View Full Version : "No scientific basis" - Here's the Proof


mctavish23
04-14-05, 12:49 AM
The exact etiology of ADHD is unknown. No one is claiming to know that, at least not right now. However, in regards to statements about there being "no scientific basis"(/B) for these disorders,

Here's the "proof" : These are ALL from unrestricted research grants published in (the cream of the crop) peer reviewed journals.

1) The neurobiological nature of ADHD.....THE PROOF YOU SAY DOESNT EXIST: was conclusively proven in the 1990 landmark glucose brainscan research study published in the New England Journal of Medicine....


Zametkin,A.J.,Nordahl,T.E.,Gross,M.,King,A.K.,Semp le,W.E.,Rumsey,J.,Hamburger,S.,& Cohen,R.M.(1990) Cerebral glucose metabolism in adults with hyperactivity of childhood onset. The New England Journal of Medicine,323,(30).1361-1366.

The "proof" is in the PET scans that showed that the harder a person with ADHD concentrated the "slower" their brain went vs the exact opposite for the non ADHD group. However, that was remedied when the ADHD subjects took stimulant medication.

THE definitive study proving the existence of ADHD as a "real" disorder;signed off on by over 80 of the world's leading scientists (with over 19 pages of references) is :

Consortium of international scientists:International Consensus Statement on ADHD, January 2002. (http://www.chadd.org). It can also be viewed at Russell Barkley's website.


You can turn to pages 22-24 of Sandra Rief's 2003 book.............The ADHD Book of Lists ....................to find the section (1-7) WHAT THE RESEARCH IS REVEALING ABOUT ADHD

Within that section is the reference for the Landmark MTA Study:

"There has been significant research with regards to treatments for ADHD and their relative effectiveness. The longest and most thorough study of the effects of ADHD interventions was the 1999 Multimodal Treatment Study of Children with ADHD (MTA) by the National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH).

MTA Cooperative Group" A 14-month Randomized Clinincal Trial of Treatment Strategies for AD/HD,"Archives of General Psychiatry,[I] 56:1073-1086;1999.

ADHD is primarily thought to be largely (80%) genetic/inherited.THE GENETIC LANDMARK FOR ADHD WAS FOUND IN 995. That study is as follows:


Cook,et.al.,(1995) Association of attention-deficit disorder and the dopamine transporter gene.American Journal of Human Genetics,56.993-998.

The US Surgeon General's Report on Mental Health: Chapter 3: Disorders of Infancy, Childhood & Adolescence has excellent background info supporting in great detail (with another 19 pages of scientific references).Here's a small segment on what I'm talking about:
" The exact etiology of ADHD is unknown,although neurotransmitter deficits,genetics and perinatal complications have been implicated." It goes on to say:

"Research to pinpoint abnormal genes is honing in on 2 genes;a dopamine receptor gene (DRD) gene on chromosome 11 and the dopamine -transporter gene (DAT1) on chromosome 5 (Cook,et.al.,1995:Smalley,et.al.;1998).

The latter reference is : Smalley,et.at.(1998) Evidence that the dopamine D4 receptor is a succeptibility gene in attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder,Molecular Psychiatry,3,427-430.

Recently (3/25/05), I participated in a teleconference on ADHD in children put on by United Behavioral Health (UBH: a managed care company). The presenter was Russell Barkley, PhD. He is largely viewed as the world's leading researcher on ADHD. During that presentation, he listed the following (evidenced based/research derived) data regarding the neurology of ADHD.

Decreased Cerebral Metabolism
(from Thomas Spencer, M.D.)

global and regional glucose metabolism by PET scan reduced in adults who have been hyper since childhood (thats Zametkin's research again).
Largest reductions in:
1) pre motor cortex
2) superior prefrontal cortex

Anterior Cingulate Dysfunction in ADHD, fMRI and the Counting Stroop.
Bush,et.al.,(1998).


Etiologies-Neurological

Smaller, less active,less developed brain
Regions found on MRI,fMRI and PET scans incluse the following areas of the brain:
1) Orbital-Prefrontal Cortex( primarily on the right side)

2) Basal Ganglia (mainly striatum and globus pallidus)

3) Cerebellum (central vermis area, right side) - there were some other posts about this particualr area of the brain being a key component of ADHD in a different thread I believe

Suspected Neurochemical Deficiency:

1) Dopamine dysregulation likely but not definitive....... the mere fact that stimulant
medication works at all to relieve symptoms of ADHD forms a solid basis
for helping to substantiate this (and the first medication study was done in 1937 in
Rhode Island)

2) Norepinephrine dysregulation probable

Etiologies- Genetic ( these data were all derived from research studies) The usual maker for statistical significance is 1.5 SD (standard deviation) 's from the mean, which equates to a %tile ranking of 93. In other words, the absolute lowest chance of these data being accurate is 93%.

1) Family aggregation of the disorder: 25-35% of siblings; 78-92% of idnetical twins;15-20% of mothers, and 25-30% of fathers; If the parent is ADHD, then theres a 20-54% chance of the offspring being ADHD (increases the odds 8fold)

2) Twin studies of Heritability 57-97%)

3) Shared environment 0-6% (not significant)

4) Unique environment (15-20% )


Molecular Genetics : Candidate genes on DRD4,DAT1,DBH-Taq1 (on chromosomes 3,5,and 11)

Candidate region: chromosome 26p13 region


Lastly, the answer to your questions about the difference between ADHD and ADD can be found in Barkley's ADHD and the Nature of Self-Control (1997).
It's also addressed in his 2002 book Taking Charge of ADHD (pages 137-138) and in You Mean Im Not Lazy,Stupid Or Crazy? by Kate Kelly & Peg Ramundo (Chapter 2).

As for depression, it is considered to be a Medical disorder on the basis of the chemical imbalance of the neurotransmitter serotonin. I don't know anyone who considers it to be a "disease".

There's no cure for the common cold but people know it exists. The Biogenic Amine Hypothesis was derived (via research) over 20 years ago. Here's what that says: "The concept that abnormalities in the physiology and metabolism of certain biogenic amines, particularly catecholamines[I](norepinephrine and dopamine ) and an indoleamine(serotonin) , are involved in the causes and courses of certain psychiatric illnesses."
That qoute was from an older issue of A Psychiatric Glossary of the AMerican Psychiatric Association, page 28. The new one is at the office.

The Biogenic Amine Hypothesis is what eventually led to the development of the class of antidepressants we now know as SSRI's (Select Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitor's:Zoloft, Prozaz,etc.).


This MORE than refutes your remarks. As of the summer of 2003 there were over 6k research articles,professional papers, chapters in book and books on ADHD.

If you go to the International Consensus 2002 journal article, you will also find on page 89:

"ADHD is recognized as a disorder/medical condition by the American Medical Association, the American Psychiatric Association, the American Psychological Association and the American Academy of Pediatrics."


THIS ISN'T AN EXACT SCIENCE .NO ONE EVER SAID IT WAS. But I can tell you that a T score of 70+% on the Conners Parent Rating Scale is one of the most accurate predictors of ADHD currently available (when used in concert with a thorough developemental and medical screening, behavioral observations and other screenings for executive functions; to name a few).


I could go on but I've made my point. I spent hours on this post and still had to cut it short. There's your scientific basis.

crazymama05
04-20-05, 01:26 PM
mctavish23,

Thank you so much for taking the time to put this on the forum. I have a hard time reading it all at once, so I do it in peices. I also reread it.

It is very comforting having you here, with your extended knowledge base, education, and passion for helping the rest of us understand more about ADD.

Again, thank you so much for taking the time to research and post this.

Have a wonderous day!!!!

stori813
04-20-05, 04:50 PM
mctavish I appreciate you taking the time to provide all this great information.
Thank You very much.:)

livinginchaos
04-21-05, 10:02 PM
Thank you so very much, mctavish!

AmberBli
05-04-05, 03:33 AM
That's so extremely helpful, thank you! I'm reading it over a few times. I want to be ready for the next moron that tries to say ADHD doesn't exist.

Ian
05-04-05, 10:38 AM
I may take to carrying this around to present as a hand out. Sick and fed up with the bs and Mctavish here has put that to rest with a firm hand.
Long my you live mctavish23. :D

timh
05-04-05, 11:35 AM
Don't forget it's also acknowledged by the American's with Disabilities Act (ADA).

OlDadd
05-05-05, 11:14 PM
"the harder a person with ADHD concentrated the "slower" their brain went vs the exact opposite for the non ADHD group. "


Hmm, I keep coming back to this board, in part wondering if my diagnosis could be for real and thinking I was fine, I just need to get shed of all the crazy people around me. Then I find information like this, which describes me to a T. My wife, people around me say I' so slow at doing things, but I have to move very slowly to focus and do them right.

I hate the medication, but I do notice I seem to think much faster. Especially in meetings, I am able to listen, think, and articulate a reply. In the past I couldn't process both what was being said and what I wanted to say simultaneously (a real disadvantage for an IT person).

Maybe I'll go see the doc and work back up to the full dose, I've been taking 1/2. I hate the side effects, I feel like my heart's going to jump out of my chest and get extremely irritable.

Thanks for the post.

Ian
05-06-05, 02:27 PM
I stuggled for a long time trying to get away from the Dex, but finally gave up a month or so ago. I really don't like the idea of taking meds but they help. I used to go off them periodically for a week or so to check the differences.

I got tired of going off the meds and rail roading conversations by not being able to wait my turn, and burning bridges of first impressions with new people, overwhelming the situation with too much of ME.

With dex, I become blended into the mix and that allows more freedom for me. I can enjoy not being medicated, but I like to be among friends that know me well, and can enjoy my rapid fire enthusiasm. :D
Cheers! Ian.

scuro
05-06-05, 05:43 PM
Nice to see McT's post up there. I have the greatest respect for the man.

Ian
05-07-05, 01:07 AM
You and me both. I fear he's had his fill of disrespect from less rational quarters here. I'm glad his record remains public here. He sets the bar very high.

Some drink at the fountain of knowledge...others just gargle.

mctavish23
09-05-05, 05:54 PM
Im glad that this thread is still open. There has to be a way of confronting misinformation that goes beyond a simple matter of personal opinion.

With the science of ADHD things are spelled out in the research. The thing is, it continues to progress, so you have to stay on top of it.

I was thinking about this earlier, regardless of a person's motivation, each time there is an "attack" or "challenge" or whatever you want to call it, it actually provides an excellent opportunity to help teach the "basics," of ADHD to everyone.

I remember about 5 or 6 years ago, a woman came into ADD Support chat in Yahoo. She was angry and bitter over being challenged by a school psychologist about her copy of CHADD FACTS #1 and it's mention of the 1990 "landmark" glucose brain scan research study that conclusively established the neurobiological nature of ADHD, having not been replicated.Unfortunately, she left before I could tell her the rest of the story.

Zametkin ( 1993 ) did establish the proof of diminished metabloic activity ,even tho (Zametkin et.al.,1997) could not replicate the original 1990 study.

The point is, Zametkin 1990 can STILL be referred to as being a "landmark" study because of the 1993 findings. It was the first study to show diminshed metabolic activity.

What I especially like is that in confronting the misinformation,irrespective of the intent,parents have an opportunity to read up on how to handle those same potential challenges they may encounter later on.

In the process, they can "arm" themselves if you will, with what the research really has to say in terms of "the big picture" about the legitimate science behind ADHD.

I recognize that there is a huge difference between "content and intent." If a person has ulterior motives, I believe that they will surface at some point, so that doesn't bother me. Either way, situations like these provide the opportunity to help educate , which is a very good thing.

take care

mctavish23 (Robert)

Scattered
09-05-05, 06:05 PM
McTavish, Did Zametkin suggest any possible reasons the 1997 study did not find the same differences as the previous two?

Scattered

scuro
09-05-05, 07:00 PM
Better would have been to keep the thread locked and start a part 2 using the original post. McT and others posted a lot of good information on the original thread which has now been lost on this truncated thread.

mctavish23
09-05-05, 07:55 PM
Barkley explained the reason on p.166 (Chapter 5- Etiologies) of his 1998 Second Edition of: Attention Deficit Disorder: A Handbook for Diagnosis and Treatment.


"More recently, studies using PET to assess cerebral glucose metabolism found diminished metabolism in adults (Zametkin,et.al.,1990) and adolescent females with ADHD (Ernst,et.al.,1994) but proved negative in adolescent males with ADHD (Zametkin,et.al.,1993). An attempt to replicate the findings with adolescent females who have ADHD in younger female ADHD children failed to find such diminished metabolism (Ernst,Cohen,Liebenauer,Jons & Zametkin,1997).

Here's where he explains it : "Such studies are often plagued by their exceptionally small sample sizes,which results in low power to detect group differences and considerable unreliability in replicating previous findings."

Now,here's the most important part because it gives you the whole story and not just part of it,which in turn,would have been misleading.

He states in that same paragraph: "However, significant correlations have been noted between diminished metabolic activity in the left anterior frontal region and severity of ADHD symptoms in adolescent girls with ADHD (Zametkin,1993). This demonstration of an association between the metabolic activity of certain brain regions and symptoms of ADHD is critical to proving a connection between the findings pertaining to brain activation and the behavior comprising ADHD."

Unless you'd read those journal articles or a book like this one in which they're summarized, you would come away thinking that the "proof" had been debunked. However, the reality is that it's actually the other way around.

Because (Zametkin,1993) DID find significant correlations to support diminished metabolic activity that in turn helped prove a connection between brain activation and ADHD behavior, Zametkin's original 1990 study (that was published in the New England Journal of Medicine) can still be called "landmark" because it was the first study to show any evidence of diminished metabolic activity.

Scattered
09-05-05, 09:44 PM
Thanks, McTavish, for once again improving my understand of all this!:)

Scattered

mctavish23
09-06-05, 01:50 PM
YW:)

I'm home for lunch right now.I'm doing 1/2 days today and tomorrow. Now I'll be able to spend the afternoon working on letters to schools requesting different accomodations, as well as an eval., without interruption.

There's also some references and definitions that I still need to post. Hopefulyl, I can get to that but Im still struggling cognitively.

In addition,there's also some more info that I'd like to post on how Cook,et.al.,(1995) is just like Zametkin, 1990, in terms of still being called a 'landmark " molecular genetics study, even tho one of the candidate genes (DAT1) wasn't replicated,while the other one (DRD4) was.

The point Id like to make here is that things do change in terms of how you arrive at determining "the proof." That's why you have to stay on top of the research. Having said that, I try and do that as much as possible, but it's very difficult.

(Since I've been a member of the Forum, I've been shown so many great links that I would have never known about. I'm very grateful for that, as I'm always striving to learn more).

At the same time, "landmark(s)" will still remain as the first studies in their respective areas to determine something of importance regarding ADHD.

take care

mctavish23 (Robert)

Stabile
09-08-05, 11:32 AM
Not to confuse the issue, Robert, but do you have any response to our observation that it hasn’t been established that diminished metabolic activity actually indicates a defect of some sort?

Our work clearly establishes two different types of logical structure in use in the brain, and our characterization of the web-like form of the newer type of structure has been verified by some recent research, particularly in females.

By our estimation, the web-like structures are significantly more efficient. This would mean we should expect less metabolic activity for equivalent operations. In fact, one might wonder why there isn’t more of a difference. What is the more efficient structure doing, that the older, less efficient structure doesn’t get around to?

Any comment? It seems to us that the idea that less == defective is ingrained in the articles you cite. If so, the assumption deserves challenge.

--Tom and Kay

scuro
09-08-05, 05:49 PM
It's always good to ask questions and your questions sound reasonable. Wish I could answer.

mctavish23
09-08-05, 06:01 PM
Stabile,

My understanding is that the task involved had to do with reading. The idea was to measure glucose metabilism and brain activation on a specific task. Its been years since I read the study but that's the premise.

For example, the harder the non med ADHD group concentrated the slower their brains went, as opposed to the non ADHD group who's brains "kicked in" right away.

Stabile
09-08-05, 08:10 PM
Stabile,

My understanding is that the task involved had to do with reading. The idea was to measure glucose metabilism and brain activation on a specific task. Its been years since I read the study but that's the premise.

For example, the harder the non med ADHD group concentrated the slower their brains went, as opposed to the non ADHD group who's brains "kicked in" right away.
Thanks. That’s pretty much what I expected; we haven’t seen much that actually attempts to establish a correlation between diminished metabolic activity and diminished capacity of some sort.

I know it seems like a no-brainer, but life (and medical science in particular) is full of that exact kind of mistaken assumption, one that is so obvious that the assumption itself is difficult to see, let alone discuss.

So on the one hand, we have the idea that the brain functions and uses energy in doing so, and if less energy is used, less actual work must have been done. And in any specific brain that is exactly correct, as long as we’re looking at the same neurons.

But there is no theory that says any two brains should use similar amounts of energy to perform equivalent functions. Again, this seems like a no-brainer, because neurons only work one way, and that is true as far as we can determine.

But no such principle of equivalence can be assumed to operate on the level of neural structures themselves. Here is where we believe the logic begins to fall through the cracks; it seems dimly reasonable that we all might have the same logical structures in our heads, but everyone’s really working in a vacuum when we get to this point.

Those issues are in a different context, too, one that embraces questions of how neural structures are defined, ultimately the whole nature vs. nurture debate as it’s unfolded over recent years.

There isn’t even much speculative work about the actual form of these structures. When Kay and I started to look at the problem, we realized we were traversing virgin territory on an almost daily basis.

The upshot is this: it seems premature to assume that any two individuals will have the same neural structures operating in their heads, simply because there is no research suggesting that similar logical structures are necessarily in use.

There’s a persuasive argument that any two human brains might implement the same functions with at least two different types of logical structures. Since logical structures are expressed in neural structures, it seems likely that different physical arrangements of neurons might be expected to support the same high level functions in different individuals.

And different arrangements of neurons should be expected to expend different amounts of energy to perform their allotted task. I know it probably still seems reasonable to you to assume that there must be some value to the scans measuring tagged glucose uptake and similar techniques, but however counterintuitive it might be, the deep analysis suggests otherwise.

The best analogous example that leaps to mind is the way that the medical community spent years blaming surgeons for being sloppy and missing (or even accidentally releasing) ‘seed’ cells that caused cancer to metastasize after an apparently successful operation to remove a solitary primary tumor.

Surgeons tried desperately to refine their technique, usually with little success, and there was a considerable amount of problematical distress that occurred, as might be expected.

Then cancer researchers discovered that primary tumors excreted a ‘tumor growth inhibition factor’, a substance that apparently is intended to suppress the flowering of pre-existing ‘micro tumors’ located throughout the body that would have sapped the resources available to the primary tumor had they been allowed to grow freely.

Removing the primary tumor also removed the inhibiting agent, of course, and the ‘micro tumors’ were then free to grow. The surgeons had been causing the problem, but not because of any lack of skill or lapse of attention. It wasn’t really their fault, but the surgery’s fault. The approach was wrong because they didn’t understand the situation.

This is similar to the case with brain scans and assumptions about what differences in metabolic uptake indicate. The surgeons didn’t know the ‘micro tumors’ existed; if they had known, they might have tried to look for them, somehow, before operating.

In a similar way, nobody knows what the neural structures in two different brains look like, whether they’re similar or perhaps radically different; we know the logical structures they support can be radically different. Different physical structures (with different numbers and arrangements of neurons) would be expected to function at different metabolic rates.

The problem may go far deeper than this, though. We also have good reasons to believe that similar functions might not necessarily arise as neural operation in the traditionally expected regions of the brain. That is, ADDers may perform entirely different physical and logical operations to evidence the same high-level behavioral functions, as in some aspects of the reading tasks you mention.

If that’s true, everything has to be thrown out and done over from the beginning. Personally, I believe it may not be quite that dramatic. But I have no doubt that the assumptions currently at work need some drastic revamping before we can accurately tell if there’s any real data in these scans.

And I definitely would recommend against incorporating these apparently premature conclusions into any theory about AD/HD and the brain.

They are very likely the product of impeccable science, done by world class scientists. But just because it’s good science doesn’t mean it’s right. In this case, it certainly seems likely not everything has been accounted for, and caution would be highly recommended.

We’ve got enough problems with wingnut theories and people with actual bad intentions and agendas to match. We certainly don’t need to leave holes in our own structures they can take pot shots through.

Thanks again. --Tom

scuro
09-08-05, 09:04 PM
It would be interesting to see a link to that study. That the non-medicated ADHD'ers brain's use of energy actually decreased when they tried to concentrate, is not explained by your model Stabile.

Scattered
09-08-05, 09:55 PM
Stabile, you guys are definately way over my head, but on the surface one flaw that I see is that generally what brings folks with AD/HD in for treatment is not that their brain are working more efficiently utilizing less energy -- generally quite the opposite, they are less functional and alert mentally unless they are very stimulated by the activity (I would actually love to hear about a brain scan done while an ADDer was in hyperfocus mode). On a personal level, I've experienced a major decrease in function when asked to concentrate under pressure (especially time pressure), to the point where I can't read a map, fill out a basic form, or comprehend a test questions (I have two master's degrees and these activities are not beyond my normal functioning ability).

I do see advantages in the many connections the ADD mind is likely to make in the creative process and in long term memory, but I don't see that with the PET studies being discussed when the area being studied is concentration and glucose metabolism.

Scattered

mctavish23
09-08-05, 11:12 PM
I believe what they did was then give the ADHD group (stimulant) meds for the first time and that created more glucose, which in turn, increased the activity .The idea being that it would help the ADHD person read and comprehend better.

Thats far from scientific but I think thats the idea.

Stabile
09-09-05, 11:53 AM
It would be interesting to see a link to that study. That the non-medicated ADHD'ers brain's use of energy actually decreased when they tried to concentrate, is not explained by your model Stabile.
Not explained well enough by me, perhaps. But I think our models are OK here.

Our models don’t really predict anything about what happens when an ADDer tries to concentrate. But they do allow us to know something about what general structures and operations may be involved, because they limit the range of possibilities on the level that these brain scans probe.

We can also predict quite a bit about what is going to happen in the brain during the test on an entirely different level, the one on which the behavior itself is a recognizable abstraction, and we can speak of things like ‘concentration’ with meaning.

So we know (for example) that what we call ‘attention’ is related to the way we regulate our internal ‘view’ of the cacophony of all of the firing patterns being presented to our conscious centers at any particular moment, from both external and internal sources. (Here, ‘external’ means external to the conscious centers, not external to the brain itself.)

The actual mechanism of ‘attention’ is not continuous. We each have a certain quantity, in a sense, but ‘attention’ itself is quantified; it’s a discrete mechanism. The ‘amount’ of attention we have at any moment to devote to a particular task will always be expressed as an integer. It’s more proper to refer to ‘attention mechanisms’ that ‘attention’ per se.

Any task requires at least one devoted attention mechanism, and if we pop down a level or two we’ll find that a ‘one task, one attention mechanism’ rule is universal. Any task that appears to use multiple attention mechanisms has been partitioned logically on a lower level into multiple parallel tasks.

(This description is entirely misleading in some important points, in order to make the mechanisms understandable. Much of the actual causality is reversed. For example, attention mechanisms define what a task is; there are no ‘tasks’ on the neural level, only the activity we recognize as attention. The appearance that a task exists independently is an illusion.)

This follows from the way that actual neural structures function; they’re naturally indiscriminate, every network firing at will, and we couldn’t do much with them unless there was a way to control and organize their output from moment to moment.

One way this is accomplished is by creating many-layered hierarchical structures; stuff happening on lower layers is naturally muffled a bit. But ultimately, we have to discriminate amongst the patterns presented, and this is the function of attention mechanisms.

Normally our strategy would be to suppress all but the most active firing pattern, but there is a mechanism by which that ‘loudest first’ principle may be temporarily overcome, and attention paid to a less active, quieter pattern. The conscious experience of this mechanism is ‘shock’, and it evolved as a tool for survival during chaotic moments.

Why talk about this special kind of mechanism, which allows us to temporarily focus on stuff (like not tripping on the steps) that seems less important than, say, the flames licking our legs? Because one of the hallmarks of having/being AD/HD is a dawning conscious awareness of these internal processes, and that awareness can in turn affect how we respond even in ordinary circumstances.

Adders not only appear to have a few more attention processes (perhaps only one more) than normals, but we are slowly gaining control of the process of assigning them to a specific task. We’re new at this, and sometimes we don’t quite get it right. (And remember, tasks don’t really exist, anyway. Some fun.)

We don’t know what exactly to expect when ADDer’s try to concentrate during a brain scan. But we do know that it involves these high level neural mechanisms, and it would be unusual if the result was exactly the same as a normal’s response.

But we would expect some aspects of the neural activity to remain the same: if we watch the cupboard carefully, we’ll see the same soup can disappear regardless of whether I reach in a pick it up in the usual way, or my new dinner fixin’ robot snatches it up on its way to the strove.

Totally different mechanisms at work, but with the same goal and result on a higher level (having soup for dinner) and same observable effect on a lower level (the can sits in the cupboard now, and now it’s gone).

And if you were measuring my energy expenditure, you would see it decrease once the robot is introduced. That’s the point, isn’t it?

* * * * *

The question of how we’re accomplishing these tasks internally must be better addressed before we can interpret the scan results. We only stated that we know a more efficient structure is in use, and that it would be expected to require less energy for equivalent function.

We don’t know if that’s why the scans show less energy uptake under some conditions, and they don’t either. I think we ought to find out, don’t you?

Stabile
09-09-05, 12:04 PM
Stabile, you guys are definately way over my head, but on the surface one flaw that I see is that generally what brings folks with AD/HD in for treatment is not that their brain are working more efficiently utilizing less energy -- generally quite the opposite, they are less functional and alert mentally unless they are very stimulated by the activity (I would actually love to hear about a brain scan done while an ADDer was in hyperfocus mode). On a personal level, I've experienced a major decrease in function when asked to concentrate under pressure (especially time pressure), to the point where I can't read a map, fill out a basic form, or comprehend a test questions (I have two master's degrees and these activities are not beyond my normal functioning ability).

I do see advantages in the many connections the ADD mind is likely to make in the creative process and in long term memory, but I don't see that with the PET studies being discussed when the area being studied is concentration and glucose metabolism.

Scattered

Good points, but I doubt our stuff is as far over your head as you think.

The idea that some aspects of our normal brain function are handled by these more efficient structures is not directly coupled with the stuff you mention, like an inability to focus under some circumstances. In a way, the efficiency is just a side effect, although it does have some important implications down the line.

The impact of the use of these structures filters out to stuff like concentration through two effects. First, the operation of the structure itself is not identical, although it is wrong to think of this as a defect, because the overall function of a system built of these structures is guaranteed to be correct. The alternatives aren’t recognizable as such; everything would simply fail, and there would be no result, and no person, either.

Secondly, there are deeper implications to the use of the structure that occasionally cause us to make a decision that is unexpected (and thus wrong) to a person using the older normal structures.

It’s like this: you live near some caves, and know that when it rains you can run around a bit and find shelter without too much trouble, a place to wait out the storm before getting back to the business of finding dinner.

Then one day, for reasons you don’t understand, your vision begins to improve, until finally you can see there’s an umbrella vendor’s stand set up on the opposite side of the valley.

The next time it rains, you cross the valley, running away from the caves, and purchase an umbrella. And you stroll back to the vicinity of the caves, and continue your search for berries, protected from the storm.

This is not going to look like the expected normal behavior to your friends huddled in the caves, and by most measures might not be judged entirely sane. And as obvious as it seems to us now, it might take a while to catch on.

Our problems with having/being AD/HD are all double-edged in this way. Even where there’s an inherent advantage to a particular mode in which our brains seem to function, there are multiple disadvantages that accrue when it’s put to use.

Some of the measures of our ability to function (like your casual assessment of your own ability to concentrate under pressure) may be incorrectly applied in subtle ways.

Think of a test that times how quickly you find a cave when it starts to rain. The instant you snap open an umbrella, you fail. If you believe you’ve failed strongly enough, you might throw away the umbrella.

Other tests fail to judge our abilities in a similar way on many different levels. We have no difficulty recognizing that an experienced carpenter is a skilled craftsman, even though he is at present doing a butcher job on laying brick for his new fireplace.

He’s not a mason, he’s a carpenter, and part of our problem isn’t that we’re broke, but that the labels for what we’re good at haven’t been invented.

There’s a problem with that argument; for it to hold up, we must posit a special circumstance in which it is difficult or impossible for some reason for us to invent the right description of our particular craft, so that we may be recognized as skilled even though we might not be able to read a map under pressure.

