This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 10 | ← | Archive 14 | Archive 15 | Archive 16 | Archive 17 | Archive 18 | → | Archive 20 |
Would like to bring people attention to the page on Major depressive disorder. In the lead the causes are described: "Psychological, psycho-social, hereditary, evolutionary and biological causes have been proposed." The different theories have been given weight as it is agreed by almost everyone that the cause is multi factorial. The same applies to ADHD. I have concerns that many of the editors here have ADHD themselves as stated on their talk pages. This might be leading to a WP:COI similar to what is seen on other pages such as chronic fatigue syndrome and fibromyalgia. Well ADHD has much better evidence for it than the previously mentioned. I find the refusal to let any but a very narrow view of ADHD to be included concerning.
Most psychiatrist subscribe to the Biopsychosocial model of mental illness well the pharmaceutical companies concentrate on the bio model. This makes up the majority of the literature as they have the most money to get the most publications. This is not a criticism per say but just the way things are. Psychologists more heavily support a psychosocial aspects. By leaving out a full discussion we would doing a disservice to both the profession of psychiatry, Wikipedia project, and society as a whole. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 10:22, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
Can we address the issue which Doc James raised which is, the constant assault on even high quality secondary peer reviewedd sources, where a narrow view seems to be on the battle agenda of only amphetamines work for children and it is entirely a neurological based psychiatric disorder and everything else is fringe and not allowed in the article regardless of whether it is supported by good secondary sources or meta-analysis etc. This is the issue, the narrow POV editing on this article.-- Literaturegeek | T@1k? 17:07, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
Nobody is trying to suppress any opinions here, but Wikipedia policy, as I understand it, is that statements should be cited, preferably to peer-reviewed sources, and that information ought to be given due weight based upon its acceptable by the scientific community. The beliefs of the general public, while certainly valuable, really do not deserve that level of weight. Furthermore, there is no real way to cite or source beliefs that are "held by the general public."
What sources exist to corroborate the Social Construct Theory? If you are not specifically mentioning the Social Construct Theory, but are asking a more general question about research into social or environmental factors about ADHD, then that is certainly a different question. The answer to that question no doubt would require some citations. None of the citations that you have provided appear to address that question. That is my sole concern here, that statements included in this article ought to be cited to reputable sources, and that those sources should actually corroborate the claims. I believe that I have already stated that I could not find passages in the sources that you have provided here that support your claim.
Now, obviously my inability to find a passage in those sources to support your claim is not evidence that such passages do not exist. I could be mistaken. I could have missed something. I could have misread a sentence, perhaps there was a "not" written there that I missed, this could easily change the meaning of a sentence when read. These are all possibilities. However, if I have misunderstood, misread, or mischaracterized one of these sources, then please correct me. If there are other sources, then by all means please include those as well.
Now, as to answer LiteratureGeek's question, perhaps one reason why stimulant medication is given such a strong weighting is because currently the only FDA-approved treatments for ADHD, at least in the US, are amphetamines, methylphenidate, and atomoxetine. Now, I can understand that one might be concerned that this is rather US-centric, and I agree. So, let's take a look at Britain's guidelines, published by the NHS: [1]
While they do mention that several other treatments are sometimes used, the only treatments that are endorsed as being conclusively effective are medications (p30).
That same paper also quotes Faraone's genetic studies that demonstrated a 0.7-0.8 heritability rate. Faraone has authored over 550 journal articles, and is one of the most highly cited researchers in all of psychiatry. He is also Vice President of the International Society of Psychiatric Genetics...which is probably one reason why NHS mentions him. The NHS paper goes on to discuss environmental factors and other factors, but you will note that even in those sections they are discussed in light of genetic susceptibility. I am not stating this to "prove" a genetic cause, please understand that what I am discussing involves the reasons for why certain causes or etiologies or treatments might be given a greater weight than others. Even Britain's NHS, which is not exactly an enthusiastic supporter of ADHD or stimulant medications only mentions other causes in relation to genetic susceptibility. America's NIMH also gives greater weight to genetic causes than other causes and to stimulant treatment over other treatment.
