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 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
I think this article has FA potential. Anybody else? *Kat* 03:45, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
I agree. This and related articles such as Anti-ADHD and Methylphenidate are just a jumble of competing ideas. There are sentences that have been edited so much that they are either self-contradictory or meaningless. There are also far too many unsubstantiated, vague and sweeping claims. Trying to sort it out would be a thankless waste of time because whatever good was been done would be undone within days by the same people who created the current mess.
To get a clearer picture of why this is going on it is worth reading Andrew Lakoff [1]. Not only does he provide a well researched history of ADHD but he provides one of the few reasoned arguments for why people hold such strong views about it.
There is much valuable and reliable information in Wikipedia. Attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder would make a good feature article to warn people of what can go wrong. IanWillsIanWills
I created the page on Amen classification and linked it to ADHD page adhoc. http://wikipedia.org/wiki/amen_classification I expected that it would be evolved and information added to it, which did happen. Now I am quite annoyed that someone has deleted the link and sentence to the Amen classification.
Sure the Amen classification has not been formalised, but it should at least be referred to in the ADHD article that the classification exists and that it is an alternative to the DSM. There is the section "Formal Definitions", what about "Informal definitions?" or something along those lines?
Please in the future, evolve things, do not delete things.
I'm afraid that I can't agree that this article should be nominated for a Featured Article in its current form.
In the Diagnosis section it currently reads that: "In recent times the Amen classification has subclassified the DSM-IV classification and this led to improved diagnostic accuracy, which leads to better selection of medication and treatment. In nearly all developed nations (including the US and UK), doctors are required to conduct a SPECT scan in order to correctly treat the brain's chemical deficiencies. Without this scan, incorrect treatment can do damage to the brain." At the very least this needs citation as the DSM-IV is, to my knowledge, the guide most widely used for psychatric treatment by U.S. doctors.
It also turns out that under the Testing for ADHD - Other Forms of Testing section the article currently reads that "Neurometrics, PET scans, FMRI, or SPECT scans have been used to provide a more objective diagnosis. These are not typically suitable for very young children, and may unnecessarily expose the patient to harmful radiation. Because the etiology of the disorder is unknown, and a complete neurological definition of this disorder is lacking, a majority of clinicians doubt the current predictive power of these objective tests to detect ADHD to be used to direct clinical treatment. Currently, the American Academy of Pediatrics and the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry recommend against using these neuro-imaging methods for clinical diagnosis of individuals who may have ADHD...An October 2005 meta-analysis by Alan Zametkin, M.D., with the NIMH entitled "The ADHD Report", concluded that these diagnostic methods lack adequate scientific research on accuracy and specificity to be used as a primary diagnostic tool." These statements are cited and directly contradict those in the Diagnosis section mentioned.
What little research I've done leads me to believe that the Amen system does not belong under the diagnosis section as its reliability has not been scientifically proven. If it is kept it in the article, I recommend that it be moved from the Diagnosis section to either the Other Forms of Testing or Alternative Treatments section.
Finally, I feel it is relevant to mention that Dr. Daniel Amen [1] has set up a set of clinics using his methods, which currently charge $3,250 for a comprehensive evaluation. [2]
Some basic research should be done before leading everyone to believe that the Amen system is widely accepted in the medical community.
Thank you. --
JoeCollege 06:06, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
I know that it's probably not reasonable to expect this article to be structured or organized in a meaningful way; if you just skim over the headings it's obvious that this is the product of the collective efforts of a large number of people with ADHD. I know we can't organize things, so maybe someone who doesn't have ADHD could come up with a new structure for the article (detailed), and the community can then submit the information. I can't think of anything else right now to improve this; the article is becoming way too long, not to mention the talk page. Does anyone have any other suggestions on how we can bring order to this? ( Patrick 16:17, 14 May 2006 (UTC))
I took a machette to this article a little over a year ago. Can't believe that it has gotten so messy again! I think still think it has FA potential, but I gotta agree, now is not the time. Maybe I'll clean it up again this summer. -- *Kat* 08:16, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
"teenage pregnancy (30–35%)" If the section is stating that the proportion of people with ADHD are involved in a teenage pregnancy 30-35% more than those without ADHD (as in if 3% of teens are involved in a pregnancy 38% of teens with ADHD are involved in a pregnancy), then that is simple not true. If the section is claiming that people with ADHD are 30-35% more likely than people without ADHD to be involved in a teenage pregnancy then that is an extremely misleading statistic, probably making a difference of only 1% more teen pregnancies. William conway bcc 20:05, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
This section of the article has not been cited. Requests for citations were made on May 12, 2006. How much longer should the uncited material be left on the page? I personally feel it should be left for one more week, (until May 26th) and then deleted if it cannot be cited. William conway bcc 20:13, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
A little bit late, but then I am a procrastinator. ;-)
This paragraph was removed from the intro section because it is contradictory and does not add anything to the introduction.
I've attempted to boil this paragraph down to its bare essentials. I'm sure I think that some the details given above will need to be reincorporated, but that is a decision that I want to put off until later.
No where to put it
Again, I've attempted to boil this down into something that says essentially the same thing in fewer (and shorter) words.
This article is too long already, and this bit isn't very significant, so I'm cutting it.
Sounds too much like an advertisement for me to want to keep it.
Again, thinly veiled advert.
Nothing wrong with it, but I think this is information that would be better placed in the Nuerofeedback article.
To see ADHD positively may seem somewhat problematic to anxious parents but it is at least a perspective that should be kept in mind. With or without hyperfocus, a common manifestation, ADD/ADHD in combination with successful coping skills may be utilized to achieve remarkable accomplishments in some people. Of course, favorable socioeconomic conditions and the home environment play key roles.
Kind of useless and redundant.
There were two paragraphs in this section. I took one and moved it into "positive aspects" and this is the other. I'd like to keep it cut because there are no citations, its not encyclopedic, and there is already an article dedicated to this anyway
Supplementation with flax oil and vitamin C improves the outcome of Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD). Prostaglandins Leukot Essent Fatty Acids. 2006 Jan;74(1):17-21. Epub 2005 Nov 28.
Singh M (2005). Essential fatty acids, DHA and human brain. Indian J Pediatr. 2005 Mar;72(3):239-42.
Pine DS, Klein RG, Lindy DC, Marshall RD. (1993) Attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder and comorbid psychosis: a review and two clinical presentations. Journal of Clinical Psychiatry, 54 (4), 140-5.
Pine DS, Klein RG, Lindy DC, Marshall RD. (1993) Attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder and comorbid psychosis: a review and two clinical presentations. Journal of Clinical Psychiatry, 54 (4), 140-5.
I'm keeping this paragraph for now, but we need some examples and citations.
Not sure what I want to do with this yet, so I'm sticking it here until I decide. Most Some of this will might be reincorporated in some form.
Thank you for asking for my input. I can see you and others have done a lot of work on this difficult subject.
I do have a few comments:
In your paragraph on nutrition as a treatment, the sentence remains:
Granted, according to a recent meta-analysis, there is little scientific evidence for the effectiveness of the Feingold diet in treating ADHD specifically
Unfortunately, I do not have the full text of this report. However, in Schnoll's meta review, the abstract itself states:
May I suggest, as wording: According to a recent meta-analysis, there has been little scientific evidence for the effectiveness of the Feingold diet in treating ADHD specifically, but this could be because most of the research has focused only on food dyes, in amounts far below what children consume in a typical diet, and the diet eliminates much more than that.
You might also include the newer Lau study which shows that a combination of additives (the way we get them in the real world) has much more effect than each alone ... see http://www.diet-studies.com/adhd.html#Lau2005
Under Cerebeller Stimulation, is the sentence:
As noted above several studies have shown that the cerebellums of children with ADHD are notably smaller than their non-ADHD counterparts.
The following paragraph seems to have been left as it was originally, before your editing:
In the 1980s vitamin B6 was promoted as a helpful remedy for children with learning difficulties including inattentiveness. After that, zinc was promoted for ADD and autism. Multivitamins later became the claimed solution. Thus far, no reputable research has appeared to support either of these claims, except in cases of malnutrition.
Thus, in a couple of sentences, this paragraph denigrates B6, zinc, and vitamins. Not only does it say that there is NO REPUTABLE RESEARCH but the tone is negative and biased - sounds like the Quackbusters have been here.
B6 (and other vitamins):
Zinc
Other alternatives such as Ginko biloba .... again, it says there is NO RESEARCH. Since I have found research in a quick search of MedLine, I don't think we can say that. See the Lyon 2001 study for example. The free full text is there, too. I don't know anything about Ginko, etc, can we say something less biased-sounding? Encouraging further research is a far cry from saying there is none as though the issue is closed.
I noticed that the views on parenting section was left, dispite the fact that the entire section does not cite its sources. I suggest that the section be deleted two weeks from now (June 16, 2006) unless there are any objection to allow it to remain longer. 4.249.84.35 05:45, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
Or perhaps this editorial about journal objectivity in the NEJM by then editor Marcia Angell will be helpful Is Academic Medicine for Sale. It is noteworthy that Dr. Angell felt so strongly about this issue that she went on to write a book about this subject. She has since been repeatedly portrayed as some kind of nut in order to discredit her point of view. One has to wonder how the editor of the NEJM could ever be characterized this way, except she has dared to take on the powers that be. In my article there are also references to an article by the editor of the Lancet along similar lines.
So yes when there are billions of dollars involved objectivity becomes difficult to maintain and "experts" are not always what they seem.
