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
  #76  
Old 09-01-05, 05:57 PM
speedo's Avatar
speedo speedo is offline
ADDvanced Forum ADDvocate
 

Join Date: May 2005
Location: Washington DC
Posts: 4,458
Thanks: 54
Thanked 513 Times in 285 Posts
speedo has much to be proud ofspeedo has much to be proud ofspeedo has much to be proud ofspeedo has much to be proud ofspeedo has much to be proud ofspeedo has much to be proud ofspeedo has much to be proud ofspeedo has much to be proud ofspeedo has much to be proud ofspeedo has much to be proud of
wow scuro. That is awesome!

Me
__________________
ADHD.... It's not just for kids anymore...
It all seems impressive when you don't know what it means. (H. Rickey, 1987)
"Aye yam what aye yam." (Popeye)
"Sig personnas illegitum non carborundum." (unknown)
The computer lets you make more mistakes faster, with the exception of tequila and a handgun. (M. Radcliffe)
Reply With Quote
  #77  
Old 09-01-05, 06:11 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
Congratulate Barkley speedo. You can tell when you hear him that he has answered these questions that we are answering right now...over and over again. I imagine he got tired of it and made one concise block of information which he teaches from, does public lectures, and also posts for free online. He doesn't let you ask questions until he has presented this information. I'm sure many people have tried to cloud the issue with him by not letting him state what he knows. How many personal stories, "shotgun" attacks, going off topic....etc etc....he has endured, God only knows. And it's not like he reads from a script...he adds even more information, talking off of the cuff. It was a dense 8 hours of learning.

I printed out that link once and without the footnotes it came in around 50 pages of condensed typing. He has offered us a great public service and spends a great deal of time educating professionals and laymen. No other Scientist has gone to this much trouble to help us understand ADHD.

The guy should get a public service award of the highest order.
Reply With Quote
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to scuro For This Useful Post:
Heatheram (07-09-13), JOHNCG (01-20-11), salleh (05-03-10)
  #78  
Old 09-01-05, 06:20 PM
Stabile's Avatar
Stabile Stabile is offline
ADDvanced Forum ADDvocate
 

Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 1,729
Thanks: 2
Thanked 70 Times in 52 Posts
Stabile has a spectacular aura aboutStabile has a spectacular aura about
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave123
There is no known genetic cause. There is no known cause period. There is no gene identified. There may be someday, but we've been looking and looking and have virtually nothing. Nothing has changed.
…and there won’t be any gene positively identified soon, either. There is little or no understanding of how genes affect something like AD/HD, mainly because the current state of the art is tightly focused on the idea of a nice clean deterministic genetic mechanism at work.

That isn’t incorrect, at least on the cellular level, but it isn’t correct, either. This is the underbelly of the ‘nurture/nature’ debate, which we believe to be largely an illusion, an error of mistaken perspective.

When we trace how activity in ordinary neural structures might ultimately give rise to behavioral phenomena, we always find it necessary to suppose an intermediate level of pseudo-deterministic ‘sculpting’ of the results of the low level biochemical cellular processes.

This isn’t the genetics of ‘nature’, exactly, but it’s far closer to a genetic process than the social influences usually associated with ‘nurture’. Thus, the term ‘psuedo-deterministic’: we aren’t forced by a deterministic physical process to mold ourselves to the cultural norm, but all of the alternatives fail to produce a recognizable human individual.

In absolute measure, we are all very much alike under the hood, identical perhaps to several decimal places. The huge differences we see between individuals are due to only a tiny fraction of the whole.

Once that non-negotiable formative process is accounted for, you can begin to understand how genes might be associated with AD/HD. We suspect that eventually there will be certain genetic markers found that are statistically correlated with AD/HD.

We don’t think it will seem very important, because it won’t point to any actual problem, only a difference that can in certain circumstances lead to the appearance of a problem.

But don’t sell that idea too short, because that pseudo-deterministic process comes into play big time. Nobody has much of a choice, no real way to avoid those circumstances. So the whole process in an individual ends up looking very much as Robert sees it, with AD/HD appearing very much like a real disorder.

