supports Dr.Mate's theories more and more, not less and less.

I am getting dizzy, we have discussed all these topics around and around, everything is on the record.

I am going to focus more of my time studying neurological development and under development and appropriate environments, while considering the "pre-executive", primary emotional processes, that the executive functions are built upon.


There is not doubt that the foundation of the mind is built primarily around primary emotional processes.


I have lots of Affective Neuroscience that I would like to present in regards to ADD, that I will present in different threads.











Peripherals

Amtram
10-27-13, 09:19 PM
Epigenetics are not what you think they are. I'm not going to bother to explain the same thing over and over; there are links in the sticky at the top of the forums, as well as my blog, as well as numerous threads with links to articles by scientists who do research in epigenetics.

mctavish23
10-27-13, 10:11 PM
LOOK IT... THIS IS NOT ABOUT RUSSELL BARKLEY.

It's about the SCIENTIFIC METHOD. I'm NOT emotionally attached to the data. What I

care about is the PROCESS.

The genetic propensity of ADHD is adopted and supported by the following :

Attention Deficit Disorder Association (ADDA)

The American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry (AACAP)

The American Medical Association (AMA)

The American Academic of Pediatrics (AAP)

The American Academy of Family Physicians (AAFP)

The American Psychiatric Association (APA)

Center For Disease Control (CDC)

Children and Adults with Attention Deficit Disorder (CHADD)

National Clearing House on Birth Defects and Developmental Disabilities (CDC)

National Institute of Health (NIH)

National Insitute of Mental Health (NIMH)

U.S. Surgeon General's Report (Chapter 3 : Disorders of Infancy, Childhood and Adolescence)


The current accpted standard is based on THOUSANDS OF STUDIES, CONDUCTED OVER

DECADES, PUBLISHED IN PEER REVIEWED JOURNALS, AND FOUND TO BE VALID AND

RELIABLE OVER TIME.

I don't care what the data themselves say, it's about ADHERING TO THE METHOD.

To argue against this is IRRATIONAL = No Basis In Fact.

If those same data supported hopping on one foot in the rain to diagnosis ADHD, then

that's what you'd see me doing.

Do you think all those associations and agencies just decided to make up the data ?

If so, then ur truly hopeless.

HERE'S WHAT I'M PASSIONATE ABOUT - First Do No Harm.

Ten years ago, my 20 yr. friend and former supervisor, someone I respected, deliberately threw

the above listed Clinical Guidelines on the Diagnosis and Treatment of ADHD in the trash.

He did that because he's a Narcissistic Personality Disorder, who got his PhD and became

Clinical Director where I still work, for reasons of ego gratification. What then transpired,

resulted in upwards of TWENTY THOUSAND clients misdiagnosed. It also involved me standing

up to him and never backing down, even after he turned 90% of the entire agency against me. I

subsequently developed PTSD from being screamed at over THESE VERY PUBLISHED ACCEPTED STANDARDS;

like they didn't exist. My health has taken a real hit due to the daily disrespect I received from "colleagues and friends."

The spontaneous brain hemorrhage in July was DIRECTLY related to what I went thru.

Yesterday, the vertigo came back with a vengence. I couldn't stand up or walk without help. So I rallied and came

down here, only to read this crap!!

The accepted standard isn't personal. It's pristine. If it changes then I'll change with it.

But the fact remains, that just like my "colleagues and friends," some of you do not appear to understand that

ONLY EQUALLY LONGITUDINALLY VALID AND RELIABLE DATA CAN REFUTE SAME. I'd be excited to see whatever

changes came down, PROVIDED THEY WERE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD. NOTHING you've said

over all theses pages supersedes those data. Nothing.

I'm sick and tired of this. If you disagree with the above data, then DON'T WASTE THE FORUM'S TIME COMPLAINING,

GO DIRECTLY TO THE PUBLISHER'S LISTED.

Deal With It .

Robert

mctavish23
10-27-13, 10:27 PM
Let's get something straight. I didn't edit out the language, but it doesn't matter.

Political Correctness has NOTHING TO DO WITH IT. Evidence Based is the clinical /

scientific equivalent of "prove it." Until decades of equally compelling data come along

and refute this, then you are simply WRONG.

Deal With It.

Robert

mctavish23
10-27-13, 10:34 PM
One More Thing.

I RESPECT the OP. What I DON'T RESEPCT is when other member's emotions get in the way and attack the accepted

standards like they don't exist. THEY DO UNTIL PROVEN OTHERWISE (by the Scientific Method). I would LOVE to know

more about what the OP is trying to say, WITHOUT HAVING TO DEAL WITH IRRATIONAL COGNITIVE BIASES. Either the

accepted standards are "real," or this is an alternate universe. Since the data are real and this is not Bizarro World, then

kindly GET OVER IT, so we can discuss the OP's original point.

later,

Robert

sarahsweets
10-28-13, 04:24 AM
I have a serious question. I dont know much admittedly about how much genetics plays into adhd, or how much environment does, and I dont know enough about the science behind these things. I think its both honestly though. If adhd has less to do with genetics then why does it seem to be genetic? Like my Dad was adhd, and so am I and my husband is adhd so all of our kids are adhd. I am not saying that 2 adhd parents= adhd kids I was just wondering if anyone has an understanding of why it seems to run in families, and how much of that would be attributed to environment or genetics. When someone refers to environment, can anyone clarify what that means for me? Like does it mean a particular kind of homelife or cirumstance?