I believe the user offering to delete the section on parenting is innocent of foul motives and is simply trying to be "scholarly". But why is the insistence on citations and the desire to delete this section being pursued by a person who is invisible. This user name thing was explained to me on the talk page but I still don't get it. Exactly what does the above user know about ADHD and why is this so important to him/her. Who are you? -- Ss06470 12:23, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
ADD is NOT the same thing as ADHD. Damnit...
I will try to find a better way to express my utter disgust for the use of that word and the attempt to imtimidate and impress most doctors. They are busy people trying to do a good job and when someone teaches at a good school and is presented as an "expert" they often fall into line. If you could only see the literally pounds of verbiage that comes to my office each week trying to sell a diagnosis and pharmaceutical treatments all in the name of "experts" recommendations. It is truly a wizard of oz phenomenon. Now mind you there are good meds out there and the drugs companies lately need defending, because the pendulum has swung too far, but I can't stand the lack of integrity of these professors and the group think that so many in my profession have fallen in to. See my reference to Marci Angell above as confirmation of this particular rant.
-- Ss06470 02:25, 6 June 2006 (UTC) The hot issue is not that they are proponents of medication but that they are supported by an industry with deep deep pockets who manipulate information. They pay enormous amounts of money to professors, control journals, conferences and deluge doctors with mailings of free journals that constantly refer to experts. Since the professors hold prestigious positions in very fine universities this doesn't seem at first that preposterous but it is. I keep adding references to the article about how little is known (the NIH consensus statement, Castellanos statements, the absurd Zametkin pictures of the brain.) and about the distortions (see the reference to Dr. Pelham,Dr Angell's book, and the editor of Lancet rant in the New York Review of Books If I can find the Wall Street Journal article which documented the % of continuing education funds paid for by drug companies that will highlight my point All of it is presented as "science" or "evidence based medicine" etc . But good scientists talk about what we don't know and where the controversies are, not "hear this I am an expert" That is why I am comparing it to The Wizard of Oz, and trying to expose "experts" for what they are
AS for referring people to my article in a more dignified encyclopedia style fashion I am open to suggestions, but frankly I am taking on an awful lot of powerful people who have their views regularly confirmed, circulated and reinforced by repetition. So if the purpose of this article is to inform I feel stylistic considerations should be secondary. Once again, however, if there is a good editor out there who can help me accomplish my purpose to inform the public and slow down the run away freight train which ADHD treatment has become please don't be shy and show me what you can do.
-- Ss06470 12:21, 3 June 2006 (UTC)Simon Sobo, M.D.
Cut from the Parental Roles section.
Lets not have another intra-article arguement. If the rest of the article doesn't make this point, then the point can't be made.-- *Kat* 06:58, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
-- Ss06470 11:11, 5 June 2006 (UTC) While it is true that often, even with rewarding activities, focus is not under the control of the person affected by ADHD. But the problem with this observation is that it assumes that offering a reward will do the trick. There is no question kids with ADHD may start out wanting to concentrate especially, say, if a reward is offered, but they may fail when they get into their customary difficulties when challenged (by the burden of the work required of them). Nevertheless, I would argue that reward is somehow involved in their difficulties, specifically a difficulty dealing with not fun, frustrating tasks Here is a short quote from my article on this subject.
Chances are if you ask one of these children how they do with video games most will tell you they have no problem. Hour after hour they can sit totally attentive, totally focused, totally absorbed by these games. This should not be the case if there is a biological interference with concentration. Very often these kids are said to have eye-hand coordination problems (supporting the argument for a biological basis) as illustrated by their sloppy penmanship and also psychological testing shows this to be the case. But video games require an amazing amount of dexterity. Why is there no impairment here?
I treated a teen-ager who told me that he could not read without his medication. His eyes glazed over, he could go over a page a hundred times and nothing would be absorbed. During summer vacation he stopped his meds, except when he had to read something for school. I asked if he ever read anything else, something not required for school. He told me he didn’t but then remembered one exception. He loved mountain biking. Each month when his mountain biking magazine arrived he tore through it, reading every word, cover to cover. He did not require medication to do this.''
Many of the children I have spoken to do okay in one school subject and not another. Sometimes they are simply gifted in this area, so that it comes very easily year after year. But many of them do well in one subject one year and another subject the next year depending on how charismatic the teacher is.
While the successful teacher does not offer rewards per se, his/her gift is a reward. This may come from an entertaining style, but also some teachers manage to engage their students (including ADHD students) with the relevance of their subject so that it is no longer boring or as much of an unpleasant task
Finally Castellanos' (then head of ADHD research at the NIMH) Frontline speculations on how stimulants work is worth noting. “ It used to be said that dopamine (which stimulants cause to be enhanced) was the reward chemical--that if something was rewarding, then you would release dopamine. It turns out to be more complicated than that. It's not just whether something's going to feel good, or be rewarded; it's more if there's a possibility that something would feel good. If an animal knows that they're going to be rewarded when they correctly do a task, then dopamine is no longer involved. But when the animal thinks that maybe this is the way to solve the task, dopamine is leading the way, saying, "This, try this, try this."
-- Ss06470 19:45, 6 June 2006 (UTC)My intention is not to make you sick to your stomach but appeal to your mind with a fair presentation of the evidence. Exactly why should that make you sick? Some of my ADHD patients never come back when they hear my point of view, but many are relieved to learn that their brain may not be physically broken after all. Some tell me that they think of their special ed classmates as "retards" and hated being told they were born with ADHD. They simply refused to accept it. I can't imagine a worse verdict, particularly as a child, than if I had been told told that something was wrong with my brain. That I was born that way. The diminished expectations that I would challenge myself with, not to mention my teachers and partents not expecting too much would easily become a self fulfilling prophecy. I can't tell you how many times at moments of uncertainty I started to wonder if I had what it takes to be a doctor. That is even after being a Phi Bete student? What if I had been told I had ADHD? I realize it would be very cruel to tell some one with MS in a wheel chair to get out of the chair and play baseball like everyone else. So if ADHD is biological what I am arguing could be comparable. But even then, you will discover those who refuse to be held back by their impairments often do better than those who find it comforting. It is not my call, but a patient's and I would not think less of a person if they can't muster that stubborness. But I would hope for it for their sake. Anyway, with ADHD the issue is a little more subtle. The bottom line is that I think it is crucial, if I am right, to not go away and allow the biological people to spread their certainties based on the facts (which is that we do not know the answer to this important question.) I do appreciate that you are fair minded enough to consider the importance of a point of view that you don't agree with. At least that is a beginning.
Some one really needs to say that ADD and ADHD are different... Because they are. ok now that that's over with, basically people with ADD (rather than ADHD) find it harder to pay attention (eg in class) and things like that. people with ADHD are different and someone needs to state this and get rid of the redirect from the Attention Deficit Disorder page.
From a very angry -- Xykon 10:44, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
Sorry for yelling by the way (was in a bad mood to start with). Here is a basic list from the DSM IV and to have ADD, you must have at least 6 of these that's right ADD. the version (not sure if thats the right word) I read (given to me from my doctor) notes that they are two different things and puts them under two different headings. • often ignores details; makes careless mistakes
• often has trouble sustaining attention in work or play
• often does not seem to listen when directly addressed
• often does not follow through on instructions; fails to finish
• often has difficulty organizing tasks and activities
• often avoids activities that require a sustained mental effort
• often loses things he needs
• often gets distracted by extraneous noise
• is often forgetful in daily activities
-- 203.32.87.250 09:39, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
Nowhere in the article does it say that ADD and ADHD are the same things.-- *Kat* 07:50, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
Actually it does. In the very first sentence of the article it says "Attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) (formerly known as ADD)" emphasis on the last part. Xykon 09:06, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
Can someone rewrite please? I am unable to parse the sentence. -- Barrylb
Attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) is considered to be a neurological syndrome that exhibits symptoms such as hyperactivity, forgetfulness, mood shifts, poor impulse control, and distractibility, when judged to be chronic, as symptoms of a neurological pathology.
Auto-fail reason: Use of {{unreferenced|article's section called "Parental role"}} and {{citation needed}}. Make sure all "negative" tags are not on a page before nomination.-- SeizureDog 18:41, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
-- Ss06470 03:17, 13 June 2006 (UTC)I have deleted a statement that the surgeon general was said to have made after checking the surgeon general's page [5] on the subject of ADHD. Sorry to just act but others are invited to find a statement from the surgeon general's office stating that ADHD is a form of metabolic encephalopathy, or that the limbic system is affected or any other fictional content attributed to that office by whoever wrote that statement. The surgeon general, in fact states that the cause of ADHD is unknown. If there is a different surgeon general page then my citation, my apologies and please return the statement
Ss06470Kat. Are you saying that you agree with something I have written? Thank the lord!!!! If you can control your nausea, you really may find other things in my article that you may agree with. I know you think I am this mean doctor, but believe it or not, I am trying my hardest to be constructive on this subject and many others. You might be interested in this oneon the use of psychotherapy along with meds
http://www.psychiatrictimes.com/p990423.html
I note in the tidy up of the article (which is a good thing), there have been some bits get a bit skewed, for example, in the Nutrition section, the meta-analysis is attributed to Schnoll et al. The Schnoll paper is a literature review, and the meta-analysis in question was: Neal L. Rojas and Eugenia Chan. (2005). Old and new controversies in the alternative treatment of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities, 11, 116-130. There was plenty of cruft that needed removing, but this ended up mis-representing the views [6] -- Limegreen 10:44, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
I suggest that the article on ADHD be classified under a neutrality dispute, or point-of view problem, as many here argue about the disorder's very existence. If I'm not mistaken, Wikipedia is supposed to be neutral on all topics of discussion.
