Talk:Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Information on genetic causes

Information on genetic causes

was added (by whom?). Also, a short article on non-genetic causes. User:MichaelG

source: NIH

Much of the material in this article is taken from public domain NIH text from http://www.nimh.nih.gov/publicat/adhd.cfm and was written in cooperation with the editors of ADHS.info, the info base for ADD/ADHD.

Thankx

Thanx for the good co-operation. It would be cool to get in contact with each other. I suggest my black board at ADHS.info (it is called "mADDelirium", the board).

merge articles ADHD and AD/HD

There appears to be an article at Attention Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder; these two should be merged. Jeronimo

done. Vaoverland 11:51, Apr 3, 2005 (UTC)

ADHD

http://www.ninds.nih.gov/

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ADHD_Bulletin_Board/

http://www.nimh.nih.gov/publicat/adhd.cfm

The symptom of inattention can also be associated with some types of epilepsy (petit mal, absence, and so on). The meds used to treat ADHD and the meds used to treat epilepsy are different than one another.

RESPONSE: I can't see its relevance. Bipolar has symptoms of inattention and the medications used to treat Bipolar are the same as those used to treat Epilepsy. Meg1064 19:30, 20 February 2006 (UTC)Meg1064

Feingold Diet

Anyone object to a mention of the Feingold diet[1], which seems to be supported by a good number of careful medical studies? Graft 22:06, 29 Aug 2003 (UTC)

RESPONSE: References to medical studies about diets may be in order, but IMHO references to any one diet would be out of place here.

RESPONSE: Feingold diet is not well supported by studies published in peer-reviewed journals. DCDuring 12 Oct 2005

RESPONSE: Actually, yes it is. Virtually all the studies done since 1990, and most in the 1980's as well do support dietary intervention. Newer studies are done using an oligoantigenic (few foods) diet similar to the Feingold diet but more limited (more bang for the buck?). See the research. The Feingold diet is the only one providing comprehensive training and Foodlists. Most others are copy-cats.... except the Failsafe diet and the gluten/casein free diets, which really should be mentioned as well. Shulae 21:25, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

RESPONSE: It does not matter whether or not it is valid or not. The section on the Feingold diet is so long it constitutes an advertisement. it should be should be much shorter (a line or two) and among a section where similar programs/ideas are mentioned. Meg1064 19:21, 20 February 2006 (UTC)Meg1064

Arguments for Excluding Feingold Diet from ADHD Article

Following is an assessment of the Feingold DietS from CHADD Fact Sheet "Assessing Complementary and Controversial Interventions" (2003):

"The most publicized of these diet elimination approaches is the Feingold Diet. This diet is based on the theory that many children are sensitive to dietary salicylates and artificially added colors, flavors, and preservatives, and that eliminating the offending substances from the diet could improve learning and behavior problems, including AD/HD. Despite a few positive studies, most controlled studies do not support this hypothesis. At least eight controlled studies since 1982, the latest being 1997, have found validity to elimination diets in only a small subset of children "with sensitivity to foods." While the proportion of children has not been empirically established, experts believe that the percentage is small. Parents who are concerned about diet sensitivity should have their children examined by a medical doctor for food allergies."

Including the Feingold Diet by its brand name is even more outrageous than including only pharmaceutical brand names in the section on treatment by medication would be.

If there were evidence or even an explicit theory characterizing the mechanism by which ADHD symptoms in particular were caused by salicylates and artificial colors, that might make it legitimate to single out Feingold by name, as opposed to elimination diets.

Since the diagnosis of ADHD is supposed to only be possible once other medical and psychological causes of the symptoms have been ruled out, it is a non sequitur to include any allergy-related treatments here. If we are to include elimination diets as a cure of ADHD, we should then include all cures for all the other possible medical and psychological causes of the ADHD symptoms. --DCDuring 02:40, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Rebuttal

ChADD is known for its financial dependence on the pharmaceutical industry. It is not an un-biased source for information about the Feingold Program.

Small subset? In which math course do they teach that >50% is a small number? Some of the studies during the 1980's and 1990's show the following responses:

• Egger 1985 = <Font="10">81.6%
• Swanson 1980 = <Font="10">85%
• Rowe 1988 = <Font="10">72.7%
• Egger 1989 = <Font="10">80%
• Kaplan 1989 = <Font="10">58%
• Egger 1992 = <Font="10">76%
• Carter 1993 = <Font="10">75.6%
• Rowe 1994 = <Font="10">75%
• Boris 1994 = <Font="10">73%

Where are the studies in that decade that show a "small subset?"

Brand name? Interesting idea. One excellent diet is the Failsafe diet, in Australia, offered under supervision of a major hospital. The gluten/casein diet also is useful for autism and some with ADHD. Yes, indeed, a paragraph about these would be useful.--Shulae 22:00, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

You ask for evidence of a mechanism .....Yes - there is. Ward 1990 found that children with ADHD lost zinc upon exposure to synthetic coloring. As zinc was lost, their behavior deteriorated. Waring found that children with ADHD are low in the enzyme Phenol SulfoTransferase-P (PST). PST is necessary for neurotransmitter processing in the brain; it is necessary for metabolism of ingested phenolic compounds such as synthetic coloring; salicylate suppresses PST by up to 50%. Shall I go on? It will take time to unravel all the biochemistry, but a beginning has been made.--Shulae 22:00, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

pharmacological treatment

Are some of the passages about pharmacological treatment (e.g. "this is often bypassed so the child can be medicated more quickly") POV, or am I just in a bad mood and reading sardonicness where none is intended? --Calieber 22:21, Oct 27, 2003 (UTC)

RESPONSE: Glad you asked. On Oct 28, some sentences that were both questionable and unsourced have been revised.

differentiation between ADD and ADHD

Personally, I think that there should be a differentiation between ADD and ADHD. I have ADD, but I'm certainly not hyperactive. Maybe a small comment would be appropriate in the first part of the article? - Pingveno 04:02, 18 Dec 2003 (UTC)

ADD is officially obsolete terminology in the U.S.DCDuring 12 Oct 2005

can you make differentiation between two fictional ideas? — Anonymous

Can you make a point without begging the question? By doing so, you make it plainly obvious that logic and reason are not something you are interested in. You want to be witty so you can feel better about your pathetic world view. The fact that some of us actually have to deal with the symptoms of this disease on a daily basis is enough of a burden; having to deal with the crass insolence of those like yourself only adds to our daily frustrations. If you have a valid concern regarding the over-diagnosis of ADHD in children today, then speak up. If all you can do to defend your opinions is invoke logical fallacies, then shut the hell up. — Darco 17:48, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

So, why does Attention Deficit Disorder redirect here? It's not the same as ADHD.

I was told the DSM merged the description of ADD with ADHD, as there was some sort of consensus among psychiatric practitioners that ADD should properly be considered a subset of the broader malady of ADHD. That is likely the reason why searching for ADD redirects to this article. —Ryanaxp 14:23, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

Officially ADD is the same as ADHD. ADD is the older term. I don't like it either since I have ADHD without the hyperactivity. But those are the rules. Hopefully next time the revise the DSM, and change the name (again), they'll give it a name that clarifies that you don't have to be hyperactive to have that. Until then, the ADD article should redirect.— Anonymous 10 October 2005 (UTC)

That makes absolutely no sense. To me, ADD is not the same as ADHD. If someone has only an attention defecit disorder, how can they have ADHD? ADHD involves hyperactivity, and ADD does not. Chaz 02:47, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps it would have been easier if they had given it a pseudo-Latinate name like schizophrenia. There doesn't seem to be the same questioning as to whether catatonic and paranoid types constitute separate entities, and they're arguably waaaay more disparate. And it's not like it's only the DSM that has make such distinctions. Even something like meningitis which has distinct different causes, and different ways of presenting get lumped under the same label. --Limegreen 03:12, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes that would help, wouldn't it?Chaz 01:47, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Even if ADD and ADHD are the same thing, which I don't understand, then shouldn't there be a little bit more mention of ADD. From my understanding Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder is when the individual can't sit still and has to be moving as well as not being able to focus. Attention deficit disorder is simply when the indiviual cand stay focused. ONE^der Boy 21:15, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

As far as i have understood it, ADD is a subcategory og ADHD. Both of the disorders originate from the same problem, only that ADHD is a stronger version of ADD. The underlying problem is that there is not enough dopamine beeing secreted or the re-uptake is to fast, resulting in a lack of neuronal fireing. (Dopamine binds to the dopamine receptors and gives an excitatory or inhibitory signal, wich makes the neuron either fire (exitatory) or not fire (inhibitory), (by fire, i mean that the neuronal cell sends a signal to next cell). Anyways some of the symptoms are the same for the two categories, such as a short memory span. But unlike a person with ADHD (wich is hyperactive) a person with ADD may instead fall asleep uncontrollably (like a narcoleptic does). The underlying cause here is the same, wich is the lack of dopamine affecting the dopamine receptors, but may yield very different results. The person with ADD may fall asleep because the lack of neuronal fireing makes the activation in the brain not enough for the person to stay awake (a primitive center in the brain called the sleep centre, wich i think is located in the hypotalamus (correct me if i am wrong here, in a thread below)). This centre in the brain sends out regular sleep signals, and if there is not enough activity this message will override and make the person fall asleep. (corrections could also be needed here, as i am not entirely sure about this, but it is what my doctor told me) I think this is also the reason the Narcoleptic falls uncontrollably asleep. (Narcolepsy is a close cousin to ADHD/ADD as my Neuropsycologist told me. And it is also a problem in the lack of dopamine. Resulting in some shared symptoms with ADD, such as a very short attention span and falling uncontrollably asleep.) Anyway, the reason the person with ADHD is hyperactive is that the dopamine level is so low, resuliting in extremely low ihibitory and exitatory signals, thus making the brain overcompensate for the low activation level in the brain, by being hyperactive, (thus exposing the brain to much more stimulus by acting out and being impulsive). Anyway, my point is that the effects of the activation level in the brain are so different causing some very different symptoms (hyperactivity in contrast to falling asleep uncontrollably), making them very different from eachother. And this is why i agree with Pingveno and Chaz that they should be seperated and not merged. Even tho it is the same underlying problem, just to a different degree, the results are very different. You can easily tell a person with ADHD from a person with ADD. But the medicationing is the same, amphetamines and variations of it (like dextroamphetamine). So if you give a hyperactive person amphetamines, this will increase the dopamine levels and neuronal firing resulting in a less need to act out and overcompensate, and the person with ADD will not fall asleep because the activation level is high enough to not be overridden by the sleep signal. Back to my point, you can easaly tell a person with ADD from a person with ADHD and the symptoms are different. I have probably argued against myself and my point here, but i am just telling you what i have learned (from neuropsycologist, physician and classes in bilogical psycology). I have argued for and against the merging of the two states, but i am just trying to make things a bit clearer. (if you can correct me in any way in this long thread please do in a post below) I have probably derailed a lot here, but that is because i have a very short attention span myself. And yes, like Pingveno said, there should at least be a small comment about this in the beginning of the article, to make it clearer for the reader that ADD and ADHD has different outcomes. So ADD is ADHD without hyperactivity but instead a chance to fall asleep uncontrollably. A childhood friend of mine has ADHD (and unmedicated, will not be mistaken for a person with ADD). So as Pingveno said, so i think it would be appropriate to make a comment in the first part of the article about this. Flaffen 04:10, 7 april 2006 (CET)

are my writings autobiographical

Re: The guidelines for writing articles which could be construed as being "autobiographical...In 1981, very little was known about Hyperkenesis. The subject was, and remains of utmost interest to me as my first son (born 1965) was diagnosed as being hyperkenetic. As a result, I chose this subject for a thesis paper in college (1981). I researched extensively, finding little I could use authoritatively, along with my own personal experience. My professor found it highly informative as did my classmates. My question is: would my findings and experience be appropriate for an essay on this subject? (user: Glenboy)

Q: percent link

Why is "percent" a link in the beginning of the article? That seems distracting (haha). -Steve

Moved paragraphs

These paragraphs have been moved from the Psychological testing section. All three deal with treatment rather than testing and so do not belong in the section to which they were added. I would have moved them elsewhere if they were not so vague. The general point that there is disagreement about ADHD is made elsewhere in the article.Peak 07:13, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)

As attention deficit disorder, and ADHD are being researched there are many new developments on the horizon for the treatment of ADHD.

Treatments for ADHD/ADD are many and varied but tend to be working in two major arenas of medicince, chemical western medicine, and natural eastern medicine.

People with ADD/HD have certain symptoms that are noted by the DSM in our western medicine arena, and they are a discription of what ADD/HD is. Some disagree with the DSM and therefore the diagnosis is based on interpetation by many doctors, so one may derive that the DSM is not an authority on the many ways of treating ADD/HD.

Removed coping/curing via spirituality paragraph

The following edits were removed. See below for why.

Practice of Buddhism is a behavioral change that can cure ADHD.

Some people have noticed that certain spiritual practices can help reduce ADHD symptoms, for example, meditation. One commentator observed that the practice of Buddhism was a "cure" for ADHD symptoms. While that is undoubtedly overstated, it spirituality may hold keys to positive coping and adaptation to ADHD. Another person with ADHD found that a positive view of self, life's purpose, and relationships learned through the practice of Christianity was helpful for coping with ADHD together with appropriate use of medication.

"Practice of Buddhism" seems too general - which practice? which Buddhism? Is there a reference? The NPOV additions promoted a wikipedia editor to a "commentator", and added another presumably individual spiritual endorsement. Coping via Christianity seems too general for this article alone. Perhaps these comments could be merged into the Christianity topic. --Zigger 18:12, 2004 May 7 (UTC)

The practice of religion may have influence on the psychological and other aspects of any disease, disorder, syndrome, or indeed any human phenomenon. Accordingly, it does not seem economical to mention it in every article about any human phenomenon. DCDuring 12 Oct 2005

Skepticism

One of the most common skeptical points of view is that ADHD behavior is a result of bad parenting and not enough discipline, and many doctors have supported this theory. Some also say that increased ADHD behavior is caused by societal practices which encourage short-attention-span behavior, with television and video games often used as examples.

This text was under the heading "skepticism about ADHD as a diagnosis." However, this is not skepticism about the diagnosis, but a theory about the CAUSE of ADHD. Also, it's not backed up by any citations whatsoever. For now, I have removed it, until the evidence in support of it is better cited. (After all, "some" also think that ADHD is the result of sun spots and alien abduction -- we need research in order to support these claims.) — Adam Conover † 21:46, May 10, 2004 (UTC)

Section changes

As well as adding sections for history and "other controversies", I've changed the sequence of the sections "Treatment", "Skepticism towards ADHD as a diagnosis", "Psychological Testing for ADHD" to be Testing, then Skepticism, then Treatment -- which seems to be a more natural progression. --Zigger 18:56, 2004 Jun 10 (UTC)

Caps?

Why are all of the words in "Attention-Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder" capitalized in the title of this article? That is not done with, for example, hyperkinetic syndrome, where that is mentioned in this article. Normally on Wikipedia we do not capitalize initial letters merely because they're in an article title. Michael Hardy 20:46, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Because the name of the disorder is generally given as "Attention-Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder", not "attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder". You might want to check here, or here. Since the capitals are considered part of the correct name of the disorder, they are used in the article's title. -- Antaeus Feldspar 08:00, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Country specific view of drugs

The list of the drugs available for ADHD in this article is American specific. What drugs are available and what type of restrictions there are on them vary from country to country. In Canada Ritalin is the equivalent of non restricted, Dexedrine (dextroamphetamine...Australians often call it Dexamphetamine) is controlled but nowhere near as strictly as in the US. On the other hand until recently those were the only two stimulants that could legally be prescribed. A slow release of Adderall was recently approved in Canada. Desoxyn and such are not available for prescription here.

The result can be kinda perverse at times. It is not that hard to get a Rtialin prescription if there seems to be a problem (I have adult add that was covered by an anti-depressant and child add before that ---but when i had to change the anti-depressant because it wasn't working it became apparent that it was a problem again[actually the anti-depressant worked better for add than depression]...my doctor was willing to give me some Ritalin until i found a specialist but would not prescribe dexedrine because it was controlled---and i had a history of a bad reaction to Ritalin). However if Ritalin doesn't work it can be difficult to get the alternatives. Part of that is because by our law Dexedrine (for example) can only legally be prescribed for someone with ADHD, ADD or narcolepsy. In summary from what i see discussed it is initially somewhat harder and definetely more inconvienient to get Ritalin or other stimulants in the US, but there seems to be less focus on drugs other than Ritalin being inherantly more difficult or dangerous (they haven't generally shown to be in any studies i see up here)--Marcie 19:52, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)

To expand on the drug situation in Australia, Adderall is not available in Australia because of reports of it inducing SID.--cheese-cube 07:21, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Concerta as a treatment option

I have ADHD and i am currently using the drug Concerta to treat it. Concerta is an extended release drug which means that the pill dissolves slowy throughout the day to eliminate the peaks and vales in coverage that happen when taking ritalin. I also take ritalin in the morning so that the Concerta has time to take effect. I would like to add Concerta to this page but i am not quite sure how to do that. Would someone please help me or just go ahead and add Concerta? Thanks -578 a new user

Also using Concerta and the same diagnosis and to answer your question about how to add sometime here is the link to it How to edit a page. Goanookie 20:27, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)

causes

Could we put in something regarding treatment opinions being somewhat different from country to country...in Canada norephefine is often viewed as importantly as Dopamine...i know in my case Dopamine doesn't make a hell of a lot of difference, but the norephenefrine DOES. Generally the dopamine is what causes my tics....how do i know...experimentation with different anti-depressants to see if they helped...the one's with Norphenefrine (mispelled) seemed to make a bigger difference...although the dopamine might help.

I've seen very contradictory stuff on the Omega fatty acids...ranging from works doesn't do a thing. Could be an individual thing again. I take them for other reasons i haven't noticed a bit of difference in my adhd, although my body feels like it has a better balanced diet now and i think i can see a bit of a difference in my hair...and i've been taking them since May!...--Marcie 19:51, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

lordsnizlefoot:i are is 2

not always a bad thing

A book that has impacted my whole life When I was a teenager, I first read The Virginian Railway, written by rail historian and photographer H. Reid, a Norfolk native. He combined the usual information about locomotives and rolling stock customarily found in railroad books with the business strategy of the two founders of the VGN, who were each fascinating men with seemingly endless ideas and energy. These days they may have been diagnosed with Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder!

Reid's storytelling writing style included many stories told by former railroaders, who came to be very loyal to the VGN, which paid its employees and vendors a little better than absolutely necessary. The building of the railroad was a story of little business winning over big business. It was built to the highest possible engineering standards, was enormously profitable, and operated an amazingly wide range of innovative equipment.

The Virginian Railway enthralled me and has impacted my life, career, and hobby interests greatly in the 40 years since I first read it. I have 3 copies of H. Reid's epoch book, including a rare first edition, which has the best quality photographs. I still enjoy re-reading it (as do many other Virginian Railway enthusiasts I have been told).

I also want to say that anyone who thinks they have ADD or ADHD or whatever should read Driven To Distraction. I would compare reading this book at age 44 to having a car and finding the owners manual in the glove box after you turn the first 100,000 miles!!! Vaoverland 12:25, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Minimal brain d-----

Contrary to someone's edit summary, the terms "minimal brain damage" and "minimal brain dysfunction" were both in use at that time. See these papers: [2], [3]. -- Antaeus Feldspar 18:35, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Other Causes

I admit, Having ADHD makes it is very, very difficult for me to maintain a npov when it comes to ADHD. It is even harder when I read something like the above. I have several gripes with these two paragraphs, but I'm not sure how to incorporate them into the article, or if I should even try.

The nutritional data has been well summarized in a review article (Burgess et al., 2000, Am J Clin Nutr 71:327-330). Children with ADHD have lower levels of key fatty acids. In fact, one study found that the lower the levels, the worse the symptoms. The possibility that fatty acid deficiency is a trigger for ADHD is especially plausible as nutrition scientists have recently demonstrated that the American diet is extremely deficient in omega-3 fatty acids. At the same time, the incidence of ADHD is rapidly increasing. More support for this idea comes from the findings that breast-fed children have much lower levels of ADHD, and that until quite recently, infant formula contained NO omega-3 fatty acids. These findings are only correlational, and do not prove a causal connection.
Initial studies with supplementation with various fatty acids found improved cognitive function, visual acuity, and reduction of at least some of the symptoms of ADHD. These findings are similar to those in which improved cognitive function and increased IQ are seen in breastfed children—who get more fatty acids from their mother’s milk than do formula-fed infants. The data from these studies are promising, but inconsistent. Why did only some of the studies see an effect, and why were only some symptoms improved? These questions cannot be answered unless one knows about the effects of these fatty acids on the dopamine system.