In short: cite your sources and make sure that they back up your claims, and I won't have a problem with it. Please do not criticize me for checking citations and discussing (in the Discussion Page!) my concerns that these sources do not support the assertions made. If you disagree, then please cite other sources, or correct me by pointing to information within the sources already provided that you feel that I may have missed, or misinterpreted, or otherwise might be mistaken about. Let's argue over sources and their data, not over editors, ok? ~ Hyperion35 ( talk) 19:50, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
Mentioned this above, but, the paper is by Timimi, and given his ties to Scientology and the Scientologist front-group CCHR...well, c'mon now, does anyone disagree with the assertion that Scientology and their beliefs about psychiatric medication is pretty damned fringe? ~
Hyperion35 (
talk) 20:41, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
{{
cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help) which comments on the hunter farmer theory sort of.
A simple google search for "Timimi AND CCHR" directed me to this page on CCHR's own website that contains a Public Service Announcement that Timimi did for them:
[2] Unfortunately the audio file itself does not appear to be accesible.
And here's Timimi speaking at a conference hosted by the Church of Scientology at their offices: http://www.scientologyreligion.org/news/pg039.html
Again, this is from the CoS's own pages.
But let's see what he actually said at that conference:
"The medicalising of children's behaviour problems and the attempt to control their behaviour with dangerous, psychiatric medication means that the new eugenics is already with us, said Dr. Sami Timimi, psychiatrist and author.
As a scientist, a doctor, a father and a citizen, continue Dr. Timimi, I believe we have a moral obligation to do all we can to protect our children from suffering any further damage and I urge policy makers to carry out an urgent review of practice in the area of ADHD and the use of medication for control of children's behaviour and to put in place a moratorium on further prescribing of psychiatric medication to children until such an investigation is completed. To remain silent on this issue is to betray our children."
http://www.free-press-release.com/news/200511/1132664299.html
Eugenics? Really? Seriously? Really? This is the guy you're quoting? Also, don't you think that someone who calls for a moratorium on prescribing *all* psychiatric medication to children just might, possibly, maybe be a bit fringe.
Also, the GMC did actually admonish the BMJ for publishing that article, lemme see if I can find the link. Never mind, it was a group of physicians requesting that the GMC admonish Timimi and Szasz for their ties to CCHR.
[3]
And again, I'd like to point out that the BMJ article is not peer reviewed, it is a debate piece. ~ Hyperion35 ( talk) 22:04, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
Thank you H. The literature does not get any more untouchable than this. The conclusion: "There is nothing "mere" about social constructions. To recognize that there is no bright line written in nature between impaired and unimpaired children – to recognize that it is up to human beings to choose who should receive a diagnosis and who should not – is to acknowledge that ADHD is "a social construction." But acknowledging that does not make us diagnostic nihilists; rather, it means we understand that because nature does not show us where that line is, it is our weighty responsibility to decide where to draw it." I have replaced what we had previously as it was a straw man explanation of the theory. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 01:48, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
~ Hyperion35 ( talk) 09:34, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
Excellent I will take this as you agreeing to inclusion: "Look, if you want to include this crap, go ahead, but it strikes me as a bit dishonest to pretend that physicians don't make decisions every day as to whether a patient's cholesterol is high enough to warrant treatment with statins" Primary prevention of cholesterol is controversial btw. We could discuss Ezetamibe but that would be way off topic. You must agree that a 3 to 4 fold difference in diagnosis rates between the two most commonly used diagnosis rates is more than a subtle different in BS for diagnosis diabetes. We all agree that society plays an important role in disease / dysfunction / disability. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 13:37, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
"It should be noted that stimulant medication itself can affect growth factors of the central nervous system.[74]" The paragraph talks about a brain development lag, then it ends with that sentence. Placing these unrelated sentences together is OR. Because of proximity, the two ideas appear to be connected. The sentence was deleted.-- scuro ( talk) 13:23, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
{{
cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help)--
Doc James (
talk ·
contribs ·
email) 18:35, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
Since the data is poor in this area it should be changed to: "It should be noted that stimulant medication itself may affect growth factors of the central nervous system.[74]" Some papers found certain areas smaller some found certain areas larger. But none of these papers say these changes are either good or bad. Maybe it is good to change growth factors in a persons brain. Also small brains might actually be desired. ie women make up 60% of the medical student / university student and have significantly smaller brains. Maybe having a big brain makes you stupid... More likely though it is all meaningless.