I understand. I humbly retract my earlier suggestion MelW 13:04, 16 June 2006 (UTC)MelW
I'm surprised to see there is no mention of cortisol levels in ADHD-diagnosed persons, as several studies seem to show a correlation between lowered cortisol levels and ADHD.
ss06470 I've taken the liberty of changing the description of Zametkins brain image. It incorrectly stated that the subjects were children. I also noted that the picture is of the brain when doing an assigned task. I did not add the discussion regarding this finding that someone added from my article on the ADHD controversy page Here is a reference to Zametkin's article http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/abstract/323/20/1361
I have multiple problems with this section. This section does not cite its sources. This section is in violation of NPOV, including the parts which mention that the section is "According to one point of view”. This point of view is not significant enough to include in the article if it cannot be cited. Only two points of view are significant regardless; the view of the majority (or at least plurality) and the view of the relevant medical community. I greatly suspect that this section is the result of original research. Contradictory statements are made in the two paragraphs in this section; arguments should be made on the talk page, rather than in the text of the article. Finally this section refers to the ADHD article itself, something which should never happen. The second paragraph attacks the request for citations in first paragraph! All (in my opinion), or at least parts of this section, should be deleted. I suggest that the uncited information should be deleted after 2 weeks unless there are objects, and that the rest of the section should be fixed as soon as possible. William conway bcc 00:10, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
-- 69.0.14.248 06:11, 24 June 2006 (UTC)Please see discussion above "views of paremting" and "futher edits" also above. There is no question that the style could be improved but the content is important. By the way, I have no illusion that my position, and the position of many similar minded people is a minority position among professionals, and all major organizations are lined up behind the biological model, but before you delete this I think you should address the content concerns raised by the article. Yes it is in opposition to mainstream thinking but the logic and questions being raised are powerful ones. That this should be cut and the crazy (sorry scientology people, food additive people , etc etc) stuff left is extraordinary but not surprising. Some day this "disease" will make for interesting reading. Don't know who you are Mr Conway but please understand that children are being put on speed, some at very early ages
--
Ss06470 17:46, 24 June 2006 (UTC)Okay, I've rewritten the parental role section in a way that seems more appropriate to an encyclopedia article. If you have objections to the current section please let me know and I will try to work with you for improvement
-- Ss06470 04:27, 26 June 2006 (UTC) "although it has not been scientifically proven to the point of satisfaction" is not a solution since it completely undermines what is being stated. The key issue is that there are people who claim to be speaking about what is scientific known when, in fact, that isn't the case at all. Some adhere to strict protocols but then make wild generalizations about very iffy data. I have tried to demonstrate some of the fallacies with the Zametkin picture of the brain which has been used again and again as a picture that proves the issue is biological yet all it shows is that ADHD patients were not using the part of the brain that is involved in concentrating on a task. Gee what a surprise. Castellanos conclusions about the smaller cerebellum in ADHD children seems to be valid. He is convinced the problem is biological but he is honest about how little is known and I respect him. The smaller cerebellum could easily be the result of using the brain differently which ADHD people clearly do but that does not mean the problem is biological (see the discussion in the article) So as I state repeatedly science does not have the answers, despite claims to the contrary, and the love affair doctors have for scientific approaches. I have the same love of science, but I respect true scientists who are clear about what is known and not known. So if the answers are by no means clarified by science, I think other approaches to explain the syndrome are valid and should not be dismissed too easily, especially because they represent the common sense view of parents and educators for centures. If you have kids you know they have to be taught early and repeatedly to stay on task, do their homework, remember to bring it home, put up with boring subjects and teachers, sit still, get on line when asked to do so, wait their turn and so on through the list of ADHD symptoms. It doesn't come naturally. Could there be certain kids who are not able to integrate the pressures placed on them into purposive behavior because there is something wrong bioloically. Definitely some of them. Could there be biological factors that are not well understood but neverhtheless there. Probably. But we are leaping ahead without any scientific basis if we claim millions upon millions of children are born with ADHD. So to stress that parental roles are an important factor but is not supported by science puts a criticism there that is uncalled for.
What we are witnessing is a pendulum swing in the paradigm. When I began in psychiatry 35 years ago no one dared criticize Freud. Now no one dares to claim parents play a key role. The only environmental issues allowed in the discussion are toxins, fetal trauma, vitamins, food additives, etc. The extreme turn around is absurd, more like an ideological war than reasonable inquiry. Psychoanalysts once controlled academia (and they were no more open minded). Biological psychiatrists were on the out. When they gained control it was psychoanalysts turn to be out of a job, and their point of view, in essence, banned.
To repeat I welcome true scientific understanding when it will come, but I have no respect for "science" as a blinder that excludes important points of view, and somehow claims that it is the only true way to view phenomena when the science simply isn't there Please see the difficulites one researcher had from the journals when he suggested that pediatricians should do more than hand out pills. [7](See "it was like a whitewash") His innocent little statement that they cut would have completely undermined drug companies focused advertising that tells pediatrians to hand out Ritaline to ttheir patients and not to worry. They are treating by scientific principles. Also note my comments about the lack of objectivity in "experts" point of view scattered throughout the article and discussions. I keep harping on that term "experts" because it is an intellectually inappropriate self description when the facts of the matter are that modesty should be more appropriate when ignorance is the true state of affairs for everyone. That, plus doctors are relentlessly bombarded by the opinion of "experts" and this has the effect of intimidating the average doctor. (malpractice fears for missing the diagnosis are high-some of the mailings directly imply there will be malpractice implications) The whitewash article gives you a taste of how serious drug companies are about getting their point of view across. Also see the discussion of the the editor of the NEJM editorial Is Academic Medicine for Sale With literally billions of dollars involved in these issues, this one time where conspiracy theories are appropriate. Also see the discussion of the the editor of the NEJM editorial (Is academic medicine for sale). In other discussions I have reference similar comments by the editor of Lancet (the British eqivalent of NEJM) It is also noteworthy that Dr Angell felt so strongly about this issue that she went on to write a book about it, following which she was often portrayed as some kind of nut. It may also interest you that, as background to my involvement, I might add that I defend drug companies [8]when I feel they are getting a bum wrap (like lately)Moreover, I have been asked to write for phony organizations supported by scientolgists and also to write for Peter Breggin who I feel is far too critical of medications. I have turned both down. I am not a saint and I am sure I am wrong about some of my observations but it is pretty amazing how difficult it is to maintain an independent voice. I am, for instance eventually going to give up on this site since unfortunately, I don't have the time to keep reinstating a fair discussion of the issues. But I hope my discussions have given you a taste of the ferocious forces involved and the difficulty of getting unbiased information out to the public.
There are a couple of places in this article (as I write this, I'm talking about footnote number 28 and external link 12, although obviously these numbers are subject to change as further edits are performed) that reference " http://www.geocities.com/ss06470/ADHD.html". As this is a self-published article (albeit written by an acknowledged expert in the field with numerous previous publication credits), it should possibly not be used for this purpose, as it may not be a WP:Reliable source. I'm not sure what best to do about this. There may be alternative sources for the information referenced here. JulesH 00:34, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
-- 69.37.53.91 21:58,
-- 69.37.53.91 22:02, 10 August 2006 (UTC)10 August 2006 (UTC)Regarding the above comments you might be interested in this e-mail received today as to it being a reliable source
Dear Simon, I wonder if you've read my book 'Naughty Boys: Anti-Social Behaviour, ADHD and the Role of Culture'? Your thoughts on the subject are not too far away from mine. I really enjoyed your article, particularly the weaving together of personal narrative and academic enquiry. Would you be willing to put together an abbreviated version (max. 10,000 words) of your article as a chapter for a book that myself and Jonathan Leo are putting together- trying to bring together a cross-section of critiques of ADHD from differing perspectives? I think in paticular a focus on the movement from religious morality to 'fun' morality and the relevance of Freudian theories of instinct would be most welcome (we need someone who is capable of providing some relevant exploration of psychodynamic aspects of the development of attention/impulsivity). In case you might be intrested, I have also attached our stylistic guidelines (Although we are asking for chapters by the end of august, obviously we would be happy to give you more time as this is a relatively late request). Our proposal has been accepted for publication be Palgrave-MacMillan. Look forward to hearing from you. Best wishes,
Sami
Bold textI am interested in feedback on my 40 years experience with A.D.D. I have yet to see a patient who was 'diagnosed' as A.D.D. who did manifest those symptoms and who did not have the following visual problems:
1. FARSIGHTED-UNCOMPENSATED 2. ASTIGMATISM-UNCOMPENSATED 3. EXCESSIVE WEAKNESS TO CROSS EYES-CONVERGENCE INSUFFICIENCY 4. OVER COMPENSATED NEARSIGHTEDNESS/MYOPIA
My daughter was diagnosed with ADHD, in part because she fit the ACID profile on the WISC-III. I don't see any mention of that here, though: is it something that hasn't come up, or something that's been rejected through consensus? I see here that there have been studies that show it's not a good determinant. -- Sar e kOfVulcan 00:14, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
The section Positive aspects of this article include the text;
This is word for word indentical to text from http://www.understanding-add.info/adhd-children.htm Other parts of the section are idential or extremely similar to other text from the above site.
unbiased / may be biased in favor of the product promoted, if any). I'm sure there are additonal / alternate sources available which underscore the point in question, but which are not affiliated with commercial interests. ( Patrick 23:34, 30 June 2006 (UTC))
I suggest the copied material be remove by May 1st.
