6 ms·

Because others can say this much better and with better sources and citation than I can, both directly address many of the criticisms made in the essay shared a

Because others can say this much better and with better sources and citation than I can, both directly address many of the criticisms made in the essay shared and the faulty reasoning based on it. International Consensus Statement on ADHD: https://www.russellbarkley.org/factsheets/Consensus2002.pdf https://www.russellbarkley.org/factsheets/Consensus2002.pdf The World Federation of ADHD International Consensus Statement: 208 Evidence-based conclusions about the disorder: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33549739/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33549739/

erlich 15d ago
Why should 6 symptoms constitute ADHD while 5 don't? The person with only 5 doesn't have it? This is not science. Change the diagnostic criteria to a blood test or brain scan and then we are in the realm of proper science. But until then the burden of proof should be on the ADHD community not on those trying to dispute it. It's like having to use proper science to disprove something that is not conclusively proved in science. It's fine to publish all this science and evidence, but it all comes back to the diagnostic criteria which is so wishy washy. The diagnostic criteria has evolved from a completely arbitrary definition. There is no reason the DSM stuff should be used at all, and trying to find science to support a diagnostic criteria that was arbitrary to begin with is silly. That's why, after all this, the main point I make is that the boundary between ADHD and non-ADHD is arbitrary and will always be and its more about having a disorder to point to to be able to prescribe stimulants to "people it would help". Mark my words: there will never be a biomarker or test used to diagnose this condition because it would only reduce the number of people who can access treatment. It's an elaborate exercise on how to be allowed to use a scheduled medication as treatment. If the government didn't ban drugs then all this ADHD diagnosis stuff wouldn't exist at all. It would be the reverse exercise: which people should not be allowed it because they abuse it and it negatively impacts them.
- LocalPCGuy 14d ago
  Your (and the authors of your paper) reliance on biomarkers are not how most psychiatric conditions are diagnosed. The fact you even ask about 5 vs 6 demonstrates a lack of understanding (or willful ignorance of) of how and why the diagnostic criteria are what they are. Completely disagree with your conspiracy theory about the drugs. That's just laughable. Obviously need to prevent abuse, but there are both legitimate uses of and reasons to restrict general use of the drugs. Not to mention there are non-stimulant drugs as well, which kinda stomps on that argument.
  - erlich 14d ago
    We are just talking past each other now. > not how most psychiatric conditions are diagnosed Psychiatry as a whole is questionable. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychiatry#Controversy_and_criticism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychiatry#Controversy_and_cri... Read about the history of the DSM regarding ADHD. You can look at all the versions/volumes and how and why it evolved over time. Ask yourself if you think it is actually good science.
    - LocalPCGuy 14d ago
      I have done exactly that. I've seen your bias re: psychology as a whole and it appears to color your research and information gathering. I hope, like I have been doing even if not apparent from my replies, that you are able to consider your viewpoints and whether they actually hold true. Along those lines, I do appreciate this conversation. I do like questioning what I believe, and I had to steelman some of the views you put forth and then see where they then didn't hold up. I do that while being willing to change my own mind if that is where the evidence leads, but the research presented didn't hold up to scrutiny. So while I definitely disagree with you, I do so from a place of appreciation for pushing me to do more digging into this things and whether *I* should hold the beliefs that I do.
      - erlich 14d ago
        > I do appreciate this conversation Me too :) I like discussions like these because its always an opportunity to absorb more information.

erlich 15d ago

Why should 6 symptoms constitute ADHD while 5 don't? The person with only 5 doesn't have it? This is not science. Change the diagnostic criteria to a blood test or brain scan and then we are in the realm of proper science. But until then the burden of proof should be on the ADHD community not on those trying to dispute it. It's like having to use proper science to disprove something that is not conclusively proved in science. It's fine to publish all this science and evidence, but it all comes back to the diagnostic criteria which is so wishy washy. The diagnostic criteria has evolved from a completely arbitrary definition. There is no reason the DSM stuff should be used at all, and trying to find science to support a diagnostic criteria that was arbitrary to begin with is silly. That's why, after all this, the main point I make is that the boundary between ADHD and non-ADHD is arbitrary and will always be and its more about having a disorder to point to to be able to prescribe stimulants to "people it would help". Mark my words: there will never be a biomarker or test used to diagnose this condition because it would only reduce the number of people who can access treatment. It's an elaborate exercise on how to be allowed to use a scheduled medication as treatment. If the government didn't ban drugs then all this ADHD diagnosis stuff wouldn't exist at all. It would be the reverse exercise: which people should not be allowed it because they abuse it and it negatively impacts them.

LocalPCGuy 14d ago
Your (and the authors of your paper) reliance on biomarkers are not how most psychiatric conditions are diagnosed. The fact you even ask about 5 vs 6 demonstrates a lack of understanding (or willful ignorance of) of how and why the diagnostic criteria are what they are. Completely disagree with your conspiracy theory about the drugs. That's just laughable. Obviously need to prevent abuse, but there are both legitimate uses of and reasons to restrict general use of the drugs. Not to mention there are non-stimulant drugs as well, which kinda stomps on that argument.
- erlich 14d ago
  We are just talking past each other now. > not how most psychiatric conditions are diagnosed Psychiatry as a whole is questionable. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychiatry#Controversy_and_criticism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychiatry#Controversy_and_cri... Read about the history of the DSM regarding ADHD. You can look at all the versions/volumes and how and why it evolved over time. Ask yourself if you think it is actually good science.
  - LocalPCGuy 14d ago
    I have done exactly that. I've seen your bias re: psychology as a whole and it appears to color your research and information gathering. I hope, like I have been doing even if not apparent from my replies, that you are able to consider your viewpoints and whether they actually hold true. Along those lines, I do appreciate this conversation. I do like questioning what I believe, and I had to steelman some of the views you put forth and then see where they then didn't hold up. I do that while being willing to change my own mind if that is where the evidence leads, but the research presented didn't hold up to scrutiny. So while I definitely disagree with you, I do so from a place of appreciation for pushing me to do more digging into this things and whether *I* should hold the beliefs that I do.
    - erlich 14d ago
      > I do appreciate this conversation Me too :) I like discussions like these because its always an opportunity to absorb more information.