And in that sense, it is. But it’s not one that can be fixed with the usual wrenches. We’re pretty certain that it’s here to stay, because in our understanding virtually everybody has the capability of having/being AD/HD. In a sense, it becomes a kind of choice that we’re not aware of making.

* * * * *

I should point out that it’s not true that there is no known cause. Our theoretical work has an impeccable record of predicting every AD/HD symptom we’ve thrown at it. It has the charm of bringing the whole etiology of AD/HD under one simple and powerful umbrella.

It’s also been useful (to us and some others) in dealing with the business of having/being AD/HD. But it doesn’t have a heavyweight name behind it, like Barkley or some of the others that are actually trying to do science; that’s not our business, and studying AD/HD is not the major thrust of our work, anyway.

Understanding AD/HD fell out almost by accident. Some people are interested, and most aren’t for various reasons. But the theory has yet to fail any challenges; it only fails in the sense that it fails to be easily understandable.

That makes sense, though. Our theoretical work didn’t do a thing to make the immense complexity of AD/HD go away. It just shuffled it all into a different problem space, where it is possible to solve. In the space Barkley’s work inhabits I’m afraid there won’t ever be any significant resolution, just a kind of holding pattern.

But there is at least one coherent explanation for AD/HD out there. Our work is not insignificant, just unrecognized.
__________________
Peace. --TR =+= =+=

"There is no normal life, Wyatt.
There's just life. Get on with it."
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to Stabile For This Useful Post:
br3akingchains (08-30-16)
Sponsored Links
  #79  
Old 09-01-05, 06:26 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 Stabile
…and there won’t be any gene positively identified soon, either.
Actually at that lecture Barkley predicted that not only would all of the genes be identified but that also there would be a medical test within the next 5 to 10 years. Thats how quickly he felt this field is moving. And he said when that was in place, it would be a "Godsend". I think he was making reference to Scientlogy...lol.
Reply With Quote
  #80  
Old 09-01-05, 07:06 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
Actually at that lecture Barkley predicted that not only would all of the genes be identified but that also there would be a medical test within the next 5 to 10 years. Thats how quickly he felt this field is moving. And he said when that was in place, it would be a "Godsend". I think he was making reference to Scientlogy...lol.
If you know Barkley, things would move much faster if he could extract himself from the World Federation of Mental Health with Eli Lilly creating a "World Without Boundries".
I wonder if he's a bit influenced by that money.
http://www.wfmh.org/publications/without_boundaries.htm
Reply With Quote
  #81  
Old 09-01-05, 07:23 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
There is something seriously wrong with the website Barkley is at on at the link above in Mexico. Concerta isn't approved in Mexico, but there is a list of Mexican pharmacies to get Concerta for TDAH and pretty specific:

http://www.deficitdeatencion.org/concerta.xls

Does Mexico have a DEA? It's on this page with the US diagnostic criteria. Strange.

http://www.deficitdeatencion.org/diagnostico.htm
Reply With Quote
  #82  
Old 09-01-05, 07:27 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
Basher....game over.
Reply With Quote
  #83  
Old 09-01-05, 07:47 PM
Stabile's Avatar
Stabile Stabile is offline
ADDvanced Forum ADDvocate
 

Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 1,729
Thanks: 2
Thanked 70 Times in 52 Posts
Stabile has a spectacular aura aboutStabile has a spectacular aura about
Quote:
Originally Posted by scuro
Several studies have also examined cerebral blood flow using single photon emission computed tomography (SPECT) in ADHD and normal children (see Tannock, 1998; Hendren, DeBacker, & Pandina, 2000, for reviews). They have consistently shown decreased blood flow to the prefrontal regions (most recently in the right frontal area) and pathways connecting these regions to the limbic system via the striatum and specifically its anterior region known as the caudate, and with the cerebellum (Gustafson, Thernlund, Ryding, Rosen, & Cederblad, 2000; Lou, Henriksen, & Bruhn, 1984; Lou, Henriksen, Bruhn et al., 1984; Sieg, Gaffney, Preston, & Hellings, 1995). Degree of blood flow in the right frontal region has been correlated with behavioral severity of the disorder, while that in more posterior regions and the cerebellum seems related to degree of motor impairment (Gustafson et al., 2000).
And as long as the implicit assumptions are true, the conclusions may be correct. The problem is twofold: correlation is not enough (it’s not even a start, but these guys plow on anyway), and the assumption that decreased blood flow is a bad thing still stands without any explanation or supporting evidence.