William conway bcc 03:05, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
This is ridiculous, ADD without hyperactivity is just as common yet there is no article about ADD and ADD does not come up once in this article, why is this? Samuel 14:08, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
This section operates from a logical fallacy, the Argument from Ignorance, by implying that ADD/ADHD does not exist since current science isn't able to determine what underlies the disorder. Perhaps someone with experience tending this page can take care of that. -- 70.37.248.113 14:51, 30 June 2006 (UTC)TomK
I'm removing the following few sentences from the Possible Causes section because they really are beside the point. *Kat* 02:30, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
-- Ss06470 23:43, 13 July 2006 (UTC)Yes Kat the NIMH and the Surgeon Gerneral's carefully cited statements about the cause of ADHD in a section about the causes of ADHD "really are beside the point." I'm beginning to believe your professed scholarly impulses are not so pure. Where do you get the nerve to pull off this kind of distortion of the material
I think the following would make a great footnote/endnote, but its too much for the main article.
From Parental Roles *Kat* 06:39, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
Massive POV
This needs a citation (outside of Dr. Sobo's webpage) before it is reincorporated: The number of free journals, carrying the opinions of specialists in this field, that repeatedly call attention to this disorder might have something to do with this. citation needed
--
Ss06470 04:18, 11 July 2006 (UTC)Kat (whoever that is) you have taken away the NIMH consensus statement regarding the cause of ADHD and robbed the section on parental roles of its themeat so that it is now inane. I will not be returning to this page. You win. You have managed to wear me down and now have a completely useless discussion of ADHD filled with standard unproven assertions by the "experts" and every fringe nutty group that pipes in with their bizarre viewpoints. Good job!
-- Ss06470 03:40, 12 July 2006 (UTC)I could not resist taking one last peek since today Kat, today's lead story in the Wall Street Journal is about the lack of objectivity of the expert science industry. This is not news. As I have repeatedly noted the editor of the NEJM's editorial [15]"Is Academia for Sale" describes the articles in journals you are citing as by authors who are for hire. It is a shameful chapter in the history of medicine. I guess it is time to come right out and say it since your veneer of gentlemanly objectivity is a lot of nonsense. You have pointedly gone about destroying important content in the debate over whether ADHD represents a widespread biological illness, or is the result of changes in the way many children are being motivated to learn how to work and act differently than they might act in the playground. You have been outrageously rude in your actions, and managed to prevent a fair presentation of the subject under the guise of scholarly detachment. So let me just say it. You are a complete idiot
i came here looking for support and it was great i got info but i need a support forum please help me!!!!!!!!!!
I'm tagging the Alternative treatments section as non-neutral. Scanning through it I'm finding lots of questionable prose and probable original research ("Granted, according to a recent meta-analysis, there is little scientific evidence...", "It is claimed by some with ADHD that...", "There has been a lot of interesting work done with..."). This sounds like advocacy at its worst and it has no place in Wikipedia. -- Bk0 ( Talk) 00:39, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
ADD hoax added without discussion, from a high school, non-regulated, nor peer-reviewed site. Thanks ( Jocomama 20:36, 29 July 2006 (UTC))
Because most of the medications used to treat ADHD are Schedule II under the U.S. DEA schedule system, and are considered powerful stimulants with a potential for diversion and abuse, there is controversy surrounding prescribing these drugs for children and adolescents. However, research studying ADHD sufferers who either receive treatment with stimulants or go untreated has indicated that those treated with stimulants are in fact much less likely to abuse any substance than ADHD sufferers who are not treated with stimulants.[24]
This only applies in the United States. Canada has different, more lenient laws for ADHD.-- *Kat* 00:34, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
I don't see any connection between Dr. Heinrich Hoffman, Struwwelpeter and ADHD; and I don't think Dr. Hoffman's intention was anything more serious than to write an amusing children's story.-- House of Usher 17:02, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
1845. ADHD was first alluded to by Dr. Heinrich Hoffmann, a physician who wrote books on medicine and psychiatry, Dr. Hoffman was also a poet who became interested in writing for children when he couldn't find suitable materials to read to his 3-year-old son. The result was a book of poems, complete with illustrations, about children and their characteristics. "Die Geschichte vom Zappel-Philipp" (The Story of Fidgety Philip) in Der Struwwelpeter was a description of a little boy who could be interpreted as having attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. http://www.fln.vcu.edu/struwwel/philipp_e.html Alternatively, it may be seen as merely a moral fable to amuse young children at the same time as encouraging them to behave properly.
At the request of Kat, I've taken a shot at NPOVing the alternative treatments section and removed the NPOV-section template. The text got a lot shorter, but I think I've retained all facts and references. Please take a look, and I hope people will check especially for any ignorant removal I may have done of something that's actually essential. Btw, the reference for the neurofeedback research review seems to need some attention, and the "ADD Coaching" paragraph needs a reference. Bishonen | talk 10:22, 7 August 2006 (UTC).
Reorganized this section as well, and attempted to remove all POV. Tricky! Bishonen | talk 17:28, 7 August 2006 (UTC).
Jeff Rense has material that someone else has submitted to him that indicates that ADHD is nothing more than a "invented disease" so that "Big Pharma" (Heard the expressions of "Big Tobacco" and "Big Oil" ?!) can make Million$. This may be found on his site itself and in the archives as well. Martial Law 18:58, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
Why can't ADD be a seperate article?
There is obviously a difference between the two and the two terms are used in different contexts.
raptor 12:58, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
The article does a good job in mentioning that the disease cannot be identified from any biological tests, and that subjective tests are used instead. However, it needs to make the connection with the fact that drugs are typically applied as a solution. That is, without being able to identify the disease from a chemical test, we are nevertheless applying a chemical solution. This is highly illogical -- in the realm of physics if I applied an electromagnetic solution to something that I couldn't demonstrate as having electric and magnetic components, then you would chalk me up as incompetent. Likewise, the prescription of drugs to solve ADHD is a glaring indicator that scientific method is not being strictly adhered to in this case.
Dr. Karl Hoffower just did a podcast episode discussing this fact among a few other pertinent issues. He got his data from the Citizens Commission on Human Rights
I am removing the following text: If, as some theorists claim, ADHD is not a single biological condition, but an inability to "get with the program" from whatever cause, then the outlook for these children is obviously variable. It often is linked with conduct disorder and may be the beginning of a life of irresponsibility and possibly crime. It may also be the beginning of a creative career that creates its own "program." Many children with ADHD flounder until they find something they love to do, or are inspired by a figure who teaches them the skills that are needed. And some never get there.
Removal of such a large portion of text deserves the following explanation. The first sentence is not related to positive aspects of ADHD. The second sentence describes a negative aspect. The third sentence is reliant of the first two sentences. The fourth sentence describes ways in which the disadvantages of ADHD can be overcome rather than a positive aspect. The fourth sentence is also not ADHD specific. The fifth sentence is reliant on the fourth sentence. William conway bcc 01:27, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
Until we find a more credible source for the information below, I propose that it remain excluded from this article.-- *Kat* 01:48, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
This just goes to show that I'm not going insane (no pun or shades of malodorous meaning with that)... but the third paragraph in the Skepticism sub-section and the second in the Parental role are, but for a couple of words, the same. That probably shout be cleaned up or both redefined as from my reading the said idea (that it's the natural order of bored kids) could fit under both. Desk Jockey 04:05, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
It seems as though this repetition of information is probably an error. If you read the two sub-sections you can see that in the second paragraph of the Parental role section the first sentence speaks about the possibility that certain parenting methods may cause ADHD but then the second goes on to talk about ADHD being seen as a "natural" way for children to behave when they are stuck in a situation that doesn't engage them. There is conceptual confusion with this, so a rewrite or deletion of this paragraph altogether seems required. ( Cf1 11:22, 29 August 2006 (UTC)) -- 69.37.244.31 11:14, 8 September 2006 (UTC) Here we go again! It is saying that the natural way for children to behave resembles the symptoms of ADHD unless parents can successfully guide them to different behavior. The conceptual confusions is yours and indicates to me that you probably don't have children. You might take a look at the abstract of my article to get a bit more focused.
As with alcoholism, drug abuse, and other neurological spectrum disorders from bi-polar to Asperger's, I would suggest a section with citations on the likely and under-counseled effects of ADHD: on the family dimension--non-ADHD spouses and children and/or siblings; the high recorded incidence in prison populations; in divorce; in adoptive children (from impulsive accidental parent(s)); and the cumulative generational effect (ADHD parent(s) trying to raise ADHD kids, or in denial, or alerted to their own adult diagnosis vi the children), not to mention a stand-alone section on the co-morbid overlap and resulting difficulty in diagnosing and treating when presenting alongside with bi-polar, anxiety, depression, Tourette's, epilepsy, OCD, etc.
A mention of the national organizations and journals would be helpful.
Also, helpful: a note re: the booming research and the percentage of medical doctors, specialists, neurologists, psychiatrists, and mental health counselors of all stripes who are "behind" on the ADHD research overall, the impact, the pharmacology, and misapplied or mistaken mainstream treatments--and as a reason for the few but highly publicized cases of misdiagnosis, or over- or mis-prescribing versus the thousands who go untreated.
"Controversies" should include not only a note re: alleged the financial boon of pharma companies as a spur to diagnosis, but on the other side the scattered anti-ADHD voices--potentially born of the undiagnosed or in-denial overcompensating ADHD superego, especially in males-- of those with ADHD with a personal bent to avoid or disprove the mainstream research, appealing to no-drug solution and miracle treatments without scientific backing. While speculative, this tendency is by definition and observation within the predictable reaction of those who feel threatened rather than relieved, non-empirical leftovers of the mental health treatment stigma.
