ADD Forums - Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder Support and Information Resources Community  

Go Back   ADD Forums - Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder Support and Information Resources Community > ADULTS AND ADD/ADHD > Adults with ADD > General ADD Talk
Register Blogs FAQ Chat Members List Calendar Donate Gallery Arcade Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #31  
Old 08-31-05, 01:54 PM
Dave123 Dave123 is offline
Member
 

Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Michigan
Posts: 47
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Dave123 is on a distinguished road
Quote:
Originally Posted by mctavish23
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" for these disorders,

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

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.
You can call it biological if you want, however Zametkin's 1990 research was unable to be duplicated. 15 years later every drug companies FDA approved prescribing information on ADHD drugs states the cause is unknown (Ritalin LA, Methylin, Dexedrine, etc...) If they knew,why wouldn't they put it in there?

Everyone would be getting diagnosed with blood tests or brain scans if there were hard proof of a single cause. There are theories.
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 08-31-05, 02:05 PM
mctavish23 mctavish23 is offline
 

Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: USA
Posts: 5,979
Thanks: 13,491
Thanked 9,902 Times in 3,114 Posts
mctavish23 has disabled reputation
I clearly said that the cause (etiology) is unknown and I know it hasn't been replicated.The point is that the disorder exists.

Zametkin is still looked at as a "landmark" study; just as Cook et.al.(1995) is in terms of molecular genetics.My understanding is that those data haven't been replicated, however, other genes have been found that have been substantiated.

The person who prompted the post in the first place had a hidden agenda and I wanted to confront it.

Eventually, diagnosing ADHD will probably come down to a DNA test using saliva on a cue tip.

btw, the information posted on that thread is, to the best of my knowledge, accurate.
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 08-31-05, 02:10 PM
mctavish23 mctavish23 is offline
 

Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: USA
Posts: 5,979
Thanks: 13,491
Thanked 9,902 Times in 3,114 Posts
mctavish23 has disabled reputation
Just out of curiosity, what would you call it?
Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
  #34  
Old 08-31-05, 02:43 PM
Nucking_Futs's Avatar
Nucking_Futs Nucking_Futs is offline
ADDvanced Forum ADDvocate
 

Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Nebraska
Posts: 7,573
Thanks: 5
Thanked 43 Times in 35 Posts
Nucking_Futs has a spectacular aura aboutNucking_Futs has a spectacular aura about
The Beginnings of Evolution!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! *smiles*

Ok I'll shut up and leave. *waves to MickeyT*
__________________
Life should not be a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in a pretty and well preserved body, but rather to skid broadside, thoroughly used up, totally worn out and loudly proclaiming, "WOW! What a ride!!"

Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to Nucking_Futs For This Useful Post:
br3akingchains (08-30-16)
  #35  
Old 08-31-05, 05:23 PM
Dave123 Dave123 is offline
Member
 

Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Michigan
Posts: 47
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Dave123 is on a distinguished road
Quote:
Originally Posted by mctavish23
I clearly said that the cause (etiology) is unknown and I know it hasn't been replicated.The point is that the disorder exists.

Zametkin is still looked at as a "landmark" study; just as Cook et.al.(1995) is in terms of molecular genetics. My understanding is that those data haven't been replicated, however, other genes have been found that have been substantiated.
I never said it didn't exist, one just needs to look at the number of posts in this forum alone. I just read the first post and commented on what I read.

ADHD is the most researched "mental illness", yet know one knows what causes it. I have yet to see a "landmark study", which is why there are International statements.

"The longest and most thorough study of the effects of ADHD interventions was the 1999 Multimodal Treatment Study".


Peter Jensen from NIMH forgot to use the standard
placebo-controlled double blind clinical trial for medication. This is the same "expert" on a Concerta brochure in my doctor's office. There may be some bias there, and important details are left out of that landmark study.

That study doesn't apply men, women, and there were few girls. It was mainly boys.
It validates nothing about ADHD.

11+% taking medication had "moderate", and 3% had "severe" adverse drug reactions that were reported by teachers, not anyone with a medical degree.

Of the 579 children, only
144 received medication. They screened 4500+ children and if submitted to the FDA for drug approval - it would be rejected out of hand. If that's the best there is, we need a refund on those tax dollars from NIMH.