Gripe #1:

The possibility that fatty acid deficiency is a trigger for ADHD is especially plausible as nutrition scientists have recently demonstrated that the American diet is extremely deficient in omega-3 fatty acids.

ADHD has been diagnosed in children and adults all over the world and cases of it are easy to find in history. (George Villiers, 2nd Duke of Buckingham comes to mind). Ergo the fact that the American diet is low in omega-3 fatty acids is irrelevant.

Gripe #2:

At the same time, the incidence of ADHD is rapidly increasing.

Again this has nothing to do with diet and everything to do with awareness and the fact that CCHR's damage finally starting to be undone by real science.

Gripe #3:

Initial studies with supplementation with various fatty acids found improved cognitive function, visual acuity, and reduction of at least some of the symptoms of ADHD. These findings are similar to those in which improved cognitive function and increased IQ are seen in breastfed children—who get more fatty acids from their mother’s milk than do formula-fed infants.

Here, I see point 'A' and I see point 'B', but I don't see the line connecting them. Am I the only one? *Kat* 03:46, Dec 11, 2004 (UTC)

Modified for readiability *Kat* 07:18, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC)

Here, I see point 'A' and I see point 'B', but I don't see the line connecting them. Am I the only one?

Oh, look! A bird!

New Section

Not sure if this should be up top or on bottom (i.e. if this is the start or end of the page), so, feel free to toss this to the bottom if it's out of place, but: Any thoughts on creating a section 'high-functioning and AD(H)D'? There is the fainest hint of such a section in the 'celebrities' / world figures references in this article, however, I was thinking of approaching it more seriously / technically. I think it could tie in well with the fact that the comorbidity between ADD and a variety of LDs is somewhat high (this could be contrastingly linked in the article subsection I'm speaking of) but, in contrast, there is also a wonderfully fat tail on the right hand side of the distribution for high-achieving individuals with ADD -- high kertosis values in more and more of the studies, although still left skewed. Anyway, please share thoughts on this ... if feedback seems receptive, I'll work on developing a section.

Trajan

Sounds like a great idea to me. There have been many times when having ADHD has helped me out. Let me know if you need anyhelp. bakuzjw (aka 578) 23:11, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Hmmm...to a point that sounds like a good idea. So long as the article doesn't include historical figures who might of had or even probably had ADHD, I'm all for it.*Kat* 09:49, Mar 16, 2005 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, why do you oppose that? It seems like a natural tack to take... -- Antaeus Feldspar 15:09, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Because it is speculation at best. There is no way to definitively prove that some historical figure had ADHD. Besides there is no shortage of confirmed modern day ADHDers. Ty (The Carpenter on Trading Spaces), the guy who played the middle son on the Brady Bunch are two that come to mind. Both have said in interviews that they have ADHD.

Speculation cheapens the diagnosis. Its easy to say that people such as Ben Franklin had it, but its impossible to prove, and more over it minimalizes the difficulties that we have. After all, Ben Franklin was a great statesmen and inventor, so why can't we get our homework done on time?*Kat*

Well, did he actually? IMHO, including potential historical 'colleagues' is not that bad, quite in contrary. Partly qfor pure edutainment purposes and partly because one might also have a look at the circumstances that accompanied those persons and enabled them to become worth remembering. Just draw your conclusions from those, you might discover things which are good for you. No need to feel intimidated, btw: if those people are labeled correctly, they will have had their issues and quirks to cope with throughout their life. I think it is actually quite motivating. Don't victimize yourself!

And then, please mind you, that speculation can be quite scientific, if it is done right. In this case that might e.g. mean to get all the biographical facts (childhood reports seem crucial to me) that might be applicable either pro or contra and use those to approximately answer the standard diagnosis questionnaires. That provided, you might want to get at least one expert's opinion on each case. At least all confirmed members of the club of the unfiltrated should know one... ;-) True, a certain propability to err is there, but such is life. --brsma 15:25, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Scare quotes

Ombudsman, putting scare quotes around specific words that aren't in the view you support hardly qualifies as eliminating bias. Putting bold around entire sentences because they support your own view is similarly not-cool and it is why I reverted your changes. -- Antaeus Feldspar 23:37, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the pointer, Antaeu. Your point is well taken, but reverting all the edits to a thoroughly biased version hardly amounts to enhancing NPOV. Simply correcting the unintentional but obvious error and any other specific edits you found unworthy would have sufficed. Ombudsman 02:36, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Major clean up, and overhaul

I have just completed a major overhaul of this article. The job I have done may not be perfect, but its a start, and IMHO a good one. Below is the information that had been included but is no longer found in the article.

Note: Some of it may have been reincorporated and I forgot to remove it from this listing.

Second note: I'm not saying I've done the definitive overhaul, just made a good start on one.

*Kat* 13:09, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC)

Just realized that a computer glitch (on my end of things) caused some information not to post.

What I also intended to say was that the point of the overhaul was to give the article a more npov. The above poster was correct, the article was very much biased. Not necessarily in one direction or another, but hardly a line in the article could be considered nuetral. Instead the article was comprised of competeing viewpoints. What I was attempting to to was to turn the article into a generalized introduction of what ADHD is as well as what it is believed to be. If that makes anysense.*Kat* 17:20, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC)

---

According to most sources, including the CDC, the exact causes are currently unknown. Scientific speculation has largely centered upon apparent upregulation of dopamine function. It is thought that the term covers a variety of related disorders also related to dopamine upregulation. There are no objective medical tests that can accurately diagnose ADHD, though there are many subjective assessment tools, primarily promoted by the pharmaceutical industry. The diagnostic label is controversial because of its subjectivity, and this often leads to inappropriate medical intervention, according to critics of biological psychiatry.

According to some recent studies, ADHD is an inheritable 'dysfunction' of dopamine metabolism mainly in the frontostriatal region of the human brain. New studies consider the possibility that norepinephrine metabolism also affects this disorder (see Krause, Dresel, Krause in Psycho 26/2000 p.199ff). Incorporated in one form or another.

One should note that almost all of the latest studies have been sponsored by drug companies. Baseless and biased.

According to most sources, including the CDC, the exact causes are currently unknown. Scientific speculation has largely centered upon apparent upregulation of dopamine function. It is thought that the term covers a variety of related disorders also related to dopamine upregulation. There are no objective medical tests that can accurately diagnose ADHD, though there are many subjective assessment tools, primarily promoted by the pharmaceutical industry. The diagnostic label is controversial because of its subjectivity, and this often leads to inappropriate medical intervention, according to critics of biological psychiatry.

already reincorporated (speread out)

20th Century History

In the early 1970s an erroneous newspaper article, which is still often cited, inflated the prescribing rate of medication by a factor of 10, influencing some to avoid treatment with stimulants.

Without the title, I didn't think this was important enough to include in the timeline

In the mid-1980s, Helen Irlen from California took out a patent on certain tints for lenses to help those with reading problems associated with Scotopic Sensitivity Syndrome.

If I had a dollar for every patent on every alternative treatment used for ADHD, I would never work another day in my life

They [CCHR] were very effective at the time in scaring people away from treatment with stimulants.

npov

INDICENCE

However, rates of diagnosis vary widely even within the U.S. In some school districts as many as 60% of all children have been diagnosed with ADHD.

without citation, it is at best a rumour, and even with citation, its such an extreme example, that I don't know that it really belongs in the article.

Some experts theorize that ADHD is underdiagnosed in girls, since their symptoms tend to be less dramatic than those in boys and thus draw less attention from parents and teachers.

incorporated

The variation in the rates of diagnosis and in estimates of the rate of prevalence raises numerous issues. In fact, almost everything about ADHD has been the subject of intense debate, as discussed later in this article.

This line strikes me as being irrelevant

Critics contend this is primarily a result of pharmaceutical industry marketing, essentially designed to increase sales globally.

I'll refute this as soon as I look up the old Bregin v CHADD, NIMH lawsuit (not its actual name).

Diagnosis External social and environmental influences are given scant attention, as internal disorders are an assumption of the standard diagnostic protocols for ADHD.

ADHD often continues into adolescence and adulthood, according to proponents of the diagnostic label, and can cause a lifetime of frustrated dreams and emotional pain. However, children diagnosed with ADHD often go on to live normal lives, and wonder why their parents and schools felt the need to medicate them. Many complain of having needlessly suffered from the psychological trauma of the diagnosis, social stigmatization, and adverse effects of the drugs.

Now HERE's a nice load of uncited and unprovable (yet undisprovable) bologna.

A grave concern often cited by critics is their concern that prescribed medications may cause persistent substance abuse problems.

Inserted and refuted.

Others have written of how diagnosis and treatment improved their lives.

No where to put this

Other Causes

A number of different lines of research may be converging on an answer, or at least part of the answer. First, neuroscientists have determined that the dopamine system does appear to be central to the symptoms of the diagnosis, and certain changes in this system are consistently seen in those labeled as having ADHD. Second, certain essential fatty acids, omega-3 fatty acids, have received increasing attention from nutrition researchers as being essential for healthy brain development. This family of compounds has been directly tied into function of the dopamine system, and appears to be of critical importance in formation and maintenance of these systems. Third, clinical nutritionists have noted that ADHD labeled children are often deficient in omega-3 fatty acids, and that supplementation with various fatty acids may reduce some of the symptoms.

Is there really a connection between omega-3 fatty acids and ADHD? The research supporting such a connection was conducted by scientists in three very different areas who do not ordinarily communicate with each other. This means no one has specifically studied the possibility. However, the findings in each area are very suggestive. If the connection between omega-3 fatty acids is true, then dietary supplementation could be an effective prevention for the disorder, and could be a less costly alternative treatment, with fewer adverse effects, and would ultimately address the root problem, unlike current psychotropic drug treatments.

Initial studies with supplementation with various fatty acids found improved cognitive function, visual acuity, and reduction of at least some of the symptoms of ADHD. These findings are similar to those in which improved cognitive function and increased IQ are seen in breastfed children, who get more fatty acids from their mother’s milk than do formula-fed infants. The data from these studies are promising, but as yet inconsistent. Why did only some of the studies see an effect, and why were only some symptoms improved? These questions cannot be answered unless one knows about the effects of these fatty acids on the dopamine system, and the economic realities regarding who is funding studies attempting to debunk the correlation.

Making an adult lab rat deficient in omega-3 fatty acids results in significant metabolic changes, in the number of dopamine receptors and the amounts of dopamine in different parts of the brain responsible for learning, memory, and attention. Not surprisingly, adding n-3 fatty acids reversed these effects. More interesting studies have looked at developmental effects. If female rats are fed a diet deficient in n-3 fatty acids and then become pregnant, their offspring show marked changes in the dopamine areas of the brain, which look like those seen in ADHD-labeled children, and in the spontaneously hyperactive rat (Acar et al., 2003, Neurosci Res 45:375-382). The pups were also hyperactive. Supplementation of the female rats’ diet either during pregnancy or while nursing prevented this from happening. However, supplementing the pups’ diet after weaning only partially reversed the effects. This means that supplementation will only be partially effective as a treatment. Changing the diet of pregnant women and their infants and toddlers will be necessary to maximize the effectiveness of n-3 fatty acids in preventing ADHD symptoms.

Too much info for a general article on ADHD. Could be turned into its own article though.

Criticism of ADHD as a diagnosis

Diagnostic questionnaires are often subject to copyright restrictions, preventing a wider awareness of their specificity.

no way to work it in

It should be noted that many, if not most, creative individuals exhibit the characteristics of ADD, or ADHD, by virtue merely of their naturally divergent paths of thinking. As in the case of many, if not all, others who exhibit such characteristics, there is no cause to suppose that it is their constitution, rather than that of society generally, that is the condition needing to be rectified.

There is quite a bit of difference between a creative person and a person with ADHD, the two are often found together, but they aren't the same thing. ADHD is (in ten words or less) an

inability exercise self control - What does it mean?

Creativity is, (again, in 10 words or less) an ability to create something unique. 

Creative people with ADHD aren't able to really control their creative spurts.

-What does it mean?

 Sometimes they can be creative, sometimes they can't .  However since none of this can be cited, I'm leaving out. 

commentss: "Sometimes they can be creative, sometimes they can't" doesn't it describe all people on planet?

Some schools have required 'problem' pupils to undergo ADHD diagnosis (and treatment if diagnosed), which has caused protests. Some parents are alleged to have been threated with, or subjected to, child abuse charges for not allowing their children to be treated with psychotropic drugs. Some critics have suggested that the ADHD label should be abolished altogether.

no citation

Some schools have required 'problem' pupils to undergo ADHD diagnosis (and treatment if diagnosed), which has caused protests. Some parents are alleged to have been threated with, or subjected to, child abuse charges for not allowing their children to be treated with psychotropic drugs. Some critics have suggested that the ADHD label should be abolished altogether.

no citation

In the Thom Hartman paragraph

It has not yet been proven wrong that ADHD symptoms indeed could be a product of advantageous human evolutionary adaptations, and therefore not necessarily a disability, disorder, condition or mental illness.

already incorporated

Treatment

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.

Incorporated.

Data from 1995 show that physicians treating children and adolescents wrote six million prescriptions for stimulants. Of all the drugs used to treat psychiatric disorders in children, stimulant medications are the most well-studied in the field. However, to date there are no good long-term studies dealing with stimulants in children, and concerns exist pertaining to the ethics of conducting experiments involving children.

redundant

A 1998 Consensus Development Conference on ADHD sponsored by the National Institutes of Health and a recent, comprehensive, scientific report confirmed many earlier studies showing that short-term use of stimulants is safe and effective for children with ADHD.

reincorporated

This says nothing for the growing number of children who are on stimulants for years at a time. Some non-stimulant medications are now becoming available to treat ADHD such as Strattera (atomoxetine HCl), a selective norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor.

reincorporated

In December 1999, NIMH released the results of a study of nearly 600 elementary school children, ages seven-to-nine, which evaluated the safety and relative effectiveness of the leading treatments for ADHD for a period up to fourteen months. The results indicate that the use of stimulants alone is more effective than behavioral therapies in controlling the core symptoms of ADHD - inattention, hyperactivity/impulsiveness, and aggression. In other areas of functioning, such as anxiety symptoms, academic performance, and social skills, the combination of stimulant use with intensive behavioral therapies was consistently more effective. (Of note, families and teachers reported somewhat higher levels of satisfaction for those treatments that included the behavioral therapy components.) NIMH researchers will continue to track these children into adolescence to evaluate the long-term outcomes of these treatments, and ongoing reports will be published. This study has been severely criticized, as it was not double-blind and the sponsors failed to provide a control group.

There has been a lot of interesting work done with neurofeedback and ADHD. Children are taught, using video game-like technology, how to control their brain waves. This has a very high success rate, but is not widely used, or covered by insurance. Many professionals consider the treatment promising, but state that there is not yet sufficient evidence that it works after the immediate treatment is complete.

reincorporated.

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Attention-deficit_hyperactivity_disorder"

Other ADHD-related controversies

There are other controversies intersecting with ADHD, to do with:

• prescribing psychotropic medication to children in general
• prescibing Adderall XR®, the market authorization for which was suspended by Health Canada in 2005
• prescribing medication for mental illness at all
• psychiatry itself (see Anti-psychiatry), and
• the involvement of the Church of Scientology in opposing specific treatments.

The controversies attract popular attention including the mass media. Media critics in the scientific community say that, despite often employing science reporters, such reporters have inherent inabilities to accurately report on scientific papers without sensationalising them, using exaggeration, undue emphasis of aspects, taking aspects out of context, and publishing point-of-view features within news contexts. They also say the mass media fails to identify procedural lapses in studies allowing dubious conclusions to be publicized. Such lapses include: lack of peer review, small sample sizes, lack of published error ranges, filtering of results, lack of control groups and lack of use of double-blind techniques or placebos. Examples of cited of such media misrepresentation include the University of Washington study (see below), which was widely reported as proving that television causes ADHD, despite disclaimers within the published study apparently seeking to avoid this very headline.

• The Norwegian scientist Dr. Karl Ludwig Reichelt claims that peptides from casein (milk-protein) and gluten (grain-protein) worsen the symptoms in many ADHD-patients. Extensive testing of ADHD-patients is taking place in Norway, and diet has astonishing effects for many of them. Although good result are achieved in Norway, the peptide-theory is discarded by the scientific community.

Miscellaneous Fictious characters with ADHD include Animal.

Positive Aspects Some contemporary ADHD candidates have also been proposed, including George W. Bush, Whoopi Goldberg and Dustin Hoffman. (Libel)

Douglas Rushkoff suggest that the disorder may be primarily the result of cultural conditions to which children and adults alike are subjected. Primary among these is the omnipresence and exploitive qualities of advertising. In the time that ADHD has arisen as the epidemic it is often portrayed as, advertisement has become virtually unavoidable, and advertisements utilize much more sophisticated methods of deception. Some suggest that people (children, especially) are aware of this attempt at pervasive trickery, whether consciously or subconsciously, and react by avoiding extended attention in order to avoid being deceived. Naturally, this self-defense reaction, when carried over to school and home, presents obvious problems. From this point of view, prescribing drugs is effectively only to alleviate symptoms, but entirely avoids the cause.

Explanations are like alternative treatments, they are a dime to a dozen, and this is one of the more obscure ones.

Cleanup this page, New article on AADD

I did a little cleanup on this page, and added the talk box at top so new messages will go down here with a nice little header. We will need to create an archive soon for the older messages. In the meantime, please do not delete any.

I would appreciate any review and/or comments about the new Adult attention-deficit disorder (AADD) article. Please leave them on that talk page or on my personal talk page at User Talk:Vaoverland. I'd also love to see some discussion about hyperfocus, especially how to make it work to the good. Well, I've got three windows open and two articles in edit mode, so away I go. Thanks to all. Mark in Richmond. Vaoverland 11:51, Apr 3, 2005 (UTC)

Does it mean they don't know and buahaha

"Possible Causes"

Deas it mean that they don't know what couses "ADHD", they can't specificly describe it, and describe DRUGS to kids??

Only what they know is the name and wide range describe that fits 99% wikipedians. And they know wich drug to presicribe and probably its expensive one.

NExt:

"There is also new evidence that brief pauses in breathing (apnea) during infancy may be a cause of ADHD"

Have any one counted how many people did apnea during infacy and after that ware healthy? i Bet that numers are so big that all "NEW EVIDENCE CREATORS" would become a lot suprised or would lie in face.

Doest seems to you that some made an theory and some are trying to make this theory an fact and are finding more and more stupid explenations?

BTW. Do any one knows some doctor that was paid to describe some specifick drugs to kids?