Larry Nemecek
The article is stable and fully referenced.-- *Kat* 11:15, 3 September 2006 (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 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
I think this article has FA potential. Anybody else? *Kat* 03:45, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
I agree. This and related articles such as Anti-ADHD and Methylphenidate are just a jumble of competing ideas. There are sentences that have been edited so much that they are either self-contradictory or meaningless. There are also far too many unsubstantiated, vague and sweeping claims. Trying to sort it out would be a thankless waste of time because whatever good was been done would be undone within days by the same people who created the current mess.
To get a clearer picture of why this is going on it is worth reading Andrew Lakoff [1]. Not only does he provide a well researched history of ADHD but he provides one of the few reasoned arguments for why people hold such strong views about it.
There is much valuable and reliable information in Wikipedia. Attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder would make a good feature article to warn people of what can go wrong. IanWillsIanWills
I created the page on Amen classification and linked it to ADHD page adhoc. http://wikipedia.org/wiki/amen_classification I expected that it would be evolved and information added to it, which did happen. Now I am quite annoyed that someone has deleted the link and sentence to the Amen classification.
Sure the Amen classification has not been formalised, but it should at least be referred to in the ADHD article that the classification exists and that it is an alternative to the DSM. There is the section "Formal Definitions", what about "Informal definitions?" or something along those lines?
Please in the future, evolve things, do not delete things.
I'm afraid that I can't agree that this article should be nominated for a Featured Article in its current form.
In the Diagnosis section it currently reads that: "In recent times the Amen classification has subclassified the DSM-IV classification and this led to improved diagnostic accuracy, which leads to better selection of medication and treatment. In nearly all developed nations (including the US and UK), doctors are required to conduct a SPECT scan in order to correctly treat the brain's chemical deficiencies. Without this scan, incorrect treatment can do damage to the brain." At the very least this needs citation as the DSM-IV is, to my knowledge, the guide most widely used for psychatric treatment by U.S. doctors.
It also turns out that under the Testing for ADHD - Other Forms of Testing section the article currently reads that "Neurometrics, PET scans, FMRI, or SPECT scans have been used to provide a more objective diagnosis. These are not typically suitable for very young children, and may unnecessarily expose the patient to harmful radiation. Because the etiology of the disorder is unknown, and a complete neurological definition of this disorder is lacking, a majority of clinicians doubt the current predictive power of these objective tests to detect ADHD to be used to direct clinical treatment. Currently, the American Academy of Pediatrics and the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry recommend against using these neuro-imaging methods for clinical diagnosis of individuals who may have ADHD...An October 2005 meta-analysis by Alan Zametkin, M.D., with the NIMH entitled "The ADHD Report", concluded that these diagnostic methods lack adequate scientific research on accuracy and specificity to be used as a primary diagnostic tool." These statements are cited and directly contradict those in the Diagnosis section mentioned.
What little research I've done leads me to believe that the Amen system does not belong under the diagnosis section as its reliability has not been scientifically proven. If it is kept it in the article, I recommend that it be moved from the Diagnosis section to either the Other Forms of Testing or Alternative Treatments section.
Finally, I feel it is relevant to mention that Dr. Daniel Amen [1] has set up a set of clinics using his methods, which currently charge $3,250 for a comprehensive evaluation. [2]
Some basic research should be done before leading everyone to believe that the Amen system is widely accepted in the medical community.
Thank you. --
JoeCollege 06:06, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
I know that it's probably not reasonable to expect this article to be structured or organized in a meaningful way; if you just skim over the headings it's obvious that this is the product of the collective efforts of a large number of people with ADHD. I know we can't organize things, so maybe someone who doesn't have ADHD could come up with a new structure for the article (detailed), and the community can then submit the information. I can't think of anything else right now to improve this; the article is becoming way too long, not to mention the talk page. Does anyone have any other suggestions on how we can bring order to this? ( Patrick 16:17, 14 May 2006 (UTC))
I took a machette to this article a little over a year ago. Can't believe that it has gotten so messy again! I think still think it has FA potential, but I gotta agree, now is not the time. Maybe I'll clean it up again this summer. -- *Kat* 08:16, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
"teenage pregnancy (30–35%)" If the section is stating that the proportion of people with ADHD are involved in a teenage pregnancy 30-35% more than those without ADHD (as in if 3% of teens are involved in a pregnancy 38% of teens with ADHD are involved in a pregnancy), then that is simple not true. If the section is claiming that people with ADHD are 30-35% more likely than people without ADHD to be involved in a teenage pregnancy then that is an extremely misleading statistic, probably making a difference of only 1% more teen pregnancies. William conway bcc 20:05, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
This section of the article has not been cited. Requests for citations were made on May 12, 2006. How much longer should the uncited material be left on the page? I personally feel it should be left for one more week, (until May 26th) and then deleted if it cannot be cited. William conway bcc 20:13, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
A little bit late, but then I am a procrastinator. ;-)
This paragraph was removed from the intro section because it is contradictory and does not add anything to the introduction.
I've attempted to boil this paragraph down to its bare essentials. I'm sure I think that some the details given above will need to be reincorporated, but that is a decision that I want to put off until later.
No where to put it
Again, I've attempted to boil this down into something that says essentially the same thing in fewer (and shorter) words.
This article is too long already, and this bit isn't very significant, so I'm cutting it.
Sounds too much like an advertisement for me to want to keep it.
Again, thinly veiled advert.
Nothing wrong with it, but I think this is information that would be better placed in the Nuerofeedback article.
To see ADHD positively may seem somewhat problematic to anxious parents but it is at least a perspective that should be kept in mind. With or without hyperfocus, a common manifestation, ADD/ADHD in combination with successful coping skills may be utilized to achieve remarkable accomplishments in some people. Of course, favorable socioeconomic conditions and the home environment play key roles.
Kind of useless and redundant.
There were two paragraphs in this section. I took one and moved it into "positive aspects" and this is the other. I'd like to keep it cut because there are no citations, its not encyclopedic, and there is already an article dedicated to this anyway
Supplementation with flax oil and vitamin C improves the outcome of Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD). Prostaglandins Leukot Essent Fatty Acids. 2006 Jan;74(1):17-21. Epub 2005 Nov 28.
Singh M (2005). Essential fatty acids, DHA and human brain. Indian J Pediatr. 2005 Mar;72(3):239-42.
Pine DS, Klein RG, Lindy DC, Marshall RD. (1993) Attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder and comorbid psychosis: a review and two clinical presentations. Journal of Clinical Psychiatry, 54 (4), 140-5.
Pine DS, Klein RG, Lindy DC, Marshall RD. (1993) Attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder and comorbid psychosis: a review and two clinical presentations. Journal of Clinical Psychiatry, 54 (4), 140-5.
I'm keeping this paragraph for now, but we need some examples and citations.
Not sure what I want to do with this yet, so I'm sticking it here until I decide. Most Some of this will might be reincorporated in some form.
Thank you for asking for my input. I can see you and others have done a lot of work on this difficult subject.
I do have a few comments:
In your paragraph on nutrition as a treatment, the sentence remains:
Granted, according to a recent meta-analysis, there is little scientific evidence for the effectiveness of the Feingold diet in treating ADHD specifically
Unfortunately, I do not have the full text of this report. However, in Schnoll's meta review, the abstract itself states:
May I suggest, as wording: According to a recent meta-analysis, there has been little scientific evidence for the effectiveness of the Feingold diet in treating ADHD specifically, but this could be because most of the research has focused only on food dyes, in amounts far below what children consume in a typical diet, and the diet eliminates much more than that.
You might also include the newer Lau study which shows that a combination of additives (the way we get them in the real world) has much more effect than each alone ... see http://www.diet-studies.com/adhd.html#Lau2005
Under Cerebeller Stimulation, is the sentence:
As noted above several studies have shown that the cerebellums of children with ADHD are notably smaller than their non-ADHD counterparts.
The following paragraph seems to have been left as it was originally, before your editing:
In the 1980s vitamin B6 was promoted as a helpful remedy for children with learning difficulties including inattentiveness. After that, zinc was promoted for ADD and autism. Multivitamins later became the claimed solution. Thus far, no reputable research has appeared to support either of these claims, except in cases of malnutrition.
Thus, in a couple of sentences, this paragraph denigrates B6, zinc, and vitamins. Not only does it say that there is NO REPUTABLE RESEARCH but the tone is negative and biased - sounds like the Quackbusters have been here.
B6 (and other vitamins):
Zinc
Other alternatives such as Ginko biloba .... again, it says there is NO RESEARCH. Since I have found research in a quick search of MedLine, I don't think we can say that. See the Lyon 2001 study for example. The free full text is there, too. I don't know anything about Ginko, etc, can we say something less biased-sounding? Encouraging further research is a far cry from saying there is none as though the issue is closed.
I noticed that the views on parenting section was left, dispite the fact that the entire section does not cite its sources. I suggest that the section be deleted two weeks from now (June 16, 2006) unless there are any objection to allow it to remain longer. 4.249.84.35 05:45, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
Or perhaps this editorial about journal objectivity in the NEJM by then editor Marcia Angell will be helpful Is Academic Medicine for Sale. It is noteworthy that Dr. Angell felt so strongly about this issue that she went on to write a book about this subject. She has since been repeatedly portrayed as some kind of nut in order to discredit her point of view. One has to wonder how the editor of the NEJM could ever be characterized this way, except she has dared to take on the powers that be. In my article there are also references to an article by the editor of the Lancet along similar lines.
So yes when there are billions of dollars involved objectivity becomes difficult to maintain and "experts" are not always what they seem.