Once again, adults were forgot about by NIMH. We don't generally need behavioral therapy.

Whether people agree or not, it is a "mental illness" and that is where the criteria for diagnosis comes from. The APA's DSM (www.psych.org) is the criteria for diagnosis. That is the science. It is the same as it was a decade ago.

There is no gene, period. "Genetic", "Biological", and such sound nice, but do not reflect the current state of science with no "disorder" researched more. That's more for pharmaceutical marketing in my opinion. It depends on who is doing the marketing.

Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 08-31-05, 06:53 PM
scuro's Avatar
scuro scuro is offline
ADDvanced Forum ADDvocate
 

Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Canada
Posts: 2,386
Thanks: 2
Thanked 204 Times in 82 Posts
scuro has disabled reputation
Quote:
Originally Posted by Davelowe


There is no gene, period. "Genetic", "Biological", and such sound nice, but do not reflect the current state of science with no "disorder" researched more. That's more for pharmaceutical marketing in my opinion. It depends on who is doing the marketing.

I not sure what you're stating here. Do you believe that all traits/ disorders are expressed with only a single gene? That would be a simplistic interpretation of genetics. That sentence is confusing and it seems to imply that the Scientific community now believes that there is no disorder!?!??? ( this would be news to me ) Your pharmaceutical reference and other ideas within the post, seem to further imply that all the previous Science was corrupted by business.

I'd love to see some links backing these contentions up. The only groups supporting this vein of thought has been Scientology or Breggin et al...and they are both incredibly biased.
http://www.addforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=20721
http://www.addforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=18118
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 08-31-05, 07:23 PM
mctavish23 mctavish23 is offline
 

Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: USA
Posts: 5,979
Thanks: 13,491
Thanked 9,902 Times in 3,114 Posts
mctavish23 has disabled reputation
No one is sayng that the etiology is known and I'm aware of the MTA study's drawbacks, because I've read it.

This isn't an exact science but Im not sure what you're driving at.

If I had to pick a study that points to the existence of ADHD it would be the Intenational Consensus 2002. It's availabel at www.chadd.org and also at Russ Barkley's site.

As far as genetics goes, here's what Sandra Rief has to say in her 2003 book The ADHD Book of Lists on pages 22-23. Her book is actually a compliation of the research over the last 10-15 years, so it's a very handy reference source.

"Much of the recent research involves molecular genetic studies. One type is "whole genome scanning " studies that genotype DNA in entire families to look for patterns and differences."

"Other genetic research involves "candidate gene (which is what Cook et.al.1995 was about)" studies that seek specific forms of genes,which show up more often in children with ADHD compared to those unaffected."

"Researchers have found at least two candidate genes associated with ADHD.One of those genes, the dopamine transporter gene (DAT1), is involved in regulating the amount of dopamine availabale to the brain."

"Researchers have found differences between the structure of the DAT1 gene in families with ADHD and "normal" control families.

"There is belief that the DAT1 (which was actually "discovered" in the Cook et al study ) gene in some individuals with ADHD may be causing an "overactive dopamine pump," sucking up dopamine too fast and not leaving it in the synapse long enough."

A second recently found gene that may be involved with ADHD apparently makes specific nerve cells less sensitive to dopamine.It is suggested that because ADHD is a complex disorder with multiple traits,multiple genes are involved and will be discovered in the future."
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old 08-31-05, 08:02 PM
mctavish23 mctavish23 is offline
 

Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: USA
Posts: 5,979
Thanks: 13,491
Thanked 9,902 Times in 3,114 Posts
mctavish23 has disabled reputation
There's a reference page that follows each section of her book. Here it is on page 24.

Barkely, Russell A. "Attention-Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder." Scientific American.
(http://www.sciam.com/1998/0998issue/0998barkley.html)

Castellanos, F.Xavier. "Approaching a Scientific Understanding of What Happens in the Brain in AD/HD," CHADD: Attention,vol.4,no.1,Summer 1997,30-35
(attention@chadd.org)

Ellison,Anne Teeter. "Research Update: Recent Scientific Findings," CHADD : Attention,vol.8,no.4,February 2002,15.
(attention@chadd.org)


I have to take a break and eat dinner.I'll finish this page when I can get back on.