You're fighting an uphill battle. It's quite beneficial for the drug industry if there's a condition generally treated with drugs that supposedly "affects" 5% of the population. They are the ones with the money. They can keep repeating the terms "disorder" and "chemical imbalance" constantly despite the fact that it has never been proven that neurological differences observed in ADHD (and other "disorders") are in fact pathological in nature. There's no credible evidence to suggest that ADHD is nothing but genetic. For alleles to reach 5% prevalence it is just not possible for them to be pathological. And in fact, it appears that the DRDR-7R allele increased in prevalence so quickly that it must have provided some benefits at one time, if not now. Neurodivergent 00:48, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Excuse me, but if you two have nothing but your own original research and conspiracy theories to "contribute" on the subject, you probably should find a Usenet newsgroup or blog to clutter instead. Thanks, ta. -- Antaeus Feldspar 01:33, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Are you able to argue the facts instead of resorting to ad hominem? The only research I've made reference to is one published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (it's actually DRD4 not DRDR). It's silly to suggest that's my original research. Thom Hartmann's research is his too, of course. Perhaps you can also find a Usenet group where you can argue your pro-disease view, but wait, the drug industry is already doing it for you. Maybe it can be argued that autism is a disorder... maybe. To suggest that something as mild as ADHD is a disorder is just plain stupid, not to mention damaging to the self-esteem of otherwise completely healthy kids. Neurodivergent 03:19, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

You've proved that you can't argue your case without resorting to ad hominem circumstantial, and if you're not resorting to original research then do, DO tell us where you got that confident pronouncement that "For alleles to reach 5% prevalence it is just not possible for them to be pathological"? From which representative of the medical establishment -- oh, wait! You've already decided that the medical establishment, if it supports the existence of ADHD, is on the take and that therefore your assertions that ADHD is "mild" (because you've never seen a case you wouldn't classify as "mild") mean more. Well, that's original research, pal. You want anecdotal evidence? I could tell you of my own experiences, of the very distinct difference between my regular ADD state and the state I was in when they found a medication effective for me -- I never realized before then just how much effort I have to put in to concentrate, to tune out distractions, to multi-task, but on the medication I was like other people: I could decide to concentrate and I could do it. I could think "Oh, I have to handle X today, don't I?" and I could continue what I was working on and not completely forget about X because I didn't switch mental tracks right away. It still breaks my heart sometimes that I had to be one of the people who have a rare allergic reaction to that medication and I couldn't stay on it. I could tell you about the worst case of ADD I've ever seen, and the one that convinced me that ADD is real: a very lovely and very smart girl who, if you just stay quiet and let her talk, will tell you what's on her mind, and you'll realize that it's very well-considered, insightful thinking. But if you interrupt her -- even so much as asking her to repeat a word you didn't catch -- the distraction completely derails her. Don't try to tell that that's normal or mild because it isn't autism. I could give you this and more anecdotal evidence besides but if you think this is the place for anecdotal evidence, which seems to be all you have to offer, then I encourage you to read WP:NOR and clue in. -- Antaeus Feldspar 17:56, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

I don't even get what your argument about the girl who gets distracted consists of. There are mute autistics, such as Jasmine O'Neill (read her essay here) who present a good case about autism not being a disease. She's mute, ok. Don't you think that's an actual difficulty? Explain why her view would be pro-neurodiversity and not pro-disease. And you tell me about a girl who gets very distracted. Give me a break. Poor little girl. She's probably perfectly healthy and being made to believe that her brain is broken. And I'd ask you this: Is this problem a problem actually for the girl, or is it simply that those who interact with the girl have arbitrarily defined this to be a problem? Does the girl think that she has a problem? Is the desire to have her conform to social norms (and I assume mainstream schooling) more important that accepting her for who she is? Can you predict the girl's future with any accuracy? As to the genetics argument, it's very simple. If an allele goes from 0% frequency to 5% frequency in what appears to be 10,000 to 40,000 years, can you really argue that it is not in fact due to at least some positive selection? Neurodivergent 19:33, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Also, did you know that Thomas Edison could not read until the age of 12 did not speak until he was almost 4? (Is that disputed?) I think that's a more serious difficulty than the one you describe. Fortunately, neurological intolerance back on his time did not present itself in the form of pathologization and neuroleptic abuse. I'm sure if he had lived in this day and age, first, his parents would have been made to worry about his brain being broken. He would have been given Ritalin or something. As to his future contributions to civilization, well, who knows. Neurodivergent 19:43, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

To suggest that something as mild as ADHD is a disorder is just plain stupid, not to mention damaging to the self-esteem of otherwise completely healthy kids.

ADHD is only a 'disorder' when it's not mild. That is the point of the 'significant impairment' criterion you question further down the page. It's possible to be very inattentive and very hyperactive, but if it's not posing any issues, then it's not ADHD.Limegreen 03:51, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Mild and severe are very relative terms. ADHD in its severest form is mild compared to autism. Some parents of a autistic children would likely find the discussion about ADHD superfluous at best.

So asthma doesn't exist because pneumonia does, hunh? -- Antaeus Feldspar 17:56, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Who said anything about things not existing? The argument is whether certain neurological differences are pathological or not. Is ADHD something you have or something you are? Do you catch it, like you'd catch a cold, or is it part of who you are? Would it be possible to completely remove the ADHD from the person without destroying the individual that once was? These are questions that I believe only an ADHD person could answer. If you were to ask that about asthma, I doubt anyone would indicate that asthma is part of their personality. Clearly there are conditions that you do acquire, e.g. anxiety. Anyone can get anxiety, and I do believe for many it's possible to rid oneself of anxiety (without the need to be medicated for life). People with anxiety do suffer from the ailment and I don't think anyone with anxiety would reject a cure. No one is going to fight for someone's right to be anxious. But there needs to be a distinction between real ailments and so-called "disorders" which are defined solely in terms of what are considered behavioral deviations from "normalcy" -- "normal" as in a statistical distribution that is. (Real ailments are sometimes present along with ADHD and other disorders, and people tend to assume they are part of the disorder or caused by the disorder). There needs to be a distinction between suffering from a "disorder" vs. suffering because of neurological intolerance, i.e. being called disease. Neurodivergent 18:57, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Decades back, there were people who argued a pro-disease view of homosexuality. (Perhaps there are some intolerant assholes who still do). Homosexuality was listed in the DSM. It was taken out of the DSM, not because of new medical information, but because of political pressure. In other words, intolerance lost, as it usually does.

ADHD adults really need to take some cues from the autistic community. The work of Thom Hartmann and a few isolated others is good, but I don't see any organized effort. And that's a shame because you guys are so much more numerous, and you could really be at the forefront of the fight against neurological intolerance. Autistic adults have coined terms such as neurodiversity and neurotypical. They have written controversial essays that stirred things up, like "Don't Mourn For Us" by Jim Sinclair. They have organized letter writing campaigns, set up websites, and so on. They started the autism rights movement, really a new kind of identity rights movement. The thing about autistics is that they have a tendency to be anti-establishment and have a low tolerance for conformity.

If you are ADHD and someone offered you a cure that wiped out ADHD in its entirety, including the hyper-focus (clearly an integral part of the condition and who you are), would you be happy to take it? What if genetic testing for ADHD before birth became available and parents started to abort ADHD children? Wouldn't that be saying that people like you should not exist? Franky, I think ADHD adults need a kick in the but. Don't let yourself be brainwashed by all the pro-disease hoopla baked up mostly by the drug industry and the medical establishment who obviously have a vested interest in it. Neurodivergent 13:26, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

I hardly agree with your theory Neurodivergent. Telling us (ADHD) people to take some "cues" from the Autistic community is not relevant basis for fixing this disorder, and I dont take it lightly. Sure anyone can take advice and go with it, but the fact is, the problem is still there and embedded in our neurological framework permanently. There are some things that can be overcome and others that cant, without the aid of a drug that can modify the chemical imbalance. I think you need to kick it in the butt because you obviously feel your own Autism is an "identity" you can work around with your own intelligent ways of doing so, thats great, but Autism is NOT the same. You think everyone out there is just getting brainwashed by an entire industry of researchers that [i]only[/i] care about $$ and not seeking real answers backed by significant and valid research? I beg to differ, and I also am sure theres plenty of people in that industry themselves that suffer from ADHD who would plaud their own foundings. Being a case myself, I KNOW what its like to deal with ADHD, and whats its like when I take Aderoll, and the differences are astounding to say the least. I believe your opinions are seriously malformed and unfounded and you need to take a second look about it before sticking to a narrow-minded pathological pov. Hyperfocus is one element of a persons ability to concentrate better as an ADHD person, and with ADHD they are able to do it particularly well under relaxed conditions. But on the other end of the spectrum, the reality of the condition with this kind of concentration affected with ADHD is when trying to focus under stress or "forced concentration". Recent research shows this problem quite clearly the PHYSICAL cause through SPECT imaging research of the Caudate nucleus. As one concentrates with a calm demeanor, the bloodflow to the caudate nucleus is normal, everything is firing healthy. When they are under stressful concentration, the bloodflow is severely hindered and it does not recieve the oxygen and glucose neccessary to support function of the Caudate nucleus and it partially shuts down. This is also related to short-term memory problems. Please enlighten me more your anti-(pro)disease hoopla, as I am very concerned YOU are brainwashing people into thinking this is just something they should learn to cope with and the remedy is more a circumstantial one that drugs cannot provide the answer. -Anemos 09:16, 01 February 2006

Example of so called hyperactive person.

One child was send to psychoterapeut to be cured from being hyperactive. Kid was normal and healthy, so therapist invited family of that kid.

Since family come kid statred behave unnormaln. For many of you that means that kid was healthy, family was ill.

So describing and treating kids with drugs means harming them.

Another example is from "monroe institut" (guys that invented or use sound to for example put someone to sleep)

They treated one kid, after few weeks kid become as describe "self confident" and was as i remember optimistic. All in all he become independend and self confiden, when kid returened to the familly quickly he become same as before.

It means one kdi was healthy, his family was making him ill.

I hope you-the reader- are good. And if you are doctor, try retalin for yourself. and then find out what you are doing to kids for money.

I think i know how one can found who is making all ADHD theory and trying made other to belive it: Thoes who earn most from it. Thoes can be drug producers, teachers that insted of making interesting lessons are calling bored kids hyperactive.

And possibly others that make money from whatever is related to ADHD or others couse i think more people will lie about some syndromes will creat some names, will calling it some disorders, only to make what they are doing more easlier (like teachers) or to make money, (i wish them someone describe them some drug they ware making money of and make them take it for them self)

In the way of fictional couses and wide range description:

What works?

And please remember that after 6months of any thing can change person so writing that 6 months of prozac or retalin helped is an lie or harmful joke.

Scientology alert.

One angle

Any situation where the solution is just "prescribe the kid some pills" isn't properly handling in my opinion. There are a million ways to help an ADD person perform better and avoid the problems ADD does cause or deal with them. I think coping skills (or work-arounds) are more valuable than meds or at least as important. I need closed captioing to be able to watch TV without my mind wandering. Seeing the words makes the extra difference in having enough stimulation hold my attention. That beats popping a pill. However, some meds and the workarounds are the best balance for me. My doctor listens to me. However, I think it is tougher for the kids.

Also, some parents and teachers just focus on hyperactivity. If thats all thats wrong, then it ain't ADD/ADHD. Hyperactivity alone is not ADD/ADHD. But, because I ahve hyperactivity, I know it keeps me from making friends because people don't like it. So, I have to ask, is it enough of a problem that I care? Kids have other people making those decisions, so it's harder.

I think one point that is getting missed is that for an ADHD diagnosis, the items on the checklist have to be present in more than 1 setting and have to be causing functional problems for the individual within the past 6 months for a ADHD condition of any type to exist. If you had everything on the checklist and your life was going great, no diagnosis. The degree anyof it is a functional problem for the person (not the convenience of teachers or parents) is a critical piece. I know there is a condition regarding brain wiring because I have it. Its just the same as a talent. Someone can be a wonderfully coordinated athlete, someone else a musical genius, etc. I am not ashamed of it, I just need to tend to it like I would any other part of my bod. If someone gets a diagnosis and doesn't like the meds, it probably ain't ADD/ADHD. Doctors can be wrong, and a lot of folks think that too many kids are misdiagnosed currently. Also, Dr. Hallowell says the next time around, the DSM will be changing the labels again, so maybe they'll call, it genius syndrome next, I dunno. To me it is a difference, OK, people are different. The important thing is how does the person's life go? Because the meds can help with the extremes.

If everything in the person's life is OK, then it can't be ADHD by definition.

Vaoverland 21:19, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)

I tend to disagree. What if ADHD were to be defined in terms of genetics? (It would be many different conditions then, but suppose that.) The reason you'd want to keep the label, despite managing to function quite well, is that it's a form of identity that I believe is more important than nationality or ethnicity. It's too bad that there's a tendency to pathologize human diversity these days, but for now there are no replacement labels. (Homosexuals probably went through this before.) Neurodivergent 00:19, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Also if you look at the DSM criteria, the one that says that you must suffer from significant impairments in order to be diagnosed seems kind of vague and arbitrary. If you take that one out, how is it that all the others are not a disorder anymore? Neurodivergent 00:27, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Individual

One great thing about the Internet is that you can find out more for yourself. It is true that many teachers don't keep the kids challenged enough. Most of mine sure as hell didn't. But, when you are the main one bored (look around) and seem to suffer more than everyone, maybe that's a flag to understanding yourself better. I was relieved to start understanding about ADD because I always thought something was wrong with me, (too lazy, doesn't try hard enough, doesn't care enough, etc.). Now I understand me better. Thats totally different than being forced to deal with doctors by family or school when you don't think anything is in need of improvement with yourself (or could be). Keep in mind , the ADD symptoms are not in the voluntary area of a brain, so it ain't willpower or desire that control them. Also, people with ADD are often poor at self observation, so that's kind of a catch-22 for diagnosing ourselves. Vaoverland 21:33, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)

Families

About the kid who is "normal and healthy" until family is present, it is a known fact that the ADD traits can run in families. Thus, a kid who can function well or has adapted in another environment could find chaos in a home managed by parent(s) with ADD behavior who are not successfully using coping skills, maybe even more chaotic with siblings. Vaoverland 13:50, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)

The wikiPedia Search results

Doing a search on ADD/ADHD, which seems to be the most common reference used to the disorder, does not hit on any title. The results is a listing of pages which include the acronyms instead and offer many irrelevant pages.

Why the dash between Attention and deficit? Why a separate page for Attention Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder?

This page mentions the three forms of the disorder. (two of which branched ADHD to the ADD/ADHD acronym didn't they?) As I follow it; ADHD is the inclusive term, with ADD being the form without the hyperactivity, and WHAT for the third?

Does all three forms have the (dis)ability to hyperfocus? I add the (dis) because I personally find hyper focusing to be less an ability as a requisite to any focus that kicks in on it's own accord. It's often in a direction other than the task at hand.

Apologies for mixing comments on the page with those on the condition. Which I obviously have...

Robt@McKenzie.ws --Robt 15:21, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

labels

as Robt has noted, there is an abundance of confusion over the various labels and subtypes. Dr. Ned Halloway has stated that additional changes are expected in the next round of the DSM. Maybe some of it will be easier to explain.

If I understand correctly, the three subtypes would be:

with hyperactivity (and not so much inattentiveness)

with inattentiveness (and not so much hyperactivity)

combined type (with both hyperactivity and inattentiveness)

Most adults are less likely to display the hyperactivity aspect, and perhaps that is why the ADD (without the "H") seems like a more comfortable term to use.

When we label ourselves, or let others do it, I feel that it is important to remember that part of the criteria for making an official diagnosis is functional impairment in our lives within the past 6 months. If you have the requisite number of "symptoms" on the checklist, and in multiple settings, but everything is going great in your life, you technically do not have the condition as a "disorder". However, for many of us, accepting the label of disorder opens the door for treatment, therapy, and medication which can relieve functional impairments.

Comments anyone? Vaoverland 16:53, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)

About hyperfocus, it is only a good thing when the results are favorable. It is possible to be highly creative and productive when doing a project and in hyperfocus, but what if the house is on fire?

Immediate survival instincts are not an issue when in a state of hyperfocus. At the risk of reading too much into your example, there are very few tasks which one might hyperfocus on that would not immediately be interrupted due to things like smoke. If their house was burning down around someone who was in a state of hyperfocus, they would notice–if for no other reason than it would quickly become impossible to continue what they were doing. Hyperfocus is certainly a double edged sword, but for some of us it is only way to work efficiently. — Darco 18:16, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

I may have missed my point by exaggerating. But, I have been responsible for two (fortunately minor) fires and lots of ruined food my forgetting it when I went off and began working on a project (like writing for WP)! Vaoverland 16:55, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Vaoverland you are correct on the types of ADHD, and more useful information I think might be useful for submission can be found from [4] -Anemos 09:39, 01 February 2006

Mainline treatment revision

Hello, All --

I've updated the section on mainline treatments. It's been modified to classify the amphetamines (deteroamphetamine, mixed amphetamine salts, and methamphetamine) together, and to standardize the format for readability. I've also added additional brand names where applicable. A legal warning was added to the bottom of the page for trademarks.

- Dave Suffling
Sunday, April 17th, 2005.

d s u f f l i n @ u o g u e l p h . c a

I'm really sorry...

Is it just me that sees the humour in that the article on an Attention-deficit disorder needs attetion? I'm really sorry for taking up your time, now please continue doing something not worthless. Gkhan 01:36, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)

Even more ironic is that I, who was diagnosed as ADD several years ago, kept finding her attention drifting and found herself skimming the article! Bwaha! But yes, "Attention Deficit Disorder" article needing attention? Ironic? Very. Runa27 07:20, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

article needs attention?

I, for one, saw the irony in attention flag as well. The user placing it left no comments in the area he/she is suposed to, so I asked. The reply was that the article is too long. The oversize warning does pop-up when you edit it. Vaoverland 01:52, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)

"among the mentally handicapped"

ADD/ADHD is often common among the mentally handicapped and physically disabled, which is quite ironic.

I am very leery of this contribution, perhaps a bit more so because it comes after a long series of clearly vandal edits. This is not overtly a vandal edit but:

• it's unsourced;
• it claims an "irony" that I can't see a reason for;
• the claim it makes seems suspect; those of us who have been clinically diagnosed with ADD know how carefully the history of the patient must be compared to what would be normal for a "baseline" patient in order to be confident of a diagnosis. Therefore, I find the statement that ADD/ADHD are being diagnosed in great numbers in populations which are themselves far from "baseline" to be suspicious. Perhaps this will be possible when the organic basis of ADD/ADHD is better understood and it will be possible to look for the cause rather than for the effects, but that day is not yet here. -- Antaeus Feldspar 23:27, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

its a vandal, reverted. Vaoverland 01:47, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)

attention flag removed

This article was flagged as needing improvement (Duh, what wikipedia article couldn't be better?). However, the user placing the flag said the only concern was the size of the article, which generates its own warning whenever someone edits it. We can keep working to condense some of the repetitive content, but a flag indicating there is a problem with the quality of the content is not justified based upon the commenst of the user placing it. Let's keep improving it folks. Mark in Richmond. Vaoverland 20:17, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)

Um, it DOES need attention, ironically. There's a bunch of places where there's citation needed (thank you, folks who added "citation needed" tags!), and I was shocked to discover that the "Skepticism towards ADHD as a diagnosis" section hadn't been tagged POV yet, becuase... well, it pretty obviously is. There's all these lines like -

"Contrasting sharply with the confident tone of those in this article who assume biological causality

WTF? Since when do we address each other in an article instead of the article's Talk page??

Nobody is "in" the article, either. They have contributed to the article, which is quite a different thing, unless of course that writer's actually speaking of specific researchers mentioned in the article, in which case that sentence is one of the poorest constructions I've yet seen on Wikipedia, because it looks exactly like it's implying the following - "ignore the other contributers' work, they assume things, they're oh-so-confidant, but they assume things...".

Seriously. Cannot deal with the section right now - so tired, I'm afraid I wouldn't be coherent enough - but I've tagged it, and I doubt many people would argue against the tag with THAT sentence in it! I'm sure the "skeptism" angle can be covered quite well with out seeming NPOV, as I've seen POV arguments that seemed less biased and more logical (specifically, a recent newspaper piece that was covering some guy's theory that it was really just symptoms of the stresses of modern day life that are usually diagnosed as symptoms of ADD or ADHD. Provided some good statistics to back it up, too. I say this even as someone who believes the condition exists!). :P Runa27 07:32, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

hyperfocus

RE: my comments about hyperfocus,I may have exagerated for effect "about the house being on fire" analogy. Losing track of time does happen to me when I am in hyperfocus, but I still consider hyperfocus to be a valuable attribute for me. I just wish to manage it better. Vaoverland 20:17, May 13, 2005 (UTC)

Internally Referenced Contextual Mind = ADHD

http://www.contextualmind.org

My model of AD/HD shows that it is a cognitive functional type in the Human species. It is what happens when iconic abstract storage is highly degraded or removed from cognition. All information is stored through sensory input. Abstract concepts like time, left/right distinctions, alphanumerical characters and culture are stored as sense tagged information.

See the wiki for more information on the models and please add your own thoughts :) Chain

Adding your experiences

I see 68.1.159.13 made personal expreiences to this article not long ago. If you want others to know about your history, pleas make a personal page, like I did. If you don't know how to make a personal page, then type in the address bar of your browser http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:68.169.113.246 (or click this link) and make your page.

68.169.113.246 Talk to me, 68.169.113.246 My contributions 18:19, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

No bulk removal of changes occurred

<<Please note - I am the author of the previous version of this note and I was wrong -- sorry, I had problems with the ISP cache. Ombudsman's addition re the President's MH plan is much more useful than the previous version.>>

Ombudsman edit: Chemical imbalance repudiated?

I'd like to suggest a bit of clarifcation. Ombudsman recently edited

The exact cause(s) of ADHD are not conclusively known. Scientific evidence suggests most strongly that, in many cases, the disorder is genetically transmitted and is caused by an imbalance or deficiency in certain chemicals that regulate the efficiency with which the brain controls behavior.

to

The exact nature of ADHD is unknown. Medical research suggests, in many cases, the condition is genetically transmitted and is related to regulation of how the brain controls behavior.