I believe the user offering to delete the section on parenting is innocent of foul motives and is simply trying to be "scholarly". But why is the insistence on citations and the desire to delete this section being pursued by a person who is invisible. This user name thing was explained to me on the talk page but I still don't get it. Exactly what does the above user know about ADHD and why is this so important to him/her. Who are you? -- Ss06470 12:23, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
ADD is NOT the same thing as ADHD. Damnit...
I will try to find a better way to express my utter disgust for the use of that word and the attempt to imtimidate and impress most doctors. They are busy people trying to do a good job and when someone teaches at a good school and is presented as an "expert" they often fall into line. If you could only see the literally pounds of verbiage that comes to my office each week trying to sell a diagnosis and pharmaceutical treatments all in the name of "experts" recommendations. It is truly a wizard of oz phenomenon. Now mind you there are good meds out there and the drugs companies lately need defending, because the pendulum has swung too far, but I can't stand the lack of integrity of these professors and the group think that so many in my profession have fallen in to. See my reference to Marci Angell above as confirmation of this particular rant.
-- Ss06470 02:25, 6 June 2006 (UTC) The hot issue is not that they are proponents of medication but that they are supported by an industry with deep deep pockets who manipulate information. They pay enormous amounts of money to professors, control journals, conferences and deluge doctors with mailings of free journals that constantly refer to experts. Since the professors hold prestigious positions in very fine universities this doesn't seem at first that preposterous but it is. I keep adding references to the article about how little is known (the NIH consensus statement, Castellanos statements, the absurd Zametkin pictures of the brain.) and about the distortions (see the reference to Dr. Pelham,Dr Angell's book, and the editor of Lancet rant in the New York Review of Books If I can find the Wall Street Journal article which documented the % of continuing education funds paid for by drug companies that will highlight my point All of it is presented as "science" or "evidence based medicine" etc . But good scientists talk about what we don't know and where the controversies are, not "hear this I am an expert" That is why I am comparing it to The Wizard of Oz, and trying to expose "experts" for what they are
AS for referring people to my article in a more dignified encyclopedia style fashion I am open to suggestions, but frankly I am taking on an awful lot of powerful people who have their views regularly confirmed, circulated and reinforced by repetition. So if the purpose of this article is to inform I feel stylistic considerations should be secondary. Once again, however, if there is a good editor out there who can help me accomplish my purpose to inform the public and slow down the run away freight train which ADHD treatment has become please don't be shy and show me what you can do.
-- Ss06470 12:21, 3 June 2006 (UTC)Simon Sobo, M.D.
Cut from the Parental Roles section.
Lets not have another intra-article arguement. If the rest of the article doesn't make this point, then the point can't be made.-- *Kat* 06:58, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
-- Ss06470 11:11, 5 June 2006 (UTC) While it is true that often, even with rewarding activities, focus is not under the control of the person affected by ADHD. But the problem with this observation is that it assumes that offering a reward will do the trick. There is no question kids with ADHD may start out wanting to concentrate especially, say, if a reward is offered, but they may fail when they get into their customary difficulties when challenged (by the burden of the work required of them). Nevertheless, I would argue that reward is somehow involved in their difficulties, specifically a difficulty dealing with not fun, frustrating tasks Here is a short quote from my article on this subject.
Chances are if you ask one of these children how they do with video games most will tell you they have no problem. Hour after hour they can sit totally attentive, totally focused, totally absorbed by these games. This should not be the case if there is a biological interference with concentration. Very often these kids are said to have eye-hand coordination problems (supporting the argument for a biological basis) as illustrated by their sloppy penmanship and also psychological testing shows this to be the case. But video games require an amazing amount of dexterity. Why is there no impairment here?
I treated a teen-ager who told me that he could not read without his medication. His eyes glazed over, he could go over a page a hundred times and nothing would be absorbed. During summer vacation he stopped his meds, except when he had to read something for school. I asked if he ever read anything else, something not required for school. He told me he didn’t but then remembered one exception. He loved mountain biking. Each month when his mountain biking magazine arrived he tore through it, reading every word, cover to cover. He did not require medication to do this.''
Many of the children I have spoken to do okay in one school subject and not another. Sometimes they are simply gifted in this area, so that it comes very easily year after year. But many of them do well in one subject one year and another subject the next year depending on how charismatic the teacher is.
While the successful teacher does not offer rewards per se, his/her gift is a reward. This may come from an entertaining style, but also some teachers manage to engage their students (including ADHD students) with the relevance of their subject so that it is no longer boring or as much of an unpleasant task
Finally Castellanos' (then head of ADHD research at the NIMH) Frontline speculations on how stimulants work is worth noting. “ It used to be said that dopamine (which stimulants cause to be enhanced) was the reward chemical--that if something was rewarding, then you would release dopamine. It turns out to be more complicated than that. It's not just whether something's going to feel good, or be rewarded; it's more if there's a possibility that something would feel good. If an animal knows that they're going to be rewarded when they correctly do a task, then dopamine is no longer involved. But when the animal thinks that maybe this is the way to solve the task, dopamine is leading the way, saying, "This, try this, try this."
-- Ss06470 19:45, 6 June 2006 (UTC)My intention is not to make you sick to your stomach but appeal to your mind with a fair presentation of the evidence. Exactly why should that make you sick? Some of my ADHD patients never come back when they hear my point of view, but many are relieved to learn that their brain may not be physically broken after all. Some tell me that they think of their special ed classmates as "retards" and hated being told they were born with ADHD. They simply refused to accept it. I can't imagine a worse verdict, particularly as a child, than if I had been told told that something was wrong with my brain. That I was born that way. The diminished expectations that I would challenge myself with, not to mention my teachers and partents not expecting too much would easily become a self fulfilling prophecy. I can't tell you how many times at moments of uncertainty I started to wonder if I had what it takes to be a doctor. That is even after being a Phi Bete student? What if I had been told I had ADHD? I realize it would be very cruel to tell some one with MS in a wheel chair to get out of the chair and play baseball like everyone else. So if ADHD is biological what I am arguing could be comparable. But even then, you will discover those who refuse to be held back by their impairments often do better than those who find it comforting. It is not my call, but a patient's and I would not think less of a person if they can't muster that stubborness. But I would hope for it for their sake. Anyway, with ADHD the issue is a little more subtle. The bottom line is that I think it is crucial, if I am right, to not go away and allow the biological people to spread their certainties based on the facts (which is that we do not know the answer to this important question.) I do appreciate that you are fair minded enough to consider the importance of a point of view that you don't agree with. At least that is a beginning.
Some one really needs to say that ADD and ADHD are different... Because they are. ok now that that's over with, basically people with ADD (rather than ADHD) find it harder to pay attention (eg in class) and things like that. people with ADHD are different and someone needs to state this and get rid of the redirect from the Attention Deficit Disorder page.
From a very angry -- Xykon 10:44, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
Sorry for yelling by the way (was in a bad mood to start with). Here is a basic list from the DSM IV and to have ADD, you must have at least 6 of these that's right ADD. the version (not sure if thats the right word) I read (given to me from my doctor) notes that they are two different things and puts them under two different headings. • often ignores details; makes careless mistakes
• often has trouble sustaining attention in work or play
• often does not seem to listen when directly addressed
• often does not follow through on instructions; fails to finish
• often has difficulty organizing tasks and activities
• often avoids activities that require a sustained mental effort
• often loses things he needs
• often gets distracted by extraneous noise
• is often forgetful in daily activities
-- 203.32.87.250 09:39, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
Nowhere in the article does it say that ADD and ADHD are the same things.-- *Kat* 07:50, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
Actually it does. In the very first sentence of the article it says "Attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) (formerly known as ADD)" emphasis on the last part. Xykon 09:06, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
Can someone rewrite please? I am unable to parse the sentence. -- Barrylb
Attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) is considered to be a neurological syndrome that exhibits symptoms such as hyperactivity, forgetfulness, mood shifts, poor impulse control, and distractibility, when judged to be chronic, as symptoms of a neurological pathology.
Auto-fail reason: Use of {{unreferenced|article's section called "Parental role"}} and {{citation needed}}. Make sure all "negative" tags are not on a page before nomination.-- SeizureDog 18:41, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
-- Ss06470 03:17, 13 June 2006 (UTC)I have deleted a statement that the surgeon general was said to have made after checking the surgeon general's page [5] on the subject of ADHD. Sorry to just act but others are invited to find a statement from the surgeon general's office stating that ADHD is a form of metabolic encephalopathy, or that the limbic system is affected or any other fictional content attributed to that office by whoever wrote that statement. The surgeon general, in fact states that the cause of ADHD is unknown. If there is a different surgeon general page then my citation, my apologies and please return the statement
Ss06470Kat. Are you saying that you agree with something I have written? Thank the lord!!!! If you can control your nausea, you really may find other things in my article that you may agree with. I know you think I am this mean doctor, but believe it or not, I am trying my hardest to be constructive on this subject and many others. You might be interested in this oneon the use of psychotherapy along with meds
http://www.psychiatrictimes.com/p990423.html
I note in the tidy up of the article (which is a good thing), there have been some bits get a bit skewed, for example, in the Nutrition section, the meta-analysis is attributed to Schnoll et al. The Schnoll paper is a literature review, and the meta-analysis in question was: Neal L. Rojas and Eugenia Chan. (2005). Old and new controversies in the alternative treatment of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities, 11, 116-130. There was plenty of cruft that needed removing, but this ended up mis-representing the views [6] -- Limegreen 10:44, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
I suggest that the article on ADHD be classified under a neutrality dispute, or point-of view problem, as many here argue about the disorder's very existence. If I'm not mistaken, Wikipedia is supposed to be neutral on all topics of discussion.