And Occam’s Razor tells us that’s unlikely, because it’s a more complex explanation requiring an even more complex circumstance to occur. The simplest explanation is the most likely, and that’s the one that says we’re just not very good at doing normal stuff.

But Occam’s Razor is suspended under certain conditions, and we happen to have just those conditions in our own case. We didn’t set out to explain AD/HD; we set out to understand human communications, and in particular a problem in which it seems impossible to form words for a thing regardless of how long and hard we try.

The answer to our problem is also the answer to the problem of describing ADDers in a benevolent and respectful way, one that celebrates and engenders our unique abilities rather than (potentially) vilifying us.

This is intimately tied to the difference in the two types of logical structures in use in our brains, and in particular to the difference in how they hold and organize information, and how we access it. In a way, you can think of words as being restricted to the range of experience and understanding possible when using the older structures.

Carpentry and masonry are both accessible in terms of those older structures, so we have no difficulty describing both, and perceiving the bumbling carpenter as a skilled craftsman despite his poor attempt at laying brick.

But our ADDer abilities are (in part) due to the use of logical structures that by definition lie outside the range of any possible words. We literally can’t describe normal function and ADDer function on equal terms, like the carpenter and mason, and some of us wind up being a bit wounded by the experience.

It’s not a simple problem, and if we hadn’t backed into it with the unobvious and seemingly unlikely communications bits already in place, I wouldn’t buy it either.

We’re also suffering from the same exact problem of not having words to correctly express the concepts, and to tell the truth, we’re using a trick to sneak by. But it doesn’t work in the general case; sometimes it feels like we’re shouting through a hole in the wall.

So we have a tough job explaining these ideas sometimes, and that, more than anything else, might be why you think they seem a bit over your head.

I assure it’s not. It’s just a bit far out, and as such a bit complicated at first glance. And it requires the use of the web-like structures to talk about at all.

Think about that the next time you’re lookin’ in the mirror. (grins…)

--Tom

stanzen
09-09-05, 12:43 PM
The upshot is this: it seems premature to assume that any two individuals will have the same neural structures operating in their heads, simply because there is no research suggesting that similar logical structures are necessarily in use.
There is indirect evidence for this hypothesis of similarity. The work on recurrant syntatical structures across cultures and languages pioneered by Chompsky, for example.

If all humans share similar verbal structures that contain nouns, verbs, etc., in differnet cultures around the world, this would indicate similar underlying neurological structures. Similar forms arise from similar structures, in this case.

Nuanced human language, however, may integrate other parts of the brain and different neuro-networks beyond the fundamental language structures. Such nuances and integration may differ between individuals, but all humans use the fundamental verbal neurological structures to do language.

Many regions of the cortex have been mapped crudely. You can use glucose metabolism and positron emissions to show activity in a speech center.

While the brain is somewhat plastic, fundamental structures within the brain are not so variable. The sense of touch will map to the language centers when a blind person learns braille. You can show this on a brain scan.

But, I agree with Stabile to some extent, I don't think you can show the workings of the ADHD mind in brain scans, yet. But I do think real, identifyable differences exist between the brains of people with different flavors of ADHD and normal people (although each flavor may have its own source).

An analogy for scans:

Surgeons have heard patient complaints of back pain and followed up with xrays or spinal scans. They find something amiss; a compressed or leaky disk, a suspected entrapped nerve. They operated to correct the deficiency only to discover afterwards that the patient feels no relief.

Then, someone did a large blinded series of spinal scans on healthy and pained individuals. They found the statistical distribution of spinal abnormalities was similar between the pained and the healthy who did not complain of pain.

This result doesn't mean there is no difference or no organic source for complaints of back pain, but that the methods in use to identify the cause were useless, especially when no one considered what 'normal' spines might look like.

Brain scans have a similar problem. Not enough comparison data, not enough resolution and an unsophisticated tool.

But I do believe ADHD will someday resolve into identifiable structural (or neuro-transmitter) abnormailities (or differences) in the brain.

Scattered
09-09-05, 03:41 PM
But I do believe ADHD will someday resolve into identifiable structural (or neuro-transmitter) abnormailities (or differences) in the brain.Stan, I agree with this and I'm also sure your right that our sample of both normal and ADD brains are too limited to date.

Stabile, Thanks for your response. I'm understanding a bit more where you are coming from and am interested in understanding more. Your analogies are quite helpful in grasping the general concepts.

Scattered

Stabile
09-09-05, 05:27 PM
We said necessarily in use, in the sense that similar function must imply similar structure.

There is no such requirement in nature, nor does any research we know of suggest it. But it seems so self-evident that it’s difficult to get a decent discussion going about it.


While the brain is somewhat plastic, fundamental structures within the brain are not so variable. The sense of touch will map to the language centers when a blind person learns braille. You can show this on a brain scan…
This is the commonly accepted view, all right. But again, it hasn’t actually been established.

It sure seems like it makes sense, though, and that’s the problem we’re facing on every level.

The truth about the fundamental structures in the brain is that they don’t do anything like what we might expect; in fact, we’re certain the there is an additional layer of logic between the neural structures and the logical structures we’ve been trying to discuss.

A scan is assumed to show the neural activity underlying the logical activity associated with the high level behavior being studied, and that’s quite a stretch already.

But if the neural activity is actually supporting an emulation in which the logical activity in turn supports different logical activity which is ultimately responsible for the behavior of interest, there isn’t much hope of understanding the (supposed) chain of causal relationships that connect the image to the behavior.

But note that this circumstance would create the impression that the structures in our brains are pretty much similar in all individuals, exactly as you noted. In a sense you can think of the differences being hidden by the intermediate layer of logic; a ‘ghost’ brain within the physical brain does a lot of the work, and scans don’t show that at all.

If you’re curious as to why we posit this extra layer, it’s related to several observations, including the fact that real physical neurons can’t adapt quickly enough to serve as (for example) short term memory.

Chemistry is relatively slow. Logical models of chemistry operate at the speed of thought.


…Brain scans have a similar problem. Not enough comparison data, not enough resolution and an unsophisticated tool.
Good point. But we would add that the tool probably can’t be refined much beyond its current state. It’s firmly rooted in logical models that don’t support metalevels, and the walls are closing in.

An entirely new way of thinking about scans is necessary, one that models the problem with an awareness of the inherent metalevels.

The limitations (which appear as irresolvable ambiguity) of logical models that don’t incorporate metalevels can’t be overemphasized. Metalevels allow us to identify an infinite number of layers in our models; when we need finer resolution we can always add dimensions to accommodate it.

In contrast, models without metalevels are effectively limited to the projection of the metalevel enabled model onto a surface, like the shadow of a complex structure. Any element that lies in another’s shadow is indistinguishable in the projection.

We think this is a pretty cool analogy; it’s actually what’s going on in our heads when we experience ambiguity of this particular sort.

* * * * *

Note that your examples all address high level function that is directly due to activity in logical structures in the brain, not physical structures. Scans show the activity of the physical structures that support the logical structures, but again, there isn’t any particular reason to assume they necessarily imply similar function.

This has been a particular problem in linguistics, not made any easier by the fact that you can show a correlation between verbalization under controlled circumstances and particular neural activity, in particular regions that are roughly similar in most of us.

Chomsky considers the attempt to explain linguistics in terms of neural activity a waste of resources or worse. He did abandon his original approach of generative grammars in the late ‘90s, favoring a much more elegant black-box model with ‘switches’. Set the switches this way, and you have Japanese. Set them another way and you get Tagalog, and so on. The rest he considers hard-wired.

But he doesn’t consider the question of why the mechanism of ‘switches’ should exist, and I don’t believe he feels it’s appropriate to do so. It is an interesting problem: if the main bulk of the logical apparatus can converge on a single solution across a wide-spread population, why wouldn’t the switches settle into a single appropriate setting as well?

We might all speak something like modern French, and it’s hard to find a reasonable argument that would suggest such an arrangement wouldn’t work. So why switches, and different languages, if the rest of the system has managed to lock onto a single common solution without any trouble?

There is an answer, found in our work (of course), but it’s complicated by the fact that the linguistic faculty doesn’t exactly work the way it seems. By far the largest part of the business of acquiring language involves the structure of reality, in the form of the internal reality model in which we experience being.

We may be the only people so far to notice the fact that the bandwidth of the oral-aural channel is insufficient for the task at hand, by at least several orders of magnitude. If we were to actually transfer the information in any ordinary conversation, it would require years of careful listening.

How do we communicate, then? By having the conversation entirely within an internal reality, complete with models of all the participants, where there are no bandwidth restrictions to slow us down.

Of course we still need a way to extend the conversation to other real external participants, and so we have evolved a system of complex mechanisms that allow us to very precisely synchronize all of the individual versions of the conversation in each of the participants’ heads.

That’s probably not what you expected us to describe, but it does fit the requirements in quite a few important ways. And note how the experiment has changed: where we originally expected a scan to show brain activity related to forming sentences and so on, now most of the activity must be assumed to serve the purpose of establishing and maintaining this synchronization among the participants.

In absolute terms, researchers are probably setting their imagination way too low, in the sense that a particular amount of activity on a scan probably represents at least an order of magnitude more logical activity than they expect.

As far as the switches are concerned, they match nicely a property of neural structures that we first recognized fifteen years ago. Hierarchical neural structures represent a functional transform of the inputs on the outputs of arbitrary form; that is the definition of an arbitrary logical model, theoretically capable of representing anything.

These models are initially in a ‘blank’ state, really more of an average than a null (which relates directly to things like conventional standards of beauty, believe it or not). As the model is exercised, the state is modified until it converges on the final form, a representation that can be astonishingly accurate.

But there are restrictions on how that convergence occurs; the process must be limited to operations that can only improve the state, or there is a risk the model won’t converge at all, or worse, appear to converge on an incorrect state.

Neural networks in the brain are pretty good at converging and not messing up, but there is one flaw – a certain kind of ambiguity in the data while certain models are being developed can cause what we call bimodal convergence.

This simply means that there are two stable states that the network may take, and the process of convergence is data sensitive. If we start over here, we’ll converge in this state; but if we start over there, we’ll converge in a different (but still stable and useful) state.

Not long ago Kay realized that Chomsky’s switches are almost certainly the most common example of bimodal convergence. We exchanged emails with Chomsky about this, but he wasn’t very enthusiastic. In his opinion, it just didn’t seem relevant.

We have a different opinion, of course; we believe understanding the mechanism itself is superior to merely being able to predict the response of a black box, regardless of how accurate the prediction may be. The example of scans used for linguistic research is appropriate exactly because the interpretation of what the neural activity represents has so far been made without accounting for much of the work that must be done to complete even a simple sentence.

Again, we’re not criticizing the work of linguists, or saying that their models of language are wrong. What we’re trying to communicate is a sense of how vastly different the problem really is once you get into the realm of actual neurons. It’s not at all what our simplistic deterministic view of things like language and behavior (and even neurons) leads us to believe.

In many cases we’re probably looking for the wrong things, in the wrong places. The clues necessary to find the appropriate places are right there, stuff like applying information theory to the process of communicating with words. That in particular is not rocket science, yet nobody we’ve mentioned it to has seen fit to check it out.

That’s just another example for the foolish human tricks spotlight reel, in our opinion, and it’s hard to get too upset about it. But it would be nice to get over it and try to get some real work done.

In that respect, Chomsky was right. A lot of this is wasted effort, and will be until we get on the right track understanding how neural and logical structures really function.

Then we can start to figure out what scans are really showing us, and if some of it’s the differences that represent AD/HD, well, that’s OK with us. There isn’t really anything inherently wrong with being different, is there?

Oh well. Enough for now. Enough for later too. I think I’ll shut up for a while.

Good comments here lately, by the way. This has been fun.

--Tom & Kay

mctavish23
09-09-05, 06:14 PM
Those were all excellent posts. Right now, I think we're still in the Stone Age when it comes to understanding ADHD .The cool thing is that it keeps moving forward.

Garry
09-09-05, 10:56 PM
Theres nothing to understand

This is the way we were born
This is the way we are supposed to be
Its the rest of society that has ther head up there *********
as they are the ones
That cant accept us for what we are

mctavish23
09-10-05, 09:39 AM
That was very well said Gary.

It's like when someone comes in here or perhaps the ADD Support chat in Yahoo, and starts DEMANDING that we "prove ADHD exists" OR attacks existing research that is looked upon as "landmark."

You have to ask yourself a (rhetorical) question about their intent.If the tone remains critical and/or abrasvie, it's doubtful (but not impossible) that they're here to help further knowledge or offer support.

The reality is that this is THEIR PROBLEM and not ours.

The really manipulative thing about it is that in taking that approach (attacking us),it also helps keep us off balance so that they don't have to offer any evidence to the contrary (because there's not any).

I'm guilty of getting caught up in that. In fact, that's where :Here's the Proof " came from in the first place.

The thing to remember tho, is that if you score a slam dunk (by posting a response that answers the question in no uncertain terms and proves the point) on these people and they don't respond or simply re-post what you just posted,then you're not dealing with a rational person.

I've said this before, but by not responding to anything you posted (and re-posting what you just said is NOT a response because it doesn't address any of the the points you made), these people don't have to read the references and admit they're wrong;which they are.

Unfortunately, we've been bombarded by *******s for so long that we naturally take a defensive posture.

The satisfaction, however, is in making these people either leave or stfu.

In the process, the rest of the Forum can become better educated on the etiologies and (real) science behind ADHD. That way, they'll be better prepared if they have to defend themselves or their kids in any meetings, etc.

The people that do these types of things don't realize they're actually providing an "in vivo (real world experience)" demonstration of How To Handle Criticism's of ADHD.

That not only proves to be educational, it's also heuristic (serves to encourage discovery of problem solving), because it leads to looking up the "real" research and learning something as you proceed


take care
mcatvish23 (Robert).

Stabile
09-10-05, 09:49 AM
Well said, everybody. Hear, hear.

Nova
02-07-06, 11:56 AM
You guys all rock !
In all the ways you say it, elequont, scientific, or in just plain 'there it is'..
You just rock !!!

Focus88
04-18-06, 11:29 AM
This info is so helpful to me. I grow tired of my family treating me like a lazy parent who has just decided whimsically to have my kids pop pills. Thanks for sharing all of the info. I read lots and lots of books, but this boils it all down into something more valuable.

movingshadow
05-08-06, 03:36 PM
Theres nothing to understand

This is the way we were born
This is the way we are supposed to be
Its the rest of society that has ther head up there *********
as they are the ones
That cant accept us for what we are
Garry I am glad to see I am not the only one who sees it this way.
We are stigmatized to believe and waste our times trying to figure something out that is using the wrong perspective to study it with.

LostNoMore
05-10-06, 01:30 AM
Hello All,

On Good Friday my partner of ten years broke up with me saying, "Baby - I am so sorry this had to happen this way -- please take this as a chance to do the right thing -- Love --Me"

Over the course of that night I decided that I wanted her back. I also decided that in order to do that I would need to change. I had known I had ADHD for years but had never sought out any type of help or treatment. I also never really educated myself as to what ADHD really was other than a few basics and that I had been diagnosed with it. Well, the last month has been one of some major ups and downs, discovery, education, medication and quite a few changes. I still hope that she will be able to heal. I still hope that we will be able to spend the rest of our lives together. No matter what though, I will never ever be the same person again. And, with her or without her I will be a better person because of it. Heh, when you can think of the worse possible crazy depressed drugged angry money spending ADHD poster child out there, you'd be thinking of me. Or at least the person I was....

I am now on Strattera and must be one of the very few lucky ones because, so far, I would fight tooth and nail to stay on this medicine. I actually have finger nails for the first time in 37 years!!! And so far none of the side effects. Well not sure about the sex ones since I'm not having any heh but anyways... The ammount of impulse controle I have, though not perfect, is way way WAY more than I have ever had before...

The darn thing is I am from the Washington D.C. area and for the last two weeks and for the next one to two months I am in Denver, CO for work. My Father took pity on me and hired me and brought me ought here to help him. Even though he is helping and he is err somewhat supportive I really have no friends or real support out here at all. So I took to the net and consider myself very lucky to have found this board.

So that's my introduction. I'm sure we'll talk more about me and my issues with ADHD as time goes by. I started reading this thread and felt that some info I had recently come accross on another site would fit right in. So, here is the Consensus Statement:

Oh and thanks for taking the time to listen :)

Eric

International Consensus Statement on ADHD
Mainstream media coverage about attention deficit hyperactivity disorder has historically been biased, full of misinformation and heavily influenced by anti-psychiatry groups.


In response to this unfortunate trend, Dr. Russell Barkley and 74 other prominent medical doctors and researchers in AD/HD issued the following statement.

January 2002

We, the undersigned consortium of 75 international scientists, are deeply concerned about the periodic inaccurate portrayal of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) in media reports. This is a disorder with which we are all very familiar and toward which many of us have dedicated scientific studies if not entire careers. We fear that inaccurate stories rendering ADHD as myth, fraud, or benign condition may cause thousands of sufferers not to seek treatment for their disorder. It also leaves the public with a general sense that this disorder is not valid or real or consists of a rather trivial affliction.

We have created this consensus statement on ADHD as a reference on the status of the scientific findings concerning this disorder, its validity, and its adverse impact on the lives of those diagnosed with the disorder as of this writing (January 2002).

Occasional coverage of the disorder casts the story in the form of a sporting event with evenly matched competitors. The views of a handful of non-expert doctors that ADHD does not exist are contrasted against mainstream scientific views that it does, as if both views had equal merit. Such attempts at balance give the public the impression that there is substantial scientific disagreement over whether ADHD is a real medical condition. In fact, there is no such disagreement --at least no more so than there is over whether smoking causes cancer, for example, or whether a virus causes HIV/AIDS.

The U.S. Surgeon General, the American Medical Association (AMA), the American Psychiatric Association, the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry (AACAP), the American Psychological Association, and the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), among others, all recognize ADHD as a valid disorder. While some of these organizations have issued guidelines for evaluation and management of the disorder for their membership, this is the first consensus statement issued by an independent consortium of leading scientists concerning the status of the disorder. Among scientists who have devoted years, if not entire careers, to the study of this disorder there is no controversy regarding its existence.

ADHD and Science

We cannot over emphasize the point that, as a matter of science, the notion that ADHD does not exist is simply wrong. All of the major medical associations and government health agencies recognize ADHD as a genuine disorder because the scientific evidence indicating it is so is overwhelming.

Various approaches have been used to establish whether a condition rises to the level of a valid medical or psychiatric disorder. A very useful one stipulates that there must be scientifically established evidence that those suffering the condition have a serious deficiency in or failure of a physical or psychological mechanism that is universal to humans. That is, all humans normally would be expected, regardless of culture, to have developed that mental ability.

And there must be equally incontrovertible scientific evidence that this serious deficiency leads to harm to the individual. Harm is established through evidence of increased mortality, morbidity, or impairment in the major life activities required of one's developmental stage in life. Major life activities are those domains of functioning such as education, social relationships, family functioning, independence and self-sufficiency, and occupational functioning that all humans of that developmental level are expected to perform.

As attested to by the numerous scientists signing this document, there is no question among the world's leading clinical researchers that ADHD involves a serious deficiency in a set of psychological abilities and that these deficiencies pose serious harm to most individuals possessing the disorder. Current evidence indicates that deficits in behavioral inhibition and sustained attention are central to this disorder -- facts demonstrated through hundreds of scientific studies. And there is no doubt that ADHD leads to impairments in major life activities, including social relations, education, family functioning, occupational functioning, self-sufficiency, and adherence to social rules, norms, and laws. Evidence also indicates that those with ADHD are more prone to physical injury and accidental poisonings. This is why no professional medical, psychological, or scientific organization doubts the existence of ADHD as a legitimate disorder.

The central psychological deficits in those with ADHD have now been linked through numerous studies using various scientific methods to several specific brain regions (the frontal lobe, its connections to the basal ganglia, and their relationship to the central aspects of the cerebellum). Most neurological studies find that as a group those with ADHD have less brain electrical activity and show less reactivity to stimulation in one or more of these regions. And neuro-imaging studies of groups of those with ADHD also demonstrate relatively smaller areas of brain matter and less metabolic activity of this brain matter than is the case in control groups used in these studies.

These same psychological deficits in inhibition and attention have been found in numerous studies of identical and fraternal twins conducted across various countries (US, Great Britain, Norway, Australia, etc.) to be primarily inherited. The genetic contribution to these traits is routinely found to be among the highest for any psychiatric disorder (70-95% of trait variation in the population), nearly approaching the genetic contribution to human height. One gene has recently been reliably demonstrated to be associated with this disorder and the search for more is underway by more than 12 different scientific teams worldwide at this time.

Numerous studies of twins demonstrate that family environment makes no significant separate contribution to these traits. This is not to say that the home environment, parental management abilities, stressful life events, or deviant peer relationships are unimportant or have no influence on individuals having this disorder, as they certainly do. Genetic tendencies are expressed in interaction with the environment. Also, those having ADHD often have other associated disorders and problems, some of which are clearly related to their social environments. But it is to say that the underlying psychological deficits that comprise ADHD itself are not solely or primarily the result of these environmental factors.

This is why leading international scientists, such as the signers below, recognize the mounting evidence of neurological and genetic contributions to this disorder. This evidence, coupled with countless studies on the harm posed by the disorder and hundreds of studies on the effectiveness of medication, buttresses the need in many, though by no means all, cases for management of the disorder with multiple therapies. These include medication combined with educational, family, and other social accommodations. This is in striking contrast to the wholly unscientific views of some social critics in periodic media accounts that ADHD constitutes a fraud, that medicating those afflicted is questionable if not reprehensible, and that any behavior problems associated with ADHD are merely the result of problems in the home, excessive viewing of TV or playing of video games, diet, lack of love and attention, or teacher/school intolerance.

ADHD is not a benign disorder. For those it afflicts, ADHD can cause devastating problems. Follow-up studies of clinical samples suggest that sufferers are far more likely than normal people to drop out of school (32-40%), to rarely complete college (5-10%), to have few or no friends (50-70%), to under perform at work (70-80%), to engage in antisocial activities (40-50%), and to use tobacco or illicit drugs more than normal. Moreover, children growing up with ADHD are more likely to experience teen pregnancy (40%) and sexually transmitted diseases (16%), to speed excessively and have multiple car accidents, to experience depression (20-30%) and personality disorders (18-25%) as adults, and in hundreds of other ways mismanage and endanger their lives.

Yet despite these serious consequences, studies indicate that less than half of those with the disorder are receiving treatment. The media can help substantially to improve these circumstances. It can do so by portraying ADHD and the science about it as accurately and responsibly as possible while not purveying the propaganda of some social critics and fringe doctors whose political agenda would have you and the public believe there is no real disorder here. To publish stories that ADHD is a fictitious disorder or merely a conflict between today's Huckleberry Finns and their caregivers is tantamount to declaring the earth flat, the laws of gravity debatable, and the periodic table in chemistry a fraud. ADHD should be depicted in the media as realistically and accurately as it is depicted in science -- as a valid disorder having varied and substantial adverse impact on those who may suffer from it through no fault of their own or their parents and teachers.

Sincerely, Russell A. Barkley, Ph.D.
Professor
Depts. Of Psychiatry and Neurology
University of Massachusetts Medical School
55 Lake Avenue North
Worcester, MA 01655

Edwin H. Cook, Jr., M.D.
Professor
Departments of Psychiatry and Pediatrics
University of Chicago
5841 S. Maryland Ave.
Chicago, IL

Mina Dulcan, M.D.
Professor
Department of Child and Adolescent
Psychiatry
2300 Children’s Plaza #10
Children’s Memorial Hospital
Chicago, IL 60614

Susan Campbell, Ph.D.
Professor
Department of Psychology
4015 O’Hara Street
University of Pittsburgh
Pittsburgh, PA 15260

Margot Prior, Ph.D.
Professor
Department of Psychology
Royal Children’s Hospital
Parkville, 3052 VIC
Australia


Marc Atkins, Ph.D.
Associate Professor
University of Illinois at Chicago
Institute for Juvenile Research
Department of Psychiatry
840 South Wood Street, Suite 130
Chicago, IL 60612-7347

Christopher Gillberg, M.D.
Professor
Department of Child and Adolescent
Psychiatry
University of Gothenberg
Gothenberg, Sweden

Mary Solanto-Gardner, Ph.D.
Associate Professor
Division of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry
The Mt. Sinai Medical Center
One Gustave L. Levy Place
New York, NY 10029-6574

Jeffrey Halperin, Ph.D.
Professor,
Department of Psychology
Queens College, CUNY
65-30 Kissena Ave.
Flushing, NY 11367

Jose J. Bauermeister, Ph.D.
Professor,
Department of Psychology
University of Puerto Rico
San Juan, PR 00927

Steven R. Pliszka, M.D.
Associate Professor and Chief
Division of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry
University of Texas Health Sciences Center
7703 Floyd Curl Drive
San Antonio, TX 78229-3900

Mark A. Stein, Ph.D.
Chair of Psychology
Children’s National Medical Center and
Professor of Psychiatry & Pediatrics
George Washington Univ. Med. School
111 Michigan Ave. NW
Washington, DC 20010


John S. Werry, M.D.
Professor Emeritus
Department of Psychiatry
University of Auckland
Auckland, New Zealand

Joseph Sergeant, Ph.D.
Chair of Clinical Neuropsychology
Free University
Van der Boecharst Straat 1
De Boelenlaan 1109
1018 BT Amsterdam
The Netherlands

Ronald T. Brown, Ph.D.
Associate Dean, College of Health Professions
Professor of Pediatrics
Medical University of South Carolina
19 Hagood Avenue
P. O. Box 250822
Charleston, SC 29425

Alan Zametkin, M.D.
Child Psychiatrist
Kensington, MD

Arthur D. Anastopoulos, Ph.D.
Professor, Co-Director of Clinical Training
Department of Psychology
University of North Carolina at Greensboro
P. O. Box 26164
Greensboro, NC 27402-6164

James J. McGough, M.D.
Associate Professor of Clinical Psychiatry
UCLA School of Medicine
760 Westwood Plaza
Los Angeles, CA 90024

George J. DuPaul, Ph.D.
Professor of School Psychology
Lehigh University
111 Research Drive, Hilltop Campus
Bethlehem, PA 18015

Stephen V. Faraone, Ph.D.
Associate Professor of Psychology
Harvard University
750 Washington St., Suite 255
South Easton, MA 02375

Florence Levy, M.D.
Associate Professor
School of Psychiatry
University of New South Wales
Avoca Clinic
Joynton Avenue
Zetland, NSW, 2017, Australia

Mariellen Fischer, Ph.D.
Professor,
Department of Neurology
Medical College of Wisconsin
9200 W. Wisconsin Avenue
Milwaukee, WI 53226

Joseph Biederman, M.D.
Professor and Chief
Joint Program in Pediatric
Psychopharmacology
Massachusetts General Hospital and
Harvard Medical School
15 Parkman St., WACC725
Boston, MA 02114

Cynthia Hartung, Ph.D.
Postdoctoral Fellow
Department of Psychology
Department of Psychology
University of Denver
2155 S. Race St.
Denver, CO 80208

Stephen Houghton, Ph.D.
Professor of Psychology
Director, Centre for Attention & Related Disorders
The University of Western Australia
Perth, Australia

Gabrielle Carlson, M.D.
Professor and Director,
Division of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry
State University of New York at Stony Brook, Putnam Hall
Stony Brook, NY 11794

Charlotte Johnston, Ph.D.
Professor
Department of Psychology
University of British Columbia
2136 West Mall
Vancouver, BC, Canada V6T 1Z4

Thomas Spencer, M.D.
Associate Professor and Assistant
Director, Pediatric Psychopharmacology
Harvard Medical School and
Massachusetts General Hospital
15 Parkman St., WACC725
Boston, MA 02114

Thomas Joiner, Ph.D.
The Bright-Burton Professor of Psychology
Florida State University
Tallahassee, FL 32306-1270

Rosemary Tannock, Ph.D.
Professor of Psychiatry,
Brain and Behavior Research
Hospital for Sick Children
55 University Avenue
Toronto, Ontario, Canada M5G 1X8

Adele Diamond, Ph.D.
Professor of Psychiatry
Director, Center for Developmental
Cognitive Neuroscience
University of Massachusetts Medical School
Shriver Center
Trapelo Rd.
Waltham, MA

Carol Whalen, Ph.D.
Professor
Department of Psychology and Social Behavior
University of California at Irvine
3340 Social Ecology II
Irvine, CA 02215

Stephen P. Hinshaw, Ph.D.
Professor,
Department of Psychology #1650
University of California at Berkeley
3210 Tolman Hall
Berkeley, CA 94720-1650