First of all, I'll leave aside the question of whether chemical imbalance has been categorically repudiated because I'd have to get myself up to speed; so for the purposes of this discussion, let's assume that the motivation for Om's latest edit is valid. My problem, then, with the edit is that "regulation of how the brain controls behavior" is confusing, because the brain controls behavior but who regulates the brain? Well, in the old version it's clear that certain chemicals control the brain, but that's the part that we're trying to get rid of. So who's left to regulate the brain? It seems to me that if the chemicals aren't doing the regulating, no one else is, and "is related to regulation of how the brain controls behavior" should be changed to "is related to the brain's control over behavior" or some such. Thoughts? Thanks -- PhilipR 14:47, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Thanks for the thoughtful response, Philip. The nature of interactions between relatively static brain architecture and biological processes is much better understood by some than the revised section intro would imply, but by and large the depiction is somewhat accurate. This prevailing assumption is in part fostered by the conflicted message that the brain is too mysterious to be understood, yet 'experts' clinging to the 'chemical imbalance theory' are imbued, unlike lay citizens, with the capacity to divine the truth of the matter. The saturation broadcasting of advertisements promoting the 'chemical imbalance theory' has apparently vanished, mysteriously, in recent months, perhaps as a result of efforts on behalf of psychiatric survivors. According to David Oaks, of MindFreedom.org, "Pfizer, Inc. does not explain the following important indisputable fact: There is no scientific evidence for such a chemical imbalance. For example, there is no reliable diagnostic lab test for any alleged chemical imbalance for any mental disorder. Pfizer, Inc. has broadcast this fraud many times on television, in print, on the web and in other material reaching millions of Americans The public believes that your agencies are protecting their interests, and you have approved these ads. FCC, FDA and FTC share responsibility, both legally and morally, for immediately halting this harmful deception.[5]

According to Karl Pribram, mental processes are mediated by wave interference patterns, which he implies are dependent largely upon the template of neural structure. Reading between the lines, his Holonomic brain theory infers neurochemical processes are secondary to brain architecture in terms of brain function regulation. The concepts entertained in Systems biology also tend to repudiate the simplistic notion that adding or subtracting chemicals in one column essentially offset 'imbalances' caused by chemicals in another column. What is known in terms of neurochemistry is that nutritional deficits or malnutrition generally cause vulnerabilities to psychiatric conditions. Typically, the remedies offered by Western medicine do not address brain structure, nutritional abnormalities, or sensory integration disturbances with anything substantive, aside from medications. The revised introduction has its shortcomings, but the previous intro was unacceptably biased toward the questionable and suspect POV. The brain is, apparently, regulated by its own wave interference patterns Ombudsman 16:10, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'm not an expert neurologist by any means, but the last tiem I checked, my ADHD is helped by a chemical. My brain is partially regulated by chemicals. Water is a chemical. Neutrotransmitters are chemicals. Synapses only work between neurons because of chemicals. What else exactly is in the brain to effect? I'm quite a bit confused, and I'd like something in a peer review journal before we commit to the idea that there is no such thing as chemical interference.--Tznkai 17:47, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Either-or arguments are inappropriate in a highly polygenic (Bobb, Castellanos, Addington & Rapoport 2005) behavioural disorder. Pubmed shows literally thousands of articles on the chemical and electrical properties of the brain and of ADHD. Electromagnetic waves in axons both cause, & are caused by, chemical changes. An important recent article on dopamine in ADHD is Jucaite et al, Reduced midbrain dopamine transporter binding in male adolescents with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder: association between striatal dopamine markers and motor hyperactivity. Biol Psychiatry. 2005 Feb 1;57(3):229-38

"has been repudiated"

'chemical imbalance' theory has been repudiated, commercials (described POVishly by Antaeus as conspiratorial) making such claims have been withdrawn Ombudsman, this was your edit summary; would you like to go into details so that everyone realizes this represents mainstream research? Your edit summary does tend to create the impression that the "chemical imbalance" theory only ever existed in commercials, commercials that apparently have been withdrawn, instead of being one of the leading theories of medical researchers on the causes of ADHD. -- Antaeus Feldspar 22:55, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

My changes and See Also

As I noted in my objection to Chemical imbalance theory, that term is not widley used inthe mainstream, and is likley inherently POV. Furthermore, Ombudsman's edits are more confusing than neutral in using the word "symptoms". besides, when we say "treat a cold" or treat any medicine, we often "treat" it by neutralizing the symptoms.

Part two of edit was to remove all of the see also so we can come to a consensus on what should be there and what should not. See Alsos should be relevant to the reader, not POV forks. list of famous people I see. Auditory Processing Disorder, I do not. Learning disabilities should be on there. Chemical Imbalnce Theory is again, a neoglism. Holonomic brain theory gives me 230 hits on a google search as a term, just under 3000 for an all search, I may be flagging it as totally disputed as well, I will have to look. The rest seem to not be relevant, but again, links to a wider dispute. going on. ADHD is not a good place to soapbox, and niether is wikipedia.--Tznkai 18:41, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Anti-psychiatry
• Auditory processing disorder
• Biological psychiatry
• Chemical imbalance theory
• Holonomic brain theory
• List of famous people with attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder
• NIMH
• Sally Satel
• Sensory integration disorder
• Texas Medication Algorithm Project

Changes and reversions of great magnitude

Reversions "of this magnitude" need justification. If Antaeus Feldspar would care to change individual points, as ombudsman had the decency to do, this article would be better. I note that Antaeus Feldspar has done the same thing before, and it has been commented on.

(cur) (last) 23:49, 8 Jun 2005 Antaeus Feldspar (rv to last version by Brighterorange; 129.240.124.27, discuss edits of this magnitude) (cur) (last) 17:37, 8 Jun 2005 CesarB (→Legal - rm disclaimer; redundant with Wikipedia:General disclaimer) (cur) (last) 16:48, 8 Jun 2005 129.240.124.27 (Gave "superior self-direction" less prominence than low attention-- see discussion in hyperfocus article. "Positive aspects" altered to links.) (cur) (last) 16:40, 8 Jun 2005 Ombudsman (→Psychological testing for ADHD - restore censored material: removal of essential context unwarranted; there is no reason to hide growing global influence of US/UK drug industry practices) (cur) (last) 16:33, 8 Jun 2005 129.240.124.27 (Toned down overenthusiastic reference to effect on drug abuse. Similar on neurofeedback. Added link to "causes" article.) (cur) (last) 16:18, 8 Jun 2005 129.240.124.27 (Test altered to NPOV. President's commission removed as judgmental, hypothetical & only 1 country. Neurometrics stub removed -- minimal scientific support and misuse of general term) (cur) (last) 15:56, 8 Jun 2005 129.240.124.27 (Extended the list of conditions causing ADHD-like problems) (cur) (last) 15:40, 8 Jun 2005 129.240.124.27 (Clarified: checklists don't make the diagnosis; the medications are not "very dangerous"; reasons to avoid self-diagnosis) (cur) (last) 15:27, 8 Jun 2005 129.240.124.27 (Removed the hunter-farmer section as it is more fully covered in the linked article.) (cur) (last) 15:21, 8 Jun 2005 129.240.124.27 (Reference to milk removed as (a) not supported by evidence; (b) not in PubMed; (c) not suitable for encyclopedia; (d) addiction to milk is impossible by definition) (cur) (last) 00:29, 8 Jun 2005 Brighterorange m (→Psychological testing for ADHD - missing period (you can help!))

You can describe your own changes are "careful" all you like, but the fact is that you made not just one, but several large changes in a very short span of time, giving no one else a chance to get any input at all into the decision before you forced it on everyone. If you had proposed, for instance, "say, why don't we move all discussion of the hunter-farmer theory to its own article and replace it here with only a mention of 'go see that article'?" then you might have discovered that, while we may spin off sections, especially those getting large and unwieldy (which, at three paragraphs, discussion of the hunter-farmer theory was not), we try to retain a modest summary in the original article.

In short, the reason I made "mass reversions" is because you made mass changes. You can swear up and down that they were "careful" changes, but the fault is really your own for making them so quickly, in such profusion, that other editors had no choices but: a) spend hours that they may not have to carefully examining your changes to make sure they are fair, b) put blind trust in an unknown anonymous editor who doesn't show signs of knowing how Wikipedia works (hint: if you don't feel like getting a username, at least use ~~~~ to sign your talk page comments) or c) revert to return to a known status quo and ask you to discuss edits of such magnitude. -- Antaeus Feldspar 00:53, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Antaeus, please review Assume good faith. At the Andrew Wakefield article, you have demonstrated your capacity for kindness in showing support for editors whose adherence to binary, deductive Aristotelian logic dovetails with your own; however you seem to lack an assuption of good faith in your approach to editors evidencing competence in using multi-variable, inductive null-A logic. Ombudsman 01:26, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps you should review assume good faith yourself, Om. You seem to be quite confused, since "assume good faith" means assuming the best of another editor's motives (something which your own edit summaries make clear is hardly a matter on which you should throw stones) and says nothing about assuming the quality of another editor's changes. -- Antaeus Feldspar 12:18, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Milk addiction

Objection to the statement about milk addiction was raised but was swamped by controversy over editing procedure. Let's remove the statement in 5 days along with its accompanying vauge allusions to unspecified researchers if no one can provide valid citations. The concept of addiction to milk is incompatible with mainstream definitions of addiction, but may be exploited by irresponsible popular news media. As an encyclopedia, Wikipedia should cleave to a higher intellectual standard and not allow its notion of addiction to become excessively diffuse. The article should be a guide to generally accepted and substantiated knowledge, not an alarmist polemic or a playground for speculation. Myron 30 June 2005 15:58 (UTC)

I would not call it completely incompatible, that is, I think it could be possible to be addicted to milk, but otherwise I fully agree. We'd need more citation for any claim of widespread "milk addiction". I believe the claims about a milk-ADD connection are more widely known, however; they should not necessarily go out just because they're next to the uncited "milk addiction" claim. -- Antaeus Feldspar 1 July 2005 11:55 (UTC)

Omega-3

" Omega-3 fatty acid supplements have been shown to dramatically improve concentration skills, and in particular reading, as well as decrease ADHD behaviors (Richardson, et.al, 2005, Oxford-Durham Study, Pediatrics" This was added in, and I have not checked the information myself, so I have no preference. the paragraph as a whole follows:

Nutritional data has been well summarized in a review article (Burgess et al., 2000, Am J Clin Nutr 71:327-330). Children with ADHD have lower levels of key fatty acids. In fact, one study found that the lower the levels, the worse the symptoms. The possibility that fatty acid deficiency is a trigger for ADHD is especially plausible as nutrition scientists have recently demonstrated that the American diet is extremely deficient in omega-3 fatty acids. At the same time, ADHD diagnoses are rapidly increasing. More support for this idea comes from findings that breast-fed children have much lower levels of ADHD, and that until quite recently, infant formula contained NO omega-3 fatty acids. These findings are only correlational, and do not prove a conclusive connection.

I have RV'd this claim because it would suggest self contradictory messages. Someone who knows more than I about O-3 acids should handle this

Evidence is skimpy because omega-3 is not a patented drug, but many ADHD researchers and professionals are inclined to support the likelihood that Omega-3 helps. Some believe that it is most likely that it improves cognitive functioning generally. Others believe that it only works for those that have specific deficiencies not detected in the more routine kinds of deficiency tests. Should we try to get an expert involved here. I heard a talk by an clinician at Columbia Med. School who was very clear about which alternative therapies had evidence supporting them and which did not. DCDuring 12 Oct, 2005

Treatments

Just to add to the fun debates around this article, I'm really shocked that there is no mention of behavioural treatments. That is, counselling, and suggested behavioural changes for parents to enact. Last I checked, most of the chemical treatments were far more effective (sometimes only effective), in the presence of behavioural intervention. Limegreen 8 July 2005 05:44 (UTC)

You got it backwards. Behavioral interventions are far more effective, and sometimes only effective when used in conjunction with medications.*Kat* July 8, 2005 23:13 (UTC)

As I understand it, it is very much dependent on the type of behavioural intervention. A good portion of the research comes from a single lab group (e.g., Transdermal methylphenidate, behavioral, and combined treatment for children with ADHD. Author(s): Pelham WE, Burrows-MacLean L, Gnagy EM, et al. EXPERIMENTAL AND CLINICAL PSYCHOPHARMACOLOGY 13 (2): 111-126 MAY 2005), but it seems a rather significant oversight. Regardless of which way round it is, I think it at least deserves greater mention than currently. Limegreen 9 July 2005 04:03 (UTC)

The major study known as the MTA study (multi-modal treatment of adhd), funded by NIMH, found that medication was more effective than the average psychotherapy, but that medication plus the average psychotherapy were more effective than medications alone, and that average psychotherapy was more effective than "community treatment". I use "average psychotherapy" because there was no differentiation among the techniques used in the MTA. A later analysis of the data found that behavior modification techniques were the only psychotherapies that could be shown to be effective. At the very least, we should mention the MTA study findings. DCDuring 12 Oct 2005

contributions by 24.182.35.167

I've removed the following sections inserted by 24.182.35.167 (talk · contribs), for reasons I'll explain separately. I don't doubt that they're good-faith contributions, but I don't think they're appropriate for the article, at least not in current form. -- Antaeus Feldspar 14:53, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

I agree. I saw them yesterday, and considered pulling them. At the very least they require some sort of referencing, but I would surprised to see if there is any actual science behind it. Limegreen 07:34, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Improving the Impact of Stimulant Use for the ADD/ADHD Diagnosed

Some adults are finding better results from stimulant based medications when they are used for certain tasks, rather than taken regularly. While stimulants increase focus and productivity, they may also impede vocal communication and creativity. Therefore, it is suggested to try and experiment to find the most beneficial way of utilizing these drugs. Experimentation should include trying the various stimulant based drugs to see which have the best results for a given individual. Additionally, some individuals find more positive results from a lower dosage than one based solely on their weight. In worse case scenarios, some individuals are over medicated and fail to truly benefit from a well rounded therapy. Finally, encouraging the patient by giving them more control over their use of stimulants can sometimes be very effective in helping them cope with their symptoms. This approach demands much more time and patience from the psychiatrist or therapist and is more costly in the short term. However, when stimulants are used judiciously, in conjunction with diet, exercise and the cultivation of cognitive skills, the patient will ultimately experience a higher quality of life through maintaining both creativity and enjoying better focus control.

There may be the germ of an improvement to the article here, but some of the factual claims ("[stimulant ADHD medication]] may impede vocal communication and creativity") smell like original research, and the whole paragraph reads as if its purpose was to advise patients on the best way to find the correct medication strategy for them (so much so that I Googled to see if it originated on a site whose purpose that really was), rather than presenting information about how different patients may react to different medication strategies. -- Antaeus Feldspar 14:53, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

Industrialization and Mass Education

Perhaps ADD/ADHD is not a disorder at all. Perhaps it is a reflection on the failures of mass education, an evolutionary new kid on the block. Public education in the West has only been around at best since the 1800s. Prior to that time children of the elite had access to book learning and tutors. After all, it was Benjamin Franklin (supposedly another ADHD "sufferer") who introduced the concept of the public library. The mass majority of children either helped work in an agrarian setting and or served as indentured servants, where they enjoyed much more personalized developmental attention and guidance from either their families or their masters.

Just speculation, as far as I can see. I was about to say that the only part in it that seems to be other than pure speculation is the hunter/farmer theory, but it's not even about the agrarian lifestyle being especially well- or ill-suited for the ADHD person, it's the idea that mass education failed. -- Antaeus Feldspar 14:53, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

That ADHD is not a disorder is a concept included in the "Hunter vs. Farmer" section of the article. That concept is deemed by its creator, Thom Hartmann, as speculative. DCDuring 12 Oct 2005

Image is misleading

The image on the ADHD page is of one person that is not on drugs and the other had been on stimulants.

“They concluded that the brains of ADHD subjects were 10% smaller than those of normals, and claimed this as proof that ADHD is a brain disease. What Swanson failed to acknowledge was the fact that virtually all of the ADHD subjects had been on long-term Ritalin treatment, and that this….was the likely cause of brain smallness. Swanson did acknowledge this fact, immediately thereafter, when I made the point from the audience. Castellanos acknowledged, in an interview published in the January 2000, Reader’s Digest that ‘Incontrovertible evidence (that ADHD is a disease) is still lacking,” and also that “these smaller areas of the brain could be the result of stimulant treatment.” Dr. Fred Baughman Pediatric Neurologist in response to the review of brain scans by a Dr. Swanson and Dr. Xavier Castellanos of the National Institute of Mental Health

The inclusion of this picture seems to be reflective of a certain quickness-on-the-draw in this article with respect to claims about the etiology, prevalance, and treatment of ADHD. In an area of fairly high controversy, shouldn't we try to get the agreed-upon core truths clearly presented and distinguished from claims ? Furthermore, shouldn't we distinguish between claims that have some level of acceptance and those that have not won any significant support ? I would go further and distinguish scientific support from other kinds of support, but the economics of research are biased against research on unpatented treatments, so allowances need be made. DCDuring 12 Oct 2005

ADD Psychosis

I don't think the ADD Psychosis page should be merged because it looks like a totally different disorder. There should be a distinction between them.

I'd have to agree with you. Unfortunately, someone has gone ahead and merged them, which is not irreversible, but would need consensus. Is there anyone else who also thinks the merge was incorrect? -- Antaeus Feldspar 00:10, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

It probably doesn't merit inclusion at all in Wikipedia, except possibly in a disambiguation page. There is really only one author behind this proposed DSM diagnostic category. It is not DSM accepted. Wouldn't we want a Wikipedia entry to reflect some kind of breadth of acceptance (not universal acceptance, of course) ? DCDuring 12 Oct 2005.

ADD Psychosis?

I have never heard of ADD psychosis before reading this Wikipedia article (it appears to have been recently merged in from another article). However, even if it should have been merged in, placing information about this relatively unknown condition in the introduction seems inappropriate. Doing a Google search, it seems most of the results for "ADD psychosis" were Wikipedia and other online encyclopedias that have borrowed Wikipedia content, a few old research papers, and mostly pages where the word add (as in addition, not ADD) and psychosis happened to be contiguous.

• ADD psychosis as a separate entity. (1985)
• Attention-deficit disorder psychosis as a diagnostic category. (Autumn 1987)
• Psychostimulants in the Treatment of Adults with Psychosis and Attention Deficit Disorder (2001)

Since I would have to pay to read these papers, what I gather from the abstracts is that:

1. ADD psychosis is the co-occurence of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder with psychotic features of various kinds.
2. ADD psychosis may be the result of personality detioration from severe symptoms of ADHD, possibly involving the prefrontal cortex.
3. ADD psychosis may resemble schizophrenia or an affective psychosis (i.e., bipolar disorder with psychotic features or clinical depression with psychotic features).
4. ADD psychosis may be treatable with psychostimulants instead of traditional antipsychotics.

I have no information about how common this ADD psychosis is in people diagnosed with ADHD, but it does not seem to be a highly researched topic.

My suggestion is that the reference to ADD psychosis be moved out of the introduction and a section of the Attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder article written to the effect of ADD psychosis being a severe manifestation of ADHD symptoms.

I had ADD at one time and never heard of a case where someone is psychotic AND had ADD before. I think we need to do some research on this. And since I see both my case manager, my psychiatrist, and my psycologist next week, I will ask all three of them about this and report back. Admiral Roo (Talk to me)(My Contributions)(See lyrics I created)18:27, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

I think this ADHD psychosis material certainly does not belong in the introduction. Moreover, since there is only dated research associated with the sources reporting this phenomenon, I don't think it belongs anywhere in a Wikipedia article, except possibly in a disambiguation page. DCDuring 12 October, 2005

I agree about the comment that it certainly doesn't belong in the lead. Vaoverland 01:36, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

I have moved the single paragraph about the type of Psychosis which it thought to co-occur with ADHD to its own article, and added it under the See also section. Lots of other conditions co-occur with ADHD; This article is already too long. Vaoverland 01:50, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

About Certification in the field

My psychologist has an MA (Master of Arts), a MFT (Marriage and Family Therapist), and a CT (not sure what that is), and my case manager has a BALSW (whatever that is) and a CPSTP (whatever that is). What do those three innitials that I don't know mean? Admiral Roo (Talk to me)(My Contributions)(See lyrics I created)18:35, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

I'm not too familiar with overseas qualifications, but I'd suggest that your "psychologist" is possibly not. Or at least their MA may be in psychology, but you usually need a professional qualification ("clinical psychology") rather than being a "therapist". From what I understand, in the US, this tends to be a minimum PsyD or Phd [6]. That's not to say that I think people with that qualification are at all better, just that psychologist is a fairly ambiguous term.