What is concerning however is the removal of referred material without discussion.-- Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 19:04, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
I have heard the "amphetamines" improve brain growth argument before and it is based on mice! On the other hand other research in monkeys and rats have shown doses similar to those given to children cause brain cell atrophy, i.e. brain damage. I think that it is unlikely impairing brain development would improve brain development but who knows. Anyhow, this is all irrelevant, the sentence is cited to a peer reviewed secondary source and its deletion was uncalled for, so I reverted this deletion.-- Literaturegeek | T@1k? 17:22, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
LG, the citation from Joshi appears to discuss the relationship between ADHD and growth. I can only find an extract, but it strongly implies that they are discussing growth in terms of height and weight, not neurological development or brain growth. Do you have another source demonstrating the effects of psychostimulant use on brain development? Perhaps I am mistaken, but the citation provided in this section appears to be for this article
[4] Am I correct? ~
Hyperion35 (
talk) 20:49, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
I am going to try and track down the full text of the article Hyperion, just to make sure it is being interpreted properly. If I or others have misinterpreted it then we can delete it. I shall get back in a day or 2 to this.-- Literaturegeek | T@1k? 10:28, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
While there are studies and reviews that indicate the benefits of this treatment, a number of experts have said that the therapy does not have any clinical benefit. Dr. Silver comments, "...no research has shown that the theory behind the treatment or the treatment itself is effective for people with ADHD". [4] Russell Barkley states, "A variety of treatments have been attempted with ADHD children over the past century ‑‑ far too numerous to review here.13 Vestibular stimulation,14 running,15 EMG biofeedback and relaxation training,16 sensory integration training,17 EEG biofeedback or neuro-feedback,18 among others, have been described as potentially effective in either uncontrolled case reports, small series of case studies, or in some treatment vs. no-treatment comparisons, yet are lacking in well‑controlled experimental replications of their efficacy. Many dietary treatments, such as removal of additives, colorings, or sugar from the diet or addition of high doses of vitamins, minerals, or other “health food” supplements to the diet have proven very popular despite minimal or no scientific support.13,19 Certainly traditional psychotherapy and play therapy have not proven especially effective for ADHD or other externalizing disorders.20" [5]-- scuro ( talk) 16:56, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
One source is attitude magazine so is not a reliable source and the other source is a prominant doctor working for drug manufactures who market amphetamine based drugs to children basically arguing that only amphetamines work for children with ADHD. Hardly good sourrces to go deleting good secondary sourced material from wikipedia. There is some truth to what he says in the sense that there are all sorts of dubious treatments marketed by all sorts of alternative healthcare charlatains with weak, dubious or no support at all for not just ADHD but a range of other medical conditions. As far as EEG studies are concerned, it is notable enough for mention. It is sourced to secondary peer reviewed sources. The sources basically say it is a promising treatment from the available evidence and recommend larger clinical trials of it. It is not given undue weight. My stance is that the article shouldn't be reduced to only amphetamines work, everything else is fringe. We should follow what the peer reviewed literature says.-- Literaturegeek | T@1k? 16:50, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
They would seem to suggest that the studies and reviews to date were not of a high enough standard. When one looks in text books, experts in the field seem to agree with them. What wiki policy would help us here?-- scuro ( talk) 12:53, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
Is this minority opinion or fringe? I've snipped a small sentence out of the synopsis that questioned the theory and placed that on the HF article page.-- scuro ( talk) 15:51, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
{{
cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help)
Doc James (
talk ·
contribs ·
email) 02:11, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
Hunter-farmer is most often used as an easy to understand term for lay-people. I have read books years ago for the general public on ADHD by CHADD, a drug company funded organisation and they were pushing the hunter farmer theory or laymans explaination of ADHD. I can probably find the name of the book as I think that I still have it, somewhere,,,,... It is used in the literature as well. It is not fringe and has been quite widely diseminated. Refs have been provided for it. We should write articles aimed at the layperson anyway.-- Literaturegeek | T@1k? 10:22, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 10 | ← | Archive 14 | Archive 15 | Archive 16 | Archive 17 | Archive 18 | → | Archive 20 |
Would like to bring people attention to the page on Major depressive disorder. In the lead the causes are described: "Psychological, psycho-social, hereditary, evolutionary and biological causes have been proposed." The different theories have been given weight as it is agreed by almost everyone that the cause is multi factorial. The same applies to ADHD. I have concerns that many of the editors here have ADHD themselves as stated on their talk pages. This might be leading to a WP:COI similar to what is seen on other pages such as chronic fatigue syndrome and fibromyalgia. Well ADHD has much better evidence for it than the previously mentioned. I find the refusal to let any but a very narrow view of ADHD to be included concerning.