Herbert Quay, Ph.D.
Professor Emeritus
University of Miami
2525 Gulf of Mexico Drive, #5C
Long Boat Key, FL 34228

John Piacentini, Ph.D.
Associate Professor
Department of Psychiatry
UCLA Neuropsychiatric Institute
760 Westwood Plaza
Los Angeles, CA 90024-1759

Philip Firestone, Ph.D.
Professor
Departments of Psychology & Psychiatry
University of Ottawa
120 University Priv.
Ottawa, Canada K1N 6N5

Salvatore Mannuzza, M.D.
Research Professor of Psychiatry
New York University School of Medicine
550 First Avenue
New York, NY 10016

Howard Abikoff, Ph.D.
Pevaroff Cohn Professor of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry
NYU School of Medicine
Director of Research
NYU Child Study Center
550 First Avenue
New York, NY 10016

Keith McBurnett, Ph.D.
Associate Professor
Department of Psychiatry
University of California at San Francisco
Children’s Center at Langley Porter
401 Parnassus Avenue, Box 0984
San Francisco, CA 94143

Linda Pfiffner, Ph.D.
Associate Professor
Department of Psychiatry
University of California at San Francisco
Children’s Center at Langley Porter
401 Parnassus Avenue, Box 0984
San Francisco, CA 94143

Oscar Bukstein, M.D.
Associate Professor
Department of Psychiatry
Western Psychiatric Institute and Clinic
3811 O’Hara Street
Pittsburgh, PA 15213

Ken C. Winters, Ph.D.
Associate Professor
Director, Center for Adolescent Substance Abuse Research
Department of Psychiatry
University of Minnesota
F282/2A West, 2450 Riverside Ave.
Minneapolis, MN 55454

Michelle DeKlyen, Ph.D.
Office of Population Research
Princeton University
286 Wallace
Princeton, NJ 08544

Lily Hechtman M.D. F.R.C.P.
Professor of Psychiatry and Pediatrics,
Director of Research,
Division of Child Psychiatry,
McGill University, and
Montreal Childrens Hospital.
4018 St. Catherine St. West.,
Montreal, Quebec, Canada. H3Z-1P2

Caryn Carlson, Ph.D.
Professor
Department of Psychology
University of Texas at Austin
Mezes 330
Austin, TX 78712

Donald R. Lynam, Ph.D.
Associate Professor
University of Kentucky
Department of Psychology
125 Kastle Hall
Lexington, KY 40506-0044

Patrick H. Tolan Ph.D.
Director, Institute for Juvenile Research
Professor, Department of Psychiatry
University of Illinois at Chicago
840 S. Wood Street
Chicago, IL 60612

Jan Loney, Ph.D.
Professor Emeritus
State University of New York at Stony Brook
Lodge Associates (Box 9)
Mayslick, KY 41055

Harold S. Koplewicz,M.D.
Arnold and Debbie Simon Professor of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry and Director of the NYU Child Study Center

Richard Milich, Ph.D.
Professor of Psychology
Department of Psychology
University of Kentucky
Lexington, KY 40506-0044

Laurence Greenhill, M.D.
Professor of Clinical Psychiatry
Columbia University
Director, Research Unit on Pediatric Psychopharmacology
New York State Psychiatric Institute
1051 Riverside Drive
New York, NY 10032

Eric J. Mash, Ph.D.
Professor
Department of Psychology
University of Calgary
2500 University Drive N.W.
Calgary, Alberta T2N 1N4

Russell Schachar, M.D.
Professor of Psychiatry
Hospital for Sick Children
555 University Avenue
Toronto, Ontario
Canada M5G 1X8

Eric Taylor
Professor of Psychiatry
Institute of Psychiatry
London, England

Betsy Hoza, Ph.D.
Associate Professor
Department of Psychology, #1364
Purdue University
West Lafayette, IN 47907-1364

Mark. D. Rapport, Ph.D.
Professor and Director of Clinical Training
Department of Psychology
P.O. Box 161390
University of Central Florida
Orlando, Florida 32816-1390

Bruce Pennington, Ph.D.
Professor
Department of Psychology
University of Denver
2155 south Race Street
Denver, CO 80208

Anita Thapar MB BCh, MRCPsych, PhD
Professor,
Child and Adolescent Psychiatry Section
Dept of Psychological Medicine
University of Wales College of Medicine
Heath Park, Cardiff
CF14 4XN United Kingdom

Ann Teeter, Ph.D.
Associate Professor
Department of Psychology
University of Wisconsin – Milwaukee
Milwaukee, WI 53201

Stephen Shapiro, Ph.D.
Department of Psychology
Auburn University
226 Thach
Auburn, AL 36849-5214

Avi Sadeh, D.Sc
Director, Clinical Child Psychology
Graduate Program
Director, The Laboratory for Children's Sleep Disorders
Department of Psychology
Tel-Aviv University
Ramat Aviv, Tel Aviv 69978
ISRAEL

Bennett L. Leventhal, M.D.
Irving B. Harris Professor of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry
Director, Child & Adolescent Psychiatry
Vice Chairman, Dept. of Psychiatry
The University of Chicago
5841 S. Maryland Ave.
Chicago, IL 60637

Hector R. Bird, M.D.
Professor of Clinical Psychiatry
Columbia University
College of Physicians and Surgeons
1051 Riverside Drive (Unit 78)
New York, NY 10032

Carl E. Paternite, Ph.D.
Professor of Psychology
Miami University
Oxford, OH 45056

Mary A. Fristad, PhD, ABPP
Professor, Psychiatry & Psychology
Director, Research & Psychological Services
Division of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry
The Ohio State University
1670 Upham Drive Suite 460G
Columbus, OH 43210-1250

Brooke Molina, Ph.D.
Assistant Professor of Psychiatry and Psychology
Western Psychiatric Institute and Clinic
University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine
3811 O'Hara Street
Pittsburgh, PA 15213

Sheila Eyberg, PhD, ABPP
Professor of Clinical &Health Psychology
Box 100165
1600 SW Archer Blvd.
University of Florida
Gainesville, FL 32610

Rob McGee,PhD
Associate Professor,
Department of Preventive & Social Medicine,
University of Otago Medical School,
Box 913 Dunedin,
New Zealand.

Terri L. Shelton, Ph.D.
Director
Center for the Study of Social Issues
University of North Carolina – Greensboro
Greensboro, NC 27402

Steven W. Evans, Ph.D.
Associate Professor of Psychology
MSC 1902
James Madison University
Harrisonburg, VA 22807

Sandra K. Loo, Ph.D.
Research Psychologist
University of California, Los Angeles
Neuropsychiatric Institute
760 Westwood Plaza, Rm 47-406
Los Angeles, CA 90024

William Pelham, Jr., Ph.D.
Professor of Psychology
Center Children and Families
State University of New York at Buffalo
318 Diefendorf Hall
3435 Main Street, Building 20
Buffalo, NY 14214

J. Bart Hodgens, Ph.D.
Clinical Assistant Professor of Psychology and Pediatrics
Civitan International Research Center
University of Alabama at Birmingham
Birmingham, AL 35914

Terje Sagvolden, Ph.D.
Professor
Department of Physiology
University of Oslo
N-0316 Oslo, Norway

Thomas E. Brown, Ph.D.
Asst. Professor
Dept. of Psychiatry
Yale University School of Medicine
New Haven, CT

Daniel F. Connor, M.D.
Associate Professor
Department of Psychiatry
University of Massachusetts Medical School
55 Lake Avenue North
Worcester, MA 01655

Daniel A. Waschbusch, Ph.D.
Assistant Professor of Psychology
Director, Child Behaviour Program
Department of Psychology
Dalhousie University
Halifax, NS B3H 4R1 CANADA

Kevin R. Murphy, Ph.D.
Assistant Professor
Dept. of Psychiatry
University of Massachusetts Medical School
55 Lake Avenue North
Worcester, MA 01655

Michael Aman, Ph.D.
Professor of Psychology and Psychiatry
The Nisonger Center
Ohio State University
1581 Dodd Drive
Columbus, Ohio, U.S.A.

Blythe Corbett, Ph.D.
M.I.N.D. Institute
University of California, Davis
4860 Y Street, Suite 3020
Sacramento, CA 95817

Deborah L. Anderson, Ph.D.
Assistant Professor
Department Pediatrics
Medical University of South Carolina
Charleston, SC 29425

Lisa L. Weyandt, Ph.D.
Professor, Dept. of Psychology
Central Washington University
400 East 8th Avenue
Ellensburg, WA 98926-7575

Michael Gordon, Ph.D.
Professor of Psychiatry
Director, Child & Adolescent Psychiatric
Services, & Director, ADHD Program
SUNY Upstate Medical University
750 East Adams Street
Syracuse, NY 13210

Lawrence Lewandowski, Ph.D.
Meredith Professor of Teaching Excellence
Department of Psychology
Syracuse University
Syracuse, NY

Erik Willcutt, Ph.D.
Assistant Professor
Department of Psychology
Muenzinger Hall D-338
345 UCB
University of Colorado
Boulder, CO 80309

Thomas M. Lock, M.D.
Associate Professor of Clinical Pediatrics
Acting Chief, Division of Developmental
Pediatrics and Rehabilitation
Acting Director, Robert Warner Rehabilitation Center
State University of New York at Buffalo School of Medicine and Biomedical Sciences
936 Delaware Ave.
Buffalo, NY 14209

melv
06-06-06, 12:55 PM
I was just moving my car and my husband keeps it on AM radio - Rush Limbaugh (sp?) was on. and right as i turned the car on he's saying "ADD DOESN'T EXIST!" something to the effect of it was invented by drug companies and parents who don't want to deal with normal little boys, and adults who want something to blame their "road rage" on. ???? Also said there's scientific evidence because there's money in doing research studies. maybe im just ridiculously biased because I pretty much take anything he says as a load of you-know-what ... but ughhhhhh

Hyperion
06-06-06, 04:54 PM
Well, Rush Limbaugh certainly knows a thing or two about prescription drugs. He's also a hypocrite, as he believes that all drug addicts should be thrown in jail...except for him, he deserves treatment.

I think the fact that the two most prominent anti-ADD people out there are Tom Cruise and Rush Limbaugh pretty much says all you need to know about people with that viewpoint.

Crazy~Feet
06-06-06, 05:04 PM
That Rush Limbaugh idea just made me think, once again, that every time I see Carlos Mencia I think "This dude is LOADED with ADD" and his humor cracks me up...yet I am terrified to contact him in any way about that lest he find a way to work ADD into his routine in a negative way. Then I would have to get annoyed and stop watching his show ;).

And now back to your regularly scheduled thread.

meadd823
07-10-06, 12:50 PM
I think the fact that the two most prominent anti-ADD people out there are Tom Cruise and Rush Limbaugh pretty much says all you need to know about people with that viewpoint.



:D :rolleyes: :p

Most execellent point!

mctavish23
08-28-06, 12:13 AM
The International Consensus 2002 is THE definitive research article on the existence of ADHD as a real disorder.

Thanks for posting it.

Nice 2 cya'll. Just passing thru.Am still alive & well.

tc
mctavish23
(Robert)

Nova
08-30-06, 09:50 AM
It's awesome to know you're doing well, McT, and see you on here, even if it's briefly.

I'm always wishing you well.

E-boy
08-30-06, 11:13 AM
I have a warm fuzzy feeling and I haven't even been drinking!

scuro
08-30-06, 04:27 PM
Heres one thing we can all agree about, McT is the best.

Scattered
08-30-06, 06:17 PM
Heres one thing we can all agree about, McT is the best.Ditto to that! Always nice to see you posting McT!:)

Scattered

captainkirk
08-31-06, 01:46 PM
Just been back from seeing my doctor again, having had to take him by the nose through the recommended doses for Strattera and get him to up my dose from 40 to 80 (day 30 on 40mg, not much yet, should I keep going up?). He has already told me this is the first time he's come across an adult with an ADHD diagnosis (this is one I fought for against all the prejudice here 10 years ago, when I was 28 and in a break up like Lostnomore, but later 'shelved' because the ritalin didn't work and i didn't like defining myself as someone with a disorder). The psychiatrist with whom he has 'shared care' over me (the UK system - which applies in this part of Ireland - requires 'Shared care' between a psychiatrist and General Practitioner (GP)), is not much better - he has been reluctant to see me (this is the public health system, so they prioritise 'real' illnesses) and, in spite of a diagnosis made by one of his colleagues in Dublin, has indicated his skepticism over this, citing an opinion by another from 11 years ago that I may have a 'personality disorder' (which one is unspecified). It seems therefore that I am taking Strattera only because this guy is humouring me. Both the GP and the Psychiatrist in my case have little Rush Lymbaughs in their heads it seems! If I am right about being 'humoured' it means that if the Strattera doesn't work for me It's going to mean re-evaluating for ADHD before I can try another treatment. A pain in the ****!

Anyway your posts are very helpful for me in being able to produce hard evidence for these flat-earthers. Any pointers anyone to tests for ADHD in neuroscience? (any breakthroughs in neurology, neuropsychiatry, neuropsychology etc which could demonstrate that ADHD is what I have?). Sorry for the disorganised thoughts, but, em, you know...

Scattered
08-31-06, 03:00 PM
Anyway your posts are very helpful for me in being able to produce hard evidence for these flat-earthers. Any pointers anyone to tests for ADHD in neuroscience? (any breakthroughs in neurology, neuropsychiatry, neuropsychology etc which could demonstrate that ADHD is what I have?). Sorry for the disorganised thoughts, but, em, you know...Sorry for the hassles with your doctor. I understand they're coming close to a diagnositic type SPECT and PET scan thingy but I don't think it's on the market yet.


...and now the real possibly of brain scans not only to learn but objectively diagnosis ADHD.http://www.news-medical.net/?id=19410

Quote:
<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=6 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD class=alt2 style="BORDER-RIGHT: 1px inset; BORDER-TOP: 1px inset; BORDER-LEFT: 1px inset; BORDER-BOTTOM: 1px inset">Boston Life Sciences announces issuance of U.S. patent for methods to diagnose ADHD


Boston Life Sciences has announced that the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office has issued a patent to the President and Fellows of Harvard College, the General Hospital Corporation and Organix that covers methods of diagnosing and monitoring attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) by assessing the level of dopamine transporter (DAT) in at least one region of a patient's central nervous system.

The patent is exclusively licensed to BLSI under a worldwide licensing arrangement between BLSI and Harvard University. The patent is based on the work of the inventors, Dr. Bertha Madras of Harvard, Dr. Peter Meltzer of Organix, Inc., and Dr. Alan Fischman of Massachusetts General Hospital. Both Dr. Fischman and Dr. Meltzer serve as advisors to BLSI. The patent claims a variety of diagnostic and monitoring methods for assessing ADHD utilizing labeled compounds that bind to the dopamine transporter and are measured using any imaging technique including single photon emission computed tomography (SPECT) and positron emission tomography (PET). An example of a compound covered by the patent is the Company's ALTROPANE(R) molecular imaging agent currently in Phase II clinical trials as an aid to ADHD diagnosis. The Company is currently analyzing imaging results and clinical data, both of which were obtained from patients enrolled to-date, to verify findings in prior studies and ensure that the trial design and quantification algorithms are appropriate.

In addition to methods used to objectively diagnose ADHD in adults or children, the patent covers methods that could enable physicians to determine the most effective ADHD drug treatment and/or dosage level for an individual patient, monitor the long-term progress of treatment for ADHD, and aid in identifying individuals at risk for ADHD.

Mark Hurtt, BLSI's Chief Medical Officer, comments, "The use of imaging techniques and dopamine transporter specific imaging agents has the potential to provide an objective, biologically-based diagnosis for ADHD. We are very pleased with the potential scope of this patent. We believe that the new patent enhances our position in this significant area of medical need. According to the Centers for Disease Control, between 3% and 7% of school-aged children and 2 to 4% of adults have been diagnosed with ADHD. We believe that imaging agents may assist physicians in confirming a diagnosis, resolving conflicting diagnoses, calling into question a diagnosis or non-diagnosis of ADHD, or selecting medication."
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
For the moment, as far as I know, the individual's history is still the best tool in the hands of someone who understand Adult ADD (I know that's where the trouble lies, eh -- finding that practioner). Hope Strattera works well for you.

Even with a valid diagnosis of ADHD a 30 + percent of folks are considered non responders (not a significant enough improvement in their symptoms or they can't tolerate the medication). I recently got a book that comes very highly recommended by Russell Barkley one of the leaders in the field of ADHD called Mastering Your Adult ADHD: A Cognitive-Behavioral Treatment Program --Client Workbook. It can be used to maximize your results with medication or "for the 50 percent of individuals who derive relativelylittle benefit fom medication, this program may be sufficient. -- David Barlow, Editor-in-Chief, Treatments That Work.

Russell Barkley says of it, "This is groundbreaking work...In this manual, patients will find highly useful information about the disorder, and just as important, scientifically proven tactics for dealing with their ADHD symptoms and assoicated impairments. Thank you, Drs. Safred, Sprich, Perlman, and Otto."

Nice to have another tool available in addition to psychotherapy and medication.

Take care,

Scattered

meadd823
09-04-06, 12:31 AM
Heres one thing we can all agree about, McT is the best.

Okay this this three times in one day I have agreed with you this could be a frightening trend. . . . should we head for the bomb shelters yet. :p

McT it is good to see you!

AndreaPurple
01-08-07, 11:16 AM
Ok, this is why I could not be a scientist or a debater.....I do not have a clue what any of this says.........
I know what the bottom line is, but how can anyone follow any of this, it makes my head spin.
This is the kind of stuff that makes me feel inferior:( ...........

The exact etiology of ADHD is unknown. No one is claiming to know that, at least not right now. However, in regards to statements about there being "no scientific basis"(/B) for these disorders,

Here's the "proof" : These are ALL from unrestricted research grants published in (the cream of the crop) peer reviewed journals.

1) The neurobiological nature of ADHD.....THE PROOF YOU SAY DOESNT EXIST: was conclusively proven in the 1990 landmark glucose brainscan research study published in the New England Journal of Medicine....


Zametkin,A.J.,Nordahl,T.E.,Gross,M.,King,A.K.,Semp le,W.E.,Rumsey,J.,Hamburger,S.,& Cohen,R.M.(1990) Cerebral glucose metabolism in adults with hyperactivity of childhood onset. The New England Journal of Medicine,323,(30).1361-1366.

The "proof" is in the PET scans that showed that the harder a person with ADHD concentrated the "slower" their brain went vs the exact opposite for the non ADHD group. However, that was remedied when the ADHD subjects took stimulant medication.

THE definitive study proving the existence of ADHD as a "real" disorder;signed off on by over 80 of the world's leading scientists (with over 19 pages of references) is :

Consortium of international scientists:International Consensus Statement on ADHD, January 2002. (http://www.chadd.org (http://www.chadd.org/)). It can also be viewed at Russell Barkley's website.


You can turn to pages 22-24 of Sandra Rief's 2003 book.............The ADHD Book of Lists ....................to find the section (1-7) WHAT THE RESEARCH IS REVEALING ABOUT ADHD

Within that section is the reference for the Landmark MTA Study:

"There has been significant research with regards to treatments for ADHD and their relative effectiveness. The longest and most thorough study of the effects of ADHD interventions was the 1999 Multimodal Treatment Study of Children with ADHD (MTA) by the National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH).

MTA Cooperative Group" A 14-month Randomized Clinincal Trial of Treatment Strategies for AD/HD,"Archives of General Psychiatry,[I] 56:1073-1086;1999.

ADHD is primarily thought to be largely (80%) genetic/inherited.THE GENETIC LANDMARK FOR ADHD WAS FOUND IN 995. That study is as follows:


Cook,et.al.,(1995) Association of attention-deficit disorder and the dopamine transporter gene.American Journal of Human Genetics,56.993-998.

The US Surgeon General's Report on Mental Health: Chapter 3: Disorders of Infancy, Childhood & Adolescence has excellent background info supporting in great detail (with another 19 pages of scientific references).Here's a small segment on what I'm talking about:
" The exact etiology of ADHD is unknown,although neurotransmitter deficits,genetics and perinatal complications have been implicated." It goes on to say:

"Research to pinpoint abnormal genes is honing in on 2 genes;a dopamine receptor gene (DRD) gene on chromosome 11 and the dopamine -transporter gene (DAT1) on chromosome 5 (Cook,et.al.,1995:Smalley,et.al.;1998).

The latter reference is : Smalley,et.at.(1998) Evidence that the dopamine D4 receptor is a succeptibility gene in attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder,Molecular Psychiatry,3,427-430.

Recently (3/25/05), I participated in a teleconference on ADHD in children put on by United Behavioral Health (UBH: a managed care company). The presenter was Russell Barkley, PhD. He is largely viewed as the world's leading researcher on ADHD. During that presentation, he listed the following (evidenced based/research derived) data regarding the neurology of ADHD.

Decreased Cerebral Metabolism
(from Thomas Spencer, M.D.)

global and regional glucose metabolism by PET scan reduced in adults who have been hyper since childhood (thats Zametkin's research again).
Largest reductions in:
1) pre motor cortex
2) superior prefrontal cortex

Anterior Cingulate Dysfunction in ADHD, fMRI and the Counting Stroop.
Bush,et.al.,(1998).


Etiologies-Neurological

Smaller, less active,less developed brain
Regions found on MRI,fMRI and PET scans incluse the following areas of the brain:
1) Orbital-Prefrontal Cortex( primarily on the right side)

2) Basal Ganglia (mainly striatum and globus pallidus)

3) Cerebellum (central vermis area, right side) - there were some other posts about this particualr area of the brain being a key component of ADHD in a different thread I believe

Suspected Neurochemical Deficiency:

1) Dopamine dysregulation likely but not definitive....... the mere fact that stimulant
medication works at all to relieve symptoms of ADHD forms a solid basis
for helping to substantiate this (and the first medication study was done in 1937 in
Rhode Island)

2) Norepinephrine dysregulation probable

Etiologies- Genetic ( these data were all derived from research studies) The usual maker for statistical significance is 1.5 SD (standard deviation) 's from the mean, which equates to a %tile ranking of 93. In other words, the absolute lowest chance of these data being accurate is 93%.

1) Family aggregation of the disorder: 25-35% of siblings; 78-92% of idnetical twins;15-20% of mothers, and 25-30% of fathers; If the parent is ADHD, then theres a 20-54% chance of the offspring being ADHD (increases the odds 8fold)

2) Twin studies of Heritability 57-97%)

3) Shared environment 0-6% (not significant)

4) Unique environment (15-20% )


Molecular Genetics : Candidate genes on DRD4,DAT1,DBH-Taq1 (on chromosomes 3,5,and 11)

Candidate region: chromosome 26p13 region


Lastly, the answer to your questions about the difference between ADHD and ADD can be found in Barkley's ADHD and the Nature of Self-Control (1997).
It's also addressed in his 2002 book Taking Charge of ADHD (pages 137-138) and in You Mean Im Not Lazy,Stupid Or Crazy? by Kate Kelly & Peg Ramundo (Chapter 2).

As for depression, it is considered to be a Medical disorder on the basis of the chemical imbalance of the neurotransmitter serotonin. I don't know anyone who considers it to be a "disease".

There's no cure for the common cold but people know it exists. The Biogenic Amine Hypothesis was derived (via research) over 20 years ago. Here's what that says: "The concept that abnormalities in the physiology and metabolism of certain biogenic amines, particularly catecholamines[I](norepinephrine and dopamine ) and an indoleamine(serotonin) , are involved in the causes and courses of certain psychiatric illnesses."
That qoute was from an older issue of A Psychiatric Glossary of the AMerican Psychiatric Association, page 28. The new one is at the office.

The Biogenic Amine Hypothesis is what eventually led to the development of the class of antidepressants we now know as SSRI's (Select Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitor's:Zoloft, Prozaz,etc.).


This MORE than refutes your remarks. As of the summer of 2003 there were over 6k research articles,professional papers, chapters in book and books on ADHD.

If you go to the International Consensus 2002 journal article, you will also find on page 89:

"ADHD is recognized as a disorder/medical condition by the American Medical Association, the American Psychiatric Association, the American Psychological Association and the American Academy of Pediatrics."


THIS ISN'T AN EXACT SCIENCE .NO ONE EVER SAID IT WAS. But I can tell you that a T score of 70+% on the Conners Parent Rating Scale is one of the most accurate predictors of ADHD currently available (when used in concert with a thorough developemental and medical screening, behavioral observations and other screenings for executive functions; to name a few).


I could go on but I've made my point. I spent hours on this post and still had to cut it short. There's your scientific basis.

SB_UK
01-08-07, 04:30 PM
ADD is just about the most real thing there is.

... one in a long line of remarkable perspective changes which current society will need to take on - as we vanish off into the future.

The peculiar humour of ADD - is that instead of a neutral other current perspective - much of what we see on ADD - at least currently - {out there} - is diametrically opposed to how it will come to be seen.

Whether each of us will look back on our gross mischaracterization of ADD in the future - as peculiar, funny or humourous - ~though~ - depends on our individual context.

Really so ...

... winds of change

... did you ever really believe that ADD was a straight-up disease?

oddjobace
01-26-07, 10:04 AM
andreapurple, I hear you. I guess I'm not sure what to believe anymore.

Scattered, since you mention Barkley, this is what I've read.

1. "The overwhelming majority of individuals with ADD have no history of significant brain injuries" (Barkley, 1998)

2. "Neuropsychological testing of ADD individuals has detected some differences in frontal lobe functions, but those findings are inconsistent". (Barkley, 1997)

3. "Researchers have been unable to document with any certainty neurochemical or neurotransmitter deficiencies as causal factors for ADD" (Barkley, 1998)

4. "Nervous system psychophysiological measures have been inconsistent in demonstrating significant group differences between ADD individuals and controls" (Baumeister & Hawkins, 2001)

5. "ADD neuro-imaging studies have not found evidence for any type of brain structural damage" (Leo & Cohen, 2002; Overmeyer & Tayler, 2001; Frank & Pavakis, 2001)

6. "There is no compelling evidence that pregnancy or birth complications cause ADD" (Barkley, 1998)

7. "Due to serious methodological limitations, the evidence that ADD is caused by environmental toxins, for example, prenatal exposure to alcohol and tobacco smoke or elevated body lead levels, must be viewed with caution" (Barkley, 1995)

8. "No evidence exists to show that ADD is the result of abnormal, damaged, or extra chromosomes. There is convincing evidence of family heredity basis or genetic link for ADD" (Biederman et al., 1995; Faraone, 2000)

9. "Although the present technology of neuro-imaging studies may help determine the volumn and shape of brain structures involved in specific cognitive task, they cannot provide information about the timing and rapid order of neuronal firing, nor can they show the oscillations between cortical and subcortical brain networks that are hypothesized to bind and integrate neural systems" (Durston et al., 2001; Stern & Silbersweig, 2001)

I would love to know why there are so many contradictions within the research of ADD.

Thanks for all of your work MCT, I am only questioning the contradications here. What do you think is going on here? How can they say one thing and something else too?

mctavish23
01-26-07, 10:11 PM
When it comes to "How do you get ADHD?" There are main 2 "types" of ADHD:

1) 80+% genetic inherited;

2) approx 20% "acquired"

That refers to pre, peri and post natal brain damage.

pre natal refers to inuetero exposure to nicotine and to alcohol : each of which increases the risk factor by 2.5X's


peri natal covers birth complications, with pre-mature birth having the greatest impact 3+x's the risk;

post natal refers to head trauma, lead paint (much less of a big deal as once thought), the impact of chemotherapy and a rare brain infection involving a strep like infection (If I remember correctly, I think it involves the basal ganglia).


Those data came directly from Russ's power points from a United Behavioral Health (UBH) teleconference on ADHD in Adults on 3/24/05.

The very same info can be found in : ADHD and the Nature of Self-control (1997) and The ADHD Handbook (both second & third editions (2002 & 2005).


Lastly, in his presentation in San Francisco (2000), he remarks on the genetic propensity of ADHD being greater than human height & IQ.


These are old data. Be careful how you try and interpret things, as they may be inadvertently taken out of context.

Those data were and are accurately reported.

tc

hope ya'll are all well.

mctavish23

Robert

Scattered
01-29-07, 07:08 PM
Thanks for the clarification, McT! Always good to hear from you! Hope things are going well.