I'd imagine that a BALSW is a Bachelor of A.L. S(ocial) W(elfare). No idea about the A.L. though. CPSTP is Community Psychiatric Supportive Treatment Professional.Limegreen 01:47, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

Self-medicating treatments: request for references

The "Mainstream Treatments" section previously started with information on caffeine, nicotine, and kratom. These sections admitted that these were used as self-medicating treatments; as such, I have moved them to the "Alternative Treatments" section. I am not familiar with these as treatments for ADHD, and I am concerned that they may represent Original Research. Could someone provide appropriate sources for this material? -- Creidieki 16:11, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Removed Material: Caffeine, Nicotine, Kratom (Original Research)

There were no responses to my request for references on caffeine, nicotine, and kratom being used as common treatments for ADHD. I believe they may represent Original Research, as it sounds like individuals talking about their own experiences. I think that we would be better off removing this material until proper references can be found, so I have. The material is below: -- Creidieki 12:33, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

Caffeine

Though not an official mainstream treatment, the ubiquitous use of caffeine means that it is probably one of the most frequently used, unofficial treatments for ADHD. Caffeine is found in coffee, tea and cola soft drinks. Many students and adults will self-medicate with caffeine. Signs that one is self-medicating would be the observation that one's focus improves with the stimulant, and that one cannot function as well without it. Users often report that drinking caffeine in the evening does not impair their sleep, and that in fact, it may help soothe and relax them, thus helping them sleep better. Drinking only 1-2 cups daily is probably not self-medication, but someone who needs over 5 cups daily throughout the day in order to stay awake and focus may possibly be self-medicating.

Nicotine

Found in cigarettes, many students and adults will self-medicate by smoking several times daily.

Kratom

Kratom is a plant which produces a stimulant-type effect in lower doses. Little research has been done on the relation between ADHD and kratom, however it has been used for centuries in Thailand to help motivate laborers. In low doses, it increases awareness, and concentration, allowing someone to sustain work habits. As the dose increases, it can cause euphoria, which makes long tasks more enjoyable, which suggests that kratom may be an effective method to help treat ADHD.

Here's my take on it: The results that are purportedly achieved from the uses of these substances are unreferenced. However, I think the fact that individuals try to self-medicate with these substances (caffeine and nicotine, at least) is fairly undeniable and does not require references. -- Antaeus Feldspar 23:15, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

I don't have references at the moment, but it is pretty much common knowledge that many undiagnosed (and, for that matter, diagnosed) people with ADHD often self-medicate with nonprescription stimulants. This includes caffeine and also cocaine for more antisocial people with ADHD. People with ADHD are also more likely to have a dual diagnosis with a substance abuse disorder (and not just stimulants).

If they're self-medicating, then it could just be a placebo effect.Limegreen 08:56, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Not likely, given the context. For people who are diagnosed with the disorder, sure, it's a plausible (if hard to falsify) theory that it's only a placebo effect. But the essence of the placebo effect requires that you expect a certain effect -- why would people who haven't even articulated that they have a medical problem generate a false medicalized belief that a certain substance would and does help them with this problem? Particularly substances that are similar in their effects to the prescription treatments? -- Antaeus Feldspar 00:03, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm not too clear on the "context", but people self-medicate because they perceive a problem, in which case a placebo effect is clearly plausible. The definition of "medicate" is to attempt to treat or cure something. So if they haven't articulated that they have, or that they perceive they have, a medical problem, then by definition they can't be self-medicating. You are suggesting that people who are unaware they have a problem could be taking something that relieves their symptoms, however, that doesn't fit with a definition of self-medication. For example, eating steak is only "self-medication" if you believe that you have, or you actually have, an iron deficiency. Limegreen 00:19, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Well, it appears we're differing on the definition of "self-medication", then. To my mind, if someone says "Man, I can never wake up in the mornings. Why don't I have some coffee? That should clear my head" they are self-medicating: they are perceiving a problem, and they are choosing a chemical substance to apply to treat the problem. You are suggesting that it does not count as self-medication unless they are perceiving the state they are trying to treat as specifically a medical problem. For some conditions, this distinction is not significant, but for ADD it is highly significant, since most undiagnosed ADD sufferers are quite aware of a problematic state but the possibility that it's a medical problem (rather than a fault in their character or upbringing) is highly likely never to have occurred or been presented to them.

I suggest that the term "self-medication" is still entirely appropriate in this context, but if you still disagree, then let's use the term "self-treatment", and we're still faced with the well-established fact that these are substances which people who have the disorder use to treat it, frequently even before they're aware they have the disorder. I don't see the point of holding that material out of the article. -- Antaeus Feldspar 23:47, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

No, I don't think your definition of self-medication is conceptually different from mine at all. I think what you're failing to grasp is that a placebo effect is not necessarily limited to perceived medical problems.

To my mind, if someone says "Man, I can never wake up in the mornings. Why don't I have some coffee? That should clear my head" they are self-medicating

I entirely agree that. However, the effect of the cup of coffee can be decompose into two distinct effects that may or may not occur. The first is that the stimulant properties of the caffeine may wake them, the second is that the expectation of the coffee waking them up may make them feel more awake above and beyond the effect of the stimulant. Thus, just because a substance may have an actual measurable effect doesn't preclude it from having a placebo effect. That is, people who have ADHD diagnosed and medication prescribed can have not only the physiological effect of the medication, but a placebo effect as well. Similarly, people who may or not have ADHD and are self-medicating may be benefiting from the properties of the medication, but can also be enjoying the placebo effect, irrespective of whether the substance is having an effect or not. Where ADHD is not diagnosed, I'd suggest that, on balance, the likelihood of the benefit being placebo rather than physiologically driven is higher. Limegreen 00:35, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

I honestly think you need to step back and rethink this, because frankly your logic is a bit labyrinthine. You seem to be arguing that if it could be placebo effect, it is, and therefore even though we know coffee and nicotine have stimulant effects that someone who knows that they have stimulant effects is more likely to be experiencing placebo effect? Rather than the actual effect we know the substance to have? -- Antaeus Feldspar 00:10, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

I couldn't agree less. You are fundamentally misunderstanding scientific criticism. Finding a plausible alternative explantation does not make the alternative explanation true, but creates reasonable doubt over the proposed explanation. It is the entire point of including a placebo condition in experimental studies, and the reason why in correlation research it is extremely important to control for as many other factors as possible, because there is always the possibility of a confound or third variable causing the observed effect.

Further, without specific reference to caffeine, the logic seems very bunk. Most people I know find coffee has a focussing effect; whereas the point of the paradoxical effect of amphetamine on ADHD is that only people who have ADHD find it stimulating. Thus, without some science behind it, it seems *very* like original research. Limegreen 09:29, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I am aware of this; contrary to your assertion, I am quite familiar with the scientific method. You are correct that where the possibility of a placebo effect has not been controlled for through double-blind studies, the possibility remains that the effects observed are placebo effects to some degree. Please tell me where your assertion comes from that they are more likely to be placebo effects in this particular context?

Furthermore, your facts are also lacking. I assume your assertion above was meant to be not "only people who have ADHD find [a known stimulant] stimulating", but "only people who have ADHD find it focusing". As logical as this hypothesis is, it is not the case; experiments have demonstrated that, contrary to the expectations of researchers, children who did not have ADHD who were given Ritalin also experienced a focusing effect. They did not experience it to the same degree as the children diagnosed with ADHD, but they still experienced it.

Finally, you are arguing something other than the actual point at issue. You are arguing "we cannot be scientifically sure that these substances have the effect their adherents believe and perceive them to have; therefore we should not mention it in the article." This dodges the question that has been posed to you before: if great numbers of people attempt to self-medicate with these substances, is that not a fact worthy of note whether or not they are actually receiving any benefit? -- Antaeus Feldspar 17:33, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

You are arguing "we cannot be scientifically sure that these substances have the effect their adherents believe and perceive them to have; therefore we should not mention it in the article."

That's your faulty inference. It has never been my position, stated or implied, that this material does not belong in the article. What I do question, with this material, and any self-treatment or self-medication, is whether any subjectively observed improvement is a placebo effect.

In a population of diagnosed and medicated ADHD sufferers, there will be a proportion who are misdiagnosed. Of this proportion, some smaller group are likely, nevertheless, to perceive improvement via the placebo effect. In a population of non-diagnosed people who think that they have ADHD or a related problem, and choose to medicate, there is an extremely high likelihood that the proportion of people who do no have ADHD is higher. Of this larger group, it is similarly likely that a similar or larer proportion will also perceive improvement via a placebo effect. Hence, I'd argue the placebo effect is more likely.

Another way of slicing and dicing this kind of phenomena is to take a behaviourist perspective. That is, a person carrying out any form of treatment (whether it be bed-rest, taking some medication, acupuncture, or whatever), and on seeing an improvement, attributes the result to the treatment, and following reinforcement contingencies, is likely to follow the same pattern again, regardless of whether the treatment played any causal role at all.

This rather neatly underlines why many drugs, such as antibiotics are prescription medicines. That is, if antibiotics were freely available, many people would automatically take them the moment that they got sick. The majority of these people would get better (even if they had a cold or flu, on which the antibiotics have no effect), and would thus be likely to take antibiotics again in the future when they were sick. Antibiotics clearly work in a proportion of these cases, but the proportion of actual effect is higher in a group where those with likely viral infections had been ruled out.

You can apply the same logic to a treatment that does not work at all, and a good proportion of people would still perceive that it did work, and would follow that treatment again in the future. Some would argue that alternative medicine fits here. Also, depending on the outcome of efficacy trials, some stimulants and ADHD might fit here. Stimulant is, after all, a very loose category, similar to Anti-Depressant. That is, a stimulant is classified on the basis of effect, not mechanism. Amphetamine, methylphenidate, caffeine, and cocaine, all stimulants have differing methods of action, with sufficient similarities to be classified together. However, just because some are effective on ADHD does not mean the rest will be (some of them are excellent decongestants, some are not; this is also related to their stimulant properties).

My original point was that such self-medication could just be a placebo effect. Perhaps I should have qualified that to include the contingency argument that I have just outline. Effectively, what I want to register is that self-medication should always be treated with a high degree of skepticism. Limegreen 00:07, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Well, sorry if I misunderstood you, but in the context of the discussion, it did not sound like you were supporting mention in the article that people try to self-medicate with these susbstances with appropriate cautions that even apparently "successful" self-medication may not be having any positive effect; it sounded like you were arguing against mentioning these substances because they can be argued to not have any effect. -- Antaeus Feldspar 17:18, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

No problem. I think your 'robust' style of debate borders on gladiatorial at times, and certainly primed me. It's possible that some of this critique should make its way to the self-medication stub. On balance, I think its worth mentioning them, but unless there is some evidence that they are actually effective (and some of them may be), it should be a brief mention. The caffeine one in particular is problematic. It almost imples that everyone who finds coffee focussing is moving toward the ADHD end of the spectrum. As a style of argument, it also relies mostly on an appeal to the reader's subjective experience for its validity. Stimulants are usually calming as well as focussing for ADHD individuals, and I don't think that fits as neatly with people's subjective experience. Limegreen 23:47, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

self-medication vs self-effecting

To my mind, if someone says "Man, I can never wake up in the mornings. Why don't I have some coffee? That should clear my head" they are self-medicating

Imagine other times where one could benefit from having a clearer mind. Is each of these instances a case of a treatable problem because coffee would effect these cases and thus, by the above example, be "self-medicating?"

Self-medicating what exactly? Is it necessarily a disorder to be tired in the morning and to think that a substance will effect this potentially normal state? Is any substance-for-effect necessarily "medicating"; does "medicating" assume a properly treatable problem?

Zametkin & Testing

It's simply just to have the whole story.

As the article stands, without the changes I've made, the story is not whole.

Crucial information is being withheld.

Restructuring the article

It appears to me that there is no underlying logic in the sequencing of the individual sections. Two sections are redundant: "Causes" and "Possible causes". I have merged them together. The contents in the section, "Adults" appears also in "Official Definitions of ADHD" in toto. In view of the redundancy, I have deleted this section, "Adults". Subsequently, I rearranged the different sections as you can see. Whole sections have been moved intact, without doing any editing, to facilitate checking by administrators and users. I hope that this is a positive contribution, but if you should feel otherwise, please improve on it or feel free to revert to the original version. — PM Poon 13:06, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

RV changes by 137.132.3.6

Although there was not a lot of new material added, the systemtatic deletion and addition of hedges through the article was making for a substantial change in meaning. Please cite sources to back up these assertions.Limegreen 00:36, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

removed sentence

In the "Evidence for ADHD as an organic phenomenon" section, the following sentence has been there for a while:

"However, there is no evidence that this low level of glucose in fact causes the low level of attention to external direction; it could in fact be no more than an indicator for low attention, or in the alternative, superior self-direction."

There is a tiny modicum of truth that can be found in this claim. Namely, just because two phenomena are observed together does not automatically mean they are cause and effect, and even though glucose is known to be just about the most heavily used biological fuel and the region that shows chronic underactivity in ADHD sufferers is the same region that people who show ADHD-like symptoms after physical brain injury were usually injured in and the symptoms of ADHD are completely consistent with the idea that that region of the brain is not able to use its fuel most effectively -- yes, until the mechanisms of ADHD are completely understood, those other theories remain possibilities. However, they are pure speculation -- it is in fact a mistake to call them "theories", as "theory" falsely suggests that some explanation has been proposed as to how "superior self-direction" would be signalled by low levels of glucose.

This is getting ridiculous. Many of the imaging techniques use glucose consumption as a means of demonstrating that a particular part of the brain is active (a lot of glucose) or not active. There is nothing else involved here. Nothing implied about glucose consumption. The real issue is why a part of the brain is getting active in normal people and not ADHD people when given an assigned task. If the ADHD person is not trying very hard (or not at all) at an assigned task the part of the brain that uses more glucose when doing the task will not use the glucose. This does not imply the problem is necessarily biological simply that the person with ADHD wasn't doing the assigned task, for whatever reason. But we already knew they weren't doing the task so measuring glucose consumption gives a false impression of biological association or "causality"

What this really is is an attempt to pretend that all theories and hypotheses which have not been proven to the satisfaction of the most heavily partisan skeptic are somehow on par, just like when an editor placed into the article the irrelevant crowing (copied, I think, from a Scientology press release) that when the president of the APA "conceded" that there is not a "clean-cut lab test" for ADHD, it was immediately translated as 'there is no test to determine whether a person suffers from a "chemical imbalance"' (a significant over-extrapolation) and "seen as a victory" by Scientology, which believes in the "ghosts of space aliens killed by the Galactic Emperor" theory. This is the same logic: 'If I don't like theory A, I just have to keep harping on the fact that theory A isn't completely 100% proven and keep mentioning alternate hypotheses B and C, even if they happen to be 0% proven.' Accordingly, I am removing this sentence. If someone chooses to find a way to express the tiny modicum of truth it contained, that's fine. But in its current state, it is deceptive spin. -- Antaeus Feldspar 15:53, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

An even better example than the laughable Xenu story would be the way in which creationists attempt to attack the legitimacy of the theory of evolution by pointing out the inevitable gaps in the fossil record, which is comparable to declaring it unproven that the sun is hot because no one's burnt their hand on it yet. :P Kasreyn 16:23, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

wikipedians with ADHD

wouldent this be a fun catagory? you could add me first? is this a good idea or is my ADHD getting the better of me :P Pellaken 21:29, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Reducing Size of ADHD article

If the ADHD article is too long by wikipedia standards, how can we reduce to a more appropriate size ? Consider the following attacks on the problem:

1. Make ADHD article solely about the DSM diagnosis (U.S. only ?) and its history (including controversy), etiology, prevalence, and treatment. This should include only material relevant for both adults and children and some brief discussion of the relationship between adult and childhood ADHD.

2. Make a separate article about "Attention Deficit" or "Attention Deficit Syndrome" ("ADS") with material about current research that does not fit in other articles. [Query: does this kind of material belong in an encyclopedia at all ?] Also references to general research on attention. This article would be free of nation-specific or other purely geographic material, except by way of discussing comparisons of national approaches explicitly.

3. Make new article on "ADHD in Children". This could include references to psychological therapies and approaches used most often for children, for example, behavior modification. Also material on parenting and teaching.

4. Edit "Adult ADD" to parallel "ADHD in Children" as much as possible. Should include references to psychological therapies, such as cognitive behavioral therapy and self-modification/self-management approaches.

5. Make separate short article on hyperkinetic disorder and explain difference from DSM ADHD there or in article referred to in 2. above.

Include only consensus material in bulk of article (NO one-study material). Try to use current cognitive-science and psychology survey articles as sources to introduce judgement of those familiar with the full range of scientific literature into Wikipedia articles.

As I see it this would mean:

1. Moving all but a stub of the Testing section to "ADS", because it is not integral to the ADHD diagnosis.

2. Moving almost all of the Causes section except a stub to "ADS".

3. Shortening the Treatment section on medications, adding a stub on psychotherapy, retaining a stub on alternative treatments. Moving most of existing alternative treatments to "ADS".

4. Move Parenting to ADD in Children article.

5. Move all of Evidence for ADHD as an organic phenomenon section to "ADS".

6. Move Positive Aspects section to "ADS".

7. Move "hunter vs. farmer" to "ADS"

8. Move all of history section, except a stub, to "ADS"

Are experts needed for this article ?

Because I have an ADHD diagnosis, I am very interested in this article. For the same reason, I have read fairly widely in the popular literature in the field and made myself familiar with some tiny part of the scientific literature related to ADHD. This does not make me an expert. I have suggested possible directions for improving all the articles related to ADHD.

I really believe that we need to try to recruit some true experts to help with this article. I know of two names of people who have done serious reviews of alternative therapies for ADHD. There are clinical and cognitive-science researchers who have some perspective on the field whom we might me able to get involved. I am loathe to approach the advocacy organizations (ADDA, CHADD) for help because we may end up rendering ourselves open for propagandizing.

The ideal experts would have some breadth in the area. Michael I. Posner (Oregon), Swanson (UCI), Castellanos (NYU) are research leaders. Thomas Brown (Yale) has recently (2005) published a sophisticated semi-popular in the field that cites widely in ADHD research.

Any thoughts on including experts, whether and how ? Any specific names ? Any personal contacts with appropriate experts. DCDuring 12 Oct 2005

"Attention-Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder" solely defined by APA's DSM

This is an amplification of a point I made previously. In particular it makes the arguement that the only unambiguous meaning of "ADHD" is the term defined by the American Psychiatric Association in the DSM-IV-TR. It is inherently limited in geographic/cultural scope to those nations/cultures that follow the APA. I don't know what kind of table or other data presentation we could devise to reflect national or other differences.

This is NOT to say that Wikipedia shouldn't provide some kind of coverage to the related and probably broader phenomena of "attention-deficit syndrome" (for lack of a better term) and "executive function deficit". A disambiguation page for "attention deficit" could steer people to the Wiktionary for "attention deficit" in the popular sense, to "ADHD", and to some broader discussion of "attention-deficit syndrome" (possibly in some article on attention), as well as to any articles focusing on ADHD in children or ADHD in adults.

Giving the term "hyperkinetic disorder" prominence seems to me to be a step backward, re-emphasizing the hyperactivity symptoms at the expense of the inattentiveness symptoms. The discussion of hyperkinetic disorder is useful principally to medical statisticians interested in making international comparisons.

Although it bothers my sense of order and logic, a case could be made for separate articles on "ADHD in Children" and "ADHD in Adults". The 'psychosocial' therapies used differ greatly and various other facets are different. Perhaps it will turn out that only some of the main ADHD symptoms can really be said to continue into adulthood (hyperactivity is clearly less prevalent). Maybe childhood ADHD is a combination of three underlying disorders and adult ADHD is a combination of only two underlying disorders. The parallel might be with diabetes, where juvenile-onset and adult-onset diabetes are significantly different.

ADHD, as the APA uses it, does not correspond in meaning to the popular use of the term attention-deficit, which, although certainly derived from the psychologists' jargon, is not identical in meaning to any vintage of any APA-defined term.

ADHD, as the APA uses it, does not encompass all those who may have attention-deficit symptoms, because it excludes virtually all cases where some other disorder that could cause those symptoms appears to be present because of other diagnostic criteria.

The realities of research may drastically affect the relative length and authority of coverage of various aspects of ADHD, overemphasizing hyperactive-type ADHD and ADHD in children. Research scientists investigating ADHD have concentrated on ADHD-HI because there is less ambiguity about the diagnosis and doing so reduces controversy which could jeopardize research funding and diminish the value of the completed research.

Research concentrates on children partially because of funding and partially because the subjects present fewer complications to researchers. Maybe this is because children's brains are less individualized. Experiences mold brain circuits. The more experiences, the more individuality, the harder it may be to make generalizations. 03:21, 14 October 2005 (UTC)DCDuring

Methylphenidate (ritalin) and Scuba Diving?