Barkley most certainly did not answer that question, ever, as far as I can tell. Nobody has.

Abstractions like the assumed significance of dopamine activity are tossed around like they were gifts from God, brought down from the mount in Moses’ pocket. They’re not; I have yet to see any serious work that establishes the connection between dopamine and any specific behavioral artifact.

The only thing we’ve got is field experience with various substances that affect dopamine response in one way or another, under certain lab conditions. These things seem to cause measurable changes in various highly abstract properties, and the effect seems to be somewhat repeatable.

This does not mean that the effect on dopamine response is directly implicated in some way to the changes in behavior observed. The fact that we have a reliable drug effect is significant to Doctors and patients, but it doesn’t mean squat when it comes to the science of what’s going on inside. All it says is we can expect to find something if we look carefully. But when it comes to the brain, it doesn’t tell us a thing about what to expect when we do.

Every single article or paper or text we’ve seen depends on unsupported and unexplored assumptions about the actions of the thing dopamine affects, i.e., the operation of neural structures. Showing an effect, any effect, in the lab or in the wild, doesn’t get the job done. The other half is still waiting: explaining how the change in neural function gives rise to the behavioral artifacts noted.

Sometimes just for fun we’ve proposed contrary mechanisms. It’s just an exercise, but one we were taught to apply if we wanted to be rigorous. If you can propose a plausible contrary mechanism, the conclusions won’t stand until you resolve the question of what the thing affected actually does.

Dopamine levels or activity may be different in the ADDer’s brain as compared to the normal’s brain. So what? Can anyone of you describe what changes to expect in the brain as a result of having/being AD/HD, and storing the memory of that experience?

Information in neural structures is stored in the patterns of connection and the weights of those connections. Weight is determined by level of response to a particular neurotransmitter, such as dopamine. By definition, there must be a difference, and it must be observable as a differential in some chemical process.

But what difference? This is obviously too trivial a level to approach the kind of behavioral artifacts described in these studies, but the differences are real, by definition of the underlying engine at work in both the normal and AD/HD brains. So we need to account for them, and we have never seen the issue addressed.

As Robert is all too well aware, we also question the assumptions made about the function of the various areas of the brain and pathways mentioned. No traceable derivation of the commonly accepted model of the function of these areas can be found anywhere. It’s an important basis of the work, but no theory exists to support it.

The problem with current models of the function of these areas is that none of them would give rise to the expected behavior in the individual if they were instantiated in actual neurons. Real neural structures don’t work in the way that most of us expect machines to work.

There is no cause-and-effect chain of deterministic mechanisms that give a result after grinding through some number of intermediate steps. Rather, they’re more like soup, with every desired result floating around, waiting for some cosmic spoon to magically scoop it up at just the right moment.

Learning to think in terms of this sort of counter-intuitive non-mechanism is tough, I’ll admit. But it’s a necessary precursor to any honest statement that might purport to interpret the deep significance of data from brain scans, and again, we’ve seen no hint of it.

* * * * *

The interested observer can address these issues, up here on the metalevel where the problems with the work are obvious and trite, or choose to stay buried in the debate and ignore the fact that we were all taught to do science better than this.

But science doesn’t care a whit, and the results will fail to be correct regardless. This verbiage, all drawn from super duper sources, fails on very simple principles.

People, we can do better than this. Regardless of their reputation, these research efforts have lost sight of the context of their subject. All of the nice concise scientific work in this field seems to suffer from the same deficiency. Be blinded by the names and quality if you must, but don’t be surprised in turn if the debate seems to get muddy and a bit strident.

Nobody here should be afraid to back up and ask some serious questions about these studies. The errors are simple enough for anyone to detect, and they’re fundamental. We wind up arguing about stuff that isn’t really validated, and that’s just silly.