I understand. I humbly retract my earlier suggestion MelW 13:04, 16 June 2006 (UTC)MelW
I'm surprised to see there is no mention of cortisol levels in ADHD-diagnosed persons, as several studies seem to show a correlation between lowered cortisol levels and ADHD.
ss06470 I've taken the liberty of changing the description of Zametkins brain image. It incorrectly stated that the subjects were children. I also noted that the picture is of the brain when doing an assigned task. I did not add the discussion regarding this finding that someone added from my article on the ADHD controversy page Here is a reference to Zametkin's article http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/abstract/323/20/1361
I have multiple problems with this section. This section does not cite its sources. This section is in violation of NPOV, including the parts which mention that the section is "According to one point of view”. This point of view is not significant enough to include in the article if it cannot be cited. Only two points of view are significant regardless; the view of the majority (or at least plurality) and the view of the relevant medical community. I greatly suspect that this section is the result of original research. Contradictory statements are made in the two paragraphs in this section; arguments should be made on the talk page, rather than in the text of the article. Finally this section refers to the ADHD article itself, something which should never happen. The second paragraph attacks the request for citations in first paragraph! All (in my opinion), or at least parts of this section, should be deleted. I suggest that the uncited information should be deleted after 2 weeks unless there are objects, and that the rest of the section should be fixed as soon as possible. William conway bcc 00:10, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
-- 69.0.14.248 06:11, 24 June 2006 (UTC)Please see discussion above "views of paremting" and "futher edits" also above. There is no question that the style could be improved but the content is important. By the way, I have no illusion that my position, and the position of many similar minded people is a minority position among professionals, and all major organizations are lined up behind the biological model, but before you delete this I think you should address the content concerns raised by the article. Yes it is in opposition to mainstream thinking but the logic and questions being raised are powerful ones. That this should be cut and the crazy (sorry scientology people, food additive people , etc etc) stuff left is extraordinary but not surprising. Some day this "disease" will make for interesting reading. Don't know who you are Mr Conway but please understand that children are being put on speed, some at very early ages
--
Ss06470 17:46, 24 June 2006 (UTC)Okay, I've rewritten the parental role section in a way that seems more appropriate to an encyclopedia article. If you have objections to the current section please let me know and I will try to work with you for improvement
-- Ss06470 04:27, 26 June 2006 (UTC) "although it has not been scientifically proven to the point of satisfaction" is not a solution since it completely undermines what is being stated. The key issue is that there are people who claim to be speaking about what is scientific known when, in fact, that isn't the case at all. Some adhere to strict protocols but then make wild generalizations about very iffy data. I have tried to demonstrate some of the fallacies with the Zametkin picture of the brain which has been used again and again as a picture that proves the issue is biological yet all it shows is that ADHD patients were not using the part of the brain that is involved in concentrating on a task. Gee what a surprise. Castellanos conclusions about the smaller cerebellum in ADHD children seems to be valid. He is convinced the problem is biological but he is honest about how little is known and I respect him. The smaller cerebellum could easily be the result of using the brain differently which ADHD people clearly do but that does not mean the problem is biological (see the discussion in the article) So as I state repeatedly science does not have the answers, despite claims to the contrary, and the love affair doctors have for scientific approaches. I have the same love of science, but I respect true scientists who are clear about what is known and not known. So if the answers are by no means clarified by science, I think other approaches to explain the syndrome are valid and should not be dismissed too easily, especially because they represent the common sense view of parents and educators for centures. If you have kids you know they have to be taught early and repeatedly to stay on task, do their homework, remember to bring it home, put up with boring subjects and teachers, sit still, get on line when asked to do so, wait their turn and so on through the list of ADHD symptoms. It doesn't come naturally. Could there be certain kids who are not able to integrate the pressures placed on them into purposive behavior because there is something wrong bioloically. Definitely some of them. Could there be biological factors that are not well understood but neverhtheless there. Probably. But we are leaping ahead without any scientific basis if we claim millions upon millions of children are born with ADHD. So to stress that parental roles are an important factor but is not supported by science puts a criticism there that is uncalled for.
What we are witnessing is a pendulum swing in the paradigm. When I began in psychiatry 35 years ago no one dared criticize Freud. Now no one dares to claim parents play a key role. The only environmental issues allowed in the discussion are toxins, fetal trauma, vitamins, food additives, etc. The extreme turn around is absurd, more like an ideological war than reasonable inquiry. Psychoanalysts once controlled academia (and they were no more open minded). Biological psychiatrists were on the out. When they gained control it was psychoanalysts turn to be out of a job, and their point of view, in essence, banned.
To repeat I welcome true scientific understanding when it will come, but I have no respect for "science" as a blinder that excludes important points of view, and somehow claims that it is the only true way to view phenomena when the science simply isn't there Please see the difficulites one researcher had from the journals when he suggested that pediatricians should do more than hand out pills. [7](See "it was like a whitewash") His innocent little statement that they cut would have completely undermined drug companies focused advertising that tells pediatrians to hand out Ritaline to ttheir patients and not to worry. They are treating by scientific principles. Also note my comments about the lack of objectivity in "experts" point of view scattered throughout the article and discussions. I keep harping on that term "experts" because it is an intellectually inappropriate self description when the facts of the matter are that modesty should be more appropriate when ignorance is the true state of affairs for everyone. That, plus doctors are relentlessly bombarded by the opinion of "experts" and this has the effect of intimidating the average doctor. (malpractice fears for missing the diagnosis are high-some of the mailings directly imply there will be malpractice implications) The whitewash article gives you a taste of how serious drug companies are about getting their point of view across. Also see the discussion of the the editor of the NEJM editorial Is Academic Medicine for Sale With literally billions of dollars involved in these issues, this one time where conspiracy theories are appropriate. Also see the discussion of the the editor of the NEJM editorial (Is academic medicine for sale). In other discussions I have reference similar comments by the editor of Lancet (the British eqivalent of NEJM) It is also noteworthy that Dr Angell felt so strongly about this issue that she went on to write a book about it, following which she was often portrayed as some kind of nut. It may also interest you that, as background to my involvement, I might add that I defend drug companies [8]when I feel they are getting a bum wrap (like lately)Moreover, I have been asked to write for phony organizations supported by scientolgists and also to write for Peter Breggin who I feel is far too critical of medications. I have turned both down. I am not a saint and I am sure I am wrong about some of my observations but it is pretty amazing how difficult it is to maintain an independent voice. I am, for instance eventually going to give up on this site since unfortunately, I don't have the time to keep reinstating a fair discussion of the issues. But I hope my discussions have given you a taste of the ferocious forces involved and the difficulty of getting unbiased information out to the public.
There are a couple of places in this article (as I write this, I'm talking about footnote number 28 and external link 12, although obviously these numbers are subject to change as further edits are performed) that reference " http://www.geocities.com/ss06470/ADHD.html". As this is a self-published article (albeit written by an acknowledged expert in the field with numerous previous publication credits), it should possibly not be used for this purpose, as it may not be a WP:Reliable source. I'm not sure what best to do about this. There may be alternative sources for the information referenced here. JulesH 00:34, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
-- 69.37.53.91 21:58,
-- 69.37.53.91 22:02, 10 August 2006 (UTC)10 August 2006 (UTC)Regarding the above comments you might be interested in this e-mail received today as to it being a reliable source
Dear Simon, I wonder if you've read my book 'Naughty Boys: Anti-Social Behaviour, ADHD and the Role of Culture'? Your thoughts on the subject are not too far away from mine. I really enjoyed your article, particularly the weaving together of personal narrative and academic enquiry. Would you be willing to put together an abbreviated version (max. 10,000 words) of your article as a chapter for a book that myself and Jonathan Leo are putting together- trying to bring together a cross-section of critiques of ADHD from differing perspectives? I think in paticular a focus on the movement from religious morality to 'fun' morality and the relevance of Freudian theories of instinct would be most welcome (we need someone who is capable of providing some relevant exploration of psychodynamic aspects of the development of attention/impulsivity). In case you might be intrested, I have also attached our stylistic guidelines (Although we are asking for chapters by the end of august, obviously we would be happy to give you more time as this is a relatively late request). Our proposal has been accepted for publication be Palgrave-MacMillan. Look forward to hearing from you. Best wishes,
Sami
Bold textI am interested in feedback on my 40 years experience with A.D.D. I have yet to see a patient who was 'diagnosed' as A.D.D. who did manifest those symptoms and who did not have the following visual problems:
1. FARSIGHTED-UNCOMPENSATED 2. ASTIGMATISM-UNCOMPENSATED 3. EXCESSIVE WEAKNESS TO CROSS EYES-CONVERGENCE INSUFFICIENCY 4. OVER COMPENSATED NEARSIGHTEDNESS/MYOPIA
My daughter was diagnosed with ADHD, in part because she fit the ACID profile on the WISC-III. I don't see any mention of that here, though: is it something that hasn't come up, or something that's been rejected through consensus? I see here that there have been studies that show it's not a good determinant. -- Sar e kOfVulcan 00:14, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
The section Positive aspects of this article include the text;
This is word for word indentical to text from http://www.understanding-add.info/adhd-children.htm Other parts of the section are idential or extremely similar to other text from the above site.
unbiased / may be biased in favor of the product promoted, if any). I'm sure there are additonal / alternate sources available which underscore the point in question, but which are not affiliated with commercial interests. ( Patrick 23:34, 30 June 2006 (UTC))
I suggest the copied material be remove by May 1st.