Hi there

I am a 29 year old guy who was first diagnosed with ADHD when i was 6 and still in South Africa (Durban). When i moved to Switzerland though, the Doctor didn't know anything about this dissorder and thought that my mother was insane talking about POS (as it was called way back then).

well a couple of months ago i finally got a new test done and am now in medical treatment with Methylphenidate (Ritalin) which seems to be working fine. not that i notice much myself, but more that the other people around me notice differences (to the better).

well thats enough of me, now to my actuall questions...

Last week during a vacation on the island of mallorca, i wanted to do a Scuba diving course, and for this i needed to fill out a question form (about fitness, medications and so forth) which they always do to start of with. there were approx 20 or 30 questions there and if even 1 of them was answered with a "yes" one would have to go to the doctor and to a routine checkup (which is rather expensive out there). Well even though i got put on Ritalin just 2 weeks beforehand i still filled out the form with a "no" to the question: "do you regulary take medicine and/or drugs". actually just to save costs...

During the four days i did the course, i felt fine and had no problems on the theory test (40 questions - with only 4 of 10 allowed false answers) the diving itself was also not a big problem, exept for the third day.....which i messed up a bit.

We went out on the boat to a nice reef where i then had a small "panic attack" in the morning and broke off the dive after 15 minutes....and in the afternoon the same happened (probably a side effect from the first one in the morning). The Next day (and also last day of course) however everything was fine again, and i also passed the practical part of the test.

Funny though that i can't find anything in the web about Ritalin (Methylphenidate) whilest scuba diving, exept about teenagers which are advised to leave scuba diving completely. (which is not my intention - but i'm no teenager anymore)

Ok, Diving has a lot of "multitasking" and you have to keep concetrated a lot (deco, airammount and so forth) which is a bit harsh on a ads/adhd patient, but then on the other hand, it is so much fun and the ritalin actually helps

Does anyone else with ADS/ADHD dive? what sideeffects can come along?...

This discussion is about writing and editing the article about ADHD as opposed to counselling people about ADHD. Please try the numerous Usenet, Yahoo, AOL, MSN, and Google groups that cover Adult ADHD.

--DCDuring 01:22, 20 October 2005 (UTC)---

ADHD and genetics

The section seems to miss the extensive twin studies and adoption studies which clearly show a strong link between genetics and ADHD.

From Barkley: "Adoption Research. http://www.continuingedcourses.net/active/courses/course003.php

Another line of evidence for genetic involvement in ADHD has emerged from studies of adopted children. Cantwell (1975) and Morrison and Stewart (1973) both reported higher rates of hyperactivity in the biological parents of hyperactive children than in adoptive parents having such children. Both studies suggest that hyperactive children are more likely to resemble their biological parents than their adoptive parents in their levels of hyperactivity. Yet, both studies were retrospective and both failed to study the biological parents of the adopted hyperactive children as a comparison group (Pauls, 1991). Cadoret and Stewart (1991) studied 283 male adoptees and found that if one of the biological parents had been judged delinquent or to have an adult criminal conviction, the adopted away sons had a higher likelihood of having ADHD. A later study (van den Oord, Boomsma, & Verhulst, 1994) using biologically related and unrelated pairs of international adoptees identified a strong genetic component (47 percent of the variance) for the Attention Problems dimension of the Child Behavior Checklist, a rating scale commonly used in research on ADHD. More recently, a comparison of the families of adopted ADHD children to those living with their biological parents and to a control group also showed the same pattern of an elevated prevalence of ADHD among just the biological parents of the ADHD children (6% vs. 18% vs. 3% respectively) (Sprich, Biederman, Crawford, Mundy, & Faraone, 2000). Thus, like the family association studies discussed earlier, results of adoption studies point to a strong possibility of a significant hereditary contribution to hyperactivity. Twin Studies.

Since the last edition of this text, the number of twin studies of ADHD and its underlying behavioral dimensions has increased markedly. More exciting has been the striking consistency across all of these studies. This research strategy provides a third avenue of evidence for a genetic contribution to ADHD. But it also provides a means of testing any competing environmental theories of the disorder (e.g., that ADHD is due to poor parenting, adverse family life, excessive TV viewing, etc.). That is because twin studies can not only compute the proportion of variance in a trait that is genetically influenced (heritability), but also the proportion that results from common or shared environment (things twins and siblings have in common growing up in the same family) and that which results from unique environment (all non-genetic factors or events that are unique or specific to one child and not to others in the family) (Plomin, Defries, McClearn, & Rutter, 1997).

Early research on ADHD using twins looked only at twin concordance (likelihood of twins sharing the same disorder) and did not compute these estimates of heritability, shared, and unique environment. These early studies demonstrated a greater agreement (concordance) for symptoms of hyperactivity and inattention between monozygotic (MZ) compared to dizygotic twins (DZ) (O'Connor, Foch, Sherry, & Plomin, 1980; Willerman, 1973). Studies of very small samples of twins (Heffron, Martin, & Welsh, 1984; Lopez, 1965) found complete (100%) concordance for MZ twins for hyperactivity and far less agreement for DZ twins. For instance, Gilger, Pennington, and DeFries (1992) found that if one twin was diagnosed as ADHD, the concordance for the disorder was 81 percent in MZ twins and 29 percent in DZ twins. Sherman, McGue, and Iacono (1997) found that the concordance for MZ twins having ADHD (mother identified) was 67 percent versus 0 percent for DZ twins.

Later research has computed heritability and environmental contributions to ADHD. One such study of a large sample of twins (570) found that approximately 50 percent of the variance in hyperactivity and inattention in this sample was due to heredity while 0-30 percent may have been environmental (Goodman & Stevenson, 1989). The relatively limited number of items assessing these two behavioral dimensions, however, may have reduced the sensitivity of the study to genetic effects. Later and even larger twin studies have found an even higher degree of heritability for ADHD, ranging from .75 to .97 (see Levy & Hay, 2001; Thapar, 1999 for reviews) (Burt, Krueger, McGue, Iacono, 2001; Coolidge et al., 2001; Gjone, Stevenson, & Sundet, 1996; Gjone, Stevenson, Sundet, & Eilertsen, 1996; Hudziak, 1997; Levy, Hay, McStephen, Wood, & Waldman, 1997; Rhee, Waldman, Hay, & Levy, 1995; Sherman, Iacono, & McGue, 1997; Sherman, McGue, & Iacono, 1997; Silberg et al., 1996; Thapar, Harrington, & McGuffin, 2001; Thapar, Hervas, & McGuffin, 1995; van den Oord, Verhulst, & Boomsma, 1996). Thus, twin studies indicate that the average heritability of ADHD is at least 0.80, being nearly that for human height (.80-.91) and higher than that found for intelligence (.55-.70). These studies consistently find little, if any, effect of shared (rearing) environment on the traits of ADHD while sometimes finding a small significant contribution for unique environmental events. In their totality, shared environmental factors seem to account for 0-6 percent of individual differences in the behavioral trait(s) related to ADHD. It is for this reason that I stated at the opening of this section that little attention would be given here to discussing purely environmental or social factors as involved in the causation of ADHD.

The twin studies cited above have also been able to indicate the extent to which individual differences in ADHD symptoms are the result of nonshared environmental factors. Such factors not only include those typically thought of as involving the social environment, but also all biological factors that are nongenetic in origin. Factors in the nonshared environment are those events or conditions that will have uniquely affected only one twin and not the other. Besides biological hazards or neurologically injurious events that may have befallen only one member of a twin pair, the nonshared environment also includes those differences in the manner in which parents may have treated each child. Parents do not interact with all of their children in an identical fashion and such unique parent-child interactions are believed to make more of a contribution to individual differences among siblings than do those factors about the home and child-rearing that are common to all children in the family. Twin studies to date have suggested that approximately 9-20 percent of the variance in hyperactive-impulsive-inattentive behavior or ADHD symptoms can be attributed to such nonshared environmental (nongenetic) factors (Levy et al., 1997; Sherman, Iacono et al., 1997; Silberg et al., 1996). A portion of this variance, however, must be attributed to the error of the measure used to assess the symptoms. Research suggests that the nonshared environmental factors also contribute disproportionately more to individual differences in other forms of child psychopathology than do factors in the shared environment (Pike & Plomin, 1996). Thus, if researchers were interested in identifying environmental contributors to ADHD, these studies suggest that such research should focus on those biological and social experiences that are specific and unique to the individual and are not part of the common environment to which other siblings have been exposed".

Hyper-Boredom Imagination Deficit Disorder

Is there an NPOV description for the 'symptoms' referred to as 'ADHD'? The 'symptom' terminology is patronizing and hopelessly POV because not everybody with these attributes regards them as disorderly. I submit that persons without ADHD should be similarly classified HBID for 'Hyper-Boredom Imagination Deficit Disorder' and we should give that a Wikipedia article if this article here is to stand as NPOV. Does the fact that this 'disorder' has got treatments and medications sanctioned by psyciatric institutions make it real? Well, I can think of some treatments for HBID. Say something original! Read something you aren't assigned in class! Question authority! Medications? Try LSD, magic mushrooms, or marijuana! oneismany 14:48, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

BTW, there's already a parody of neurotypicals, called Institute for the Study of the Neurologically Typical [7] which discusses Neurotypical syndrome, Normal Personality Disorder, and so on. It's done from an autistic perspective, but it might be of interest anyway. Neurodivergent 04:01, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

In case I might be accused of having an ax to grind, well, sure I do. I was personally 'diagnosed' with ADD as a child and drugged for it, without my consent and without being informed of the purpose of the medication, as I suspect are most children drugged for having the same attributes. This I think is the most deplorable aspect of the practice. We tell children, 'Say no to drugs', and 'Don't take candy from strangers'. Then we drug them but we don't tell then what for or we expect them just to trust the doctor because of his authority. Well don't act so surprised that children try to rebel, when we give them such conflicting signals! Fortunately for me, Ritalin caused me physical side effects, internal bleeding from a low platelette level, so I was quickly taken off the drug and never given another drug for my 'disorder.' oneismany 14:48, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

I was never told what my 'disorder' was, but I gather from this article that it was inattentiveness or impulsiveness. Let me ask the medical professionals who authored this article, have you tried sitting in a classroom recently? Well I have, and let me tell you that sitting in front of a bad teacher while she expects me to shut up and take notes is very frustrating. I was probably inattentive to her, but who cares? She was impatient and she didn't explain herself very well. I am just lucky that I am 30 and I take classes to satisfy my curiosity, so I could drop that class; whereas poor little children, who ought to be outdoors acting on their curiosity, are instead forced to take classes whether they like it or not, and probably not for their information but just to keep them indoors. oneismany 14:48, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

I guess that the big deal about my attitude was that I like to day dream. But I am proud of daydreaming and I am proud that I am still able to do it as an adult, despite decades of being stigmatized for it. Sure, sometimes it is distracting. Distracting to other people, but not to me. I pay a lot of attention to my daydreams; I do math and I compose essays, like this one, in my daydreams. I gather that many people do not, for one reason or another, but I would say that these people have a deficit of attention to daydreams and I have a healthy attention to them. My first reaction to finding out that this was supposed to be a disorder was 'What's wrong with it?' Clearly daydreaming in class is considered a lack of attention to teachers, but maybe the classroom dynamic or the teacher's attitude is disorderly and the active imagination of a child is simply natural. oneismany 14:48, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Let me ask, do we consider red hair to be 'Red Hair Disorder', left-handedness to be 'Left-Handedness Disorder', or homosexuality 'Homosexuality Disorder'? Oh wait, sometimes we do and each of these things in the past has been the subject of stigma and bullying in school, not to mention medication and over-concern by adults. But clearly it would be POV to discuss these subjects under those titles on Wikipedia; and I submit that discussing the traits known as ADHD under the title of 'disorder' is equally POV not to mention patronizing, and perpetuating a stereotype, and perpetuating the ignorance of the capitalist motivation for classifying a whole type of people as needing pharmaceuticals. If daydreaming was natural and not a disorder, we might deal with the distraction aspect of it without using drugs, and then how would psychiatrists make so much money? oneismany 14:48, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

The commercials on TV for medication for adult ADD are particularly patronizing. Am I to take drugs for having an active imagination? No doubt my mental characteristics are often regarded as an aberration by people around me, as they were was when I was a child, but I refuse to be shamed by that or forced to take drugs for that. What psychiatrists regard as a 'disorder' I consider an asset. Without my propensity for daydreaming I would not be able to think analytically; nor would I have been able to train my left hand to mimic my right hand for the purpose of learning to juggle. Something should be said in this article about the positive uses for mental attributes that are maligned by society. oneismany 14:48, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

For you 'ADHD' people out there, try learning to juggle. Or try learning something else that stimulates your neurons. Parents, try teaching your 'ADHD' kids to juggle or play the piano or something that engages their energy, anything but drugging them. And get them off refined sugar! It's no coincidence that both ADHD and the amount of sugar in our diets has increased at the same time! If you don't believe there is a connection, try this: remove all the sugar from your diet for a long period of time, and then try drinking soda, or eating candy, and see if you don't exhibit 'inattentiveness' or 'impulsiveness.' oneismany 14:48, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

On Wikipedia, ADHD should be presented as what it is, a diagnosis that may or may not reflect a factual account of mental attributes. The mental attributes in question should be given an NPOV description, and 'ADHD' should be noted as an interpretation of them. Not the medical establishment, nor ignorant parents, nor impatient teachers have a monopoly on the truth. oneismany 14:48, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

That's what I'm talking about. Don't let them call you 'disease'. Neurodivergent 16:14, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

I agree with many of the points discussed. However, ADHD is currently officially labeled a "disorder" by the medical community. If we feel this is wrong, we need to elaborate about the opposite POV, but only they can change the "wrong" name. Dialog such as this is undoubtedly read by some of the professionals, who may became better enlightened. Were it not for discussion and debate such as this, ADHD would still be considered "brain damage", and homosexuality would still be a mental illness treated with electro-shock therapy. May I suggest that we keep discussions such as this going so that we help the professionals understand better, for the sake of the future? I mean, they do not even recognize the state of hyperfocus at this time. Does anyone here doubt it exists? Vaoverland 22:24, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Hyperfocus definitely exists. It's also frequently found in autistics. But neurotypicals can have it too. Athletes call it "the zone".

BTW, Nobel-prize winning economist Vernon Smith, who is diagnosed with Asperger's syndrome, basically said in an interview [8] that hyperfocus is a "selective advantage" that improves concentration. You can just shut out the rest of the world. Neurodivergent 03:30, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Hmm, thanks for the links to neurotypicals, etc. Earlier I was struggling to think of any npov descriptions for 'the traits formerly known as ADHD'; and the other articles provide many good suggestions, like vigilance, response-readiness, enthusiasm, flexibility, hyperfocus. I think we need to discuss the merits for each of these suggestions, and find some terms that are neutral and some that are positive to balance the negative descriptions of 'inattentive' and 'impulsive.' oneismany 11:51, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

BTW 'disorder' is the correct term for the imagined disease that ADHD describes. ADHD is an interpretation of characteristics, and the definition of this characterization as well as the history of its definition should be preserved for the benefit of future generations. Just as, the knowledge that drugs have been prescribed for it, and stigma attatched to it should be preserved. But the topic should be the characteristics, not a single interpretation of them. Imagine that we were discussing red hair back in the days when red haired babies were equally maligned; or left-handedness, or homosexuality. The history of the people who have these traits, as well as the history of their treatment by society, should be the topic of this article. oneismany 11:51, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Like 'hyperactivity' and 'ADD' before it, 'ADHD' must be understood in its historical context, not just the context of its medical definition. What characteristics does it describe? Is it a coherent theory? What are some similar theories and similar treatments for other neurological attributes diagnosed as 'disorders'? It must be understood that the term 'disorder' when applied to mental characteristics is inherently biased. Who is impaired by it, how does it impair them? The analogy of 'disorder' does not always carry over from physical impairments to mental impairments, because mental impairments are often subjective assessments. oneismany 11:51, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Most importantly, the language of 'attention deficit' must be examined. Attention to what? To whom? Deficit from what? It would be chauvanistic for me to suggest, for example, that girls have an 'attention deficit' because they don't pay attention to me. 'I wonder how they cope with that. Maybe I ought to prescribe them the date-rape drug to treat their unfortunate disorder.' Well, what are we supposed to be paying attention to that supposedly aren't? What kind of deficit is this, where is it deficient, is there some discrete percentage that can be attached to it? The more you think about the term, the less it makes sense. Not only that, but in this light the 'attention deficit' language appears more and more pathological itself. oneismany 11:51, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

The problem with a word like "disorder" is the negative connotation. It's actually good to have labels that better define your identity. Gaining an understanding of what makes you different from others can help your self-esteem. You're no longer just weird, stupid or a geek. It's unfortunate, though, that the replacement labels are medical and have to be attached to "disease", "syndrome" and "disorder". One of the worst things that could be done to a child is to have him believe that the way he is, his personality, is a disease. Imagine if Thomas Edison had been told he had a disease of the brain. You want to lift the self-esteem of children, not destroy it. ADHD kids should be told how unique and special they are. They should learn to be proud of who they are, not learn to pity themselves. Neurodivergent 14:56, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Thomas Edison

After reading a biography of Thomas Edison, I don't believe you guys can claim him anymore. It appears he did not speak until almost the age of 4. Also, his head as a child was larger than normal. As far as I know,

Obviously not very far. Nuf said.

those are not ADHD characteristics. Sure, he was hyperactive, but so are HFA kids. It appears he could better be described as Asperger (HFA would be more accurate as he was a late talker and hyperactive). So it looks like we get Einstein, Newton, and now Thomas Edison too :) Neurodivergent 21:42, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm not very sure about the others, but Isaac Newton was almost certainly not a high-functioning Autistic person. I think his case goes more along the lines of ADD with severe depression.

For a historical figure who definitely had ADD, see Leonardo da Vinci. 68.190.35.84 07:52, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Two points:

• Given the DSM-IV criteria it is impossible diagnose a dead person. (Needs to exhibit the behavours in 2 settings assessed by independent observers using an ADHD-speciifc instrument).

• Edison definitiely did not have a deficit of attention. In fact he was so fucused and driven that many found him difficult to work with. Nicola Tesla (who had worked for him briefly) said, 'His mind was dominated by but one idea, to leave no stone unturned, to exhaust every possibility. . . We experimented day and night, holidays not excepted. His existence was made up of alternate periods of work and sleep in the laboratory. He had no hobby, cared for no sort or amusement of any kind and lived in utter disregard of the most elementary rules of hygiene.IanWills 03:11, 13 April 2006 (UTC)IanWills

ADHD traits do not necessarily constitute a "disorder"

While I generally agree with the sentiments recently expressed taking exception to the negative label of "disorder", I want to stress one aspect for your consideration. The diagnostic criteria for what they now call ADHD as a disorder requires that the symptoms not only be present, but that they are currently causing dysfunction and trouble in two or more life settings. So, if a person with ADHD attributes (aka symptoms) is getting along just fine in life, there is considered to be no disorder under the diagnostic criteria. Mark in Historic Triangle of Virginia Vaoverland 11:55, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

You mean item D?