In the meantime, I fully expect YOU to post some references.

I've been around too long than to argue with someone over something thats already been substantiated.

Im not at the office, which is where my main refercenes are, including my notes from the Medical College of Wisconsin's 17th Annual Door County Summer Insititute, Egg Harbor Wisconsin, 8/4-8/8/03. I had the pleasure of training with Russ Barkley that week.


btw, I think the other gene mentioned is DRD, although Im not sure if thats DRD 4 or 5.
Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old 08-31-05, 08:36 PM
mctavish23 mctavish23 is offline
 

Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: USA
Posts: 5,979
Thanks: 13,491
Thanked 9,902 Times in 3,114 Posts
mctavish23 has disabled reputation
I'm also not saying that there's one and one gene only.Thats ridiculous. However, when you said "there is no gene," you were wrong.


And the longest running ADHD study in the world is Russ Barkley's Milwaukee Study, which he began in 1977 .It's still ongoing.
Reply With Quote
  #40  
Old 08-31-05, 10:07 PM
Dave123 Dave123 is offline
Member
 

Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Michigan
Posts: 47
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Dave123 is on a distinguished road
Quote:
Originally Posted by scuro
I not sure what you're stating here. Do you believe that all traits/ disorders are expressed with only a single gene? That would be a simplistic interpretation of genetics. That sentence is confusing and it seems to imply that the Scientific community now believes that there is no disorder!?!??? ( this would be news to me ) Your pharmaceutical reference and other ideas within the post, seem to further imply that all the previous Science was corrupted by business.

I'd love to see some links backing these contentions up. The only groups supporting this vein of thought has been Scientology or Breggin et al...and they are both incredibly biased.
http://www.addforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=20721
http://www.addforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=18118
I have no idea if it a single gene, one gene, any gene, or multiple genes. Neither does any scientists. Neither does anyone reading this post. Everyone has theories. If someone was 100% certain and could validate this scientifically this thread would not exist.

A diagnosis is confirmed one way, and one way only. By meeting the DSM-IV criteria and nothing more. That, or some take medication and assume if it works that confirms a diagnosis. Even the DEA says that isn't correct.

There is no "science" behind walking into a physician's office who uses a checklist. I did not say that makes ADHD valid or invalid, that is reality. in 2005, that is the state of science behind ADHD.

You would have to show me some previous medically accepted science before commenting on being "corrupted by business". Not small studies promulgating a theory, medically accepted science in practice for ADHD. Many can be corrupted by money, everyone knows that.


Speaking of corrupted by money, what's up with these drug companies?




Last edited by Nucking_Futs; 08-31-05 at 11:33 PM.. Reason: Please refer to the forum guidelines pertaining to the posting of other websites.
Reply With Quote
  #41  
Old 08-31-05, 10:11 PM
Dave123 Dave123 is offline
Member
 

Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Michigan
Posts: 47
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Dave123 is on a distinguished road
Quote:
Originally Posted by mctavish23
I'm also not saying that there's one and one gene only.Thats ridiculous. However, when you said "there is no gene," you were wrong.


And the longest running ADHD study in the world is Russ Barkley's Milwaukee Study, which he began in 1977 .It's still ongoing.
30 years later no authoratative source is stating what the genetic cause(s) of ADHD is - if there is one. If it began in 1977, he's had time to identify a specific gene and have it accepted as a medical disorder.
Reply With Quote
  #42  
Old 08-31-05, 10:45 PM
scuro's Avatar
scuro scuro is offline
ADDvanced Forum ADDvocate
 

Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Canada
Posts: 2,386
Thanks: 2
Thanked 204 Times in 82 Posts
scuro has disabled reputation
Quote:
Originally Posted by Davelowe
30 years later no authoratative source is stating what the genetic cause(s) of ADHD is - if there is one. If it began in 1977, he's had time to identify a specific gene and have it accepted as a medical disorder.
Where is the "genetic cause" of Schizophrenia, BiPolar, Autism, Tourettes, Major Depression, OCD...etc? Go ahead and tell everyone on the board that these these conditions live in medical purgatory and basically they will laugh at you.

Shouldn't they also get a move on in finding the markers for these disorders? ....and what exactly is a medical disorder compared to just a plain disorder?