Oddjobace, they are still on a pretty high learning curve when it comes to the brain. Hopefully between the brain imaging that is being done and the human genome project, we'll soon have some more definative scientific information. In the mean time finding what combination (medication, and/or exercise, meditation, diet/supplements, behavioral therapy, family counseling, education, environmental adaptations, etc) helps you function best, is the most practical approach I know to dealing with ADHD. I think when first diagnosed, it's very easy to want absolutes and proof that this is why you are the way you are. I know I did. At some point coming to understand yourself and realize that most of us (including yourself) are doing the best we can most of the time can help with self acceptance and finding a path that fits for you.


Take care!
Scattered

RichardJ
01-29-07, 11:32 PM
re post #53, Mct.


The beginning of that post gives the impression that ADHD is due to brain damage. I hope that is not what you meant. With the exception of children who have suffered obvious brain damage in utero or after birth, the vast majority of ADHD people have no gross neurological deficits and no demonstrable CNS deficits on electrophysiologic studies or scans.

The examples of prenatal, postnatal causes should not be interpreted as known direct causes, but only as predisposing factors, i.e. those things result in a higher percentage of offspring with ADHD than children who don't have those factors in their histories. Obviously for example, if a child was a premi with respiratory problems, had a CT scan during neonatal period which showed hemorrhages, there will be a stronger likelihood of later problems, but again this is not 100% by a longshot.

The point should be that a high percentage of children with ADHD have one or more parent with ADHD but not all. Both parents having ADHD will increase the probability, but it will never be 100%.

BEtter way of looking at things: Most ADHD is caused by genetic factors influencing a child's temperament, mood, neurological make up. Given the fertile set up with a family which can't handle it effectively, some of these children will develop clinical problems, but some will be manageable if the parent/s happen to be wise/strong/capable/able to afford help.

Some of what looks like ADHD is a result of inadequate parenting techniques.

How does one tell the difference? Sometimes its not possible. But in my mind, the familial inheritable type is likely to be obvious within the first year, and sometimes before birth, but certainly prior to school age if there is a hyperactivity component; age of diagnosis is more variab in females without hyperactivity., often well after KG.

I hope this is clear.

Wheezie
01-29-07, 11:49 PM
hey richard,

I think McT was describing the probable causes of "acquired" ADHD ... the type of ADHD which is represented by the 20% figure he referenced.

welcome to the forums. :)

wheezie

Scattered
01-30-07, 12:33 PM
Better way of looking at things: Most ADHD is caused by genetic factors influencing a child's temperament, mood, neurological make up. Given the fertile set up with a family which can't handle it effectively, some of these children will develop clinical problems, but some will be manageable if the parent/s happen to be wise/strong/capable/able to afford help.

Some of what looks like ADHD is a result of inadequate parenting techniques.
I'm not sure if I understand what you're saying in this paragraph or not. I hope you're not saying that poor parenting is responsible for ADHD (although I would agree that poor parents may produce pseudo-ADD like behavior). I was adopted at birth by very non ADHD folks who were wise, strong, capable,and able to afford help. I was still diagnosed with hyperactivity by age 4 and I'm told they knew something was up by age one. Having met my birth family as an adult, I know I came by it honestly and it was inspite of good parenting, not because of it (although I have no doubt that excellent parenting and scaffolding helped minimize the damaging aspects of having ADHD).

Scattered

oddjobace
01-30-07, 10:01 PM
I have heard of tribes in other parts of the world that are all ADD like with few people that are Non-ADD like. Just the opposite as in our society.

I really doubt that scientific studies will ever be able to find an absolute reason or even close to a reason why ADDers think the way they do in comparison to the non-ADDers.

How would they prossibly be able to compare how two differant subjects process information. I'm using two because that would be the least amount of differenciations.

Lets look at an example of a study room and two subjects. They are both ten years old. That's about as much as they are alike. Even that could be inaccurate depending on the conditions when they were born, when exactly they were born, how they were born, where they born, was it a cold room? Did one fall when he was two and skin his knee? Did the other see an elephant at the circus? Let's look at the room they are in for the study. If they are looking around, has one of them experienced a birthday in a room similar to this years ago and maybe the other had a real bad experience in a room like this? What did they eat for dinner today, yesterday, two weeks ago, five years ago? Does one have 20/20 vision and the other 20/30? What have they seen, touched, smelled, heard, tasted, or sensed? Are they of German heritage or from the North Pole? One Millionth of a second could change what has happened with the neurotransmitters in either of thier brains at any point in the study. There are just too many variables that would have to be stable and known for it to be a controlled environment and subject.

There can never be an absolute controlled study of two subjects to make a comparison.

What does this mean? ADD still exists and you could call it anything you want and it would still mean we process things differantly.

We have to just be able to love our uniqueness and use all the gifts it can give us and the world. There will never be another like you or me.

meadd823
02-08-07, 03:31 AM
Now to carry the message to the ill informed . . . . .going main stream!

Matt S.
02-08-07, 08:07 AM
The lack of proof is due to different reasons for developing ADHD

markrobert
05-04-07, 08:21 AM
glad to see some of you can see through the garbage. haven't you noticed scientists have proof for everything then we find out the next day they were wrong. at least they didn't go wrong when they figured the earth was flat or the center of the universe.

Stabile
05-04-07, 07:54 PM
glad to see some of you can see through the garbage. haven't you noticed scientists have proof for everything then we find out the next day they were wrong. at least they didn't go wrong when they figured the earth was flat or the center of the universe.
…which scientists did that figuring, exactly? Are you sure you’re talking about science?

It’s clear we’re not talking apple and oranges here. Some forum members are concerned about people who reject the idea that there is any scientific proof that AD/HD exists, but in general the culprits tend to be Normals, not ADDers.

The presentation of proof here got a little mixed up with the contentious debate that led directly to the creation of this particular subforum, and this sticky thread.

None of us are too confused about the existence of scientific proof of AD/HD’s existence. People who deny it exists don’t tend to hang around here.

Why should it bother you that scientific proof of the existence of AD/HD exists? Many of us have a knee-jerk reaction to the idea that we’re disabled. Is that part of your take on this?

markrobert
05-04-07, 09:02 PM
i'm not saying no one has a disorder. what i'm saying is that most people who are diognosed today as having a disorder are simply people of higher intelligence who get bored more quickly making good grades in school physically impossible. underachievers. name one great person who did well academically. do you thing they all did poorly for the hell of it?

"learned men are the cisterns of knowledge not the fountainheads"

james northcote said it i didn't.

markrobert
05-04-07, 09:13 PM
if you don't think you're disabled then don't say add.

add = attention defecit disorder
it doesn't matter what you think if you tell everyone you have add, they will believe and treat you such which will make your life little different than if you really had a disorder.

Stabile
05-05-07, 01:12 PM
if you don't think you're disabled then don't say add.

add = attention defecit disorder
it doesn't matter what you think if you tell everyone you have add, they will believe and treat you such which will make your life little different than if you really had a disorder.



Right, it's disorder, not disabled. You’re not the first or only ADDer to react this way. You’re definitely not alone.

Lots of ADDers are sensitive to this issue, and it’s been a minor source of prolonged debates in the past. If you’d care to search for it, I’m sure there’s still some record left in the database of those threads.

One poll in particular was interesting: do you prefer to say you have ADD or are ADD? Another issue was whether we should say ADD or ADHD, or bother to differentiate. The results were surprising, and so now we typically refer to ‘having/being AD/HD’ when were being formal.

As far as how people treat you, it’s important to understand this: all human communication is bilateral. No person ever responds to you in a vacuum; every response is half of an interaction, and you control the other half.

It’s usually not necessary to deny you have/are AD/HD to receive a reasoned and friendly response from others. Your expectation of their response can be the largest determinant of how others react, so it’s important to be aware of your half, and learn to control the frail human vehicle we’ve all inherited.

We have a name for the predilection to prejudge a situation so strongly it becomes a kind of self-fulfilling prophecy: farmer ‘n jackin’. Here’s a quote from a post of ours three years back describing it:


…this is a classic case of the farmer and the jack, and we ADDers are better at farmer ’n jackin’ than anyone. My boss sat me down one day, told it, and then sent me back to work without another word. I got the point.

If you never heard of it, here it is:

A guy is driving in the country on a business trip, in a rented car, when he gets a flat. It’s late, he’s on his way home, he’s tired and immediately angry: “D*** junk car, they gave me a lemon on purpose, the spare is probably flat, too.” And as he gets out: “There probably isn’t any g**d*** spare, the b******* sure saw me coming.”

When he opens the trunk, the spare is fine. But there’s no jack.

He kicks the bumper, hard, and it hurts, and now he’s starting to control himself because he knows he has to if he wants to get out of this anytime soon, and that just makes him even madder.

But he does see that he’s not so far from a farm house, about a mile or so, and as he starts to walk towards it evening begins to deepen into night. And in the farm house, lights go on, so he knows someone’s home.

But the late hour worries him, and he can’t keep from thinking how the farmer is probably eating dinner, or maybe even cleaning up, that light looks like the kitchen, and the d*** farmer is probably not going to like a stranger walking up at night and banging on his door, especially if he’s already finished dinner and is getting ready to settle in for the evening.

The closer he gets, the better he can see the farmhouse, and by now he’s sure that the farmer is living out here all alone because he’s totally antisocial, a cranky old misfit that would just as soon shoot a stranger as help him.

And the lights start to go off. One by one, on the first floor, until the whole house is dark, and then lights go on upstairs, and the salesman is thinking, “Great! Now the old b****** is upstairs, getting ready for bed, and he’s going to sack out, watch a little TV, and when I get there he’s going to ignore me until I really make a racket, and then there is no way he’s going to lend me any d*** jack, he’ll probably make me rent it, and it won’t fit the car, anyway, why am I wasting my time even bothering with this?” And as he’s hurrying along, one by one, the lights go out, until there’s just one, and then it’s gone, too.

The salesman goes ballistic: now the farmer’s gone to sleep. By this time he’s walking pretty fast, and as he approaches the farm house he’s dead sure the farmer is going to make his life even more miserable than it already is, take him for every last cent he has, and use his misfortune as an opportunity to torture him like everyone else in his life always has.

He reaches the house, walks through the open gate, up the walk to the front steps, goes right up to the door and pounds on it with his fist.

And the window where the last light flickered out flies open. A head pops out, framed by gray hair and beard, and the farmer says, “Yeah? How can I help you, stranger?”

The salesman looks up, startled, and then he yells at the top of his lungs, “F*** you, you b******! You can keep your g**d***** jack!” And he turns around and stalks off into the night, to find someone who cares.

Kay and I use this all the time, as in, “Aren’t you farmer ‘n jackin’ this?’” or “I’m just farmer ‘n jackin’.” It works, when we’re not being too stubborn, because we both know what it means. And the only way that happens is if you talk about the process, not just what you’re concerned about, but how you’re trying to approach it, too.

mctavish23
05-05-07, 02:32 PM
I would respectfully disagree that most people diagnosed today are merely "bored" people of higher intelligence.

Diagnosis isn't (or shouldn't ever) be done that way.

The clinical threshold for ADHD is "impairment." No impairment,No disorder.

ADHD is also a lifespan disorder;meaning most people with ADHD never completely outogtrow it.

The symptoms change with age,i.e., the hyperactive child becomes a restless & bored adolescent,who in turn, becomes a workaholic adult.

As a person gets older, there are fewer symptoms needed to make the diagnosis.

I also agree with Stabile's remarks on the subject.Well said as usual.

I wish I could report some headway in terms of the number of people in my profession who really "get it," but I can't.

The problem is that no one bothers to read the literature.

I'm not exaggerating when I say that 95-98% of the clinicians I know and work with are absolutely "clueless" on the existing research.

I've made some headway though with a cople of our interns, as well as 2 or 3 colleagues.

Better than the provrebial sharp stick in the eye.

I'm just passing through and wanted to comment,as I thought Stabile made some very good points.


Ya'll tc. Hope you're well.


Robert

markrobert
05-05-07, 07:04 PM
not what i said. shorter attention span due to higher intell is a problem in todays classroom. also people of less intell cant understand more intell. unfortunately the most intel are looked apon as crazy instead of more intell. marginalization then results in stress then depression and all sorts of stress related problems.

"genious is the ability to connect the seemingly unconnected." wrong less intelligent people dont connect that which is connected making the more intelligent sound crazy to them.

charonshanti
05-08-07, 05:05 AM
Ok, I completely agree that growing up with a significantly higher iq than your classmates creates social isolation issues, boredom in class, etc.

But to quote Dogbert, "let's not get narrow-minded here...they can both be true." :cool:


That can all be true AND the person thus affected can ALSO have a debilitating level of ADHD. But it's probably going to be harder to diagnose than average, especially if it's inattentive type, because of the high-Q compensation abilities.

A person in this situation may suffer far greater impairment & be expending far more energy than they realize without a close examination. Recognizing and treating the ADHD in this situation is likely to bring huge relief and a lot more ability for the person to reach the potential they know they have.

ADHD is hugely important to diagnosis whether there are co-existing conditions or not. I suspect higher-iq people are more often underdiagnosed than overdiagnosed for ADHD.

meadd823
05-08-07, 05:59 AM
I'm not exaggerating when I say that 95-98% of the clinicians I know and work with are absolutely "clueless" on the existing research.


Main stream medicine doesn't really know much about ADD of this I agree. I belong to a messageboard of nothing but nurse and still find myself feilding questions about weather or not ADD exist. . . . . . :faint:

It is nice to see you again McTavish. . . . travel through more often when you get the chance.

VicodenAmphet
05-24-07, 11:44 PM
Thats good news but i never had any doubt it existed, thanks for the reasurance on the fact that since there is a disease presentable they may actually try to do something that can stop it.

It does kind of make me wonder though, it's believed to be a physical disease where the brain doesn't process correctly but i sort of think it's a mental disease. One of many reasons is that the cure is a stimulant which in no way connects any part of your brain but actually reassures your mind you can succeed... but hey im always rebellious lol

VicodenAmphet
05-24-07, 11:50 PM
basically i dont think that surgery could fix it (not to mention their idea of brain surgery is to take out part of the brain they think is causing it!) - parenthesis

VicodenAmphet
05-24-07, 11:53 PM
…which scientists did that figuring, exactly? Are you sure you’re talking about science?

It’s clear we’re not talking apple and oranges here. Some forum members are concerned about people who reject the idea that there is any scientific proof that AD/HD exists, but in general the culprits tend to be Normals, not ADDers.

The presentation of proof here got a little mixed up with the contentious debate that led directly to the creation of this particular subforum, and this sticky thread.

None of us are too confused about the existence of scientific proof of AD/HD’s existence. People who deny it exists don’t tend to hang around here.

Why should it bother you that scientific proof of the existence of AD/HD exists? Many of us have a knee-jerk reaction to the idea that we’re disabled. Is that part of your take on this?Nearly every philosopher of the ancient times except a special few, damn they had the monarchs convinced. Why do you thing columbis had to go to spain to get funding.

VicodenAmphet
05-25-07, 12:01 AM
if you don't think you're disabled then don't say add.

add = attention defecit disorder
it doesn't matter what you think if you tell everyone you have add, they will believe and treat you such which will make your life little different than if you really had a disorder.


you got that right, adderall isn't a high worth any diognosed dissorder personaly. I know telling my doctor i want to go into that topic is probobly going to affect the carear choices i will have to make and i spent all my life worrying about **** like that. (i was never diognosed so im not sayin i have it but highly believe please don't critisize about that, plus i dont trust their tests anyway, they treat my friend whose getting tested by his councelor like a 5 year old... they asked him if he flies a plane into school! which i find highly degrading, ADD isn't mental retardation 1 and 2 i wouldn't treat a mentally challenged person like that anyway. I remember him saying something like pointing at the animal she said to point at too)**** that

VicodenAmphet
05-25-07, 12:04 AM
…which scientists did that figuring, exactly? Are you sure you’re talking about science?

It’s clear we’re not talking apple and oranges here. Some forum members are concerned about people who reject the idea that there is any scientific proof that AD/HD exists, but in general the culprits tend to be Normals, not ADDers.

The presentation of proof here got a little mixed up with the contentious debate that led directly to the creation of this particular subforum, and this sticky thread.

None of us are too confused about the existence of scientific proof of AD/HD’s existence. People who deny it exists don’t tend to hang around here.

Why should it bother you that scientific proof of the existence of AD/HD exists? Many of us have a knee-jerk reaction to the idea that we’re disabled. Is that part of your take on this?ya, and most people make fun of aids... until they get it. They feel that if they don't have it or don't see it, it doesn't exist.

VicodenAmphet
05-25-07, 12:08 AM
Alzheimers isn't real either its just in their personality to lose touch of reality and forget sometimes. (An example im not serious)

Tellman
06-30-07, 03:46 PM
1. Mctavish clearly rocks and knows his stuff.

2. Regardless of "proof" I think we can all agree that people with ADD/ADHD have symptoms that make their life more difficult.

3. If we can turn thest symptomos into strengths to get more done - and more easily, who can't aggree that the "ADHD" label is helpful to focus people on what they can do to improve - through any means - meds, mental training, exercise, nutrition or anything else?

mctavish23
07-02-07, 05:34 PM
ADHD continues to meet the criteria for a "disorder (any disorder of any kind)" set forth by Rutger's Ethics researcher Jerome Wakefield, i.e., "harmful dysfunction."

Tellman
07-02-07, 05:44 PM
Ah, only if you don't know how to use it. Jeeze, without ADHD I would never have become an entreprenuer... I wouldn't have half of the crazy ideas I do that have helped me to help thousands of people... If you ask me, ADHD is the ultimate advantage...

Anyone else here agree?

Imnapl
07-03-07, 01:21 AM
Ah, only if you don't know how to use it.Are you suggesting ADHD is a conscious choice?

kilted_scotsman
07-03-07, 06:35 AM
Maybe its a concious choice as to how one approaches it. Maybe if the focus in early life is to conformity to NT behaviours and this attempt is continued into later life without success then ADD is a decided disadvantage. If there is self awareness enough to play to ones strengths and avoid ones weaknesses then ADD can be either neutral or an advantage.

Whether this is a conscious or unconscious choice depends on the presence of a diagnosis and ones reaction to it.

mctavish23
07-10-07, 02:25 PM
Richard J,


Thanks for the reply.

ADHD is primarily inherited / genetic in nature.

However, nothing is ever 100%.

"Acquired" ADHD refers to the other approx. 20%; which by the way is classified as some type of "brain damage."

The #1 way to get "Acquired" type is through some type of Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI).

Other research supported risks (i.e., a "risk" is not an "absolute," it merely increases the odds ) are:

1) brain hypoxia ( lack of oxygen: usually caised by smoking)

2) lead poisoning

3) chemotherapy

4) a rare brain infection ( that I'd never seen before until the last year or two; as I've seen two kids who falll into that category).


I hope that helps some and ty for the feedback.


tc

mctavish23 (Robert)

Kanibe
08-09-07, 07:22 PM
Thank you Mctavish, it's a joy to read your postings.

y00ch
12-10-07, 09:25 PM
Fascinating

optimus86
01-21-08, 08:47 PM
I read it, but only understood parts of it.
If someone says to me "ADHD/ADD doesnt it!", what is a querky one or two liner (preferably scientific based but easy enough to understand) i can throw back at them?
Ide imagine it will come in handy :D

mctavish23
01-23-08, 11:11 PM
You might try:

After nearly 8K studies, over the last 106 years (1902), ADHD remains, not only the most widely researched childhood disorder/ developemental disability on earth, it has NEVER been disproven.

In truth, the only really "LAZY" people are the ones who opt for the easiest knee jerk reaction answer; so they don't have to learn anything new.

If all else fails, "stfu" works very well for me.


good luck ( and keep your sense of humor)




tc,

mctavish23

(Robert)

meadd823
02-03-08, 08:33 AM
If all else fails, "stfu" works very well for me.


LMAO - I miss these realsitic answers . . .

Imnapl
02-12-08, 12:38 AM
Me too. Maybe if we're really nice to him, he'll hang around for a while. ;)

variance
03-23-08, 10:49 PM
Small request before I finish reading the entire thread.

given that this is a scientific discussion forum
and NOT used the word proof in the sole "sticky thread"

Proof has NOTHING to do with the scientific method.

no I'm not playing at semantics either. The whole term "proof" puts a person in a line of thinking that is antithetical to productive thought.

First let's get this straight. Proof, as we mean it when we say "prove me wrong", has nothing to do with science. While we might use the word "proof" in science, it is not a scientific idea. Proving is an exercise in logic. The other meaning of the word "proof", as it is used when we refer to whiskey – "this is 90 proof" – actually has its origin in the meaning of the word as we use it in science, but that's a whole different story (http://www.carlton.srsd119.ca/chemical/Proof/proving_whiskey.htm)! Here's a definition of what it means to prove something: "Proof is arriving at a logical conclusion, based on the available evidence." Notice that this has absolutely nothing to do with being right or wrong. It also has nothing to do with science either, since you can have logical conclusions in Social Studies, English, or any other subject. The word proof is used a lot in law (http://www.lectlaw.com/def2/s217.htm), and the idea isn't a lot different if we use it in science.
In science we collect empirical (http://javascript%3Cb%3E%3C/b%3E:NewWindow%28%27http://www.carlton.srsd119.ca/chemical/Molemass/empirical.htm%27%29) evidence through the process of experimentation. If we collect enough evidence, we will probably notice patterns or regularities in the evidence, and then we will develop generalizations that describe what we have observed. These generalized descriptions of observed events are called scientific laws.

The correct title for the title if you want to be ostentatious yet intellectually honest.

"Definitive Evidence supporting the existence of ADD/ADHD."

...I'm thinking of writing a scientific and basic bio/neurosci primer for the forum.
It appears in need of one..

It would help people better educate others using intelligent argument of the reality and nature of the condition.

mctavish23
03-26-08, 12:46 AM
variance,

ty 4 the feedback.

When I wrote this nearly 3 years ago, it was in direct response to some postings that I (personally )felt had ulterior motives ( at that time ).

My concern was that a "newbie" might be mislead or manipulated.

I was clearly ****ed off, and didn't try to hide it.

But that was then ,this is now; kinder gentler, etc.

(I should be hearing from the Nobel committee any day now: I have a better chance of hearing form Publisher's Clearing House).

Today, I try and say the same thing professionally; but in a slightly different manner.

In my Informed Consent Memo that I give to all new clients, I advertise an "evidence based " practice.

For me,that means I use empirically supported questions & issues used to drive the diagnosis & treatment of ADHD ( or any other disorder, for that matter).

It's been quite a while since I read the whole thing, but the intention was to clarify what I felt was some deliberately misleading rhetoric, with some empirically (research ) supported documentation.

Thanks again. I appreciate the feedback.

tc,
mctavish23
(Robert)

RichardJ
03-26-08, 12:41 PM
Variance

I don't think mac was deliberately trying to deceive anyone with the use of the word "proof" but your correction is certainly pertinent.

It's good to have some fresh blood enter the field, my best wishes to your academic and professional future. I hope you are able to keep a clean mind in the face of all the money floating around to influence "researchers" in our field. This is a slippery slope. The true reward is in real learning and understanding the dynamics of each person we evaluate and treat. Regardless of whether ADHD turns out to be genetically influenced or environmental, there are always dynamics to be considered and dealt with, so that there is always a place for talk, comfort, support.

I practice Behavioral Pediatrics in so. california and have been treating ADHD kids since 1967. I would be happy to pass along my personal reflections.

Jake.

variance
03-26-08, 02:44 PM
Variance

I don't think mac was deliberately trying to deceive anyone with the use of the word "proof" but your correction is certainly pertinent.

It's good to have some fresh blood enter the field, my best wishes to your academic and professional future. I hope you are able to keep a clean mind in the face of all the money floating around to influence "researchers" in our field. This is a slippery slope. The true reward is in real learning and understanding the dynamics of each person we evaluate and treat. Regardless of whether ADHD turns out to be genetically influenced or environmental, there are always dynamics to be considered and dealt with, so that there is always a place for talk, comfort, support.

I practice Behavioral Pediatrics in so. california and have been treating ADHD kids since 1967. I would be happy to pass along my personal reflections.

Jake.

I did not mean to come across preumptous or arrogant...
I finished the thread and found it enlightening.
I guess i was just appalled by seeing "proof" in a subject sticky in a forum segregated for serious scientific discussion..
and that an academic would come on and see that and think less of the forum and its posters.

I must admit that is actually my main drive.. knowledge.
I'm a typically idealistic and naive (haven't gone through the gauntlet of medical or PhD yet so too soon to be absolutely sure) but presently I couldn't imagine being swayed to skew research one way or the other for money. My current plan is actually to quit my well paying IT job and sell my stock options so I can go into debt for grad school then medical school...
IT doesn't really hold alot of meaning or passion for me as a vocation..
but neuroscience and medicine.. there's so much to do. research, teach, treat patients. the challenges never stop. the work never stays the same
and there's always more to learn.. and unlike many other jobs. Engaging in work politics isn't a high priority for success. ("You cannot lose if you do not play".)

I couldn't imagine a better job honestly.

meadd823
03-27-08, 02:27 AM
Although this may be the section set aside for scientific and Academic discussions please do bare in mind most of us are NOT scientist. This thread has served a very useful purpose and the wording has conveyed the desired message - I have often used it as the forum form response via direct hyperlink to ADD doubters - and trolls.

Although it is nice to know long words and have the luxury of higher education if you speak above every ones head your message of knowledge will be meaningless to the general audience in search of more information about ADD.

variance
03-27-08, 06:13 AM
Although this may be the section set aside for scientific and Academic discussions please do bare in mind most of us are NOT scientist. This thread has served a very useful purpose and the wording has conveyed the desired message - I have often used it as the forum form response via direct hyperlink to ADD doubters - and trolls.

Although it is nice to know long words and have the luxury of higher education if you speak above every ones head your message of knowledge will be meaningless to the general audience in search of more information about ADD.

Duly Noted.

I admit get carried away. can't really apologize for it too much (if you don't use it, you lose it).
i can only offer this explanation, I rarely ever get the opportunity to speak all "educated", use my extended vocabulary, or my debate/discourse skills.
i'm fairly certain this quality is patently obvious.

mijahe
03-27-08, 07:12 AM
...I'm thinking of writing a scientific and basic bio/neurosci primer for the forum.
It appears in need of one..

That'd be good to do that. I've read up a lot about ADD in the past year... (within the limits my ADD allows me), and I always gladly welcome any new insights or different perspectives. Just helps consolidate understanding. Keep it as scientific as possible too.

RichardJ
03-29-08, 12:42 PM
>>I always gladly welcome any new insights or different perspectives. Just helps consolidate understanding. Keep it as scientific as possible too.<<

My sentiments exactly. Please do it.

For a great general read on this subject, may I refer you to the book, Learning Disabilities, Proceedings of the National Comference; 1988, edited by James Kavanagh and Tom Truss; It is still available if you search. It has a collection of scholarly articles on the entire concept of "Attention" as well as broad discussions of aspects of the nature of Learning Disabilities and related aspects. Well worth reading.

RSJ?Behavioral Peds.<!-- / message --><!-- sig -->

mossykingsport
04-18-08, 10:31 AM
cheers mate for making sense and will look out for more informed readings in future !

mctavish23
05-29-08, 12:04 AM
For the record,

I could have saved time and just told the person who said there was no "Proof( hence the reason for the title)" to have a happy day and then...STFU.

tc
mctavish23
(Rpbert)

Condorman
08-26-08, 02:50 PM
A SPECT test confirmed my ADD. I had been searching for answers for years, having a good idea that I could be ADD but a little afraid of finding out for sure. After an "episode" where I flipped out I decided enough was enough and went for help.
Although never sceptical about the existance of ADD, I think seeing and having the evidence explained to me, certainly made me more confident to deal with it rather than a Pyshc saying he "thinks" I have it. I have one at the moment suggesting i have social anxiety too but I really think he has no clue about who I am and has opted to "suggest" some cognitive areas to work on. I'm ready for dropping the sessions but that's another story.

The logic part of my ADD makes me need fact and this was presented to me in full technicolour. The areas of the scan during concentration show a "significant" reduction in blood flow and I was only doing simple tasks and never felt any different or under pressure during the test. I would like them to do the same test when I am in work (without DEX) and then scan me when my head feels like it is about to implode.

I am quite proud of my brain pictures. One thing they did prove to me is that there is actually a brain in my skull, since feeling for years that it was all open space :) I may try and scan the pictures so you can see the differences.

One big factor for me, having only just being diagnosed at 36, when I am ready to tell people outside of my close circle, I will be more confident armed with the pictures to prove it if I ever do encounter any ill informed sceptics.