Most psychiatrist subscribe to the Biopsychosocial model of mental illness well the pharmaceutical companies concentrate on the bio model. This makes up the majority of the literature as they have the most money to get the most publications. This is not a criticism per say but just the way things are. Psychologists more heavily support a psychosocial aspects. By leaving out a full discussion we would doing a disservice to both the profession of psychiatry, Wikipedia project, and society as a whole. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 10:22, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
Can we address the issue which Doc James raised which is, the constant assault on even high quality secondary peer reviewedd sources, where a narrow view seems to be on the battle agenda of only amphetamines work for children and it is entirely a neurological based psychiatric disorder and everything else is fringe and not allowed in the article regardless of whether it is supported by good secondary sources or meta-analysis etc. This is the issue, the narrow POV editing on this article.-- Literaturegeek | T@1k? 17:07, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
Nobody is trying to suppress any opinions here, but Wikipedia policy, as I understand it, is that statements should be cited, preferably to peer-reviewed sources, and that information ought to be given due weight based upon its acceptable by the scientific community. The beliefs of the general public, while certainly valuable, really do not deserve that level of weight. Furthermore, there is no real way to cite or source beliefs that are "held by the general public."
What sources exist to corroborate the Social Construct Theory? If you are not specifically mentioning the Social Construct Theory, but are asking a more general question about research into social or environmental factors about ADHD, then that is certainly a different question. The answer to that question no doubt would require some citations. None of the citations that you have provided appear to address that question. That is my sole concern here, that statements included in this article ought to be cited to reputable sources, and that those sources should actually corroborate the claims. I believe that I have already stated that I could not find passages in the sources that you have provided here that support your claim.
Now, obviously my inability to find a passage in those sources to support your claim is not evidence that such passages do not exist. I could be mistaken. I could have missed something. I could have misread a sentence, perhaps there was a "not" written there that I missed, this could easily change the meaning of a sentence when read. These are all possibilities. However, if I have misunderstood, misread, or mischaracterized one of these sources, then please correct me. If there are other sources, then by all means please include those as well.
Now, as to answer LiteratureGeek's question, perhaps one reason why stimulant medication is given such a strong weighting is because currently the only FDA-approved treatments for ADHD, at least in the US, are amphetamines, methylphenidate, and atomoxetine. Now, I can understand that one might be concerned that this is rather US-centric, and I agree. So, let's take a look at Britain's guidelines, published by the NHS: [1]
While they do mention that several other treatments are sometimes used, the only treatments that are endorsed as being conclusively effective are medications (p30).
That same paper also quotes Faraone's genetic studies that demonstrated a 0.7-0.8 heritability rate. Faraone has authored over 550 journal articles, and is one of the most highly cited researchers in all of psychiatry. He is also Vice President of the International Society of Psychiatric Genetics...which is probably one reason why NHS mentions him. The NHS paper goes on to discuss environmental factors and other factors, but you will note that even in those sections they are discussed in light of genetic susceptibility. I am not stating this to "prove" a genetic cause, please understand that what I am discussing involves the reasons for why certain causes or etiologies or treatments might be given a greater weight than others. Even Britain's NHS, which is not exactly an enthusiastic supporter of ADHD or stimulant medications only mentions other causes in relation to genetic susceptibility. America's NIMH also gives greater weight to genetic causes than other causes and to stimulant treatment over other treatment.