SB_UK
10-28-13, 04:37 AM
I am getting dizzy, we have discussed all these topics around and around, everything is on the record.


The pattern appears to be of emergence of a new 'type' - the ADDer as enforcedly social organism.

So - the big problem with many of the diseases we suffer from - is that their prevalence is increasing too quickly.

If we're simply observing the emergence of a new species (enforcedly social) in an anti-social environment (where social hierarchy exists)
-- then the stress reaction can be seen as the commonality underlying all other diseases (of Western style living).

-*-

So - simple emergence of a new species - differentiated from the old in Antreior Cingulate Cortex not Pre-Frontal Cortex as our reward mechanism - and we're there.

The important point to note - is that nobody thinks that a mutated gene gave rise to language - likewise - why should we be looking for a mutated gene which gives rise to 'social' organism -ness.

Language - presumably is an emergent property of brains giving rise to mind.
And social organism -ness is an emergent property of minds giving rise to a social organism.

In much the same way that we'll never identify a broken gene or additional gene which explains away mind
- we'll never find a gene which provides evidence of emergence through convergence in minds - of a social organism.

The rest ie all the bad stuff (disease etc)
- is simply disease which arises from di(stress).

EG - stress -> eating a type of foods -> diabetes/obesity
stress -> cortisol/SNS resistance -> asthma
stress -> loss of anti-inflammatory power -> autoimmune disease
stress -> low energy -> lack of exercise -> heart disease
stress -> eg telomere shortening -> cancer
stress -> oxidative stress -> premature ageing

We're simply observing the emergence of a new species - a species - like all of the many social species which exist on the planet - and which we haven't been until now - are social.

ADDers - a social species.

We become stressed and die prematurely when we're made to perform tasks which are not in the best interests of the species.

Social organisms don't have the right to behave anti-socially
- social-ness is embedded.

And that's what we're looking at here.

SB_UK
10-28-13, 04:41 AM
Now - ADD is a contextual disorder
-- can simply be viewed as emergence of an enforcedly social organism within an anti-social societal infrastructure.

Our prime directive is to be 'good' in an environment in which we're made to do harm (money,law).

SB_UK
10-28-13, 04:51 AM
Now prove that ADDers are enforcedly social.

Well - the first obvious sign is our shift away from PFC (selfish reward system) as described by Barkley as Executive Function deficits
- we're simply not programmed to derive reward from selfish behaviours.

So - I know this - and haven't been able to find a single behaviour which nonADDers find rewarding - to activate my reward system.

[1] Money -> doesn't do it
[2] Being centre of attention (marriage, presentations) -> doesn't do it
[3] Winning sporting trophies -> doesn't do it
[4] Academic certificate accumulation -> doesn't do it
[5] Publication -> doesn't do it
[6] Eating some foodstuff -> doesn't do it

Yes - we've lost the selfish reward system - and are left floundering without reward (social reward) -- in this current world
- 'reward' is necessary
-- we supplement with primitive reward system activators - because some dopamine is better than none

-- but all of those activators result in addiction - and none of them satisfy our need.

We need social reward - and of course - social reward is an addiction we can foster.

A individual ddriving towards social reward will not suffer the same consequences as people who strive towards {money,power} etc etc

Better Frodo than Gollum.

SB_UK
10-28-13, 05:00 AM
That's it

Emergence of a socail organism.
Diseases of Western-syle living / Westerrn living as di(stress)-related to [cortisol / cortisol resistance / SNS resistance].

Genetic predispositions would be found - however they will be of very low relative risk.

The single key factor in shaping the genome - 'd be protection from infectious diseases.

We'll find a few very small genetic effects which relate to genes which predipose towards infectious disease resistance -- eg make a cell die more readily when infected / under stress [eg ormdl3] ... ... ...
- but none of that need be paid any attention to.

-*-

The big picture is simply emergence of a new species (enforcedly social - Homo sapiens neosapiens)
-- which 'breaks' more easily when under stress (an antisocial environmental infrastructure of money/law).

Now - it's very likely that much of this has been realised - and a large part of putting us under an anti-social societal infrastructure was to drive emergence of an enforcedly social organism

- the idea makes sense - but it has to be admitted that much intelligence would be required to see the future emergencce of a social species, and to put in place a terribly violent societal infrastructure (global economic system) in order to drive the social species into showing its head.

Or maybe it all just happened because that's how things happen.

Previous species eat their own heads off - and evolve to better as a consequence.

SB_UK
10-28-13, 05:13 AM
Evolutionary selection of a social organism through money ('doing God's work') and their terrible lapdogs - the lawyer/politician.

It genuinely feels as though money has been navigated by wisdom (eg the Illuminati on the dollar bill)
- but I can't say the same for the lawyer/politician.