Technojunkie
08-27-08, 12:52 PM
Personal theory: inflammation slows down glucose transport/metabolism, trying to concentrate ups stress which ups inflammation, stimulants brute force the issue. Think of it as having constricted tubing in a water cooling system: you really need to fix that constriction but all you know how to do is overvolt the pump. Worse, the constriction is localized but the "fix" is general and really not good for the life of the system. This would help explain the SPECT scan results.

I say this because my ADHD-PI head cleared overnight after beginning prednisolone acetate eyedrops (powerful anti-inflammatory, what Prednisone breaks down into). My head stayed clear for two weeks and I only used the drops for 2-3 days.

This would also explain why good cardio workouts 30+ minutes/day for most days of the week help. Sustained high heartrate (without the brute force of stims) and should reduce inflammation?

Diet affects inflammation, especially with 60% of the immune system in the gut. Sometimes my head has cleared when my gut, umm, did. Plus the need for EFAs to maintain the (mostly fat) brain. So a proper diet would be a marginal improvement.

Somewhere along the line you hit the "tipping point" and brain no work good.

How large a subset of ADHD sufferers this theory applies to, or whether it's even correct, I don't know. I'm a computer nerd, not a doctor.

mctavish23: how do you diagnose that brain infection you mentioned several replies ago?

mctavish23
08-27-08, 01:41 PM
I don't diagnose that

In the 2 times I've seen it in kids over the last several years

(preceded by approx 20 yrs of having read about it but never actually seen it before)

It was diagnosed by a Pediatric Neurologist

and a University of Minnesota (Hospital) program

I think those are correct

It's interesting reading and I believe the Barkley article form 2000 addresses it

to what degree though I'm not sure

I'll look at the office for some more references

The US Surgeon General's Report is a favorite of mine

but once again, I'm not positive it's in there

Today's a 12 hr day for me, but I'll try and check it out


Barkley's article is at


www.schwablearning .org


tc

mctavish23

(Robert)

Technojunkie
08-27-08, 04:54 PM
Found the article:
http://www.greatschools.net/cgi-bin/showarticle/2054
Barkley says:
Second, post-natal brain damage, about 3-5 percent. What are the most common causes? Trauma, head injury—you whack the front part of your brain hard enough, you’re going to start getting symptoms of this disorder. Second one: streptococcal infections. There are some individuals with genetically prone AD/HD or maybe not even prone to AD/HD who when they get a strep infection—which may, by the way, lead them to have cardiac abnormalities as well—that if they get a strep infection, a small percentage of the population has an auto-immune response to the strep bacteria, and that auto-immune response attacks the basal ganglia and the prefrontal cortex, but especially the basal ganglia. That was just discovered two months ago [in 2000] at Yale University.
That might be worth my following up. I had my tonsils and adenoids removed when I was 7. My acne showed up around the time my symptoms did (10th grade) and its severity seems to correlate with the severity of my ADHD-PI symptoms. I've certainly had strep throat before. When I first used my sinus irrigator it nearly knocked me out and my acne went haywire, I've suspected it dislodged a sinus strep infection. I've had strep on my radar for a while now. Sounds like I should finally get tested for strep antibodies. Googling Streptococcal ADHD (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Streptococcal+ADHD&start=10&sa=N) turned up all sorts of interesting stuff, much about PANDAS, OCD and Tourette's too. I will be very unsurprised if I turn out to be a strep carrier. Strep could be the primary cause of my (suspected) inflammation?

Found the study:
http://archpsyc.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/abstract/57/4/364

This is interesting:
http://www.freepatentsonline.com/5866347.html?query=PN%2FUS5866347+OR+US5866347&stemming=on
Patent for a simple blood test for the B lymphocyte antigen D8/17. They make the case for D8/17 being relevant, though not foolproof, for susceptibility of immune-related ADHD/OCD/Tourette's. One of their case study Tourette's patients was temporarily helped by prednisone. Looks like using anti-inflammatories to temporarily treat symptoms is not unheard of.

There went my afternoon :D.

mctavish23
08-27-08, 10:47 PM
Thats what I've got on my pc in power point form

thanks for finding it

It's cool reading

Over the last 24+ years,I've had several referrals from the Pediatric Neurologist

At least one of them involved a traumatic brain injury

I remember him using Ritalin to help the child's brain heal

Thanks again for finding that

I'm having surgery on Fri and expect to be down for the count soon

I hope this info helps you

But even if it doesn't directly apply

It's obvious that you (like many of the Forum members) are really interested in learning
as much as possible about ADHD


tc


mctavish23


( Robert )

meadd823
08-27-08, 11:11 PM
Autoimmune response is the way my ADD doc believes is the proper way to go although he tends to see more of a viral cause to it more some that a bacterial one - simply because of the reproductive necessities of virus - however the autoimmune response portions are equivalent or close enough - as much as I like to argue on this I can't seeing that autoimmune disorders run in my family like ummmm ADD -



Duly Noted.

I admit get carried away. can't really apologize for it too much (if you don't use it, you lose it).
i can only offer this explanation, I rarely ever get the opportunity to speak all "educated", use my extended vocabulary, or my debate/discourse skills.
i'm fairly certain this quality is patently obvious.

It is your message - how many people you want to hear it and understand it is up to you . . . debates are an exchange of intellectual information and ideas with the emphasis once again being on interaction.

meadd823
08-28-08, 12:24 AM
Clinical Hypothesis - Immune "Dysfunction / Dysregulation" - A Reason for Childhood Neuro-Cognitive Dysfunction: (http://www.nids.net/hypothesis.htm)

The NIDS Board believes that many of the characteristics ascribed to autistic (and "quiet" ADHD) children overlap with the multiple complaints of adults afflicted with components of CFS/CFIDS and adult "ADHD". As previously noted, all of these groups have reports of various immune abnormalities including T-cell changes reflected, for example, by increased or decreased CD4/CD8 cells, increased / decreased NK and B cells, and altered viral titers. It is this common denominator of immune alterations that gives hope for potential new therapies in the near future for these children.
{End Quote}

Imnapl
08-28-08, 12:32 AM
I'm having surgery on Fri and expect to be down for the count soon


mctavish23


( Robert )We'll be thinking healing thoughts of you. Speedy recovery.

Dizfriz
08-28-08, 06:42 AM
I'm having surgery on Fri and expect to be down for the count soon
( Robert )

Good luck. I will be thinking of you.

Dizfriz

Technojunkie
08-28-08, 10:49 PM
Thats what I've got on my pc in power point form
thanks for finding it
It's cool reading
Over the last 24+ years,I've had several referrals from the Pediatric Neurologist
At least one of them involved a traumatic brain injury
I remember him using Ritalin to help the child's brain heal
Thanks again for finding that
I'm having surgery on Fri and expect to be down for the count soon
I hope this info helps you
But even if it doesn't directly apply
It's obvious that you (like many of the Forum members) are really interested in learning
as much as possible about ADHD
Thank you for pointing me to it. Best of luck with your surgery, we need you here!

TBI... that reminded me of this blog post series:
Brain Trauma - New Online Chapter of Wellness Piece By Piece (http://www.patsullivan.com/blog/2008/03/brain-trauma--.html)
Sullivan had a TBI from a long-ago car accident that led to various health problems (not ADHD). He's very geeked about SPECT scans which diagnosed his previously unknown TBI ("When was your car crash?"). The clinic he went to is using SPECT brain scans to diagnose ADHD as well, and their breakdown of 6 types of ADHD is interesting:
ADHD: How Brain SPECT Imaging Can Help (http://amenclinics.com/ac/waystohelp.php?refWays=adhd)
By their description I'm still Inattentive, but my brother fits their Limbic category. Their recommended treatment for Inattentive consists of things I'm either doing or have debated doing, their recommendation of high-EPA fish oil being particularly interesting. I'd speculated that high-EPA would treat the inflammation that prednisolone acetate eyedrops apparently did.

I don't want to travel cross-country to get my head scanned, especially when the University of Michigan is much more convenient and has at least one of everything including at least two PET scanners that I think are superior to SPECT, the downside being that they're more expensive. Perfusion CT (http://www.med.umich.edu/opm/newspage/2004/brainscan.htm) might work too and be more cost-effective. The UofM seems more interested in diagnosing Alzheimers and depression with their PET scanners though, I can't find any reference for their using them to diagnose ADHD. As interesting as it would be I'm probably going to have to forgo such a scan. I have had a CT and MRI done, neither of which showed anything noteworthy.

Technojunkie
09-07-08, 12:24 AM
Following up on reply #101 in this thread, I found something that might explain the streptococcal infections angle:

Engineered Protein Shows Potential as a Strep Vaccine (http://ucsdnews.ucsd.edu/newsrel/science/03-08StrepVaccine.asp)

“Using X-ray crystallography, we determined that M1 protein has an irregular, unstable structure,” ...

“Certain antibodies that are produced by the immune system against M1 protein have been shown to cross-react with normal human tissues including heart muscle, potentially triggering the serious autoimmune disease known as rheumatic fever,” added Victor Nizet, professor of pediatrics and pharmacy at the UCSD School of Medicine and the Skaggs School of Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Sciences. “M1 protein can also act as a toxin, producing clotting abnormalities and lung injury when injected into mice.
Their engineered protein is stable and generates antibodies that stop strep with far less collateral damage. Which makes me wonder about current strep vaccines (such as Prevnar, given to many infants since 2000). I haven't taken time to see my doc yet to set up a strep antibody test yet.

Another interesting article:

Chronic Sinus Infection Thought To Be Tissue Issue, Mayo Clinic Scientists Show It's Snot (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/07/050730100344.htm)

Nasalcrom (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cromoglicic_acid) spray has worked well for me. It's a mast cell stabilizer. I'm not sure how relevant this is to ADHD but using cromolyn to treat inflammation is interesting. They make versions for sinuses (Nasalcrom), eyes and gut.

AndyK
10-21-08, 03:53 AM
Thank you for pointing me to it. Best of luck with your surgery, we need you here!

TBI... that reminded me of this blog post series:
Brain Trauma - New Online Chapter of Wellness Piece By Piece (http://www.patsullivan.com/blog/2008/03/brain-trauma--.html)
Sullivan had a TBI from a long-ago car accident that led to various health problems (not ADHD). He's very geeked about SPECT scans which diagnosed his previously unknown TBI ("When was your car crash?"). The clinic he went to is using SPECT brain scans to diagnose ADHD as well, and their breakdown of 6 types of ADHD is interesting:
ADHD: How Brain SPECT Imaging Can Help (http://amenclinics.com/ac/waystohelp.php?refWays=adhd)
By their description I'm still Inattentive, but my brother fits their Limbic category. Their recommended treatment for Inattentive consists of things I'm either doing or have debated doing, their recommendation of high-EPA fish oil being particularly interesting. I'd speculated that high-EPA would treat the inflammation that prednisolone acetate eyedrops apparently did.

I don't want to travel cross-country to get my head scanned, especially when the University of Michigan is much more convenient and has at least one of everything including at least two PET scanners that I think are superior to SPECT, the downside being that they're more expensive. Perfusion CT (http://www.med.umich.edu/opm/newspage/2004/brainscan.htm) might work too and be more cost-effective. The UofM seems more interested in diagnosing Alzheimers and depression with their PET scanners though, I can't find any reference for their using them to diagnose ADHD. As interesting as it would be I'm probably going to have to forgo such a scan. I have had a CT and MRI done, neither of which showed anything noteworthy.


Ultimately the diagnosis is a clinical diagnosis. Having said that I had a SPECT as part of the workup of my ADD (inattentive symptoms) because I was interested to see how Dr Amen's claims would match up to the reality. I was not surprised that there was a very close match. As the diagnosis should be made on clinical grounds I don't think it is necessary to do it for everyone. I know this man is regarded as being out there in terms of respectable science but I do think he is worth listening to and giving careful consideration to.

As I mentioned on another thread I would doubt the effect of prednisolone eyedrops on your overall inflammatory status as the total dose is miniscule compared to the total daily steroid output of your adrenal glands.If I were to treat a patient for active rheumatiod arthritis ( an inflammatory arthritis) the dose I used would be many thousand fold higher than the dose you describe. Your observation remains interesting though. The science is never really resolved until all the "outliers" can be explained.

Technojunkie
10-24-08, 11:30 AM
For the purposes of ADHD the prednisolone would only have to treat a small area. Eyedrops would be the most direct approach I can think of and require no metabolization. The antibiotic eyedrops may have had some effect too? An inflammatory disorder, probably mast cell related given the effectiveness of Nasalcrom and ineffectiveness of any steroids short of prednisolone, still seems like the best bet. Acidosis seems like a likely aggravating factor but I don't know how to definitively test that theory, plus most docs seem to think that it only happens in extreme circumstances (I think that's wrong). I suspect that Adderall is compensating for a sleep disorder more than anything else, given how wiped out I was when I ran out for a few days yet my mind remained surprisingly functional.

Way too much of this stuff is voodoo.

AndyK
10-24-08, 10:17 PM
For the purposes of ADHD the prednisolone would only have to treat a small area. Eyedrops would be the most direct approach I can think of and require no metabolization. The antibiotic eyedrops may have had some effect too? An inflammatory disorder, probably mast cell related given the effectiveness of Nasalcrom and ineffectiveness of any steroids short of prednisolone, still seems like the best bet. Acidosis seems like a likely aggravating factor but I don't know how to definitively test that theory, plus most docs seem to think that it only happens in extreme circumstances (I think that's wrong). I suspect that Adderall is compensating for a sleep disorder more than anything else, given how wiped out I was when I ran out for a few days yet my mind remained surprisingly functional.

Way too much of this stuff is voodoo.

Given the nature of the circulation eyedrops are not a direct way of influencing the brain. As a further obsevation I have on 4 occasions had a single dose of prednisolone tabs to suppress possible allergy to flu shots and have noticed no effect on my mental state as aresult of the medication ( either before or after the flu shot- which was 12 hours after).
The delay from dosing with oral steroids to a measurable effect is about 4 hours if the tab is taken on an empty stomach).

As for acidosis- it is easily measurable and can readily be shown to only occur in extreme situations. Our biological function is depenadant on an extremely narrow contol of our internal acid - base balance. Too much either way and your proteins are denatured. They become dysfunctional at much lesser levels of abnormality.

Acidosis IS related to disturbed mental state but that disturbance is called delirium and is clinically quite distinct. Local acidosis in the brain would be associated with a brain abscess- with very distinct clinical faatures. Localised acidosis distant to the brain- ( say an infected toe) does not cause changes in mental state other than annoyance at the sore toe.

I hope this helps.

mctavish23
10-24-08, 10:29 PM
I have no idea what that means; in terms of my original post .

I'd certainly be open to reading how that coincides or correlates with the science behind the disorder.

Either way, it's intriguing.

tc

mctavish23

(Robert)

cxg_tweety
11-01-08, 10:15 PM
Great info! thanks

choetso
11-02-08, 05:19 AM
There is a group in Norway (Reichelt et al) that is working with a hyphothesis of urinary peptides originating from milk and gluten, connected with ADHD.
One of these peptides stimulates the uptake of serotonine in blood platelets.
Other peptides is found to bind to morphine receptors in the brain.

Fact is that a lot of kids with ADHD benefits very much from a diet without milk and gluten.

Anyone else interested in this field?
I will be thankful for links to research on this.

Mincan
11-02-08, 09:09 AM
I've known about milk products influencing our brains in the same fashion as morphine and thus its addictive nature, no one believes me... but all I said was this was some research they've been doing. I learned about it when I was a fruitarian for 8 months (I only ate fruit).

choetso
11-02-08, 09:22 AM
Doesnt get a lot of attention does it? Wonder why...

By the way, Reichelt told me this summer he had six Tourette's for analysis. They ALL had gluten peptides in their urine..

Very small group, yes. But 100%. ! Amazing!


I wrote a little on the amalgam/vaccination tread if you are interested in more background on this.

choetso
11-03-08, 03:34 AM
As for preservatives, food colorings and so on...


1994 May;72(5):462-8.
Foods and additives are common causes of the attention deficit hyperactive disorder in children.
Boris M, Mandel FS.
North Shore Hospital-Cornell Medical Center, Manhasset, New York.

The attention deficit hyperactive disorder (ADHD) is a neurophysiologic problem that is detrimental to children and their parents.



Despite previous studies on the role of foods, preservatives and artificial colorings in ADHD this issue remains controversial.



This investigation evaluated 26 children who meet the criteria for ADHD.



Treatment with a multiple item elimination diet showed 19 children (73%) responded favorably, P < .001.

On open challenge, all 19 children reacted to many foods, dyes, and/or preservatives.

A double-blind placebo controlled food challenge (DBPCFC) was completed in 16 children.

There was a significant improvement on placebo days compared with challenge days (P = .003).

Atopic children with ADHD had a significantly higher response rate than the nonatopic group.



This study demonstrates a beneficial effect of eliminating reactive foods and artificial colors in children with ADHD.

Dietary factors may play a significant role in the etiology of the majority of children with ADHD.


PMID: 8179235 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

choetso
11-03-08, 03:46 AM
Heres a Dutch study from 2008:


Eur Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 2008 Apr 21.
A randomised controlled trial into the effects of food on ADHD.
Pelsser LM, Frankena K, Toorman J, Savelkoul HF, Pereira RR, Buitelaar JK.
ADHD Research Centre, Liviuslaan 49, 5624 JE, Eindhoven, The Netherlands

The aim of this study is to assess the efficacy of a restricted elimination diet in reducing symptoms in an unselected group of children with Attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD).



Dietary studies have already shown evidence of efficacy in selected subgroups.

Twenty-seven children (mean age 6.2) who all met the DSM-IV criteria for ADHD, were assigned randomly to either an intervention group (15/27) or a waiting-list control group (12/27).

Primary endpoint was the clinical response, i.e. a decrease in the symptom scores by 50% or more, at week 9 based on parent and teacher ratings on the abbreviated ten-item Conners Scale and the ADHD-DSM-IV Rating Scale.

The intention-to-treat analysis showed that the number of clinical responders in the intervention group was significantly larger than that in the control group [parent ratings 11/15 (73%) versus 0/12 (0%); teacher ratings, 7/10 (70%) versus 0/7 (0%)].

The Number of ADHD criteria on the ADHD Rating Scale showed an effect size of 2.1 (cohen's d) and a scale reduction of 69.4%.

Comorbid symptoms of oppositional defiant disorder also showed a significantly greater decrease in the intervention group than it did in the control group (cohens's d 1.1, scale reduction 45.3%).



A strictly supervised elimination diet may be a valuable instrument in testing young children with ADHD on whether dietary factors may contribute to the manifestation of the disorder and may have a beneficial effect on the children's behaviour.


PMID: 18431534 (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18431534) [PubMed - as supplied by publisher]


The complete study: http://www.adhdenvoeding.nl/uploads/File/ADHD_and_Food,_ECAP_2008,_Pelsser_et_al.pdf

choetso
11-03-08, 04:30 AM
A useful link for those interested in research on dietary interventions.
Long list of research papers...
Mostly focus on autism, but even some on ADHD.

http://gfcf-diet.talkaboutcuringautism.org/dietary-research-in-asd.htm

mctavish23
11-18-08, 05:16 PM
I appreciate those references.

Thank you. I will definately read them.

There's a great deal of research on diet and ADHD;some of it promising.

However, unless and until those data are (exactly) replicated by unaffiliated researchers, over protracted lenghts of time, and the ( exact) same results obtained ( i.e., longitudinal validity & reliability), then nothing definitive can be stated.

As of today, there are NO nutritional or dietary /supplemental reseach to demonstrate that.

The primary reason is that supplements & nutrients cannot cross the blood brain barrier to get to the Mesocortical Pathway, i.e., the "route" by which Dopamine travels through the brain.

I started this thread in repsonse to someone who had obvious ulterior motives about ADHD not being a "real" disorder."

I would like to think I helped him finally cease and desist.

That was quite some time ago.

I haven't had that "feel" for quite some time.

I do periodically come back and read the posts from time to time, which I enjoy doing.

The level of expertise and (positive) energy involved in the Forum, and throughout this thread, is exciting for me personally & professionally.

So, whether I agree or disagree, is not as important to me as the dialogue that's generated.

The Scientific Method is still the "yard stick" by which all research is measured.

By those rigorous standards, the science behind the disorder of ADHD (slowly) progresses.

All (legitimate) research is important to the "big picture."

However,not all research obtains the level required to meet the "gold standard," upon which my remarks are based.

This thread has lasted longer than I could have ever imagined.

The central question posed is whether or not ADHD represents a "real" disorder.

The answer to that, after 106 years of research, is obviously a resounding "YES."

I'll close by thanking all of you again for your input.

tc

mctavish23

(Robert)

ADXP
12-29-08, 08:31 PM
Brain Trauma . Hemiparesis now make sense.

How do I know?
1. My dresses & bra has to be adjusted the strap on the left.
2. Cortisone shots 2x a year on left buttocks.
3. Eyeglasses left side tilted
4. Jaw / no 3rd molar on the upper left
5. Left leg is shoter/longer
6. Can't type.
7. Leftee/ after Dex
8. shoes 6 & 7: two pairs
9. Tennis left
10. Chess moves left
11. smoke left
12. chew left
13. pee left
14. Read in circles counterclockwise
15. Writes slanted
16. Anything instinctively is left
17. even when I sneeze
18. Drives manual couldn't handle automatic
19. when I write letters I do not follow corners, either across or in blocks in circles. I have to numbered each paragraph.
20. PC monitor tilted.
typing one hand.

I am not jokimg.

Bladder aches more left.

The day I took Dex ,
there is something has been awaken inside me.

malbec
01-04-09, 03:37 PM
This reply was extremeley helpful, particularly for our research team in Italy, where as absurd as it may sound, we have a fierce organized resistance from Scientologists that continuely attack even organizations of parents trying to provide support for one another in dealing with this challenge.

The problem that I most frequently encounter here (Italy) is that most people do not understand the exact nature of a "psychiatric" disorder. We have a national health service (ASL) that has seperated psychiatry from Neurology, making this an almost institutional problem. Our group describes psychiatric illnesses as "Cellular or systemic events of a biochemical nature whose principal symptoms are behavioral" We often point out that pathologies such as tumors, which most people accept as "real" pathologies, when they occur in or metastasize to the brain, cause behavioral symptoms, demonstrating that a compromise in neurological function is often manifested in behavioral terms, making the source of the pathology often much more difficult to find. Excellent work on the Dopamine-Folate pathway for signalling in the D4 Dopamine receptors (although with an unfortunate discussion of AD/HD demonstrating a severe clinical lack of understanding of the disorder) has further demonstrated the cellular mechanisms of this disorder, and helped move us closer to a genetic interpretation. It is unlikely that AD/HD has a single gene as its cause. However, there seems to be good evidence that the group of genes responsible are closely enough linked so that a disruption in one can cause the entire system to dysfunction, explaining the variability in primary symptoms seen in AD/HD. Personally I think that finding at least one gene involved with the syndrome will help tremendously to correct the public misperception that this is an invented syndrome. The evidence of real impairment, particularly in adults who lack the structured environment and key support structures available to children are beyond discussion, and well documented in many studies. What is needed is a better education of the public in the arena of mental illness in general, and a push to destroy the false impression that the mind is somehow "special" and the brain, amazing organ that it is, is somehow not just made of cells, like the liver or the pancreas. All of you who get this message out do a tremendous service to science in general, and mental illness in particular.

ADXP
01-04-09, 05:22 PM
This reply was extremeley helpful, particularly for our research team in Italy, where as absurd as it may sound, we have a fierce organized resistance from Scientologists that continuely attack even organizations of parents trying to provide support for one another in dealing with this challenge..

Scientologists>>

Tom Cruise is in Italy too?

Italy?


St. Cecilia Basilica. Patroness of Musicians.

QUOTE]

ADXP
01-04-09, 06:34 PM
It maybe worth a visit to this site
see for yourself
bladder symptoms/disease.

http://www.ichelp.org/ResearchCenter/LiteratureReview/tabid/409/Default.aspx#7

mctavish23
01-31-09, 12:12 PM
Those are old data.

They have established longitudinal vailidity and reliability(i.e.,,"The Gold Standard" for

ALL scientific research.

But there's one more thing I've neglected to say,even though it's so obvious.

The Scientologists and other anti-ADHD groups have NEVER been able to refute those

data with peer reviewed research of the exact same caliber (longitudinal validity &

reliability).

Individual studies come and go,however, they don't neccessarily establish patterns of

consistency.

Results may change in terms of percentiles & standard deviations.

However, when the direction of the research remains the same,year after year, and

unaffiliated researchers can consistently replicate that same research ,and keep getting

the same or similar results, you have something solid.

The problem with ALL anti-ADHD research is "experimenter bias."

If there were legitimate data to refute the current science behind the disorder,

those groups would have their very own Super Bowl Party.

Continuing with a sports analogy, After 106+ years, the score is ADHD approx. 10,000

anti-ADHD ZERO.

You can call it "hog wash" or anything else you like.

However, the Mindfulness reality check of the day is that no one can say those data

aren't valid.

Because that's the ONLY way you can refute them.

Thanks for bringing this up again, as I enjoy the opportunity to discuss it.

tc

mctavish23

(Robert)


"Anecdotal isn't statistically significant."

Russell Barkley,PhD

SB_UK
01-31-09, 12:32 PM
Statements on mental characteristics require a model for mind -
(science is (at its most fundamental) - an approach which validate explanatory models of phenomena)

Statements on mental characteristics require a model for mind -a model of mind from which deviations can be understood mechanistically -

- we're about to see this model introduced into our collective's global mindscape
- introduced as a much needed paradigm shift in which our suspicions will be provably sustained

selecting only points from immediately above:

-1-- The reason why actors are susceptible to scientologist
-2-- The difference between cult and religion
-3-- The meaning of terms 'disorder and disease'
and
-4-- The capacity to discriminate between physiologic and pathophysiological processes -
(understanding more than biochemical - though through invoking neuro/ biochemical mechanism
(of course)
also)
--- The capacity to discriminate between physiologic and pathophysiological processes -
- particularly with reference to mental and physical patho-/physiology.
(example
- psychological disorders [mental] and neurological disorders [physical] respectively).

The ADHD Fan
01-31-09, 12:41 PM
I have read too many books by so-called "experts" who have said that ADHD is just a term for misbehaved kids. For anyone who says the disorder is a sham, I'd invite them to come visit my school for 20 minutes and see what they say then! Thanks again, mctavish23, I know how hard you worked on collecting and publishing this info, dont' think it's not appreciated by all of us!

y00ch
01-31-09, 03:54 PM
The problem with ALL anti-ADHD research is "experimenter bias."


The problem with ALL research and human intervention on phenominon for any plausible circumstance is "experimenter bias". It is a huge confounding variable found in science all across the board and is largely ignored! It also leads to drastically divergent outcomes on published studies.


That is why Plato famously posited that the world of senses is constantly in flux. Hence, if one was to observe their supposed worlds then it would be mere opinion since EVERYONE will have a slightly different account.

Now this is true. We know that some people perceive colors differently. We know that reality is perceived through our sensing organ, the brain. The possibility of different realities is extremely possible since something as loose and abstract like consciousness cannot be measured but only contimplated. Its a paradox. How do you measure something that is speculative at best? Plus look at string theory. The "new" theory of everything where everything in this reality as well as all other realities are oscillating!
That means they are in flux! That means the computer in front of you. The keyboard, The air, the hottie blonde chick down the street, are all moving around. Creating harmonic vibrations. Plato was damn right. and religion is right as well. After life. Yes I said it. After life. Its another reality friends.

With regard to ADHD. One has to merely step across the border to a non-westernized country, where psychology and philosophy has no truthful bearing, (no biases) and study the population so that measurements and aspiring objectivity might be achieved. You will you find a cultural difference. Perhaps ADHD has a cultural component. Dare I say correlation? I'm sure someone will hop on my back for saying this. But in order to have a correct and strong theory one must rule out other variables. Cultural causation for ADHD MUST BE explored.

As the world globalizes. We are not going to study things as they once were. Western ideals are taking over and spreading. We won't be able to differentiate one ideal from the other since we will all be one. This sameness will have profound effects on conformity. The day of homogeneology will occur. Sorry to sound fatalistic


I'll tell you how i really feel: Half of myself feels that this disorder doesnt exist. That its complete bull. The other half says no. You're totally wrong. The evidence for me being wrong is in my life. (ahem...which has not been a smooth ride.) I mean really.


But you cant be truly objective. If you were purely and truly objective you'd be God.

Peace and blessing.

mctavish23
01-31-09, 07:22 PM
ADHD has been studied since 1902.