D. There must be clear evidence of clinically significant impairment in social, academic, or occupational functioning.

That's there in ADHD, Asperger's and I pressume basically all disorders in the DSM. The thing is, there are people with clearly significant impairments in these areas who still don't think of themselves as disordered. (I, for example, have one of those.) These impairments are more often than not either defined to be impairments by others, or caused by others. Let's take autism and social functioning as an example. There are autistics who really don't enjoy socializing and can live happily that way. Since most people do enjoy socializing for the most part, the neurology associated with not enjoying socializing is considered faulty, invalid, broken. That's really not that different to saying that since most people enjoy watching TV, those who don't have TV Deficit Disorder. There are autistics who would like to socialize, but don't do it in the way most people expect, so they fail. Since most people are pretty good at socializing, those who don't have this natural talent are considered to have a broken neurology. This is not that different to saying that those not born with a talent for computer programming have Algorithmic Deficit Disorder. There are autistics who avoid socializing because of mistreatment received in the past when they tried to socialize, not because of something inherent in who they are. In terms of occupational functioning, there are cases of autistics who have been fired from jobs not because of inability to do their job, but because of they way they are, things they say which are not considered appropriate, you get the point. Is that the fault of autism or is it a case of intolerance? Neurodivergent 12:25, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't always socialize with people very well, but sometimes when I try to socialize I find out that I would rather have not tried. This isn't to say that I don't sometimes feel isolated. But I am a busy person, and I bet that happens to lots of people for lots of different reasons. My personality may indeed be a factor in that, and let's face it there's no point in blaming other people on my own problems. But every personality causes its own problems to an extent, and there's no point in labeling every problem that everybody has a 'disorder.' Now when I was paralyzed from the waist down, that was a disorder. But naming it a 'disorder' didn't help to solve the problem. There is a mentality that naming things a 'disorder' means we understand what it is. But in fact, it doesn't add any new information. oneismany 19:36, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Also, consider this. Suppose an autistic individual found a way to remove all these impairments. For argument's sake, let's say he finds a group of autistic friends he's able to socialize with very well; he finds a job as an independent consultant working from home, a job that requires little human interation; he's quite smart academically and finds an academic setting that accomodates him. Wouldn't it be silly to say that because of this he's no longer autistic? Neurodivergent 13:48, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Basically, I don't like item D for these reasons. It would be much better to have some genetic means to determine if you are something of not. That way, you can have assurance about your identity without the possibility of falling in or out of a laundry list of algorithmic diagnositic criteria. It would also eliminate false positives. Neurodivergent 13:48, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

"Neurodivergent" and "oneismany", please take your self-centered babble to some forum/mailing list/trashcan/whatever. You're wasting my attention. Which gets me angry. And, unfortunately, i have some trouble with impulse control. Got it? --brsma 18:32, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

"Brsma" please take your attempt at censorship elsewhere, which gets me angry. Better yet, make me. Neurodivergent 18:41, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Still under the mistaken impression that this is your blog, hunh, Neuro? -- Antaeus Feldspar 23:17, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Discussion of the content and subject of the article in talk pages is well within what is allowed in Wikipedia. When articles have very high traffic and fill up quickly with comments, you can always create sub-pages for "Speculation" and direct people there, as they have done in the 2005 Atlantic Hurricane Season article. To try to silence some people because what they say in talk pages is either controversial or non-mainstream is a feeble attempt at censorship, which by the way, won't keep me quiet FYI. Neurodivergent 14:51, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

FYI, i did not tell you to shut up, but to take what i basically perceive as a more general and wordy monologue (and not a focused discussion) elsewhere. There is a difference between censorship and trying to keep something a bit more concise for pragmatic reasons (besides my dislike of vain redundancy). Filling this page as if there weren't any tomorrow decreases everybody's chance to get read, yours included. Especially here. Why not e.g. add an article on neurodiversity? --brsma 18:31, 9 December 2005 (UTC) (Oops, that page on neurodiversity is already there... 18:36, 9 December 2005 (UTC))

Deletion of the section "Low Income Related Factors"

I'm intending to delete the section "Low Income Related Factors".First of all, it is absolutely misplaced (nothing about the possible causes of ADHD).Secondly, I cannot understand the subject (and importance) of this contribution.

Any objections?

blackmamba 22:28, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

concur Vaoverland 07:32, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

There don't seem to be any references for it, so unless someone finds a source in the next few days, it would probably be good to get rid of it. --Arcadian 14:16, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

"It would appear any financial motivation to secure a diagnosis might strongly suggest that the incidence rate might be inflated, considerably." It's the usual conspiracy-theory thinking. "If the drug industry makes money when people buy drugs to treat ADHD, that's SMOKING GUN PROOF that ADHD is all an invention of the drug industry!" (Actually, that's just an ad hominem circumstantial.) "If a low-income family would gain Social Security benefits from claiming to have an ADHD child, that means that THERE MUST BE tons of low-income families malingering for profit by claiming their child has ADHD!" Yeah, it can go out. Whether or not it's not original research, it's unverified speculation. -- 192.250.34.162 20:52, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

So I did understand it correctly. Ok, it definetely has to go then. blackmamba 16:30, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

I just received this message

" And thanks for weighing in on the Attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder article discussion; however, please note there is research, such as the Whitehall Study, that indicates both low income and social status contribute to physiological and psychological disorders."

Thanks,and I will have a look into it before deleting anything. blackmamba 16:40, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Ok, I had some more thoughts about the discussed contribution (which has been edited slightly meanwhile), BUT still, in my opinion it has to go (and I am not the only one feeling that)

• The main point of this paragraph seems to be, as 192.250.34.162 nicely put it, "If a low-income family would gain Social Security benefits from claiming to have an ADHD child, that means that THERE MUST BE tons of low-income families malingering for profit by claiming their child has ADHD!" →

a) There are no references for it, so it is very likely it is unverified speculation (that’s exactly what it sounds to me)

b) Above all, it is not about possible CAUSES of ADHD. If there were some sources given, one could consider to move it to the section “Incidence”.

(Sorry, I am repeating things that have been already said...Just wanted to get sure before I delete the contribution of others)

• I also had a look at the Whitehall studies, but could not see any (direct) connection to ADHD. Even if there were such a connection, as I already mentioned, the author’s intention was not to say anything about how low income or social status contribute to physiological and psychological disorders.

Therefore, I am going to delete it finally. blackmamba 16:23, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

"is a diagnosis"

We should note, in the intro, that there is considerable debate about whether the disorder of Attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder is, in fact, an actual disorder or a figment of the medical community's imagination. However, we should not endorse this latter view, which is what the article currently does by calling it a "diagnosis", rather than saying it is a disorder whose existence happens to be disputed. It's like writing an article about the Apollo moon landings and calling them "what the United States government claims happened in 1969"; describing them in that fashion is embedding the belief "this isn't something real" directly into the wording, which is not NPOV. -- Antaeus Feldspar 02:31, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, it is a diagnosis, which is true. It could also say it is classified as a disorder (autism article wording). The part in the intro where it suggests it's a normal-variant behavior, while consistent with my own POV, is not the mainstream view, I imagine makes many people cringe, and I predict it will draw a number of complaints. Neurodivergent 16:24, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, "Attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder' is psychiatric terminology, so the least POV statement that can be made about it is that it is a diagnosis, so I don't see what makes that controversial. Unlike 'hyperactivity,' which is not a term invented for the DSM, the specific phrase of 'ADHD' describes the psychiatric diagnosis. Merely asserting that should not imply that the disorder exists or does not exist. But perhaps NPOV language implies that the subject is debatable, which mainstream psychiatry disagrees with. It can't be helped, however, if describing a subject by NPOV language has results which confict with official POV. Although the phrase 'ADHD is a diagnosis' may be avoidable in the intro, I think it is perfectly NPOV, plus it scans well, whereas the current intro still sounds awkward. Perhaps a better intro would be "Attention-deficit hyerpactivity disorder is a psychiatric diagnosis which interprets hyperactivity, forgetfulness, mood shifts, poor impulse control, and distractibility as symptoms of a neurological disorder." That would avoid the clunky introduction of neurodiversity right there in the first sentence. Discussion? oneismany 21:15, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

According to the AADD article, "In 1987, ADD was in effect renamed to ADHD in the DSM-III-R." It seems the origin of this term as tool of psychiatry is well documented. In contrast, "hyperactivity" can be found describing "acute mania" as early as the late 1800's according to the OED. The intent of psychiatry in contstructing this term should not be underemphasized. Current psychiatric terms are very specific and even may be called jargon, and may not correspond to more general terms from outside psychiatry, whether or not the disorders are regarded as biological, neurological, socially constructed, or whatever. Merely noting that 'attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder' is a psychiatric diagnosis is not POV. So, I am changing the intro again to reflect that. oneismany 06:48, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

First sentences. Confusing!

Hi, I'm new here, so if I'm doing something wrong, sorry!!

The first few sentences do not make much sense to me. While there is controversy surrounding ADHD, there is a symptom checklist that psychiatrists use to diagnose. Maybe the article should begin by addressing exactly what symptoms a person with ADHD has instead of getting all political with evasive language. For someone who is not familiar with ADHD, the opening is completely baffling: "Attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) is a psychiatric diagnosis that interprets divergent personality traits perceived to be distracting as symptoms of a mental disorder." What does it mean for a trait to be perceived to be distracting?! Does this mean that people with ADHD distract others? "Characteristics sometimes interpreted as symptoms" Does this mean that different doctors have a different list of symptoms and sometimes one characteristic is interpreted as a symptom and other times not? Can we include an actual list of diagnostic criteria here?

The article is pretty long, but much of it is dedicated to the controversy surrounding medication and the diagnosis, and if someone is looking up ADHD to learn what exactly a person with ADHD suffers from (part of the diagnosis includes that the person actually is suffering), they do not find out much. This is not the case for other psychiatric disorders on Wikipedia, which list clearly what the symptoms include.71.194.155.170 08:14, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the DSM-IV criteria should definitely be included in the article. BTW, the diagnosis does not include that the person is actually suffering. It simply says that there's "clinically significant impairment" in such and such areas -- this, of course, is subject to interpretation, and hence results in significant differences in prevalence across different regions when it comes to diagnosing "spectrum disorders" such as this. I'm pretty sure most children diagnosed are neither asked whether they are suffering nor are they actually suffering. Maybe the parents are suffering, or maybe the kids are suffering from intolerance by school officials or peers -- but this indirect suffering doesn't count IMHO. Neurodivergent 17:01, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

You're completely correct. The intro is needlessly complicated; it should state "ADHD is a disorder characterized by the following, and by the way, lots of people think that it doesn't actually exist." Unfortunately, those who think it doesn't actually exist don't want the view that it does exist to get a fair hearing, so they edited it to the current confusing and needlessly complicated state. -- Antaeus Feldspar 17:10, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

I went ahead and changed the intro to give more weight to mainstream views. Comments? Neurodivergent 16:39, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Looks like quite an improvement, ND! It makes a much clearer introduction to the subject. In fact, I think it's a good base for us to clarify and expand slightly the coverage of the non-mainstream views of the subject in the introduction -- distinguish, for instance, between the belief that ADHD is a mistaken diagnosis and the belief that it is actually a hoax. What do you think? -- Antaeus Feldspar 17:54, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

The belief that it is a hoax is very "out there". It's basically a conspiracy theory which reflects badly on the rest of the skeptic views. I'm not sure how to address that, as it is notable/citable. Perhaps that section should be made the last subsection of the Controversy section. Neurodivergent 18:26, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, I personally agree with you that it's "out there", but it's been promoted pretty vigorously by its proponents. I think it's notable enough that it should be covered in the article and mentioned in the introduction, but it should also be clearly differentiated from other skeptical views so that it doesn't, as you point out, reflect badly on them. -- Antaeus Feldspar 23:45, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

No, I don't think it's necessary to mention every single view in the introduction. The main views are covered. Perhaps it could mention the social contruct view, which is arguably separate from the neurodiversity view. Neurodivergent 14:47, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Status of Ritalin?

Is Ritalin still being prescribed extensively, even considering the unresolved 2005 University of Texas study which is strongly suggestive of carcinogenic effects? Are parents generally informed about this study? Or is everything just business as usual? Neurodivergent 17:19, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Neurodivergent- Carcinogenic? Nobody told me that, as I was switched the other day from Adderall to Methylphenidate(Ritalin). It seems that everything is business as usual! Makes you wonder. 71.194.155.170 08:13, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

I bet not even doctors know about that study at this point. When the law suits start to roll in, they will know, however. Here's the PubMed link: [9]. Neurodivergent 17:58, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Explanation of social contruct view

How to undermine the social construct view seems unclear. (This is probably uncitable so I'm just putting it here). It may be explained with a thought experiment. Suppose you go to a school and ask children to rate their classmates on a scale of "weirdness". Then you separate the children in two groups: (1) the "weirdest" 5%, and (2) the less weird 95%. Then you do PET scans and grey/white matter volume tests on the groups. Suppose you find some significant neurological differences (in average) between the groups, which would not be surprising. So you declare that there exists a "weirdness disorder". You could do the same with 20% instead of 5% with similar results -- an obvious first problem is that of demarcation. Another problem is that "weirdness" is likely a blanket term for a number of things.

To undermine the social construct view you need to do one of the following:

• Show that a spectrum of behavior does not exist. People are either attentive or not attentive. There's no "a little inattentive".

• Show that there is a group of people with a special characteristic distinct from people not in the group, and that the DSM-IV criteria detects this characteristic. A tumor would do it, except that concordance with the DSM-IV would likely be unreliable. An "average" characteristic for the group is no good; it has to be something that does not occur as a spectrum of differences. A gene might do it, like the DRD4-7R gene; however, if many different non-pathogenic genes are involved (as it appears to be the case) it could be argued that the genes cause the spectrum of behavior. Certainly, a clear genetic finding might undermine the social construct view, but not the neurodiversity view, and does not prove pathology in itself.

Neurodivergent 15:30, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Source of this?

From Controversy/Concerns about medication: "However, the methodology of this study was very poor and, when a site visit of leading experts reviewed the collected data, they concluded that the evidence was lacking to support this conclusion." The closest I could find is this:

By GARDINER HARRIS ROCKVILLE, Md., - Federal health officials said Thursday that they were looking into a suggestion by a small Texas study that Ritalin and other stimulant drugs given to children might increase their risk of cancer later in life. A team of experts from the Food and Drug Administration, the National Institutes of Health and the Environmental Protection Agency went to Texas on May 23 to examine the methods used by the researchers, who found damage to the chromosomes of 12 children who took Ritalin for three months. Ritalin, which entered the market in 1955, has been used for decades to treat children for attention or hyperactivity problems. Dr. David Jacobson-Kram of the Office of New Drugs at the food and drug agency said that the study, by researchers at the University of Texas and the M.D. Anderson Cancer Center, had flaws in its methodology but that its results could not be dismissed. Drugs that are known to cause cancer cause similar chromosomal changes, Dr. Jacobson-Kram said. But other scientists cautioned that the study was far too small and its finding far too preliminary to cause alarm. The study did not include a comparison group of children who had not taken Ritalin. And federal officials said there was no reason for children currently taking Ritalin or other stimulants to stop taking them. Dr. Lawrence Greenhill of Columbia University, an expert on Ritalin and other stimulant drugs used for children, questioned why the government was devoting so many resources to following up on the study's findings. Dr. Greenhill, like many other academic researchers, serves as a consultant for companies that make the drugs. Copyright 2005 The New York Times Company

Which is quite a bit different from the statement in the article. The flaws cited are that the study is small and that it's not double-blind. These are valid scientific concerns. I'm all for double-blind. But for the double-blind to produce different results it would need to be shown that placebo results in chromosome aberrations as well. As for the study size, that's a question of probabilities, and if you do the math, the findings are statistically significant. Neurodivergent 15:10, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Another dubious claim

From the same section:

More than 15 follow-up studies of ADHD children into adulthood have yet to document any long term permanent or adverse effects of these children having taken medication over many years.

I'm disputing this is true. Which are the 15 follow-up studies in adulthood? Most so-called long term studies are 2-3 years long and are generally either of adults or children, not of children who take the drug until they are adults. Neurodivergent 21:50, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Here's one that shows NO benefit to long term stimulant use in 110 children:

A Prospective Study of Delinquency in 110 Adolescent Boys with Attention Deficit Disorder and 88 Normal Adolescent Boys, J.Satterfield et al, American Journal of Psychiatry, June 1982, Vol. 139, p.6

"The authors studied official arrests from childhood through adolescence in two groups of boys; one group (N = 110) was diagnosed in childhood as suffering from attention deficit disorder (ADD), and the second group (N = 88) consisted of normal control adolescents. Rates of single and multiple serious offenses and of institutionalization for delinquency were significantly higher in the ADD subjects. These findings suggest a strong relationship between childhood ADD and later arrests for delinquent behavior."

"

Not in the abstract, but in BODY of the study is this sentence: "...our study is consistent with other follow-up studies of drug-treated children that have found an absence of long-term beneficial effect ..."

According to a phone conversation with the Medical Examiner, Dr. Dragovic, who examined a boy of 14 who had died of heart attack after about 8 years on Ritalin, the same effects you get from stimulant drug addiction (small vessel disease) will happen with stimulant drug medical use .... because of the lower dose, it just takes longer. He said nothing else causes the tell-tale lesions on the heart. Rat studies have shown these lesions at all doses of methylphenidate studied. A study of blood pressure rise, using only 11 people, said there was no "significant" rise ... but one of the 11 had a 20 point diastolic rise which is VERY significant, putting him in the danger region -- so they dropped him from the study!!!! Do you want the sources for these? I am not saying that the drug is not useful -- many drugs are useful but carry risks. I am saying that it is wrong to let anyone play down these risks because they are REAL. --Shulae 13:47, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Positive aspects

The following line in the "positive aspects" section is just hilarious.

"Despite these rather optimistic views of ADHD, there is no research to support them at this time."

As someone who has "true ADD" (as opposed to the various things that can look like it), I can tell you that it does have some positive aspects. It is simply a slightly different set of priorities for what the concious mind should be occupied with. Looking at it this way it's easy to see why there might be a comparative advantage in certain respects.

There is quite a bit of evidence that other behaviors classified as psychiatric disorders have positive aspects, e.g. persons with bipolar disorder are demonstrably more creative than normal. Autism is also well-known for its disproportion of savant skills. But it's true that there's no scientific evidence that links ADHD specifically with such advantages - It's all very anecdotal. Neurodivergent 20:30, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

The best way to determine if someone has ADD or not is behavior. The poster-boy of ADD behavior (in this case coupled with high IQ) is Leonardo da Vinci. He had lots of things going on at once, thought up a lot of new ideas, and very rarely actually got anything done. If someone has some sort of difficulty concentrating or is hyperactive and does not show these traits, they do not have "true ADD." 68.190.35.84 07:44, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

While I agree with you, I have a problem with you saying "behavior" is the only way to determine "true ADD". I have ADHD as well and exhibit many of the negative behavioral aspects, but I think focusing on behavior alone really detracts from any strengths an ADHD person might have. Lord knows I got enough of that in high school from the staff. --128.200.104.65 04:50, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Actually, there's no 'best way' to determine if someone is ADHD. A psychiatric diagnosis is, of course, subjective. No objective test will agree 100% with a psychiatric diagnostic (if done doule-blind), and I don't believe there will ever be one that does. This is what separates these types of 'disorders' from true neurological disease. Neurodivergent 20:41, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I am 12years old in the 7th grade and suffer from ADHD. I take medicashon every day. Takeing the medicashon alows me to live a normal life. Eny parent how is hesetint on medicating your child trust me for ther sake dont be afrade to try. Start at the first sines becuse years of exclueshon can rilly hert them mentaly. trust me i know what im talking about. work on ther soeshal skils becuse thell need them. I know you all have herd "medicashon isnt the anser" well it is the anser.

Well, many who now have the pro-neurodiversity view started out buying the pro-disorder nonsense. That's simply because they figure 'the medical community can't be wrong - my brain must really be broken - after all, I'm so different'. I'd urge your parents to become informed about recent FDA warnings regarding Ritalin and other such medications. Neurodivergent 20:49, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

While there seems to be consensus in the medical community that untreated ADHD hinders the development of children, this section should point out that mild forms or medically treated stronger forms do seem to help being successful in some professions. "They say the top 3 professions for ADD adults are chef, emergency room doctor/nurse, & carpenter." and much other relevant info can be found on http://www.adhdnews.com/testforum/test470.htm and the other pages of that site. It should be added to the list of links under Support.

Also, it's very important to combine the section "Famous people and ADHD" with this section (Positive aspects) to make it less theoretical and to help ADHD people realise they can lead successful lives. --Espoo 11:45, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

This section is a complete joke. Without citing a single source, it makes ridiculous, sometimes nonsensical claims ("it provides the great benefit of doing so in an alternate, and even lateral consciousness" [??], "Clearly certain individuals have benefited greatly from ADHD." [if it's so clear, there'll be no problem explaining it or citing reputable sources who do]). I removed the last paragraph, which made zero sense and seemed mostly to be the unfounded speculations of an "armchair MD". The rest also needs to be either meticulously cited, ostensibly rewritten, or deleted. Oswaldojh 23:07, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

famous people lists

I removed the text and link which was inserted in the article. The removed portion follows. I have added some content in this section in the controversy section.

I have ADHD and believe in the benefit of presenting such lists, even with appropriate caveats. However, we had a much better and sourced list in a separate article in Wikipedia which was deleted by majority vote of contributors due to the controversial nature. There is no benefit to anyone to get into a new edit war, so mentioning lists is about the best compromise I think we can agree upon. If you want to review the above, go to Talk:List of famous people with attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder. You can review an earlier version than the current blank one under List of famous people with attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder on page history to see the article (and list) before it was deleted.

My apologies to the contributor who is using an anonymous IP address, making it impossible to communicate directly. Thanks for your attempt to improve the article, and please feel free to leave a message on my Talk page if you wish to discuss it.

(removed)

[Alleged] List of Famous Persons Who Have ADHD

• • [10] - (Alleged) List of famous persons with ADHD (link)

Click the link above for an alleged list of famous persons with ADHD.