We’re better than this, really. The major questions are yet to be addressed. We have no idea whether these studies hold any significance at all.

--T&K
__________________
Peace. --TR =+= =+=

"There is no normal life, Wyatt.
There's just life. Get on with it."
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to Stabile For This Useful Post:
br3akingchains (08-30-16)
  #84  
Old 09-01-05, 08:20 PM
stevo stevo is offline
ADDvanced Member
 

Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: nj
Posts: 131
Thanks: 0
Thanked 2 Times in 1 Post
stevo is on a distinguished road
These are a few quotes from Richard Strohman PHD, professor emeritus, Department of Molecular and Cell Biology, University of California, Berkeley.


Part of the current maturing of biology is the surrender of simple "storybook" explanations for how life works and the acceptance that life is beginning to appear more like a complex adaptive system than like a gene machine.


If we are seeing a shift away from formal reductionism that identifies genes and genetic programs as the causes of complex diseases, it is also a shift toward an emphasis on higher levels of analysis and in many ways involves a turn toward physiological levels analysis informed perhaps by complex adaptive systems theory.7,8 While this shift is just beginning to be appreciated in the basic research community, where it and the accompanying revolution will certainly take some time to complete itself, the implications for medicine and for the further evolution of our concepts of health and wellness require immediate attention.11-13 This is so for many reasons, not the least of which is that medical research continues to be dominated by molecular/genetic analysis and by a reductionist program that resists any tendency toward hierarchical analysis in which the gene appears not as sole causal agent but merely as an important part of the overall complex biological system.

http://www.cswe.org/publications/jsw...strohman.htm#t
__________________
The important thing in science is not so much to obtain new facts, as to discover new ways of thinking about them.
(Sir William Bragg)
Reply With Quote
  #85  
Old 09-01-05, 08:27 PM
Stabile's Avatar
Stabile Stabile is offline
ADDvanced Forum ADDvocate
 

Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 1,729
Thanks: 2
Thanked 70 Times in 52 Posts
Stabile has a spectacular aura aboutStabile has a spectacular aura about
Quote:
Originally Posted by scuro
Actually at that lecture Barkley predicted that not only would all of the genes be identified but that also there would be a medical test within the next 5 to 10 years. Thats how quickly he felt this field is moving. And he said when that was in place, it would be a "Godsend". I think he was making reference to Scientlogy...lol.
He might be right; the field is progressing that fast, but most notably in the mechanical task of processing huge amounts of information encoded in specific chemical form. Not much useful has come of this capability, but of course Big Things are predicted Real Soon Now.

Knowing the genes exist still won’t be too interesting, though. Without understanding how they act, the information is useless or worse, only suitable for the purposes of discrimination.

Even when they do figure out how the genes work, the information will still seem uninteresting. All of the significant stuff is happening elsewhere in the organism, and understanding the genes automatically means understanding that, too.

We’re pretty solid on most of this, especially the understanding of the logical structures supported by neural structures in our brains. Most of the symptoms of AD/HD are rooted in differences in the form of these logic structures.

Interestingly enough, you can’t see differences in logic structures directly in any kind of scan. All you can see is the difference in how the engine that supports them works. Not the same thing at all, is it?
__________________
Peace. --TR =+= =+=

"There is no normal life, Wyatt.
There's just life. Get on with it."
Reply With Quote
  #86  
Old 09-01-05, 09:29 PM
Stabile's Avatar
Stabile Stabile is offline
ADDvanced Forum ADDvocate
 

Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 1,729
Thanks: 2
Thanked 70 Times in 52 Posts
Stabile has a spectacular aura aboutStabile has a spectacular aura about
Quote:
Part of the current maturing of biology is the surrender of simple "storybook" explanations for how life works and the acceptance that life is beginning to appear more like a complex adaptive system than like a gene machine.
Good one, Steve.

The defining characteristic of these more complex (and inherently deeper) models of living systems is that they necessarily incorporate metalevels. (Metalevels are what distinguishes the hierarchy mentioned in the quote.) As such they are fundamentally different in nature, in the sense that no amount of refinement is sufficient to render the old model equivalent to the new one.