Some of the variables that have been researched extensively are :

1) cultural /societal influences;

2)environmental stressors ( divorce,grief & loss, diet, parenting,video games,tv,etc.);

2) busy lifestyles,etc.

NONE of those have been shown to impact ADHD.

They do however, impact common comorbid conditions such as behavior problems,

depression,anxiety,etc.

I understand what you're saying,but I'm not being philosophical.

ADHD research generally sets the bar at the 93% (T66) or 6 of 9 symptoms.

Those data are separated from random chance 93 x's out of 100.

The Scientologist's for example, were caught trying to pressure 2 researchers that

received a grant to conduct ADHD "research."

When those data didn't turn out the way they had wanted, they threatened to pull the

plug.

The researchers chose to come forward instead and make the story known.

Any group oepnly opposed to something, that attempts to investigate that same thing in

an "an objective" manner, is going to be biased from the start.

To be truly objective, they'd have to admit being wrong; if those data supported it.

That will never happen with dogmatic believers; particularly those with an alien landing strip in front of their international

headquarters.

The same thing can be said about having the President of Iran "investigate" the Holocaust.

The above post IS accurate.

Here's some excellent references:

www.greatschools.net/pdfs/2200_7-barktran.pdf?

http://aappolicy.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/pediatrics%3b105/5/1158

www.russellbarkley.org

You'll find a link there for the journal article : International Consensus 2002

No one has ever said that medicine,psychology or psychiatry were exact sciences.

Like most of the FORUM members, I suffer from this every day of my life.

I'm blest with the opportunity to have made it's diagnosis & treatment my profession.

Those statments are indeed accurate.

tc

mctavish23

(Robert)


PS

The International Consensus 2002 article is THE definitive article on ADHD as a valid disorder.

It's signed off on by over 80 of the world's leading scientists,with 19 pages of references.

Before anyone can claim that any disorder isn't valid, they have to assert the fact that THEY know what a valid disorder truly

looks like.

Otherwise, how would they know?

The "Gold Standard" definition of ANY disorder is in that article (i.e.,harmful dysfunction, which ADHD easily meets).

It's from rsearch by Rutger's Ethics Professor,Jerome Wakefield.

I appreciate your honesty. The research on the validity of ADHD is overwhelming.

Hopefully you'll read some of it.

y00ch
01-31-09, 07:55 PM
Mc Tavish,

Thank sir for providing those references and for your alternative perspective. The more the marrier is my motto.

qinkin
01-31-09, 08:10 PM
Y00ch, there's nothing wrong (which you know)
expressing yourself, your background, what is important to you.. I like to do these things regularly, and sometimes get persecuted.

Time's like these, be sure to also listen 50%(a lot)..., and you MUST have used the medications, to finally understand.. as we do, the ADD thing

I don' even mind, self righteousness.. :D but not false-pretense

1902? wow:confused:

y00ch
01-31-09, 08:53 PM
oook.....

Never. Tell me what to do. You are self righteous for doing so. A pretense is not false until proven false. And I'll listen to whatever I want to listen to.

ADXP
01-31-09, 08:56 PM
Y00ch, there's nothing wrong (which you

1902? wow:confused:

ADHD/ Autism is directly caused by Hg.
There are 48 diseases as of this writing directly related to
Hg poisoning.

The latest one is found on RCT
of breasts CA patients.

The highest rates of suicides is highly
related to Hg poisoning.
The #1 professionals who committed suicides
are dentists.

""CDC ,ADA,FDA,FDI are the town drunk"" testimony
by Boyd Haley in US Congress in 200?

www.mercuryfreenow.org

y00ch
01-31-09, 09:27 PM
I'm studying this right now for a Research and Methods class. The following should be taken into account when measuring ADHD behavior (i.e. tests and diagnostics for diagnosis)

Unobtrusive measures -
A behavioral measure is reactive when participants' awareness of an observer affects the measurable process (Webb et al., 1981)

This means that observing a behavior interferes with measuring that behavior. As in the case with ADHD. A docs inevitable diagnosis or lack of one has already interfered with their own labeling process just by merely being present.

Which by the way. Is also related to "experimental bias". Wrongfully perceiving.

This could be a strong statement. But what if an entire society was experiencing the same thing? What if us in America all suffer from an large societal ailment of bias? Pre existing notions of ADHD or any disorder, causing the over the diagnosis of it.

oddjobace
01-31-09, 09:58 PM
I'm studying this right now for a Research and Methods class. The following should be taken into account when measuring ADHD behavior (i.e. tests and diagnostics for diagnosis)

Unobtrusive measures -
A behavioral measure is reactive when participants' awareness of an observer affects the measurable process (Webb et al., 1981)

This means that observing a behavior interferes with measuring that behavior. As in the case with ADHD. A docs inevitable diagnosis or lack of one has already interfered with their own labeling process just by merely being present.

Which by the way. Is also related to "experimental bias". Wrongfully perceiving.

This could be a strong statement. But what if an entire society was experiencing the same thing? What if us in America all suffer from an large societal ailment of bias? Pre existing notions of ADHD or any disorder, causing the over the diagnosis of it.

This is something that I have really wondered about a lot. The fact that there are no absolute ways to measure a human subject.

Very few take into consideration what the person even eat that morning or do they have an issue with women or men giving the test which could persuade the results?

What is the temperature of the room or the color of the room? Is it small and cramped or very sterile and uncomfortable?

I took an ADD test once and the lawn mower guy came by the window while I was taking the test. Tell me that doesn't also interfere.

KDLMaj
01-31-09, 10:53 PM
While it's awesome to throw studies back and forth- there is a bottom line that can't be denied.

1. The debates about whether or not ADHD exists rage on in the media and in households, not among medical professionals. Granted, there are some (very vocal) professionals who deny the existence of ADHD, but they hold a very minority opinion (hey- there are still some scientific papers that try to argue that there's no human impact on global climate change!). There is near scientific consensus as to the existence of a neurological condition (or potentially conditions) that present as ADHD.

2. ADHD is perhaps the most well-studied childhood disorder in the Western world. There is not a paucity of evidence as to its existence, and there are neurological scans readily available demonstrating clinically significant difference between ADHD brains and non-ADHD brains.

3. ADHD has one of the highest response rates to pharmacological intervention of any psychiatric disorder, and stimulant medication is basically the gold standard in treatment efficacy. It's almost unheard of to find a psychiatric drug with the same response rate as stimulant meds have for ADHD. Both of these things lend a lot of validity to the claim that ADHD is a valid neurological disorder.

Again, there isn't actually a question as to whether or not ADHD is a valid neurological condition. There are just, unfortunately, many people out there who have chosen to question it regardless- using public forums to express their own moral views on how society should look and to parade those views as science.

y00ch
01-31-09, 11:13 PM
I took an ADD test once and the lawn mower guy came by the window while I was taking the test. Tell me that doesn't also interfere. <!-- / message --> <!-- sig -->

OOOOOOOOOOOOH DAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAANG!

:):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):)

the truth is so beautiful when it shows! Best to you and good luck as with everyone else in this forum. If you'd like to explore further and perhaps find an answer research the arguments against me and you.

www.greatschools.net/pdfs/2200_7-barktran.pdf? (http://www.greatschools.net/pdfs/2200_7-barktran.pdf?)

http://aappolicy.aappublications.org...s%3b105/5/1158 (http://aappolicy.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/pediatrics%3b105/5/1158)

www.russellbarkley.org (http://www.russellbarkley.org/)


Here is the thread:
http://www.addforums.com/forums/showthread.php?p=694155#post694155

ADHDTigger
02-01-09, 12:51 AM
To y00ch- An opinion. My opinion.

I find it ridiculous in the extreme to suggest that there is a cultural component to ADHD. I would hazard a guess that there is a cultural bias against diagnosing it. I would equally opine that it is MUCH easier to assume that within a society there are those who do not match the cultural norms. "Pink monkeys", if you will in a society built by brown monkeys. Further, I would hazard a guess that anyone whose needs fall outside of the whole are generally shunned by some cultures. Perhaps the cultural bias is that SOME cultures seek to include, not exclude.

It is a whole lot easier to assume that someone is refusing to live up to societal expectations than to consider that it is possible to be seriously impacted by something that has no face. I contend that ADHD DOES have a face. Mine is but one of them.

It is not necessary for my day to day happiness for you to validate my experience. It is necessary that I recognize my reality before I succumb to depression and self loathing and possibly decide that life isn't worth living. I think that it is my responsibility to actively seek a solution to a problem that could conceivably make me a burden to the society that sometimes seems to want to negate my reality.

There are all manner of theories as to why ADD/ADHD is diagnosed more in the US than virtually anywhere else. Those theories are interesting but are not borne out by the scientific research. The validity of ADHD IS borne out by scientific research. I think I will stick with the provable.

Bottom line. Each person should be able to believe as they do. They should be able to set the parameters of their belief and manage to the parameters they set. They should NOT be allowed to define what I believe. I can manage that just fine on my own.

In case no one has ever told you, your opinion of me is none of my business. It is not my job to convince you of anything, nor is it yours to convince me.

I think that the right answer is to agree that we will never agree on this. In my world, ADHD is more real than you are.

KDLMaj
02-01-09, 12:58 AM
Oh I definitely believe there is a cultural component to ADHD. To label something as a "disorder" is a cultural statement. In its purest form, ADHD is simply another variation on human brain development. The reason why it's a disorder is that we live in a society where this particular variation is highly problematic for a functional life.

Without the high demands on organization and inhibition required by modern life, ADHD would likely be considered to be "merely" uncomfortable rather than potentially debilitating.

mctavish23
02-01-09, 01:05 AM
The cause of ADHD is unknown.

What is known is that it's a neurobiological,brain based disorder of inhibition,self-control

and working memory.

Please check out the Executive Functions, as they make for interesting reading.

They're thought to be mental processes that serve as in a management or supervisory

function.

What we don't know far outweighs what we do know.

We really are approaching 10K research articles,professional papers, books,etc., on

ADHD.

(IMO) The most fascinating area is in molecular genetics.

tc

mctavish23

(Robert)

meadd823
02-01-09, 03:10 AM
Never. Tell me what to do. You are self righteous for doing so.

Call me what ever - but please keep it constructive and within the ADDF guidelines.

meadd823
02-01-09, 03:41 AM
meadd823 the person

Dare I say correlation? I'm sure someone will hop on my back for saying this. But in order to have a correct and strong theory one must rule out other variables. Cultural causation for ADHD MUST BE explored.


I would venture to say the disabilities associated with ADD would very much be contextual in nature. The environment would effect weather a trait is an advantage or a deficit.

While culture is an aspect of the environment it is more subjective and leaves out the notion that denying a condition exist as many eastern cultures tend to do in no way eliminates the existence of a condition only the identification thereof and possibility for at least some resemblance of assistance.

While I agree with your over all reasoning of scientific observations being subjective not to mention the interpretation of said scientific observations. I believe we find that which we seek and scientist are no different.

I disagree with a few specifics The main one being the premise of culture as a objective point of contention.


I find it ridiculous in the extreme to suggest that there is a cultural component to ADHD.

I how ever would not go this far - there is nothing ridiculous about it.{IMHO}


Bottom line. Each person should be able to believe as they do. They should be able to set the parameters of their belief and manage to the parameters they set. They should NOT be allowed to define what I believe. I can manage that just fine on my own.


I do not see how any one is defining what you believe????

I am unsure of where this came from ??

I thought people were just sharing their perspectives on the scientific basis of ADD.


In case no one has ever told you, your opinion of me is none of my business

I feel like some one who must have missed some thing here . . .

Opposing presentations is welcome but personal attacks aren't. Surly a bunch of adults can disagree without being disagreeable!

Part of diversity is a difference of opinion - in no way does opposition invalidate an opinion - I would say the opposite is true No one ever kicks a dead dog - so if some one opposed me I must have written some thing worth reading because in this crowd every thing is subject to debate - I mean every thing (http://www.addforums.com/forums/showthread.php?p=570849#post570849)

y00ch
02-01-09, 03:53 AM
Quick Note
If we are to discuss this topic further and intend on progressive debate then lets keep in mind that we should direct arguments towards the subject and not to personal attacks. I will not name names but it does us no good to waste letters and valuable time to pointless destructive demeaning bickering.

Further more, arguments are much stronger when backed with a citation or reference to previous text.

Whats Measurable?
True. Arguments against ADHD are in the minority. Dont forget this "thing" is still fairly new. True there isn't much science backing the claims against ADHD but somethings cannot be measured.

Can you measure ideas? Can you measure thoughts? Can you quantify love? Can you quantify consciousness? There are aspects of our lives that simply cannot be objectified. Its called the hard problem (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard_problem_of_consciousness) in science. There is experience that is subjective, meaning you can't reduce life to simple mechanistic points of view. This is what science and medicine has provided thus far: biology is quantifiable. Science is materialistic. Science can be measured and proved tested and what not. There fore the postulation is that what ever i prove to be true must be true.

But it can't equate for non-objective ideals. Life is not an algorhythm. Life is not predictable to any measure AT ALL. Did anyone predict the economic crisis? Does anyone know you'll live tommorow? Hell no.

Science is the feeble attempt to explain phenominon. Its an imperfect, halphazard effort that has to constantly redo itself in order to stay true in one particular moment. We didnt know about gravity until Newton defined it.

Until we acknowledge that there is something outside of medicine and science effecting us than all arguments are nullified.

Still Lost?
How does this relate? Well. ADHD as I said before is simply a label. Slapped on your forhead by your own doing. It wouldn't exist if we never defined it.

ex. Einstein.
Was now thought to have ADHD. What if took Einstein when he was fourteen and brought him here. Lets say to the Harvard Psychoanalysis Clinic. The best in the world huh?
They diagnose him and then give him treatment for ADHD. He takes ritalin, wellbutrin, Strattera or any other host of cognitive changing meds.
Now the guy has truly f'd his organic thinking. He's feeling great. No problems. No ADHD and also no profound theories either because his cognitions are now "normal". His mood is level and the ability he had before : to jump from topic to topic. To contimplate in a hyperfocused way that was natural to him. To pursue things only that interested him. This is all now gone.

Driven to Distraction
As far as cultural there is only good data to support this. Let me refer you to the text recommended by this VERY SITE: Driven to Distraction (Hallowell & Ratey, 1994).

"Psuedo- ADD. American society tends to create ADD-like symptoms in us all. We live in an ADD-ogenic culture."

" It is true that the prevalence of ADD- The frequency with which it occurs in the population ove a given period of time - is higher in America than it is over seas. We do not know why this is so." p.191.

reference
Supporting my previous argument: anti-psychiatry. just read R.D. Laing (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R._D._Laing), or David Cooper (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Cooper_%28psychiatrist%29), or Szasz (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Szasz).

meadd823
02-01-09, 04:29 AM
Here is my pro psychiatry opinion - denying mental illness exist is insanity

Charles Manson (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Manson) any one??

Okay apologies

I simply had a weak moment and couldn't resist the open door

Now the huge question is if ADD doesn't exist - Should I take those pills for my non-existent ADD that doesn't cause me to see irony every where and respond to post impulsively {while forgetting I am supposed to be moderating them - damn-it :p}

SB_UK
02-01-09, 05:25 AM
how would it feel if anybody particularly were chained to a chair?

the pain could be assuaged by some kinda' therapeutic agent - sending the guy to sleep for instance
(would work)

[not drawing a connection here between sleeping tablets :-) and ADD medication
- ADD medication which has the opposite effect - and 'wakes us up']

:-)

sleep -> <- wake

'and the dreamers are a/waking'
Katherine Bush (Aerial II)Physical hyperactivity <- sleep ->- physical inactivity

Mental hyperactivity <- sleep ->- REM - mental activity

physical motion ->- induces ->- saccades (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saccade)

mental motion ->- induces ->- saccades (rapid eye motion)

one ->-turns->- the other
whilst
the other ->-turns->- the one

'and the dreamers are a/waking'
Katherine Bush (Aerial II)how would it feel if one's mind were chained to a chair?

---------------------------------------

.....ATTENTION
Emergency Evacuation

........c-l-e-a-r
..........t-h-e
.........a-r-e-a

---------------------------------------

http://tbn2.google.com/images?q=tbn:HXvWHWoBjektjM:http://www.gemplers.com/images/items/RABM8-lrg.jpg

not .the bo..b.m
more the boredom

how would it feel if one's mind were chained to a chair?

..http://tbn1.google.com/images?q=tbn:bJvp19m60sOPNM:http://english.cri.cn/mmsource/images/2008/01/07/4354bird1.jpg

not :-) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brooding

instead

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Brood
An unconventional psychotherapist (Oliver Reed) has created a technique called "psychoplasmics." He encourages his patients to "go all the way through it" and allow their negative emotions (rage, fear, etc.) to cause their bodies to undergo (usually radical) physical change. A man verbally abused by his father develops welts over his body as a way of expressing his pain.mental -> physical connects
telepathic connections

metamorphosis of the individual through following one's mind
- changes in mind which exaptatively impacts on the individual's physical form

cf

nuclear physicist ->*-> Hulk -> nuclear physicist (after harnessing the power of gamma radiation)

*
rage

sleep -> <- wake
moon -> <- sun
dark -> <- light

http://tbn0.google.com/images?q=tbn:PU4sTjpLl9y9lM:http://rst.gsfc.nasa.gov/Sect20/em-op-spectrum.jpg

larger (http://rst.gsfc.nasa.gov/Sect20/em-op-spectrum.jpghttp://rst.gsfc.nasa.gov/Sect20/em-op-spectrum.jpg)

http://tbn0.google.com/images?q=tbn:Sv5IkBhelNqP6M:http://static.newworldencyclopedia.org/thumb/6/65/Moon_gamma_rays_egret_instrument_cgro.jpg/200px-Moon_gamma_rays_egret_instrument_cgro.jpg -> <- http://tbn0.google.com/images?q=tbn:Pqbw-xTjlcVOeM:http://www.gb.nrao.edu/epo/PageMill_Resources/m87-20cm.jpg


The Moon as seen In (http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Gamma_ray) GAMMA rays -> <- In (http://www.gb.nrao.edu/epo/virgo10.html) addition to RADIO waves, the sun emits ... ...

neuromelanin substantia nigra (deep aspects)
melanin skin (superficial aspects)
of man

lunar gamma emission -> neuromelanin [the central capacitor] [->- ->- ->-lunatic fringe, dog, change]
+
solar emission spectrum -> melanin [the peripheral capacitor] [->- ->- ->- basking lazy, cat, stability]

Evolution to greater capacity.

We're both lunar and solar powered.


dark -> <- light

how would it feel if one's mind were chained to a chair?

---------------------------------------

.....ATTENTION
Emergency Evacuation

---------------------------------------

'and the dreamers are a/waking'
Katherine Bush (Aerial II)

mijahe
02-01-09, 07:02 AM
Quick Note
If we are to discuss this topic further and intend on progressive debate then lets keep in mind that we should direct arguments towards the subject and not to personal attacks. I will not name names but it does us no good to waste letters and valuable time to pointless destructive demeaning bickering.

It is always important to take the emotion out of a discussion, otherwise it becomes an argument.



Still Lost?
How does this relate? Well. ADHD as I said before is simply a label. Slapped on your forhead by your own doing. It wouldn't exist if we never defined it.

Labels are actually very important. Labels, by definition, define an abstract concept that we can reference without having to undergo the arduous task of explanation.

A simple example: I have in my hand a peanut butter sandwich.

Now, from that label you will undoubtedly understand that I have:
* Some sort of bread, it could be multi-grain, white, or something else that can fit into the category of 'sandwich'.
* I also have peanut butter, which is made from peanuts.
* I may also have butter, (but I don't like butter with peanut butter).

By mentioning 'sandwich' you know what it's going to look like. You can probably even taste it, (if you like peanut butter sandwiches), and have already gone to the fridge.


My point is: Labels define something. It's a label.

One thing my psych said to me was: Get to know the label for a couple of years. Understand it. What it means. Then try to never use it again. Don't use it as a crutch, but leave it behind.

His point was that: It's just a name!

I guess, this is sort of arguing semantics. But, there are still people walking this earth for which stimulants make their life so much easier to cope with.



ex. Einstein.
Was now thought to have ADHD. What if took Einstein when he was fourteen and brought him here. Lets say to the Harvard Psychoanalysis Clinic. The best in the world huh?

On to my next point:

I agree with you here. If we took the Einstein out of Einstein he wouldn't be. Much like Richard Branson. However, if Einstein was to ever have ADHD, (I think common thinking is now Aspergers), then he managed to carve out and adjust to his condition.

Some of us can't. The world is a lot more demanding these days. It's not a matter of fast paced, it's a matter of society reducing it's focus down to what is acceptable behaviour and what is not.

It is now getting so narrow that for a lot of us we have to have a little bit of extra help. Is that wrong?

Yes, Einstein may probably have been damaged by it. But it doesn't make it wrong. It's just a missed opportunity.


Really, you can argue the label. I'm happy with that. I have a pretty good certainty that in 100 years time ADHD will not exist in it's current form. It will be further classified, dissected, analyzed, split, and we'll end with something completely different.

mijahe
02-01-09, 07:19 AM
I would venture to say the disabilities associated with ADD would very much be contextual in nature. The environment would effect weather a trait is an advantage or a deficit.

meadd mentioned this as well.

ADHD is an issue of society reducing focus and expectations of what is considered 'normal'. It is society's choice to do this. It's happened, and now we're in the situation where we have a group of people who can't cope with it.

Is this then wrong? Are the people who can't cope wrong?

I always like examples:

I live downunder.... over the water a little way are the kiwis, (New Zealanders). Now they're a funny bunch. If Australia where to say: "Anyone flattening their vowels need to be taught how to speak properly, because we can't understand it."

Then a lot of kiwis would kick up a fuss. But, if it was causing problems, then the largest of the population would win. IE Australia.

Therefore, the poor sods over the water would have to start re-attending school to learn how to speak properly. There would be rebellions, complaints, etc. Is this wrong?

Probably is, but if it turns out, the whole world is in agreement with Australia, then what does New Zealand do?

Go to school. You can't do anything about it.

Consequently, ADDers suffer a similar fate. We have to adjust to the way the rest of the world works. Is this wrong? Probably.


Do I want to start a riot? Nope. Why?

I have a 'workaround' handy to me that is working nicely. I have seen a problem in my life.... I have addressed it.... and I have fixed it.

(Sorry, I was going to be the next Einstein, but... Sorry I let you guys down. :) )

(BTW, if Einstein didn't see a problem, then there probably wasn't one.)

Kunga Dorji
02-01-09, 08:24 AM
reference
Supporting my previous argument: anti-psychiatry. just read R.D. Laing (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R._D._Laing), or David Cooper (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Cooper_%28psychiatrist%29), or Szasz (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Szasz).

The big problem with Laing and Szasz was that these guys were full of opinion and rhetoric- but when push came to shove they had little to say about the problem of how to handle severely disturbed people. They were greqat at dishing out the criticism- but rarely said anything constructive.

As far as your points about the cultural aspects of ADHD- there is a point to be made there. The traditional approach to people with ADHD was to label them stupid, or lazy, or morally flawed- and just write them off. At least the medical approach is driven by the constructive ideal of trying to help the situation.

Culture can affect ADHD in other ways too- our current Western culture- andespecially in the US is in a state of turmoil. The old certainties have been swept away and we are alll to some extent caught up in a spiral of increasing materialism and working hours. The stability of our family life has been badly disrupted - and in my opinion is actually toxic to human mental health. ADHD in its clinically identifiable form is one manifestation of that toxicity- it would be expected to be much less disruptive in a more stable and less demanding environment.

As far as the validity of the diagnosis goes- it is clear that there is a large group of people who have problems in their life caused by an ongoing and disruptive unreliability of their attention span who have been separated from the general population by a reasonably rigorous diagnostic process, and who can be shown by extensive research material to be likely to benefit from stimulant medication. At the end of the day though DSM and all psychiatric diagnoses remain pretty conjectural. The diagnoses listed in DSM are just clusters of symptoms that are often concurrent- which may give some clues as to possible cause or treatment. These diagnoses do not have the same solidity as say a boil on the nose that has been swabbed and shown to grow Staphylococcus Aureus sensitive to flucloxacillin.

Having said that I am well aware of the improvement in my life that stimulants have wrought- and I would fight to the death anyone who sought to use the "non valid diagnosis" idea to block access to these valuable medications.

SB_UK
02-01-09, 09:07 AM
* Some sort of bread
* I may also have butter

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Szasz
... he criticized the "Free World" as well as the Communist states for its use of psychiatry and "drogophobia".The Myth of Mental Illness (1960)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gluten and casein free diets (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gluten-free,_casein-free_diet)
Further work confirmed opioid peptides such as casomorphines (from casein) and gluten exorphines and gliadorphin (from gluten) as possible suspects, due to their chemical similarity to opiates.Reichelt KL ... ... . Brain Dysfunct (1991); 4: 308-19

' ... Szasz criticized the "Free World" and particularly England for thickly buttered cucumber sandwiches'

What a difference a -

Together with the Church of Scientology, Szasz co-founded the Citizens Commission on Human Rights (CCHR), in 1969, to help clean up the field of human rights abuses.

- couple or three decades make.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientology
Although $cientology is recognized as a bona fide tax exempt institution in the United States and other countries,<sup class="reference" id="cite_ref-Toomey_16-0"></sup><sup class="reference" id="cite_ref-DHDavis_17-0"></sup>it has been widely criticized as a cult that financially defrauds and abuses its membersCrazy world we have here.

pearl jam, 'release me'

ADXP
02-01-09, 01:55 PM
Culture which means geographically?

Geographically where the law dictates what is legal or not legal.
In this case ,where amalgam fillings is being banned in Europe but not in Asia ,Africa, USA & the rests of the continents.

For us here in the US, closure to amalgam poisoning is just around
the corner. The CDC, FDA, FDA, FDI, the best town drunk of the
century,the American Dental Association. The ADA's gag order
on dentists will lose their license to practice
if they insinuate to patients that there is a 1% chance
Hg is unsafe. Too bad most of them are sick now & singing on youtube.

US has tremendous shortage of dental health practitioners.
Why?
Dental students get very sick ...don't finish.
Most practicing dentists get sick .

I got 12 teeth not replaced
but extracted. And detoxifying amount of Vit C (3g), Selenium & Glutathione.


Code:Red

mctavish23
02-01-09, 02:17 PM
Research can ONLY be refuted by equally compelling research.

When you have (literally) thousands of studies, over several decades,by different,well

respected investigators, and published in the best peer reviewed journals, that

continually support the same findings,there can be no doubt of the validity of the thesis in question.

There's absolutely NO QUESTION that ADHD is a valid disorder.

Vocal complaints are worthless unless the person,irrespective of profession, can back it up with legitimate research.

The entire world recognizes ADHD.

About 8 years ago, John Rosemand came to our local community college and spoke on ADHD being "fake."

The arangement was for him to stay and debate the matter with a panel of local pracrtitioners ( pediatrician,pediatric

psychiatrist,occupational therapist and child psychologist (me).

I had a stroke listening to him lie about there being "no genetic research."

Being from the South, I wasn't going to jump up and scream "BS."

After he finished, he suddenly announced that he had an "emergency" and had to leave.

The emergency was that I was about to verbally kick his ***, which I did.

My colleagues were nicer,but then again, they don't have ADHD.

I began by reading from the US Surgeon General's Report on the existence of ADHD, as well as from THE landmark genetic

study at that time (Cook,et.al.,1995). As I did, I also pointed out several other references that he said didn't exist, and which

proved him to be a liar. I lost count after a while. The bottom line is that he was deliberately misleading.

The weird thing was that one of my former roommates from grad school,who lives and practices in Charlotte, is his best friend.

So personally, he was nice. Professionally, I now understood why he had no license from any counseling or therapy association.

The reason is that he'd lose it. While it's unethical to lie to the public about research,it's fraudulent to charge money for it.

I would urge those of you who haven't checked out the 3 links I posted earlier, please go check them out.

The research on ADHD is serious science.

Please don't relegate it to obsevational measures alone, because that would be in error.

There's countless studies on the genetic contribution of the disorder ,going back to the 70-80's, involving twins from all

over the world.

I started this thread quite some time agao to confront someone with obvious ulterior motives.

I continue to try and keep the message relevant and very much alive and well.

tc ( and happy reading)

mctavish23
(Robert)

oddjobace
02-01-09, 03:31 PM
OOOOOOOOOOOOH DAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAANG!