In short: cite your sources and make sure that they back up your claims, and I won't have a problem with it. Please do not criticize me for checking citations and discussing (in the Discussion Page!) my concerns that these sources do not support the assertions made. If you disagree, then please cite other sources, or correct me by pointing to information within the sources already provided that you feel that I may have missed, or misinterpreted, or otherwise might be mistaken about. Let's argue over sources and their data, not over editors, ok? ~ Hyperion35 ( talk) 19:50, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
Mentioned this above, but, the paper is by Timimi, and given his ties to Scientology and the Scientologist front-group CCHR...well, c'mon now, does anyone disagree with the assertion that Scientology and their beliefs about psychiatric medication is pretty damned fringe? ~
Hyperion35 (
talk) 20:41, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
{{
cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help) which comments on the hunter farmer theory sort of.
A simple google search for "Timimi AND CCHR" directed me to this page on CCHR's own website that contains a Public Service Announcement that Timimi did for them:
[2] Unfortunately the audio file itself does not appear to be accesible.
And here's Timimi speaking at a conference hosted by the Church of Scientology at their offices: http://www.scientologyreligion.org/news/pg039.html
Again, this is from the CoS's own pages.
But let's see what he actually said at that conference:
"The medicalising of children's behaviour problems and the attempt to control their behaviour with dangerous, psychiatric medication means that the new eugenics is already with us, said Dr. Sami Timimi, psychiatrist and author.
As a scientist, a doctor, a father and a citizen, continue Dr. Timimi, I believe we have a moral obligation to do all we can to protect our children from suffering any further damage and I urge policy makers to carry out an urgent review of practice in the area of ADHD and the use of medication for control of children's behaviour and to put in place a moratorium on further prescribing of psychiatric medication to children until such an investigation is completed. To remain silent on this issue is to betray our children."
http://www.free-press-release.com/news/200511/1132664299.html
Eugenics? Really? Seriously? Really? This is the guy you're quoting? Also, don't you think that someone who calls for a moratorium on prescribing *all* psychiatric medication to children just might, possibly, maybe be a bit fringe.
Also, the GMC did actually admonish the BMJ for publishing that article, lemme see if I can find the link. Never mind, it was a group of physicians requesting that the GMC admonish Timimi and Szasz for their ties to CCHR.
[3]
And again, I'd like to point out that the BMJ article is not peer reviewed, it is a debate piece. ~ Hyperion35 ( talk) 22:04, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
Thank you H. The literature does not get any more untouchable than this. The conclusion: "There is nothing "mere" about social constructions. To recognize that there is no bright line written in nature between impaired and unimpaired children – to recognize that it is up to human beings to choose who should receive a diagnosis and who should not – is to acknowledge that ADHD is "a social construction." But acknowledging that does not make us diagnostic nihilists; rather, it means we understand that because nature does not show us where that line is, it is our weighty responsibility to decide where to draw it." I have replaced what we had previously as it was a straw man explanation of the theory. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 01:48, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
~ Hyperion35 ( talk) 09:34, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
Excellent I will take this as you agreeing to inclusion: "Look, if you want to include this crap, go ahead, but it strikes me as a bit dishonest to pretend that physicians don't make decisions every day as to whether a patient's cholesterol is high enough to warrant treatment with statins" Primary prevention of cholesterol is controversial btw. We could discuss Ezetamibe but that would be way off topic. You must agree that a 3 to 4 fold difference in diagnosis rates between the two most commonly used diagnosis rates is more than a subtle different in BS for diagnosis diabetes. We all agree that society plays an important role in disease / dysfunction / disability. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 13:37, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
"It should be noted that stimulant medication itself can affect growth factors of the central nervous system.[74]" The paragraph talks about a brain development lag, then it ends with that sentence. Placing these unrelated sentences together is OR. Because of proximity, the two ideas appear to be connected. The sentence was deleted.-- scuro ( talk) 13:23, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
{{
cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help)--
Doc James (
talk ·
contribs ·
email) 18:35, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
Since the data is poor in this area it should be changed to: "It should be noted that stimulant medication itself may affect growth factors of the central nervous system.[74]" Some papers found certain areas smaller some found certain areas larger. But none of these papers say these changes are either good or bad. Maybe it is good to change growth factors in a persons brain. Also small brains might actually be desired. ie women make up 60% of the medical student / university student and have significantly smaller brains. Maybe having a big brain makes you stupid... More likely though it is all meaningless.