This can create a fundamental communications problem: you can explain something to someone forever, and they’ll never get it unless they change the way they store the model. Until they include information about what metalevel each element occupies, all higher dimensional structure in the logic is lost. They might even see the model you’re presenting as grossly defective, and assume you are, too.

A structure that can branch out in multiple dimensions is capable of storing much finer and subtler detail about the thing it models. That is a definite advantage, one that appears to be well on it’s way to selecting.

This is essentially the first step on the path we followed to identifying the metamodel web as one of the two logical structures in use in the brain. We didn’t invent metalevels; we just recognized that logical models fell into two distinct classes, depending on whether they included information about metalevels.

Look around you at almost any deep societal divide and you’ll usually find these two different classes of logical model underlying the split over the issue. It doesn’t matter what the subject is: politics, religion, ethnicity, gender, and so on. These divisions are in the process of being resolved everywhere; we’re living in exciting and historic times.

Kay and I started our work looking at gender differences in human communications. Last weekend there was an article in the local paper citing a researcher from Rutgers University who had shown that women use their brains differently, tending to form web-like structures to store information. (The proposition of the article was that women are smarter than men, in part because the web-like structuring of stored information offers significant advantages.)

Of course, this difference can lead to miscommunications, and there Kay and I are, working to understand why men and women sometimes can’t talk. (Doh!)

I suppose we should contact her and offer her what we know about the specific details of the logical structures and how they arise in neural structures. Oh, well. Maybe tomorrow.

Metalevels exist as a fundamental property of nature, as all pure logic does. Kurt Gödel had the definitive word on their existence. The differences in the two logical structures hinges on whether we bother to take note of them.
__________________
Peace. --TR =+= =+=

"There is no normal life, Wyatt.
There's just life. Get on with it."

Last edited by Stabile; 09-01-05 at 09:37 PM.. Reason: content...
Reply With Quote
  #87  
Old 09-01-05, 09:55 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
Basher....game over.
The game is over for someone. What is that World Federation For Mental Health and what is going on?

This website mentions (http://www.solvay-depression.com/begin.htm) "This center is an initiative of the World Federation for Mental Health, and is supported by an unrestricted grant from Solvay Pharmaceuticals in Europe".

It mentions fluvoxamine which is generic for Luvox (deleted:www.luvox.com) and pages on Solvay Depression no longer exist (See "News on fluvoxamine"). People are forgeting the FDA discontinued Luvox. See:
http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/script...TABLE1=OB_Disc

Will someone who knows Barkley give him a ring and have him report a discontinued drug is on the market, and that website in Mexico that has the Concerta?
Reply With Quote
  #88  
Old 09-01-05, 10:26 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
Dense "black forest" like packets of information as always, Stabile....although I do find it much more readable and actually this time I digested everyone of your posts on this thread. There seems to be more order in your ideas. I follow some of what you say but then disagree with a fair bit more. There are far too many points to attempt to make a coherent encompassing response.

I will comment that I would love to see genetic information being used to "discriminate" ADHD people. The answer would be chop chop. Institutions could no longer hide their wallets behind nebulous clouds. Parents would get a straight answer and not be shackled by those who sell fear or have an agenda. Best of all the individual would know conclusively what they have and that is what people want. They just want to know. Would that be such a bad thing?
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to scuro For This Useful Post:
br3akingchains (08-30-16)
  #89  
Old 09-01-05, 10:52 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
How to use the ignore another user option

Its been brought to my attention that some members do not know how to use their Ignore option.

Click the underlined forum ID of the person you chose to ignore, this will pull up several pathways, go to their profile and at the botton of the blue box will be two options 1.) to add the user to your buddy list the 2.) to ignore this user, click that option and you are done.
__________________
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
  #90  
Old 09-01-05, 11:08 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
Its been brought to my attention that some members do not know how to use their Ignore option.

Thanks, someone has to read every post to keep things in order.

I just posted a non FDA approved drug on the market for OCD, and Concerta being illegally exported. Does anyone here do anything about patient safety issues? I tried, the FDA is huge and it takes an hour to reach a desk.
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 08:39 AM.


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