:):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):)

the truth is so beautiful when it shows! Best to you and good luck as with everyone else in this forum. If you'd like to explore further and perhaps find an answer research the arguments against me and you.

www.greatschools.net/pdfs/2200_7-barktran.pdf? (http://www.greatschools.net/pdfs/2200_7-barktran.pdf?)

http://aappolicy.aappublications.org...s%3b105/5/1158 (http://aappolicy.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/pediatrics%3b105/5/1158)

www.russellbarkley.org (http://www.russellbarkley.org/)


Here is the thread:
http://www.addforums.com/forums/showthread.php?p=694155#post694155

I will look at these documents when I have a little time.

Honestly I think there are far too many variables to draw an absolute conclusion. It's interesting to try though.

oddjobace
02-01-09, 03:47 PM
Without the high demands on organization and inhibition required by modern life, ADHD would likely be considered to be "merely" uncomfortable rather than potentially debilitating.

I would venture to say that there are environments that the ADDer could feel they belong and even excel.

They don't exist in our industrialized world so much but the industrial world was not made based on the few that are a certain way.

Our country used to put deaf, bumb, blind and retarded all on the "Funny Farm" far away from society. The town I grew up in had a mental institution, complete with the scary tunnels and cellars from the past. This institution was far, far from the "normal" world.

We as a world can not handle anything different from us, the majority. This is what breeds predjudism. It is also what I believe to be a survival mechanism to keep us from the dangers of the unknown.

We can try to accept what is different, the ADDer, but our nature will always tell us to be wise and to think of them as different and potentially threatening.

SB_UK
02-01-09, 03:57 PM
After he finished, he suddenly announced that he had an "emergency" and had to leave.

The emergency was that I was about to verbally kick his ***, which I did.

:cool:

'unleash your inner ADDer'

mctavish23
02-01-09, 04:18 PM
Test scores alone are inappropriate for the diagnosis of ADHD.

Once again, I'd respectfully request you check out the links I posted earlier.

There's obviously countless more,but those three came to mind at the time.


If you go to this link http://www.greatschools.net/pdfs/2200_7-barktran.pdf?


You'll find a wealth of information. Specifically, these pages relate to some of what is

being discussed :

What Causes ADHD ? ( page 12 )

A Highly Inheritable Condition ( page 13)

The Role of Genetics (page 14) and

External Causes ( page 15)

There's a great deal more as well.

One of the best reference sources I've found is :


The ADHD Book of Lists by Sandra Rief,MA

What she's done is to take the most important research over the last 20 yrs or so,

organize into list form,by categories, AND post the original references.

In truth, it's more of a giantic Lit.Review.

When you get a chance,I hope you can check out all these and more.

tc

mctavish23

(Robert)

mctavish23
02-01-09, 04:35 PM
fyi,

The original research study on what we now call ADHD was conducted by London

Pediatrician, George Still. In 1902,he presented a series of 3 papers to the Royal College of

Physicians. The "street" kids he described would be similar to ADHD-Combined type,with

comorbid Conduct Disorder.He deducted that the cause of their behavior was what he called : "volitional inhibition."

Interestingly enough, one of the major theories today is based on Inhibition as the core

or base for the Executive Functions.

That can be viewed in more detail at the "greatschools" link or in :

ADHD and the Nature of Self-Control, by Russ Barkley,PhD (1997).

So in retrospect, I believe the UK and also Canada, with the contributions of Stella

Chess,MD, don't get enough coverage.

tc

mctavish23

(Robert)

choetso
02-01-09, 06:30 PM
ADHD is serotonine level imbalance?
Cause?
Peptides from badly digested proteins severely overrules the bodys own serotonine regulating mechanisms?
Cause?
Enzyme that should have digested peptides further is not working?
Cause?
Enzyme inhibition?
Cause?
Heavy metals?
Cause?
Amalgam fillings, other sources?

This is just one aspect.
But could be an important one.

And what else is the heavy metals up to I wonder...

Technojunkie
02-01-09, 08:12 PM
Gluten and casein, wheat and dairy proteins, are extremely tough to digest. GFCF diets help autistics. If any "badly digested proteins" are causing problems it'll be those two.

Mercury in HFCS has been in the news lately but the amounts found were conspicuously absent. Still, it's yet another reason to avoid soft drinks.

mctavish23
02-01-09, 09:32 PM
Research supports genetics as the primary cause.

Genes are the building blocks of life.

Multiple genes acting in concert can "make"disorders.

The genetic research to date seems to focus on Dopamine.

(Norephenphrine's also thought to be involved).

In particular,DAT1 (Dopamine transporter gene).

People w/ ADHD have an unusual version.

Simply put, it makes the pump inside the dopamine neuron "hyperactive."

Also,for people with ADHD,the DRD4 gene is longer than usual,which makes the nerve

less sensitive to dopamine.

In addition, there's a "pathway" thought to be involved with these areas:

1) Orbital Prefrontal Cortex
2) Striatum & the
3) Caudate

(Just as an fyi, the right Prefrontal Striatal Circuit is considered the brain's behavioral

inhibition system). There's that word again. Remember it.

There has also been speculation about (smaller) brain assymetry.

Using the DSM-IV TR symptoms, the genetic contribution is .97 (that doesn't guarantee

the disorder).

In addition to genetic/inherited, the other way to get ADHD is "acquired" type.

Pre natal injuries to the Prefrontal Cortex (10-15%) :

1) premature birth w/minor hemmorrhaging (increases potential risk by 3x's)

2) in utero alcohol consumption (increases possible risk by 2.5x's)

3) in utero tobacco use ( also 2.5x's)

Post Natal Brain Damage (3-5%) :

1) Traumatic Brain Injuries (TBI)

2)Strep Infection ( a rare strp infection of the brain that impacts the brains auto

immune system)

3)Chemotherpay for Leukemia

4)Pre-K children ingesting lead paint (other metals are not included)

5)Tumors

Those are the main one's, but don't take my word for it, read about it yourself.

This is it ( for now anyway).

(I hope you can see that these data go far beyond observational methods).

tc

mctavish23

(Robert)

oddjobace
02-02-09, 09:14 AM
Research supports genetics as the primary cause.

Genes are the building blocks of life.

Multiple genes acting in concert can "make"disorders.

The genetic research to date seems to focus on Dopamine.

(Norephenphrine's also thought to be involved).

In particular,DAT1 (Dopamine transporter gene).

People w/ ADHD have an unusual version.

Simply put, it makes the pump inside the dopamine neuron "hyperactive."

Also,for people with ADHD,the DRD4 gene is longer than usual,which makes the nerve

less sensitive to dopamine.

In addition, there's a "pathway" thought to be involved with these areas:

1) Orbital Prefrontal Cortex
2) Striatum & the
3) Caudate

(Just as an fyi, the right Prefrontal Striatal Circuit is considered the brain's behavioral

inhibition system). There's that word again. Remember it.

There has also been speculation about (smaller) brain assymetry.

Using the DSM-IV TR symptoms, the genetic contribution is .97 (that doesn't guarantee

the disorder).

In addition to genetic/inherited, the other way to get ADHD is "acquired" type.

Pre natal injuries to the Prefrontal Cortex (10-15%) :

1) premature birth w/minor hemmorrhaging (increases potential risk by 3x's)

2) in utero alcohol consumption (increases possible risk by 2.5x's)

3) in utero tobacco use ( also 2.5x's)

Post Natal Brain Damage (3-5%) :

1) Traumatic Brain Injuries (TBI)

2)Strep Infection ( a rare strp infection of the brain that impacts the brains auto

immune system)

3)Chemotherpay for Leukemia

4)Pre-K children ingesting lead paint (other metals are not included)

5)Tumors

Those are the main one's, but don't take my word for it, read about it yourself.

This is it ( for now anyway).

(I hope you can see that these data go far beyond observational methods).

tc

mctavish23

(Robert)


good info

dormammau2008
02-04-09, 08:05 PM
what about magatisuim postive and negative ive seen studies that chagenge the way a brain works when you give short busts ofve it in the lab this then chages the way the brain fires and that chagens the rest ofve it temply at best but what f its over a longtream basic what then what then aonther intreting point i though id say as i never saw it maotained on the therd i dono if it has any backing mre than what ive seen on it its leap on my part how it works on the brain over alonger time!!! if it worked that way! what do you think dorm

oddjobace
02-04-09, 08:18 PM
good info

Where did you get all of these statistics?

Do you have multiple sources you can share?

pADDyjay
02-04-09, 11:32 PM
Research supports genetics as the primary cause.

Genes are the building blocks of life.

Multiple genes acting in concert can "make"disorders.

The genetic research to date seems to focus on Dopamine.

(Norephenphrine's also thought to be involved).

In particular,DAT1 (Dopamine transporter gene).

People w/ ADHD have an unusual version.

Simply put, it makes the pump inside the dopamine neuron "hyperactive."

Also,for people with ADHD,the DRD4 gene is longer than usual,which makes the nerve

less sensitive to dopamine.

In addition, there's a "pathway" thought to be involved with these areas:

1) Orbital Prefrontal Cortex
2) Striatum & the
3) Caudate

(Just as an fyi, the right Prefrontal Striatal Circuit is considered the brain's behavioral

inhibition system). There's that word again. Remember it.

There has also been speculation about (smaller) brain assymetry.

Using the DSM-IV TR symptoms, the genetic contribution is .97 (that doesn't guarantee

the disorder).

In addition to genetic/inherited, the other way to get ADHD is "acquired" type.

Pre natal injuries to the Prefrontal Cortex (10-15%) :

1) premature birth w/minor hemmorrhaging (increases potential risk by 3x's)

2) in utero alcohol consumption (increases possible risk by 2.5x's)

3) in utero tobacco use ( also 2.5x's)

Post Natal Brain Damage (3-5%) :

1) Traumatic Brain Injuries (TBI)

2)Strep Infection ( a rare strp infection of the brain that impacts the brains auto

immune system)

3)Chemotherpay for Leukemia

4)Pre-K children ingesting lead paint (other metals are not included)

5)Tumors

Those are the main one's, but don't take my word for it, read about it yourself.

This is it ( for now anyway).

(I hope you can see that these data go far beyond observational methods).

tc

mctavish23

(Robert) double thanks , cant give you rep points again , but you rock the house....Ive learned so much from your posts....sould be "required reading:)

lol Patty

Kunga Dorji
02-05-09, 04:12 AM
For a brief summary of some of the scientific evidence look at Russell Barkely's Website- especially this page:
http://www.russellbarkley.org/adhd-references.htm

pADDyjay
02-05-09, 05:24 AM
For a brief summary of some of the scientific evidence look at Russell Barkely's Website- especially this page:
http://www.russellbarkley.org/adhd-references.htm double thanks to you also:)

Kunga Dorji
02-05-09, 06:42 AM
Research supports genetics as the primary cause.

Genes are the building blocks of life.

Multiple genes acting in concert can "make"disorders.

The genetic research to date seems to focus on Dopamine.

(Norephenphrine's also thought to be involved).

In particular,DAT1 (Dopamine transporter gene).

People w/ ADHD have an unusual version.

Simply put, it makes the pump inside the dopamine neuron "hyperactive."

Also,for people with ADHD,the DRD4 gene is longer than usual,which makes the nerve

less sensitive to dopamine.

In addition, there's a "pathway" thought to be involved with these areas:

1) Orbital Prefrontal Cortex
2) Striatum & the
3) Caudate

(Just as an fyi, the right Prefrontal Striatal Circuit is considered the brain's behavioral

inhibition system). There's that word again. Remember it.

There has also been speculation about (smaller) brain assymetry.

Using the DSM-IV TR symptoms, the genetic contribution is .97 (that doesn't guarantee

the disorder).

In addition to genetic/inherited, the other way to get ADHD is "acquired" type.

Pre natal injuries to the Prefrontal Cortex (10-15%) :

1) premature birth w/minor hemmorrhaging (increases potential risk by 3x's)

2) in utero alcohol consumption (increases possible risk by 2.5x's)

3) in utero tobacco use ( also 2.5x's)

Post Natal Brain Damage (3-5%) :

1) Traumatic Brain Injuries (TBI)

2)Strep Infection ( a rare strp infection of the brain that impacts the brains auto

immune system)

3)Chemotherpay for Leukemia

4)Pre-K children ingesting lead paint (other metals are not included)

5)Tumors

Those are the main one's, but don't take my word for it, read about it yourself.

This is it ( for now anyway).

(I hope you can see that these data go far beyond observational methods).

tc

mctavish23

(Robert)

Genetics may be the primary factor - but I doubt it is the only factor. There are always a range of factors that affect the extent to which any genetic tendancy is expressed. However to address this topic properly I think I need to start a new thread.-I'll call it "Causation of ADHD".

Technojunkie
02-05-09, 08:53 AM
I still think that Toxoplasmosis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toxoplasmosis) is a factor but it's purely speculation. The bugger is widespread and messes with dopamine levels, plus doctors don't take parasites seriously in the West. Antibiotics could have mutated T. gondii, making tests even less effective. Yes, some antibiotics are effective against protozoa, especially the 4th-gen ones.

mctavish23
02-05-09, 08:40 PM
Thank you for the kind feedback.

In addition to Russ's site, the link that's been posted a number of times by myself and others is the source.


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


About 5 yrs ago, Russ was part of a free CEU's teleconference sponsored by United

Behavioral Health (UBH).

Much of that info is included. I have the presentation on my computer.While I don't give

copies away as it's copyrighted, I do use it as part of my Intake process,assuming that

it's relevent.

I've also recommended the FORUM for specific threads, as well as general support,etc.

Those data have become part of my evidence based ADHD screen.

I think it helps to be able to see the data first and then recognize where it came from in

completing the checklist.

I've said this before,but what really got me interested in Barkley and a few others,was a

workshop I attended in 1999, with Sam Goldstein,PhD.

I had just finished Barkley's ADHD and the Nature of Self-Control (1997),which was a

tough read,at least for me.

Goldstein's presentation was entitled " ADHD: A Disorder of Self-Regulation & Control."

To make a long story short, they'd arrived at the same theoretical "place,"completely

independent of one another.

In my world,that's the research equivalent of a no look, 360 degree tomahawk slam dunk.

That led me to start reading not only Barkley's work,which I already liked,but also others.

His theory made good "sense" to me,both as a clinician,as well as someone with ADHD.

However, being able to spend a week with him was a pivotal point in my practice.

After that, I became more determined to go evidence based in everything I do.

It's difficult,but as long as I have no problem saying,"I don't know, but I'll find out," it's

going well.

Another part of my learning process has been my experiences here in the FORUM.

Thanks again.

tc

mctavish23

(Robert)

mctavish23
02-05-09, 09:01 PM
Barliman,

That would be cool.

Individual stats aren't meant to be "etched in stone."

It's the presence of longitudinal validity & reliabilty that matters.

"Acquired type" is definately interesting,with the most "famous" case being Phineas Gage.

Over the years, I've seen a classic TBI child,as well as 2 kids who'd suffered with the

strep infection of he brain. I never thought I'd see any of them,much less two.

I enjoy reading about the history as well.

Even after 106 years,we're (IMO) still in the "first inning" in the research on ADHD.

Thanks again.

tc

mctavish23

(Robert)

Kunga Dorji
02-06-09, 07:12 AM
Barliman,

Even after 106 years,we're (IMO) still in the "first inning" in the research on ADHD.

mctavish23

(Robert)

We are further along than you think. If the world does not collapse due to climate change I think the really big quantum jump will come in neuroscience in the next decade or two. This is a very different view of the mind than existed when I was in medical school in the 80's, and Freud was still being held up as the be all and end all.

on a separate point - Russell Barkely comes across as a hard edged intellectuallytough kind of guy- but he gives himself away towards the end of that lecture you are so fond of quoting in this passage:

"One way that we found very effective with younger children is after your children fall asleep, take a few minutes, go upstairs, sit down on the floor in the dark bedroom, and watch them sleep. There is no image so innocent and so overpowering as to see a young child asleep, and if that’s your anchor point to get you back to reality and makes you realize that your child is not doing this on purpose, and helps reestablish that kind of emotional balance that you need, it doesn’t matter to us how you do it. You have got to get good at forgiving these kids these mistakes."

I just love it - he is just a great softie at heart- but that's what it takes to make progress.

mctavish23
02-06-09, 01:39 PM
Very well said.

What I found out about him on the first day is that he's a "pure scientist."

He's completely serious about the disorder and essentially "demands" the same from those around him.

Personally, I found him to be humble,soft spoken and very kind.

Having said that, if I had to go into a "debate war" on ADHD and only had one "draft pick," it would be Russ.

He does a great deal for the ADHD community with his work, as well as his tireless defense of the legitimate nature of the

disorder.

I subscribe to his ADHD Report, as do a number of other FORUM members.

That's a bi-monthly news letter that covers the state of the reserch from around the world.

My very first issue had as the cover story, his article about how ADHD impairs driving.

It began with a news paper report of his fraternal twin brother's death in a car accident.

He had ADHD and didn't have a seat belt on. I don't know if he was taking meds for ADHD, but it did report him having taken a

curve too fast for conditions.

That's one of the most poignant articles I've ever read, as he alludes to him not being able to help his brother Ron.

If there's a way to look into the Archives of the ADHD Report, it's worth reading.

One of the things he mentioned at Door County was his expectation that in the near future, there might be some type of DNA

swab test of the mouth to diagnose ADHD.

He also felt that successfully mapping the human genome would go a long way towards realizing that .

Thanks again for your feedback & input. I appreciate it.

tc

mctavish23

Kunga Dorji
02-06-09, 03:55 PM
Very well said.

What I found out about him on the first day is that he's a "pure scientist."

He's completely serious about the disorder and essentially "demands" the same from those around him.

Personally, I found him to be humble,soft spoken and very kind.

Having said that, if I had to go into a "debate war" on ADHD and only had one "draft pick," it would be Russ.

He does a great deal for the ADHD community with his work, as well as his tireless defense of the legitimate nature of the

disorder.

I subscribe to his ADHD Report, as do a number of other FORUM members.

That's a bi-monthly news letter that covers the state of the reserch from around the world.

My very first issue had as the cover story, his article about how ADHD impairs driving.

It began with a news paper report of his fraternal twin brother's death in a car accident.

He had ADHD and didn't have a seat belt on. I don't know if he was taking meds for ADHD, but it did report him having taken a

curve too fast for conditions.

That's one of the most poignant articles I've ever read, as he alludes to him not being able to help his brother Ron.

If there's a way to look into the Archives of the ADHD Report, it's worth reading.

One of the things he mentioned at Door County was his expectation that in the near future, there might be some type of DNA

swab test of the mouth to diagnose ADHD.

He also felt that successfully mapping the human genome would go a long way towards realizing that .

Thanks again for your feedback & input. I appreciate it.

tc

mctavish23

I subscribed to the ADHD report last month- I would recommend it to anyone with ADHD or related to a person with ADHD so long as they have the focus to read it. It beats spending the $100 odd per year on glossy magazines.

SB_UK
02-06-09, 04:26 PM
"You have got to get good at forgiving these kids these mistakes."

"You have got to get good at understanding that the blame lies squarely at the feet of adults for causing kids such discomfort
- such discomfort so as to drive the kids to behave in a manner which those exact same adults then label as 'poor'"

the kid is doing nothing wrong -
there's cause and effect here -
where adults are causing the effect and then complaining when the lil' guys behave exactly as one would expect.

where do the children play?

Overcrowded urban settlements in the UK have us heading for parking lots - so many parking lots.
And then they invented Sunday shopping.

http://tbn3.google.com/images?q=tbn:HAw_PdjTZ6edRM:http://dusteye.files.wordpress.com/2007/03/locust2.jpg

.'7-11 24-7 12-365'

Kunga Dorji
02-06-09, 04:39 PM
"You have got to get good at understanding that the blame lies squarely at the feet of adults for causing kids such discomfort
- such discomfort so as to drive the kids to behave in a manner which those exact same adults then label as 'poor'"

the kid is doing nothing wrong -
there's cause and effect here -
where adults are causing the effect and then complaining when the lil' guys behave exactly as one would expect.

where do the children play?

Overcrowded urban settlements in the UK have us heading for parking lots - so many parking lots.
And then they invented Sunday shopping.

http://tbn3.google.com/images?q=tbn:HAw_PdjTZ6edRM:http://dusteye.files.wordpress.com/2007/03/locust2.jpg

.'7-11 24-7 12-365'

Well said, but the flipside of that is good old fashioned parenting ideas like" spare the rod and spoil the child" or "time out" - which just teaches kids that your love for them is conditional on their behaviour.

We seem to have diverged from the main topic here- still it has to be expected in an ADHD forum ....LOL.

Howard_C
02-06-09, 05:06 PM
One of the things he mentioned at Door County was his expectation that in the near future, there might be some type of DNA

swab test of the mouth to diagnose ADHD.

He also felt that successfully mapping the human genome would go a long way towards realizing that .

tc

mctavish23

I suppose that we will really need to follow that path (genetic mapping) to make significant progress. I wonder though what the time frame will be in terms of getting applicable results - either in terms of a better individual diagnosis, or for better individual treatment choices, and for the eventual development of new "novel" medications.

I also wonder if there isn't another method. Its surprising the amount of variety regarding "symptoms" (between individuals) and what the effective treatments are (and are not) on an individual basis as well. My thought is that if actual individual results were pooled then we'd be able to compile a very helpful data base of profiles and approaches - one that would be more indicative of the paths to follow in individual cases.

If there was a data-base where physicians recorded symptoms, treatments attempted, and the results (on an anonymous basis) that would grow to be a very valuable amount of data over time. If that could be done consistently (a bit of a challenge, yes) it would seem to me that we'd have something of the same results as the genetic mapping. It almost seems we need both, in any case, to have the best understanding.

DNA can potentially point toward new classes of medications. But building up the profile approach can make treatment more effective (reducing trial and error). It also seems that the profile method can point to better understanding the neurological centers and how they interact. A data base isn't as specific as genetic mapping (where the genes are seen as providing a causative role as well as a method of identification), but it is a way to get similar information in a "reverse engineering" type of approach.

But unfortunately that type of pooling of experiences and outcomes is difficult to implement and is difficult to maintain. Still, it seems for psychological issues (or "disorders", if you will), where there is such a large subjective component it would be meaningful. A physician can't easily determine the degree of "impairment" or the degree of "success" in these cases without direct feedback from the patient. There are no real analytical methods (measurements of bodily functions) that can track the progress (or lack of progress,) in treatment.

Really, that is the method that capable doctors use now - the informed questioning of patients plus knowledge and experience (in terms of the appropriate treatment attempts) built up over time.

Technojunkie
02-06-09, 05:21 PM
If you could figure out what you wanted the symptom database to record and how you'd control write access to it, actually building it shouldn't be too big of a deal. Well, maybe, databases aren't my specialty, depends on how many doctors and patients participate. Give the database a web interface, rent a suitably powerful colocated server to host it, maybe even find volunteers to build it... it could be done. You can rent very powerful servers with gobs of Internet bandwidth for a few $hundred a month apiece.

Howard_C
02-06-09, 07:27 PM
The main issue would be getting doctors to contribute (as its time consuming) and having uniform standards (definitions, etc). It would be anonymous in terms of patient confidentiality (and voluntary in terms of requiring patient approval for participation).

I think in general this type of thing is happening on sites like this forum, where individuals compare experiences and histories. What is missing is an over-view and comprehensiveness (thoroughness) and some consistency (or even individual objectivity).

_____

Just to chat about what this might offer ....

One can't rule out possible negative side effects for most meds in advance, as its very individual. But side effects are under-reported in clinical studies. Also the actual manifestation of side effects are generalized in the drug disclosure documents. Having a data base lets you drill down a bit to more particulars.

Also I think it would be fairly easy to better determine a profile of the individual who would more likely benefit from certain medications as well as a profile of the individual who more likely wouldn't benefit. But as it is now, each is just considered one possible medication among several and people progress along till they get a positive benefit.

It would be good to cross reference sleep disorders and thyroid issues and allergies and SCT and fatigue syndromes and so on. *-It would be beneficial to tie in co-morbidities (OCD, anxiety and depression, etc).

I saw a good post a while back that more or less said "positive responses and effective treatments are all that matter - not causes". I can see there is some truth to that, but "causes" have manifestations (the actual mechanisms or systems that are at involved).

If a stimulant helps correct a circadian issue (related to sleep) and if it does that through the endocrine system well and good. But there could be other (better) ways to treat the actual under-lying problem, as it may be all about the thyroid and not dopamine.

I think that there are indeed lots of sub-groups in the world of ADD/ADHD. And I think that diet or supplements or exercise all could be beneficial because they have impacts on different physiological systems. But someone can spend a lot of time and effort going down different paths (having a sleep study, for example) where the knowledge gained may be minimal or the results or benefits are uncertain.
_________

Just to look at symptoms...

Several people can say they have an issue with "focus", but what that means or how it manifests itself could really be very different altogether. There is focus related to clarity of thought, or to "engagement" (being interested, not bored), or to the ability to stay on task because of "distract-ability", or because of being "unable to start" (some form of procrastination).

So one person will say its "fogginess" and another will say its "motivation", and another will say its "distraction" (continuity of attention) and another will say its "anxiety related" or its about "making choices" or about "planning".

The common approach is to say these can all be a matter of "executive function". Or that they are all a matter of "working memory". But we don't really have an "executive function" medication. We mostly have different neuro-systems that are a bit "out of balance".

I think it would be a benefit to identify which ones seem to be impacted in different cases. A better comparison of (or a better definition of) symptoms is one path toward doing that.

_______

Back to genetics....

Conversely, as we identify the medications that work best for certain people we get a better idea what systems are involved. It becomes more "iterative" The symptoms and the systems and the medications each help teach about one another.

At that point you have a better understanding why a person is inattentive yet they gets no stimulation from coffee, just Dexedrine. That person will be a special sub-case. Eventually we will know the genetic markers associated with that particular combination.

mctavish23
02-06-09, 07:55 PM
Those were very thought provoking.Thankyou.

My hope is for a more uniform assessment standard.

Actually, if you read the Clinical Guidelines for the Diagnosis & Treatment of ADHD from

around the world, they're pretty similar in nature.

That's how I ultimately developed my own evidence based screen; by reading guidelines

from all over the world.

I'd really like to see an acceptable format for clinicians that dealt with using test

scores in an ancillary manner.

Thanks again for the feedback.

tc

mctavish23

(Robert)

Kunga Dorji
02-07-09, 03:57 AM
Also I think it would be fairly easy to better determine a profile of the individual who would more likely benefit from certain medications as well as a profile of the individual who more likely wouldn't benefit. But as it is now, each is just considered one possible medication among several and people progress along till they get a positive benefit.


This is alreadybeing done for warfarin- a potent blood thinner with a bad reputation for causing fatal bleeds- and a 100 fold variation in genetic susceptibility in the community.



It would be good to cross reference sleep disorders and thyroid issues and allergies and SCT and fatigue syndromes and so on. *-It would be beneficial to tie in co-morbidities (OCD, anxiety and depression, etc).


My own family doctor ( who is very well educated in ADHD) says he does not like to initiate Stimulants until major comorbidities are controlled. My own observation is that they can unmask underlying anxiety.

pADDyjay
02-07-09, 12:18 PM
:)double thanks for such useful info...very easy to understand....Im just a radiologic tech...sometimes the scientific jargon is hard for me to grasp....

Kunga Dorji
02-07-09, 04:34 PM
:)double thanks for such useful info...very easy to understand....Im just a radiologic tech...sometimes the scientific jargon is hard for me to grasp....


You know pAADyjay... there is no such thing as "just a radiologic tech". Some of the smartest and most worthwhile people I know have done very ordinary jobs. Position at work often reflects only your opportunities at ther time of your training. Keeping an enquiring mind, never being satisfied that you know the whole answer, and acting with some degree of respect and compassion to others are what really counts.

y00ch
02-07-09, 05:20 PM
Dont forget environmental triggers that could possibley be causal pertaining to effect on genes as well as neurobiology.

Any takers on psycho-spiritual causes as well? After all we're going for a multi-modal approach.

qinkin
02-07-09, 05:39 PM
We appreciate the engagement.
environmental triggers Exactly, we live in an environment.. which is not completely stable....

Stimulant medication, is not that much different from drinking coffee, or something.. reallyreally...

We do not want to die, so we stimulate ourselves to not die..

psycho-spiritual causes like believing in something rather than something else? ya, that exacerbates not being able to "get along".. so.. i can dig that

but I had to find the sense, w/in myself.. i can indulge myself w/someone's identical views... but this is indulgence and is neglible, or did I, muahaha

+the damage had been done to the genes anyway and it can only be certain ones

Kunga Dorji
02-07-09, 06:12 PM
Dont forget environmental triggers that could possibley be causal pertaining to effect on genes as well as neurobiology.