What is concerning however is the removal of referred material without discussion.-- Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 19:04, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
I have heard the "amphetamines" improve brain growth argument before and it is based on mice! On the other hand other research in monkeys and rats have shown doses similar to those given to children cause brain cell atrophy, i.e. brain damage. I think that it is unlikely impairing brain development would improve brain development but who knows. Anyhow, this is all irrelevant, the sentence is cited to a peer reviewed secondary source and its deletion was uncalled for, so I reverted this deletion.-- Literaturegeek | T@1k? 17:22, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
LG, the citation from Joshi appears to discuss the relationship between ADHD and growth. I can only find an extract, but it strongly implies that they are discussing growth in terms of height and weight, not neurological development or brain growth. Do you have another source demonstrating the effects of psychostimulant use on brain development? Perhaps I am mistaken, but the citation provided in this section appears to be for this article
[4] Am I correct? ~
Hyperion35 (
talk) 20:49, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
I am going to try and track down the full text of the article Hyperion, just to make sure it is being interpreted properly. If I or others have misinterpreted it then we can delete it. I shall get back in a day or 2 to this.-- Literaturegeek | T@1k? 10:28, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
While there are studies and reviews that indicate the benefits of this treatment, a number of experts have said that the therapy does not have any clinical benefit. Dr. Silver comments, "...no research has shown that the theory behind the treatment or the treatment itself is effective for people with ADHD". [4] Russell Barkley states, "A variety of treatments have been attempted with ADHD children over the past century ‑‑ far too numerous to review here.13 Vestibular stimulation,14 running,15 EMG biofeedback and relaxation training,16 sensory integration training,17 EEG biofeedback or neuro-feedback,18 among others, have been described as potentially effective in either uncontrolled case reports, small series of case studies, or in some treatment vs. no-treatment comparisons, yet are lacking in well‑controlled experimental replications of their efficacy. Many dietary treatments, such as removal of additives, colorings, or sugar from the diet or addition of high doses of vitamins, minerals, or other “health food” supplements to the diet have proven very popular despite minimal or no scientific support.13,19 Certainly traditional psychotherapy and play therapy have not proven especially effective for ADHD or other externalizing disorders.20" [5]-- scuro ( talk) 16:56, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
One source is attitude magazine so is not a reliable source and the other source is a prominant doctor working for drug manufactures who market amphetamine based drugs to children basically arguing that only amphetamines work for children with ADHD. Hardly good sourrces to go deleting good secondary sourced material from wikipedia. There is some truth to what he says in the sense that there are all sorts of dubious treatments marketed by all sorts of alternative healthcare charlatains with weak, dubious or no support at all for not just ADHD but a range of other medical conditions. As far as EEG studies are concerned, it is notable enough for mention. It is sourced to secondary peer reviewed sources. The sources basically say it is a promising treatment from the available evidence and recommend larger clinical trials of it. It is not given undue weight. My stance is that the article shouldn't be reduced to only amphetamines work, everything else is fringe. We should follow what the peer reviewed literature says.-- Literaturegeek | T@1k? 16:50, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
They would seem to suggest that the studies and reviews to date were not of a high enough standard. When one looks in text books, experts in the field seem to agree with them. What wiki policy would help us here?-- scuro ( talk) 12:53, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
Is this minority opinion or fringe? I've snipped a small sentence out of the synopsis that questioned the theory and placed that on the HF article page.-- scuro ( talk) 15:51, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
{{
cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help)
Doc James (
talk ·
contribs ·
email) 02:11, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
Hunter-farmer is most often used as an easy to understand term for lay-people. I have read books years ago for the general public on ADHD by CHADD, a drug company funded organisation and they were pushing the hunter farmer theory or laymans explaination of ADHD. I can probably find the name of the book as I think that I still have it, somewhere,,,,... It is used in the literature as well. It is not fringe and has been quite widely diseminated. Refs have been provided for it. We should write articles aimed at the layperson anyway.-- Literaturegeek | T@1k? 10:22, 18 August 2009 (UTC)