Finally who are these people who come on this board? Funny, you need only tell me a few words about someone I never met and I know a great deal about their strengths, weaknesses, and where they are going to encounter hardship. Is this just learned behaviour? Explain this one to me? Did we all just get ignored by dad growing up as Dr. Breggin suggests? He came up with the new acronym DADD to explain ADHD...really it's dad's fault. Strangely it never took off in our culture.
Reply With Quote
  #43  
Old 08-31-05, 10:52 PM
Scattered's Avatar
Scattered Scattered is offline
ADDvanced Forum ADDvocate
 

Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 4,399
Thanks: 228
Thanked 307 Times in 159 Posts
Scattered is a name known to allScattered is a name known to allScattered is a name known to allScattered is a name known to allScattered is a name known to allScattered is a name known to allScattered is a name known to all
Quote:
Originally Posted by Davelowe
30 years later no authoratative source is stating what the genetic cause(s) of ADHD is - if there is one. If it began in 1977, he's had time to identify a specific gene and have it accepted as a medical disorder.
Hey, Davelowe -- what's you're agenda? I don't see you giving the sources McTavish asked for -- you just keep repeating your opinion that this isn't real science without anything credible to back up your statements. A lot of people come here to try to figure out how best to deal with the impact AD/HD has had on their lives or their children's lives. Planting doubt in people's minds and invalidating their diagnosis and treatment regimes without giving them scientifically researched facts (just criticizing everyone else's reporting of research studies) does a real disservice to the other ADD Forum participants.

I'm not as well verse on these studies as some of the others who have already responded to you, but I've done enough research and reading to know that they have found association between two genes dealing with dopamine (already explained in an above post) and if memory serves (since I don't have access to my references since I'm out of town right now) one of those genes shows up in 60% (or more) of individuals with AD/HD, OCD, and Tourettes. That's particularly interesting to me, because when I found my birth family I discovered that my brother has Tourettes, my cousin in OCD, my aunt and a couple of my cousins are AD/HD as am I. Since I didn't grow up knowing any of them, a shared environment couldn't account the connection.

Knowing something does exist as was demonstrated with the PET scans is not the same as knowing the exact etiology. Most probably we'll find out that there are different sub groups of AD/HD and that they are influenced by different combinations of genes. Most medical diagnosis of any type is based on a percent probability -- if you have x, y, z symptoms there is an __% chance you have _______ condition. Eventually, we'll have more answers in medicine in general and psychiatry in particular, but while were learning about all the pieces it makes sense proceed with the best knowledge we have (not with disinformation). An awful lot of people have been helped by receiving professional AD/HD diagnosis, treatment,and medication, and I'm one of them. :soapbox:

Scattered
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to Scattered For This Useful Post:
br3akingchains (08-30-16)
  #44  
Old 08-31-05, 11:36 PM
scuro's Avatar
scuro scuro is offline
ADDvanced Forum ADDvocate
 

Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Canada
Posts: 2,386
Thanks: 2
Thanked 204 Times in 82 Posts
scuro has disabled reputation
Well said, scattered.
Reply With Quote
  #45  
Old 09-01-05, 12:01 AM
scuro's Avatar
scuro scuro is offline
ADDvanced Forum ADDvocate
 

Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Canada
Posts: 2,386
Thanks: 2
Thanked 204 Times in 82 Posts
scuro has disabled reputation
Quote:
Originally Posted by Davelowe
Speaking of corrupted by money, what's up with these drug companies?
Too bad the links were taken out. What you had was a collection of a good number of bad links. Some did actually go to a drug companies home page but what is that all about? It is about innuendo. Time to support what your saying with something solid.

The other thing I thought about was where would someone get a list like that so quickly? I'd guess some antipsych webpage and for sure it would be outdated because they don't update their pages. It's not about being current, it's about getting as many propaganda portals working as possible. That is the antipsych business.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
"No scientific basis" - Here's the Proof mctavish23 Scientific Discussion 216 09-26-11 05:15 AM
Dr. Breggin->ADHD is Dad's fault. scuro General ADD Talk 12 04-18-05 12:57 AM


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 12:32 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
(c) 2003 - 2015 ADD Forums