William conway bcc 03:05, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
This is ridiculous, ADD without hyperactivity is just as common yet there is no article about ADD and ADD does not come up once in this article, why is this? Samuel 14:08, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
This section operates from a logical fallacy, the Argument from Ignorance, by implying that ADD/ADHD does not exist since current science isn't able to determine what underlies the disorder. Perhaps someone with experience tending this page can take care of that. -- 70.37.248.113 14:51, 30 June 2006 (UTC)TomK
I'm removing the following few sentences from the Possible Causes section because they really are beside the point. *Kat* 02:30, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
-- Ss06470 23:43, 13 July 2006 (UTC)Yes Kat the NIMH and the Surgeon Gerneral's carefully cited statements about the cause of ADHD in a section about the causes of ADHD "really are beside the point." I'm beginning to believe your professed scholarly impulses are not so pure. Where do you get the nerve to pull off this kind of distortion of the material
I think the following would make a great footnote/endnote, but its too much for the main article.
From Parental Roles *Kat* 06:39, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
Massive POV
This needs a citation (outside of Dr. Sobo's webpage) before it is reincorporated: The number of free journals, carrying the opinions of specialists in this field, that repeatedly call attention to this disorder might have something to do with this. citation needed
--
Ss06470 04:18, 11 July 2006 (UTC)Kat (whoever that is) you have taken away the NIMH consensus statement regarding the cause of ADHD and robbed the section on parental roles of its themeat so that it is now inane. I will not be returning to this page. You win. You have managed to wear me down and now have a completely useless discussion of ADHD filled with standard unproven assertions by the "experts" and every fringe nutty group that pipes in with their bizarre viewpoints. Good job!
-- Ss06470 03:40, 12 July 2006 (UTC)I could not resist taking one last peek since today Kat, today's lead story in the Wall Street Journal is about the lack of objectivity of the expert science industry. This is not news. As I have repeatedly noted the editor of the NEJM's editorial [15]"Is Academia for Sale" describes the articles in journals you are citing as by authors who are for hire. It is a shameful chapter in the history of medicine. I guess it is time to come right out and say it since your veneer of gentlemanly objectivity is a lot of nonsense. You have pointedly gone about destroying important content in the debate over whether ADHD represents a widespread biological illness, or is the result of changes in the way many children are being motivated to learn how to work and act differently than they might act in the playground. You have been outrageously rude in your actions, and managed to prevent a fair presentation of the subject under the guise of scholarly detachment. So let me just say it. You are a complete idiot
i came here looking for support and it was great i got info but i need a support forum please help me!!!!!!!!!!
I'm tagging the Alternative treatments section as non-neutral. Scanning through it I'm finding lots of questionable prose and probable original research ("Granted, according to a recent meta-analysis, there is little scientific evidence...", "It is claimed by some with ADHD that...", "There has been a lot of interesting work done with..."). This sounds like advocacy at its worst and it has no place in Wikipedia. -- Bk0 ( Talk) 00:39, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
ADD hoax added without discussion, from a high school, non-regulated, nor peer-reviewed site. Thanks ( Jocomama 20:36, 29 July 2006 (UTC))
Because most of the medications used to treat ADHD are Schedule II under the U.S. DEA schedule system, and are considered powerful stimulants with a potential for diversion and abuse, there is controversy surrounding prescribing these drugs for children and adolescents. However, research studying ADHD sufferers who either receive treatment with stimulants or go untreated has indicated that those treated with stimulants are in fact much less likely to abuse any substance than ADHD sufferers who are not treated with stimulants.[24]
This only applies in the United States. Canada has different, more lenient laws for ADHD.-- *Kat* 00:34, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
I don't see any connection between Dr. Heinrich Hoffman, Struwwelpeter and ADHD; and I don't think Dr. Hoffman's intention was anything more serious than to write an amusing children's story.-- House of Usher 17:02, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
1845. ADHD was first alluded to by Dr. Heinrich Hoffmann, a physician who wrote books on medicine and psychiatry, Dr. Hoffman was also a poet who became interested in writing for children when he couldn't find suitable materials to read to his 3-year-old son. The result was a book of poems, complete with illustrations, about children and their characteristics. "Die Geschichte vom Zappel-Philipp" (The Story of Fidgety Philip) in Der Struwwelpeter was a description of a little boy who could be interpreted as having attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. http://www.fln.vcu.edu/struwwel/philipp_e.html Alternatively, it may be seen as merely a moral fable to amuse young children at the same time as encouraging them to behave properly.
At the request of Kat, I've taken a shot at NPOVing the alternative treatments section and removed the NPOV-section template. The text got a lot shorter, but I think I've retained all facts and references. Please take a look, and I hope people will check especially for any ignorant removal I may have done of something that's actually essential. Btw, the reference for the neurofeedback research review seems to need some attention, and the "ADD Coaching" paragraph needs a reference. Bishonen | talk 10:22, 7 August 2006 (UTC).
Reorganized this section as well, and attempted to remove all POV. Tricky! Bishonen | talk 17:28, 7 August 2006 (UTC).
Jeff Rense has material that someone else has submitted to him that indicates that ADHD is nothing more than a "invented disease" so that "Big Pharma" (Heard the expressions of "Big Tobacco" and "Big Oil" ?!) can make Million$. This may be found on his site itself and in the archives as well. Martial Law 18:58, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
Why can't ADD be a seperate article?
There is obviously a difference between the two and the two terms are used in different contexts.
raptor 12:58, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
The article does a good job in mentioning that the disease cannot be identified from any biological tests, and that subjective tests are used instead. However, it needs to make the connection with the fact that drugs are typically applied as a solution. That is, without being able to identify the disease from a chemical test, we are nevertheless applying a chemical solution. This is highly illogical -- in the realm of physics if I applied an electromagnetic solution to something that I couldn't demonstrate as having electric and magnetic components, then you would chalk me up as incompetent. Likewise, the prescription of drugs to solve ADHD is a glaring indicator that scientific method is not being strictly adhered to in this case.
Dr. Karl Hoffower just did a podcast episode discussing this fact among a few other pertinent issues. He got his data from the Citizens Commission on Human Rights
I am removing the following text: If, as some theorists claim, ADHD is not a single biological condition, but an inability to "get with the program" from whatever cause, then the outlook for these children is obviously variable. It often is linked with conduct disorder and may be the beginning of a life of irresponsibility and possibly crime. It may also be the beginning of a creative career that creates its own "program." Many children with ADHD flounder until they find something they love to do, or are inspired by a figure who teaches them the skills that are needed. And some never get there.
Removal of such a large portion of text deserves the following explanation. The first sentence is not related to positive aspects of ADHD. The second sentence describes a negative aspect. The third sentence is reliant of the first two sentences. The fourth sentence describes ways in which the disadvantages of ADHD can be overcome rather than a positive aspect. The fourth sentence is also not ADHD specific. The fifth sentence is reliant on the fourth sentence. William conway bcc 01:27, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
Until we find a more credible source for the information below, I propose that it remain excluded from this article.-- *Kat* 01:48, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
This just goes to show that I'm not going insane (no pun or shades of malodorous meaning with that)... but the third paragraph in the Skepticism sub-section and the second in the Parental role are, but for a couple of words, the same. That probably shout be cleaned up or both redefined as from my reading the said idea (that it's the natural order of bored kids) could fit under both. Desk Jockey 04:05, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
It seems as though this repetition of information is probably an error. If you read the two sub-sections you can see that in the second paragraph of the Parental role section the first sentence speaks about the possibility that certain parenting methods may cause ADHD but then the second goes on to talk about ADHD being seen as a "natural" way for children to behave when they are stuck in a situation that doesn't engage them. There is conceptual confusion with this, so a rewrite or deletion of this paragraph altogether seems required. ( Cf1 11:22, 29 August 2006 (UTC)) -- 69.37.244.31 11:14, 8 September 2006 (UTC) Here we go again! It is saying that the natural way for children to behave resembles the symptoms of ADHD unless parents can successfully guide them to different behavior. The conceptual confusions is yours and indicates to me that you probably don't have children. You might take a look at the abstract of my article to get a bit more focused.
As with alcoholism, drug abuse, and other neurological spectrum disorders from bi-polar to Asperger's, I would suggest a section with citations on the likely and under-counseled effects of ADHD: on the family dimension--non-ADHD spouses and children and/or siblings; the high recorded incidence in prison populations; in divorce; in adoptive children (from impulsive accidental parent(s)); and the cumulative generational effect (ADHD parent(s) trying to raise ADHD kids, or in denial, or alerted to their own adult diagnosis vi the children), not to mention a stand-alone section on the co-morbid overlap and resulting difficulty in diagnosing and treating when presenting alongside with bi-polar, anxiety, depression, Tourette's, epilepsy, OCD, etc.
A mention of the national organizations and journals would be helpful.
Also, helpful: a note re: the booming research and the percentage of medical doctors, specialists, neurologists, psychiatrists, and mental health counselors of all stripes who are "behind" on the ADHD research overall, the impact, the pharmacology, and misapplied or mistaken mainstream treatments--and as a reason for the few but highly publicized cases of misdiagnosis, or over- or mis-prescribing versus the thousands who go untreated.
"Controversies" should include not only a note re: alleged the financial boon of pharma companies as a spur to diagnosis, but on the other side the scattered anti-ADHD voices--potentially born of the undiagnosed or in-denial overcompensating ADHD superego, especially in males-- of those with ADHD with a personal bent to avoid or disprove the mainstream research, appealing to no-drug solution and miracle treatments without scientific backing. While speculative, this tendency is by definition and observation within the predictable reaction of those who feel threatened rather than relieved, non-empirical leftovers of the mental health treatment stigma.
Larry Nemecek
The article is stable and fully referenced.-- *Kat* 11:15, 3 September 2006 (UTC)