The lawyer/politician is a scary breed of person - defined by competition - the lawyer/politician will do anything to win.

The Left vs Right.
Defence vs Prosecution.

Anything goes.

The lawyer/politician and their love of money/power.

It's about as low as 'we' can stoop - and, I think, money (navigated by wisdom) has deliberately courted this type - in order to show what becoming Gollum can do to the mind of the person.

Overt psychopathy - when the pre-frontal cortical reward system which rewardds through an addictive mechanism - is seized.

This is how it starts:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wxN2Mewamj0

This is how it ends:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rG4IZSRWQRE


-*-

The prefrontal cortical reward system, if embraced, will select for a mind which'll become so deeply addicted with the desire for money / power
- that you'd rather leap to your death for money / power
- rather than do something worthwhile.

You have to hand it to the reward mechanism - whether it's through being sociable or being anti-social
- the higher and lower reward systems, respectively have us completely under their control

- which is *** it must be.

Because if there's no reward - there's no impulse/motivation/propulsion to so anything.

And as described by Barliman - transgenic animals with a component removed from their reward system - are unable even, to motivate towards eating - when food is placed directly in front of them.

We're a remarkable 'illusion' which is projected by our reward mechanisms
-- and we're going to need them to be kept in placer
- for the day we're without reward - is the day we will find ourselves incapable of motivation towards ANYTHING.

Pretty neat huh ??

Before
http://i.ebayimg.com/t/VINTAGE-POLICEMAN-PELHAM-PUPPET-With-BOX-INSTRUCTIONS-PC-7-truncheon-police-man-/00/s/MTAyNFg3Njg=/$(KGrHqR,!oQFCr6w))fLBQuMrwd90Q~~60_12.JPG
After
http://www.postgrad.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/String-Puppets.jpg

SB_UK
10-28-13, 05:14 AM
Selfish ->- Social species (reward system) transition.

Homo sapiens sapiens ->- Homo neosapiens sapienses.


Definitely

SB_UK
10-28-13, 05:25 AM
I have a serious question. I dont know much admittedly about how much genetics plays into adhd, or how much environment does, and I dont know enough about the science behind these things. I think its both honestly though. If adhd has less to do with genetics then why does it seem to be genetic? Like my Dad was adhd, and so am I and my husband is adhd so all of our kids are adhd. I am not saying that 2 adhd parents= adhd kids I was just wondering if anyone has an understanding of why it seems to run in families, and how much of that would be attributed to environment or genetics. When someone refers to environment, can anyone clarify what that means for me? Like does it mean a particular kind of homelife or cirumstance?

Emergence mimics Heritability.

So - if a new species 'emerges' with a new property eg language
- then all subsequent children will appear to have the new property ie high heritability - seemingly high genetic - not actually - actually novel emergent property.

We're getting hung up on the gene, because we're able to study them really so easily.

However - what we can do - doesn't necessarily mean that that's what we should do.

The entire 'genetics' of common, complex multifactorial genetic disorders is pretty much dead in the water - thanks to very recent technological advancement (upcoming release of 3rd generation sequencing technologies).

There's nothing written in the genes - which prediposes us to disease without an OVERWHELMING contribution by the envrionment/social interaction/profile of learning we're exposed to.

Correct environment and genetics can be discounted.

SB_UK
10-28-13, 05:33 AM
envrionment/social interaction/profile of learning we're exposed toenvironment -> eliminate social hierarchy - equality
social interaction -> collaborate fully - fraternity
profile of learning -> needs to be globally consistent - liberty (wisdom,enlightenment,freedom from tyranny of mind)


http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b6/LibertyEqualityorDeath.jpg

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=rG4IZSRWQRE <- ou la mort

You've either gotta' eliminate the ring (shift from selfish to social reward system) by
[i] [nonADDers] attaining wisdom, or
[ii] [ADDers] by being born into a social organism and living accordingly.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=rG4IZSRWQRE

Amtram
10-28-13, 09:36 AM
And massive, repetitive thread hijackings do nothing to advance the debate, either.

What mctavish has said is extremely relevant. When something has a mechanism for falsifiability, and yet the data consistently supports itself no matter how many different people test it, and no matter how many different variables or controls are thrown in, it is not a matter of opinion.

You are entitled to your own opinion, but you are not entitled to your own facts. The fact is that out of all the data tested, the relationship between familial cases of ADHD and ADHD in children born into those families shows a consistenly high correlation, and means, therefore, that the avenue of research most likely to unearth causal factors is genetics. Period.

If you look at, say, the risk factors chart in post 232, what sane researcher is going to say "Let's ignore genetics, and see if we can prove a causal link between ADHD and parental age at birth!"? (And will he be able to get funding?)

The sensible thing is to start with the genetic heritability, which is strongly supported by mountains of evidence, and start looking at specific genes at specific loci, see where they express in the different areas of the brain, and try to narrow down what particular heritable gene is responsible for what particular aspect of ADHD.

Oh, and specificity is another part of the scientific method. And good science in general. "Stuff causes Things" tells us nothing.