Any takers on psycho-spiritual causes as well? After all we're going for a multi-modal approach.

In most cases the environmental effects will express themselves through the genetically coded neurobiology. I am not aware that environmontal causes such as in utero robacco exposure alter the genes per se.

As for psychospiritual causes- the essence of spirituality sems to me to be connectedness. Our environment does not promote that- we are all too busy earning.

Howard_C
02-08-09, 02:37 PM
(off topic & out of sequence, so what)

About 8 years ago, John Rosemand came to our local community college and spoke on ADHD being "fake."

The arangement was for him to stay and debate the matter with a panel of local pracrtitioners
- pediatrician,pediatric psychiatrist,occupational therapist and child psychologist (me).

I had a stroke listening to him lie about there being "no genetic research."

Being from the South, I wasn't going to jump up and scream "BS."

After he finished, he suddenly announced that he had an "emergency" and had to leave.

The emergency was that I was about to verbally kick his ***, which I did.

:)


:cool: 'unleash your inner ADDer'


I actually see SB_UK encouraging mctavish23 to tap into his inner "Beavis & Butt-Head" here .... ;)

mctavish23
02-08-09, 04:21 PM
lol,

You know me well.

tc

mctavish23

(Robert)

Nova
03-03-09, 10:44 PM
I, would find it, interesting, to have all/any, of you, explain, what, exactly, is
'environment.'

It would be, more interesting, if any/all, of you, would, explain *it*, in your own views/experience, and not modeled, after, something, that another, has stated, in an article, book, film, or verbally.

I'm looking, for your own model, of the experience, of what 'environment,' means, to you, personally.

Please, be concise, as it, is not, my intent, to thwart, this topic, to a differing direction, because McT, will, have my butt, LOLz!

(just joking-but not really- stay, on topic, please)


Thanks,
Nova

mctavish23
03-04-09, 12:04 AM
"Environmental" in my world at least,represents outside occurrences that might be a

precursor to an event or set in motion some type of reaction.

None of that has the first thing to do with ADHD.

Psychosocial Adversity is a Joe Biederman term for things like financial pressures, abuse,

employment, divorce,etc.

Another similar term would be Social Disruption.

None of that impacts genetics in the sense of somehow "causing " ADHD.

For something like depression though it could.

Even though there's a genetic connection between ADHD and depression, the data don't

support causation with respect to ADHD.

However, for depression to occur, you'd need 1) genetic vulnerability & 2) social

disruption.

"Acquired type" is not what you'd expect as related to any "environments," save pre-

natal care.

Lead paint may be in the "environment," however, pre-school children have to eat a LOT.

tc

mctavish23

(Robert)

Nova
03-04-09, 12:45 AM
McT,
Does that, include, the old form, of *play-dough*? (0:
(JOKING)

I know, what you, are speaking of.
I was born, in a State (as in the U.S.) that was 'confirmed', to be, of a 'lead base.'

Everyone, claimed, to use 'lead' paint, at that time.

However, to the best, of my knowledge, now, no one, that I, have spoken to, personally, ate, 'paint'.

No matter how interesting, it was, to peel off, the walls, at the time, and to 'eat,' or 'handle' at that time, everyone, claimed, to have either licked the silly thing, or just crushed it, while handling it.

No one, ever, ate it. (0:

"Lead-paint', (whatever media misinformation, was/is used, to promote that) is no longer used, in paint, of any kind, -whether to paint house-walls, or to create, one's own masterpieces, on a canvas.

The word, 'lead' may have been used, as a metaphor.

It's like, the promotion, of the 'anxiety', of red M&Ms, which I, devour, to this day. (0:

Nova



"

Lead paint may be in the "environment," however, pre-school children have to eat a LOT.

tc

mctavish23

(Robert)

y00ch
03-04-09, 01:05 AM
lets explain "environment" in terms people can understand.

Its anything originating outside of the body. Stimulus originates outside of the body and can be understood as matter which oscillates at a certain amplitude and frequency.

As we are now theorizing. Matter oscillates.

Memes can be a explanation for ADHD. Not just genes. Memes cover the copying of behavior (singing, painting, speech, language, human things).

Since ADHD is a type of repeatable psychological pattern it could perhaps be memetic in origin.

this video explains:
http://subsymbolist.lefora.com/2008/07/29/ted-talk-on-memes-by-blackmore-memetics-and-consci/page1/
(http://subsymbolist.lefora.com/2008/07/29/ted-talk-on-memes-by-blackmore-memetics-and-consci/page1/)

Kunga Dorji
03-04-09, 05:53 AM
lets explain "environment" in terms people can understand.

Its anything originating outside of the body. Stimulus originates outside of the body and can be understood as matter which oscillates at a certain amplitude and frequency.

As we are now theorizing. Matter oscillates.

Memes can be a explanation for ADHD. Not just genes. Memes cover the copying of behavior (singing, painting, speech, language, human things).

Since ADHD is a type of repeatable psychological pattern it could perhaps be memetic in origin.

this video explains:
http://subsymbolist.lefora.com/2008/07/29/ted-talk-on-memes-by-blackmore-memetics-and-consci/page1/
(http://subsymbolist.lefora.com/2008/07/29/ted-talk-on-memes-by-blackmore-memetics-and-consci/page1/)

but why would anyone persist in maintaining a meme that caused them such aggravation? Us ADD sufferers do suffer- and we are mostly bright enough to try things that will help our organisation and figure out what makes us worse.

I do love the idea of memes though- it is entertaining in itself, and also such fun to tell people whose opinions you don't like that their opinions are virus like memes and not rationally formed. You need to be able to run fast though ;)

y00ch
03-04-09, 12:16 PM
but why would anyone persist in maintaining a meme that caused them such aggravation? Us ADD sufferers do suffer- and we are mostly bright enough to try things that will help our organisation and figure out what makes us worse.

I do love the idea of memes though- it is entertaining in itself, and also such fun to tell people whose opinions you don't like that their opinions are virus like memes and not rationally formed. You need to be able to run fast though ;)


And this is an excellent point. Because according to evolution (from a memetic perspective) we're supposed to be getting rid of behaviors that don't help in our survival. Some people believe language is side effect of evolution. In Bioevolutionary theory there is the idea of spandrel. Language, art, music, are all side effects and serve no survival purpose. If these things are all types of human expression then perhaps ADHD as well is a side effect since it too is an expression of behavior.

Arguing against myself. Perhaps ADHD is not a side effect of evolution and perhaps it does serve some purposeful uses. Spontaniety, creative thought, morale for a crowd, non-linear thinking, passion, interest, intelligence, trying new things without hesitation. All these things have to do more or less with defying the norm.

If we all went with the flow how boring life would be. ADHD perhaps is only a label applied to people who aren't normal. Timmy's acting out. He's oppositional. Lisa is looking out the window too much. She's bored and has ADHD. Pop a pill Lisa. There there. Let me hook this biosynthetic bananna plug into ur cerebellum and pump some real dopamine to ur system.

dormammau2008
03-04-09, 08:38 PM
environment hummm what dose it mean to me well itss and external foce that sharps you each enverionmet shap you deiifly i myself as thissss life as this lifeforum are modled by this! as we grow! the external environment! imposssaive diff stresss on you! in meny ways and as each life! is mostly set at bith we elove ie chagne as we! go along! the fact we need the environmet strees on us to enbale to grow!

sooo to me itsss and external and inexeranl meadthed ofve chancege imposssed on my being by myself and by the life i lead and life i live in and how i as self addabtlite to it! ,,, we each" chagen and live though this,

this impossing force is nither good or bad its just issssss

dorm

ps great to see you bk nova good therd by the way

mctavish23
03-04-09, 09:27 PM
Yooch,

My post was taken from :

1) Barkley,R.A. (1997) "ADHD and the Nature of Self-Control" New York : Guilford


2) http://www.greatschools.net/pdfs/2200_7-barktran.pdf?

As the OP, the thread is specific to ADHD research.

The response is as close to a specific operational definition as I can get.

Point being,that's directly related to the teminology and the resesarch from whence it came.

Hope that helps.

tc

mctavish23

(Robert)

ps

I've always wanted to use "whence" in a response.

mctavish23
03-04-09, 10:46 PM
Just as an fyi,

"Aquired type" can occur with anyone,irrespective of genetic predisposition.

The most common cause is Traumatic Brain Injuries (TBI).

That's considered to be a unique (catastrophic) event, as opposed to a common

occurrence.

As I've posted several different times, the above stated reference contains the following:

What Causes ADHD ? (p.12)

A Highly Inheritable Condition (p.13)

Role of Genetics (p.14)

External Causes (p.15)

Developmental Course of ADHD ( p. 16 - 18)

tc

mctavish23

(Robert)

y00ch
03-05-09, 04:08 AM
pg. 2 "This has nothing to do with your culture". - barkley.

i have to refute. i come from a culture which by American standards would be impulsive, uncouth, and tactless. however one could also argue that my culture is more honest than American culture. My culture has no psychologist or psychiatrist. My culture is more concerned with escaping a suicide bomb threat, a food famine, or seeking potable water. In my culture if you have an issue you simply speak about it to your parents, aunt, uncle, cousin, or friend. Americans used to be able to do this but now our families have fractured with the rest of society. Now i dont even know my next door neighbor.
This is a social illness that can and will never be solved psychopharmaceuticaly.

meadd823
03-05-09, 05:39 AM
Yooch - Culture , society are the contrast in which we measure our selves by , it has a huge impact upon the ADDers function ability but it doesn't cause the traits of ADD to occur.

The fact ADD is commonly noticed when a child enters school is no accident, but school doesn't cause the ADD it merely makes it noticeable. Bouncy kids are bouncy weather they are in a class room or not. Dreamy kids are dreamy weather they are doing home work or not - the home work makes the dreaminess a problem but it doesn't cause it - it is already there.

Just like my bouncies were always there when I was a kid. Being bouncy on the playground isn't that much of a problem - I was pleasantly bouncy. With that being said the same amount of bouncy becomes a problem in a class room where a single teacher is trying to coax 20+ young school children into focusing on what she is teaching - a really bouncy child is a distraction to the other students so they don't get the full benefit of the lesson either ,and it doesn't matter how pleasant I am about it.

Does my ADD give me the right to infringe on other students opportunity to learn???

Yes you can holler society needs to change You won't get an argument from me. I think even if you went so far as to suggest they makes school more individual learning style friendly a majority of our members who are school teachers themselves would wholeheartedly agree - After all teachers come in a variety of learning style too - just as some school teachers come complete with their own individual version of ADD

Until society changes where it is acceptable to bounce up and down during a math test then the children have to conform if they want to get any thing out of it. The school is not going to change for a mere5% of the students.

This means that allowing the problem ADD behaviors to continue unaddressed the one that is going to lose out on an education is the ADD child because school will up and move on weather they attend or not. So how is being a totalitarian parent or one who expects the school system to change practicing any sounder judgement than a parent who decides to give their child a medication because several attempts at behavior modifications and structuring techniques failed - why is choosing the medication approach such a sin - because it is not all natural - hell neither is a traditional class room or a cubical

See the world at large doesn't give a crap if I have ADD - really society in general doesn't give a hang either - however if I want to eat feed my children and have a roof over my head then I have to find functioning some how some where.

Some folks may find functioning in natural remedies - we have several members who say they have, other may do well with CBT or coaching, while others find they need to pharmaceutical alter their brain chemistry in order to function well enough to support them selves in this life.

The bottom line - it is interesting to know the research and the various perspective but none of that information is in a form that will either change society to make it more ADD friendly or change me well enough to function in this present society and the reality is functioning - how to get from here to there is an individual journey What works for the goose may NOT do so for the gander.


I too believe ADD is a neurodiversity - it is natural for me to be ADD. It isn't progressive like many other conditions that information doesn't change the fact I live in a society that wants paper work in triplicate and is attached to the clock. In order to be aware of the fact that time exist I have to alter my brain chemistry. . . even if having no time perception is all natural. Like the unmediated ADD child I can revolt and not do what I must to function but society doesn't give a rats behind - I can be homeless and hungry if I want. .but I don't want.

It isn't the perception that is a problem - you are using your personal perception as a means of spreading fear about medications because you don't like them - If indeed you believe ADD is cultural or social then by all means use the energy to change the social environment that causes us to need the medications. I think diversity tolerance to be the best direction and I believe myself is the place to start. Short attention span with a mind of it's own is what I have - science calls this trait ADD - so I don't argue because it is all semantics - Life is to short for semantic arguments {IMHO}

mctavish23
03-05-09, 08:51 AM
e-mail Russ.

btw,he won't say it if he can't support it,

but THANK YOU very much for reading it.

He's a "pure scientist" and refrains form anecdotal personal opinion

(if he does make personal remarks, they'll be referenced as such).

He's one of ,if not, the most widely respected ADHD researchers on earth.

When you train with him, it's all about being a scientist/practitioner (i.e.,unemotional).

tc

mctavish23)

(Robert

mctavish23
03-05-09, 01:38 PM
The neurobiological data are overwhelming.

IMO, the reaction to the disorder varies;with the need for more public education being

prevalent.

My personal "favorite" of the 15 or so definitions is that



"ADHD is a trait of normal dimensional human behavior,whose impairments represent

developmental delays, that then cause that person to fall to the bottom of a "normal"


developmental curve".


That's not qouted exactly, but it's close.

I'm pleased to see people reading,so thanks again.

The main thing I'd like to see is for more people to have fully informed consent.

What they do with is up to them,but I'd hope they'd learn as much as possible along the

way.

tc
mctavish23

(Robert)

y00ch
03-05-09, 05:41 PM
The neurobiological data are overwhelming.

IMO, the reaction to the disorder varies;with the need for more public education being

prevalent.

My personal "favorite" of the 15 or so definitions is that



"ADHD is a trait of normal dimensional human behavior,whose impairments represent

developmental delays, that then cause that person to fall to the bottom of a "normal"


developmental curve".


That's not qouted exactly, but it's close.

I'm pleased to see people reading,so thanks again.

The main thing I'd like to see is for more people to have fully informed consent.

What they do with is up to them,but I'd hope they'd learn as much as possible along the

way.

tc
mctavish23

(Robert)

I no longer deny physiological brain differences influencing behavior. Nor did I ever did. I merely posed the question, " Does this disorder exists?". In the process I've learned a great deal and just want people to know this is part of my learning process. Because had I not questioned anything I would have never learned anything.

We must take from all discplines, and link the kernals of truth we observe.

mctavish23
03-05-09, 08:35 PM
On the way back to work from lunch, I realized the post should have read

"lower end" instead of "bottom".

For ADHD, the clinical threshold is :

Impairment (i.e., symptoms must cause problems in a person's major life activities).

The metric then is :

Developmental Deviance ( comparing the ADHD individual with their same age/gender.non-ADHD peers).

I recently received a book I ordered entitled ADHD in Adults : What the Science Says

by Russ Barkley,PhD, Kevin Murphy,PhD & Mariellen Fischer,PhD

Chapter 11 ( which I haven't gotten to by a long shot) is entitled :

"Health,Life Style,Money Management & Driving"

What they've done is taken the 2 of the longest running ADHD studies ever, and compare the results side by side.

They're different studies, so that the normative samples are very different.

However, they cover years & years of data.

The 2 studies are Russ & Mariellen Fischer's :

1) Milwaukee Study (covering 1977-2003)

2)Kevin Murphy's UMASS study ( 2000-2003 ).

The Milwaukee study was conducted under the auspices of the Medical College of Wisconsin ( that's also who sponsored the

17th Annual Door County Summer Institute I attended in 2003).

I'm not positive but I'd swear Mariellen Fischer was there,as I remember a bunch of us sitting around during a break and

listening to him discuss that study with a female colleague.

I'll check up on it,although it's not significant,other than getting to easedrop on a research discussion.

The UMASS study was done through the Univ of Mass Medical School and involved Kevin Murphy's Adult ADHD Clinic.

I believe he had more females in his study.

There's not a lot of ADHD Adult literature, so this is exciting ( for me anyway).

You can read the Introduction at Guilford Press if you'd like.

I'm pleased with the feedback and the discussion, so thanks again.

tc

mctavish23

(Robert)

mijahe
03-06-09, 06:12 AM
The school is not going to change for a mere5% of the students.

That's right schools only cater for the masses. I immensely dislike the school system - it is stupidly inefficient. Even for teaching to NT boys it's almost a waste of time. Boys in general need a lot of 'hands on' education. So, an ADD child is going to really struggle.

I know I did. It was really all a waste of time for me.



than a parent who decides to give their child a medication because several attempts at behavior modifications and structuring techniques failed

I think this is what a lot of people ignore. People who don't experience an ADD child first hand don't have any clue on exactly the struggle that we go through. The immediate response is judgmental, only because of lack of understanding on their part.

The correct response should be acceptance that the parent has/is doing the right thing. It's not as if we are going out onto the streets to buy the drugs.

Sure there is, (and always will be), mis-diagnosis, and mis-medication. But this is what the words 'second opinion' is all about. If you think the answer is wrong, (or in fact 'too right'), then you seek a second opinion.



- why is choosing the medication approach such a sin - because it is not all natural - hell neither is a traditional class room or a cubical

This is quite interesting. A work colleague knows about my medication and has largely scoffed at the idea of it all. But I think it quietly amusing as he saunters off for his regular 'coffee fix' a couple of times a day. Not only that he has been nick-named 'the fish' due to his many exploits at pubs.

Coffee? Alcohol? These are all fairly high toxins. I don't find anything natural about them at all. Heck even breathing these days is dangerous. :)



I too believe ADD is a neurodiversity - it is natural for me to be ADD.

Too true.



It isn't the perception that is a problem - you are using your personal perception as a means of spreading fear about medications because you don't like them - If indeed you believe ADD is cultural or social then by all means use the energy to change the social environment that causes us to need the medications. I think diversity tolerance to be the best direction and I believe myself is the place to start. Short attention span with a mind of it's own is what I have - science calls this trait ADD - so I don't argue because it is all semantics - Life is to short for semantic arguments {IMHO}
Well said Tammy.

Now I'm sorry everyone, I'm still trying to figure out exactly what point y00ch is arguing. It does sound like it's a semantic argument, but I'm getting mixed messages all round.

Can someone give me an ADD summary? (My meds are wearing off again.)

mijahe
03-06-09, 06:18 AM
I merely posed the question, " Does this disorder exists?".

Yes.... moving along now..... next question :)



In the process I've learned a great deal and just want people to know this is part of my learning process. Because had I not questioned anything I would have never learned anything.

y00ch, I think it was more your approach that raised the hackles on some people.
There's nothing wrong with questioning answers. But it's also equally important to listen to the answer, so you can question it again.

I think it may have helped your cause to mention that you want to play "devil's advocate" to research your understanding.

But it's good to see that you have finally come around. :D

Kunga Dorji
03-06-09, 08:12 AM
e-mail Russ.



He's a "pure scientist" and refrains form anecdotal personal opinion

(if he does make personal remarks, they'll be referenced as such).


tc

mctavish23)

(Robert

This is an interesting point Robert_ I just received my first copy of the ADHD report in the post last night- and was interested to read RAy Levy's article "Demstifying ADHD".
One of the big points in that article was when he got stuck into Barkely's comment that ADHD is not a disorder of knowing what to do, but a disorder of being able to do it.I think he completely missed the point here. As a patient myself I can say very confidently that from the day I started treatment I rapidly became able to do a whole lot of things that I thought were beyond my reach- like have a decent conversation, or to play music in time. The real issue I had with the article was the insistence on treating us sufferers as black boxes whose personal experiences are unknowable and irrelevant. There are plenty of articulate and passinate adults here who caould tell him EXACTLY how bad it feels not to be able to deliver stuff you know that you know, but the scientist in him prevents him from dealing in that kind of personal anecdote. I sent him a long email- and hope I will get a response.( Hell at 47 I have 1 foot in the grave- it is time to stop being so respectful and learn to challenge few people!).

To tell the truth that comment of Barkely's was profoundly liberating to me ( It is all in there - all I need to do is relax and out will come the wished for behaviours---- and it happened just like that).

We overvalue the ideal of scientific objectivism- and fail to grasp that the Heisenberger Uncertainty Principle extends way beyond subatomic physics. The lens of observer experience distorts reality far further than the hardened objectivist would ever grasp.

mctavish23
03-06-09, 07:58 PM
The way he presented it in person (and which he's written about many times ) is this :

Of the 6 types of attention currently defined by neuropsychology, 5 of those involve the

brain receiving INPUT from outside, with the one and only OUTPUT function ( the ability

to Persist or Sustain Attention) disrupted by ADHD.

That means it's a Productivity Disorder and NOT a Perceptual one.

tc

mctavish23

(Robert)

mctavish23
03-06-09, 09:01 PM
I was browsing through the ADHD Report I just received,which sounds like a different

copy,and saw there was some research on Lead Paint ingestion and something else related to

the environment, which I can't recall.We had our bi-monthly free Developmental-Behavior Clinic all day

today,so I'm fried. I'll check it out in more detail when I get the chance.

tc

mctavish23

(Robert)

Kunga Dorji
03-07-09, 04:19 AM
The way he presented it in person (and which he's written about many times ) is this :

Of the 6 types of attention currently defined by neuropsychology, 5 of those involve the

brain receiving INPUT from outside, with the one and only OUTPUT function ( the ability

to Persist or Sustain Attention) disrupted by ADHD.

That means it's a Productivity Disorder and NOT a Perceptual one.

tc

mctavish23

(Robert)

I find the definitions of the six types of atttention slippery ( maybe I am trying to read them undermedicated - however my own experience of horizons of new performance ability opening to me when medicated fits so well with his framework it is scary.

Kunga Dorji
03-07-09, 05:00 AM
pg. 2 "This has nothing to do with your culture". - barkley.

i have to refute. i come from a culture which by American standards would be impulsive, uncouth, and tactless. however one could also argue that my culture is more honest than American culture. My culture has no psychologist or psychiatrist. My culture is more concerned with escaping a suicide bomb threat, a food famine, or seeking potable water. In my culture if you have an issue you simply speak about it to your parents, aunt, uncle, cousin, or friend. Americans used to be able to do this but now our families have fractured with the rest of society. Now i dont even know my next door neighbor.
This is a social illness that can and will never be solved psychopharmaceuticaly.

YOOch- you speak of your position as if it were a virtue. Yet in truth the position of your society as you describe it is that it is so incompetent in providing basic needs of food, shelter and safety- that metaneeds never get addressed. I fully support what you say about the disruption of normal ties in society ( just look at Neufelds "attachment community"). There are other considerations however. Have you ever grasped how hard it is to put aside your preconceptions and offer unbiased counsel to those around you? When I realised I had ADHD and sought help - my mother couldn't cope with the idea that her firstborn actually had something wrong with him. She did everything she could to disssuade me from seeking help. Now she understands. My point is that it is so hard for us as individuals to stand aside from our preconceptions. Serious therapists spend years in therapy to try to grasp transference and countertransference- at least they are trying to come to terms with the limits of their objectivity. My psychiatrist describes himself as the most analysed man in Australia ( at his age he might well be right :))- but I can still catch him falling prey to his own misconceptions.
As for it being a "social illness" ( maybe you are referring to Chlamydia here)- nonsense. That definition only stands if you accept that us sufferers are content to operate well below thier potential- as bathrooom attendants or whatever. I am not. I finally feel I have come into my own- and I resent your implication that I should be content with being second best- when I know I can do better.

mctavish23
03-07-09, 11:30 AM
The 6 types of attention reference is from my Door County notes,Day #1

In a lecture / presentation, he's completely evidence based.

Russ is an ABPP Diplomate in Neuropsychology.

I still have my notes and the Power Points accompanying them + reference list.

Consequently, I take that as literal.

I'll be glad to look at the list.

tc

mctavish23

(Robert)

mctavish23
03-07-09, 11:40 AM
Yours truly doesn't do Group therapy.Don't have the patience.

Also, if I had to sit there and say "How did that make you feel? all day, I'd have a stroke.

I'm really comfortable with my practice & case load. We're at about the same maturity

level.

(This is the only job I know of where blowing up the toilet in the Study Hall bathroom in

the 11th grade,would count as "experience").

tc

mctavish23

(Robert)

mijahe
03-10-09, 02:30 AM
The way he presented it in person (and which he's written about many times ) is this :

Of the 6 types of attention currently defined by neuropsychology, 5 of those involve the

brain receiving INPUT from outside, with the one and only OUTPUT function ( the ability

to Persist or Sustain Attention) disrupted by ADHD.

That means it's a Productivity Disorder and NOT a Perceptual one.

tc

mctavish23

(Robert)
Thanks Robert.
That puts a slightly different spin on my understanding.

I'll have to digest it now....

jhissom
10-19-10, 04:14 PM
Considering what much of the brain does is strain out extranious external and internal stimuli, an ADHD mind not working as hard is predictable. The ADHD mind does not strain out as much stimuli, but whether this is a good thing or bad thing depends on context.

bumpey
10-19-10, 05:36 PM
Crap, even more confused now, how do i manage this? between a rock and a hard place now. Just acept the reactions and get on i supose.

On a positivre note, good to see sientific research up, for or agianst, just to see how/why others are coming from. And make sense of it more.

x6eze
02-01-11, 07:15 PM
I was just thinking, we (the ADDforums) should work on improving the "Attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder controversies" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attention-deficit_hyperactivity_disorder_controversies) page on wikipedia to better reflect the actual science (as mentioned in the first post of this thread) and not some fringe groups' POV....I would work on it myself, but the irony is that I don't have the attention span to do so.

JOHNCG
03-04-11, 06:20 AM
This is an interesting point Robert_ I just received my first copy of the ADHD report in the post last night- and was interested to read RAy Levy's article "Demstifying ADHD".
One of the big points in that article was when he got stuck into Barkely's comment that ADHD is not a disorder of knowing what to do, but a disorder of being able to do it.I think he completely missed the point here. As a patient myself I can say very confidently that from the day I started treatment I rapidly became able to do a whole lot of things that I thought were beyond my reach- like have a decent conversation, or to play music in time. The real issue I had with the article was the insistence on treating us sufferers as black boxes whose personal experiences are unknowable and irrelevant. There are plenty of articulate and passinate adults here who caould tell him EXACTLY how bad it feels not to be able to deliver stuff you know that you know, but the scientist in him prevents him from dealing in that kind of personal anecdote. I sent him a long email- and hope I will get a response.( Hell at 47 I have 1 foot in the grave- it is time to stop being so respectful and learn to challenge few people!).

To tell the truth that comment of Barkely's was profoundly liberating to me ( It is all in there - all I need to do is relax and out will come the wished for behaviours---- and it happened just like that).

We overvalue the ideal of scientific objectivism- and fail to grasp that the Heisenberger Uncertainty Principle extends way beyond subatomic physics. The lens of observer experience distorts reality far further than the hardened objectivist would ever grasp.


Yes, Barkley says (2008) that ADHD can be understood as a disorder of "performance" as opposed to skill/knowledge, and that this (according to his original 1997 general theory of ADHD) is a direct consequence of the unique impairments in Executive Functioning ( particularly, in this case, in Working Memory, for example) that are associated with ADHD; but he doesn't say that merely "relaxing" will be effective in correcting the problem. The only treatments, rather, (he says) for dealing with the way ADHD cleaves knowledge from performance, are either neurogenetic (i.e; the use of stimulant drugs like dexamphetamine/methylphenidate, for example), and/or providing (external) "point of performance" behavioural interventions.

Conman
05-26-11, 02:14 PM
oh yeah. there are some of those scientific whiteheads who say adhd was invented, not found. well theyre full of crap! those rich jerks havnt lived the lives of adhd-riddled people. let's see if they like it. and from what ive read, there's always a bunch of possible theories as to why adhd has developed. my opinion: WHO CARES HOW IT DEVELOPED. yes naturally there can be some genetic factors such as disruptions in the transportation of dopamine, norepinephrine, and serotonin. then there are the theories of low-arousal, hunter vs. farmer, adhd made up, or the goofiest one of all-environmental and diet nutrition theories. the only one that makes any but of sense is the neurodiversity view. people are different, deal with it.

Honeybadger
09-26-11, 05:15 AM
This is an old posting, but has anyone seen the dopamine scan tests that confirmed ADD in a concrete manner, rather than the tertiary association of the glucose scans in 1998?

I can link them if they'll be edited into the OP.