(end of removed portion)

Comments froma reverted contributor

hey i just saw a website someones added called "born to explore", i checked it out and realised i was gifted and found out that adhd was a complete lie. who removed it? and so fast? and why? SOMETHING fishy's going on here..... 60.228.63.244

[[11]] oneismany 22:33, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

The Born To Explore website is listed at External links. The revert was not intended as censorship, but rather, to correct a very poorly done edit. My apology. Vaoverland 23:05, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Born to explore

I have checked out Born to Explore as well. It is a website of one individual who claims no special training, educational or professional qualifications on the subject of ADHD (or ADD). The site offers an interesting perspective, but falls far short of discrediting the current research for all people who may have ADHD.

As I have said before, I feel that it is important to remember: If you are not functionally impaired (as observed by others close to you, not self-observance), you do not meet the criteria for an ADHD diagnosis in any event. Few contributors to this article would argue that many behaviors and personality attributes mimic ADHD symptoms in people who do not have the condition as a disorder.

You sound like someone who has suffered under a possibly wrong diagnosis. If so, that is unfortunate, and IMHO, it happens too much. However, for the sake of argument and this WP article, just because you do not have ADHD doesn't mean no one else does. That should be basic common sense.

Regarding a separate article, whether it is in a section of this one, or separate, only so much unbalanced POV will go unchallenged in WP. Make your case with objective facts, not personal research or opinions. They violate WP policies. If you have personal experiences and/or a POV axe to grind, you should find a non-WP forum on the Internet or elsewhere where such contributions are appropriate and get a good hearing.

Vaoverland 08:59, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

(NOTE: the following was copied from User talk: Vaoverland)

Now, why would a reasonably intelligent person such as yourself believe in adhd? this is interesting. You read the born to explore website? what i would most like you to have read is the first section "what is ad/hd".Personally, I disagree with her choice of name, "born to explore"; i imagine it leaves the wrong impression of it being a rather weak, nonsense theory some idiot dreamed up, like that "hunter in a farmers world" nonsense, or indigo children,(though, make no mistake, I believe "indigo children" bears more credibility than adhd). I am such a strong advocate of the born to explore website because I am a psychologist who disbelieves adhd, and, as you correctly guessed, ( you seem to think i am the person or persons who have been participating in the discussion pages, which is why, I assume, you made the comment; but i am the person who has been vandalising the page recently, and I wont do that again, and who added the born to explore page into the external links) (which, incedentally, you had no reason, albeit its description, to remove)was misdiagnosed as adhd(as a child),because I was in fact going to write a book on the subject, and I was well on my way into the project, when I came across the website, at which point I gave up, because it described EVERYTHING I had in mind. Get back to me soon, as I wish to discuss this with you.

OK, in response, here are several items. Here goes:

1. I have no problem with the Born To Explore website or other external links in the article. However, the placement in the article was wrong. ADHD or not, we can expect and require contributor to follow the guidelines. My apology, as I abhor censorship, if that is what my revert accomplished. However, you should have added it under External links, and I should have moved your link there as a better choice of action.

2. If you don't register a free WP User account, please don't be frustrated when other contributors and administrators of Wikipedia get confused. It's not like you have to reveal any personal information to get a User account, because you don't. The project suffers from vandalism and bad faith edits primarily originating from IP addresses, not registered users.

3. I meant it when I said I feel sorry about a misdiagnosis, and I also regret the negative stigma many kids on ADHD meds feel, especially from their peers. This is also true for adults.

4. I was feel I was effectively misdiagnosed by not being diagnosed or counseled correctly by the professionals as a child. My parents and some several teachers got bad advice. A lot of damage and no help was done by (I have to assume) well-meaning but misguided individuals, who told my parents and teachers to treat my inattention and inability to sit still as deliberate defiance, despite any other evidence of anti-social behavior or resentment of authority.

Punishment as if I was an incorrigible delinquent did a lot of emotional harm; brutalization at an institution filled with other teenagers many of whom had criminal and violent backgrounds didn't fix what they thought it would, and it is only the grace of God that I did not simply transform into a violent person or one of criminal intent.

I do understand that misdiagnosis is a risk of attempting to help people and of receiving help. However, spotting the problem and then using the information in a malicious way is worst of all. Several of my teachers spotted my coordination problem, as early as my kindergarten year. No one did anything to help. The only thing I do remember vividly is a teacher calling me the most uncordinated kid in the history of my high school in front of 60 other students. Some kids are uncoordinated. Willpower on my part could not overcome that disability.

5. 30 years later, in 1995, while hospitalized for something else, at age 44, I was formally diagnosed by a psychologist who spent a lot of time with me and conducted a number of tests. He concluded that I have adult attention-deficit disorder (AADD) (93 percentile, whatever that means), as well as mild forms of both an auditory processing disorder and a motor skills disorder.

At his urging, I soon after read Driven To Distraction, which for me was like finding your automobile owners manual in the glove box after driving the first 100,000 miles without it. (I like analogies). Item after item of aspects of my behavior were covered, if not the cause well-explained. I have since read a lot of material and done quite a bit of introspection. Whether or not I have ADHD or it actually exists as currently defined, the current protocols at least give professionals, parents, kids, and adult individuals some options or tools towards living with the problems.

In my career in school transportation (1968-2004), I saw remarkable improvements in the school performance and apparent happiness of kids who have received an ADHD diagnosis, not always with medication. Special school programs in an enlightened setting can help these kids perform in a manner called gifted instead of being the class problem for teachers in a normal setting (as I was). My first contact of that nature was with a small school in Bon Air, Virginia in 1975. The principal, who noted my ability to visualize maps and prepare city-wide bus routes in my head (due to something like a photographic memory) told me you are just like a lot of my kids. She introduced me to six year olds who can real off the names and terms of every U.S. Vice President, for a quick example. She stressed to me that Special Education was not just for mentally retarded anymore, a lesson I embraced, even if my ADD diagnosis was to wait 20 more years. In the 1970s, they were just beginning to realize that the parents of many kids, all previously thought to outgrow the "disorder", often showed some symptoms not unlike those of their kids,. Some parents also shared that realization, leading if I recall correctly to formalization of ADD in adults in the 1980s as a condition.

6. I do not take AADD medications, and got no professional counseling help focused on my AADD (or whatever it is) until very recently.

7. I think working on Wikipedia has helped me learn more about my mental conditions and help me find coping skills (or "workarounds"). For examples, I discovered that using closed captioning on television and spell checkers to correct my frequent typing transposition errors, which resemble dyslexia (but aren't). The free ieSpell program (recommended by other Wikipedians) has proved to be a big help for me in correcting transposition errors as well as spelling in general. When I see misspelling in an existing article, I will often run the ieSpell program, finding it to be quick, easy, and amazingly intuitive in suggesting replacement words.

8. Fortunately, I also have the AADD attribute of hyperfocus, another controversial subject. Working on WP projects at my own pace is ideal for me. When I am "in gear", people say that I get a lot done. Often working one article leads to another (or two, or three). Despite all the problesm in my life which medication might ease, I would forgo it if it cost me the ability to have the hyperfocus state.

9. I do more maintenance work than content editing on subjects in WP for which i do not feel well-qualified, such as the ADHD and related articles. I feel I have especially helped make sure the controversy items in the articles get a hearing. A lot of people who have contributed have divergent opinions and edit accordingly.

10. If I could advise counselors such as many psychologists are these days based upon my current opinions and life experience, I would suggest that options be kept open. We can all agree that there is much still to be learned about our brains and how they impact our behaviors. Work on solutions to take advantage of what is special about each person, and use whatever tools are lawful and work.

Kids these days are a lot more worldly than when I was young, and I think many grown-ups sell them short. They should be able to help participate in some of the decisions about school problems, etc., at an earlier age, and that would relieve some of the stigma many seem to feel or having been tricked or medicated against their will.

Kids understand things like this: Do you want to sit still and can't? Ask any school bus driver: All kids are hyper after Halloween candy. Few kids would deliberately cause their driver to wreck the bus by not hearing an approaching fire truck or train! Right?

So, diet and maybe medication may help get our chemical balances where we want them. It like, if you stay up late, don't be surprised if you are too sleepy the next day to do your best (or even feel good). It should go without saying, but a if a kid wants to be the class problem, I would say the problem may go deeper than ADHD, or too much Halloween candy.

11. You stated "I was in fact going to write a book on the subject, and I was well on my way into the project, when I came across the website, at which point I gave up, because it described EVERYTHING I had in mind."

You didn't solicit my advice, but in all honestly, what reason is that to give up? We need more books to keep learning about this subject. A website misses many potential readers, and like Driven To Distraction for me, the BTE website might hit home for you, but I'll bet you have more to say/add.

I have to go now, and as usual, I have written more than I planned. I hope all of the above is food for thought.

Mark (still Lost in Virginia) Vaoverland 07:48, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Merge 'Controversy' section with 'Hyperactivity' article?

Perhaps we should make a separate article focusing specifically on the criticism of ADD/ADHD? oneismany 22:33, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

For anyone considering this, please review Wikipedia's policies on content forking. An article focusing specifically on the sub-topic of "Criticism of ADD/ADHD" would not be inherently wrong, but it's not a way to dodge consensus. -- Antaeus Feldspar 21:28, 9 February 2006 (UTC) Note: this was made in response to an edit by an anonymous editor, which has since been removed, exclaiming that this was "a great idea" because "they can't stop that!!" (emphasis added). -- Antaeus Feldspar 17:49, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

I believe that this was an impusive suggestion by a contributor of a sloppy edit who was upset over a revert. IMHO, there is plenty of room (and a whole section in this article) to include and present such information. Vaoverland 21:35, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Huh? I suggested it because it would be a good idea. I just don't have all the source material I would like to begin such a page. "Criticism of ADHD" would not be a good title; the article should be focused on a subject from creditable sources. oneismany 22:06, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

A POV fork would not be good. However, the Controversy section is pretty big, and could be put in its own article, expanded, and referred to from this article via a main template. Neurodivergent 23:54, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

If you can build such a page with appropriate references, I say go for it. oneismany 00:08, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

I recommend that the information in the ADHD article about the genetic trait known as 'hyperactivity' should be merged into the 'Hyperactivity' article, to distinguish this information from the psychiatric diagnosis that identifies 'ADHD' as a mental disorder. Information from the 'Controversy' section that is not ADHD specific should go there too. Discussion? oneismany 07:24, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

To start off with, the genetic principle of chromosomal inheritance categorically denies pathological origins. Diseases have their own genetic origins which are distinct from from the genes of individual organisms who are affected by them. The concept of 'disease' is relative to the organism, because any organism that damages another may be considered a disease. The nomenclature of 'disorder' has an identical relationship with behavior, e.g. any behavior may be considered a 'disorder' if it interrupts another behavior. If hyperactivity is inheritable (which evidence suggests it is), then it is a genetic trait and not a disease or a disorder. On the other hand 'ADD' and 'ADHD' are defined as disorders. The disorder defined in the DSM is a different topic from the behavior with the genetic basis. (Besides that, 'Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder' describes 'hyperactivity disorder' which implies that there is some other kind of hyperactivity.) oneismany 23:19, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Stop Diagnosing the Dead

I removed the following text:

"Studies show that those with ADD/ADHD are very creative, as a number of famous actors, writers, and artists have gained advantage from the disorder. Even Albert Einstein was believed to have had ADD. The reason why those with the disorder as so creative is probably because they are very focused on their thoughts and love to explore their imagination.

ADD/ADHD behavior traits are often mistaken for hyperactivity. Many with the disorder can't concentrate on tasks given to them, but are not necessarily hyperactive. In fact, in recent years, a large number of those with the disorder have shown to be rather calm and quiet, but are unable to pay attention because of too much focus on their own thoughts."

There's no factual basis cited for these claims (i.e., psychiatric examinations of Einstein during his life), and the whole thing reeks of over-interpretation. People with Asperger Syndrome claim Einstein too. How many disorders does this dead man have to be diagnosed with to make the living feel better? Leave him be, please. BrianGCrawfordMA 21:14, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

You do realize that it is professionals who have "diagnosed" Einstein, at least in regards to Asperger's syndrome? I do think it's a bit dubious to diagnose a dead person (or diagnose over the internet), but then again, I think professionals should stop diagnosing kids left and right as mentally disordered as well. In a recent episode of Boston Legal they showed how a number of psychiatrists diagnosed a guy based on employment evaluation reports - not sure if that's done in real life, but I wouldn't be surprised. In some cases it can be pretty obvious that someone is something. For example, my dad did not speak until the age of 4, has an Aspie son, and an HFA grandson. It's a no-brainer to "diagnose" my dad as HFA as a child, even though no psychiatrist would give him a diagnosis now based on behavior or difficulties alone. Einstein, BTW, had a son diagnosed with schizophrenia, and there are a ton of other reasons to put him in the autism spectrum. Either way, I should note that it doesn't matter if Einstein or anyone else were ADHD or whatever. Failure to tolerate neurodiversity is bigotry regardless. Self-acceptance should not be based the existence of 'superpowers' (as noted by someone in the autistic community). Neurodivergent 01:31, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Censorship of content Content blanked out

Checking back on this article, it looks like many important, notable, citable POVs have been removed. This blatant censorship by the pro-disorder camp is in violation of Wikipedia's policy. And this has been done without any explanation whatever. In particular, the section about concerns regarding medication is important to keep in light of recent FDA actions [12]. Neurodivergent 19:28, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Looks like a known vandal (User_talk:64.194.216.67) recently reverted a good portion of content by getting an arbitrarily old version and replacing the article in its entirety. How do you recommend fixing so that recent edits (which are quite a bit) are kept as well? (Apologies to pro-disorder editors - I was being a bit paranoid). Neurodivergent 22:04, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

That was three days ago, and the more recent edits are based on the revert. I recommend reverting to the 5 February version, as any edits that have been made since 7 February can be reintroduced more easily than the material before 7 February. Discussion? Vote? oneismany 22:23, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Feb 6 should be fine. Let's wait half a day to do the revert. Neurodivergent 22:40, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Definitely support reverting to before the vandal and integrating (good, obviously) changes since. Hatchetfish 10:46, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Symptoms section disappeared? Never mind

Woops, explained just above, under "Censorship of content Blanking out content". Sorry about that. I just gave up trying to figure out what Neurodivergent was talking about, since it was still censorship paranoia at the time. (No offense meant to you, you just confused me a bit.) Hatchetfish 10:46, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

I apologize for not reading through this page fully to answer this, i searched through on symptoms and didn't find my answer, so, what I'm hoping someone familiar with the politics on this article can answer for me, why is the symptoms section gone?

It appears to have been vandalized on Feb. 7th, blanked to "I have ADD", and possibly just never came back. I'm not quite familiar enough with the history and diff functions to figure out what happened. I personally found that section -extremely- useful. Made me look into possibly having it myself, which is looking more and more likely. If I've missed that someone removed it for a reason, point me in the direction of the discussion on it. I just gave up hunting for it through this -long- page and figured it'd be quicker to ask the natives. That said, I'm planning on restoring it in a day or two unless someone explains it's absence/points me at the eplanation.

Will remove paragraph

This is in the Incidence section. Much of the info is already in the Genetics section. Someone might want to merge though.

Twin studies have shown ADHD to be highly inheritable, almost as much as height. Other research shows that certain versions of genes, known as polymorphisms, may be linked to the disorder. A commonly identified one is the 7-repeat allele of the Dopamine receptor type 4 gene (DRD4). This gene has inconsistently been associated with novelty seeking aspects of personality and may be more frequent in populations that were more migratory in early human history -- the so-called "Out of Africa" theory. However, because at least 4-7 genes thus far are thought to be associated with ADHD, this is conjecture at this point. Individuals without ADHD also have the 7-repeat allele, though in smaller numbers. Some researchers refer to this allele as the "response ready" allele. Other genes found to date that may be candidates for association with ADHD are the dopamine transporter gene (DAT1), the dopamine beta hydroxylase gene (DBH TaqI), and the dopamine receptor type 5 gene (DRD5).

Neurodivergent 13:11, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

ADD is NOT synonymous with ADHD

In many key area ADD and ADHD are dramatically different. These differences really make this article almost useless for ADD individuals to learn about their condition or recognize it in anyone else.

The reason is this article more than anyone I've seen online assumes there is no real difference between ADD and ADHD.

Yes people with ADD or ADHD are similar in terms inability to pay Attn, organize, loquaciousness, insecurity, procrastination Etc. and medications for treatment are identical;

The key differences between ADD and ADHD can result in two distinct, almost totally opposite sets of behaviors. Additionally, an ADD person often does not display outward, obvious signs of hyperactivity - thus the absence of the H that is in ADHD.

Below is a list of typical personality/behavioral characteristics of an ADD child and an ADHD child taken from about.com. This information is reflected on many other medical sites on the internet, however this one lays out the differences very clearly since it's not in "medi-speak."

ADD individuals tend to be:

   * Sluggish
   * Honors other’s boundaries
   * Obedient
   * Underassertive
   * Overly Polite
   * Docile
   * Modest
   * Shy
   * Socially Withdrawn
   * Bonds with others but doesn’t attract friends

Whereas the ADHD individual tends to be:

   * Physically Hyperactive
   * Impulsive
   * Intrusive
   * Rebellious
   * Bossy
   * Irritation
   * Show Off/Egotistical
   * Attracts friends but doesn’t easily bond
   * More prone toward Oppositional Defiant Disorder or Conduct Disorders

As you can see the differences are quite stark. A little common sense should tell anyone that a person with ADD may not appear overtly Hyperactive at all. However the general perception of a person with ADD is identical to ADHD

Many ADD people don't ever get diagnosed, because they simply do not resemble ADHD.

I'm looking at the ADHD article, and it really needs to be restructured or a separate article created for ADD.

Physiological conditions are described in terms of moods, feelings, beliefs and perceptions of all people sharing a certain condition. Bipolars can be identified, because they all act similarly.

This rule is broken with ADD and ADHD. Individuals who have either condition do not act similarly at all. One cannot guess someone is ADD by looking at someone with ADHD.

Psychological terms and diagnoses are evolving and changing all the time.

ADHD is gradually morphing. It's path if continued will ultimately result in it being grouped with bipolar. It already is referred to as "childhood bipolar" by some psychiatrists.

ADD by contrast in terms of behavior is the "polar opposite" of a bipolar. Wherever its evolutionary path takes it. It won't be grouped with bipolar.

I just thought I'd bring it to someone's Attn.

I will be happy to "fix" it. When I have the time. If no one else steps forward.

I am ADD, and I know from my own personal experience, my brother's and Mother's, beyond what I've read. ADD is NOT ADHD. The reason it tooks all so long to get properly diagnosed was we weren't Hyper, and we weren't troublemakers. Yet we are all about as highly ADD as a person can get. :-)

I agree with most of the above. The problem is that the prfessionals who meet on this insisted on including the sub type which is without hyperactivity under the ADHD category when developing the DSM-IV (sp?) standards. I hope they address this better next time around. It would avoid some confusion. Vaoverland 05:33, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

The different lists of bullet points are interesting, but they appear to be a hypothesis only. Is there any evidence that ADHD individuals can be separated clearly into such subgroups? I'm willing to bet any one individual can display the characteristics listed from either subgroup. Furthermore, there is likely no objective characteristic (like a gene or a medical test) that can sharply separate both groups. This, of course, is true of ADHD in general. It's clear that ADHD is both a blanket term for a variety of behaviors as well as a social construct. So until the science is able to decipher all that's going on behind the ADHD label, Wikipedia can only document the DSM-IV classification. Neurodivergent 13:13, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

ADHD is NOT referred to as "childhood bipolar" by any competent psychiatrist. Sometimes the manifestations are similar and a child is misdiagnosed, so psychiatrists are cautioned to strongly consider the alternative diagnosis before adopting a working diagnosis and while observing the effect of treatment. Psychiatrists also use the concept of a "spectrum" of disorders and regard ADD as part of the ADHD spectrum. There is as yet insufficient evidence to warrant breaking ADD out as a distinct diagnosis unrelated to ADHD. There is indeed confusion in the general public about ADHD without hyperactivity, and the issue of the hyperactivity trait should certainly be clarified in the article. However, the "without hyperactivity" subcategory is the current state of the art. The notion of "polar opposite in terms of behavior" is vague, not useful, could add to a reader's confusion and should not be pursued. The DSM-IV classification is supported by voluminous discussion and argument and represents consensus on the part of many stakeholders. Personal anecdotes pale in comparison and should not carry weight in formulating this Wikipedia article. Myron 15:59, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

add

it should definately be merged into the ADHD section so that when someone search one the other will come up aswell. Thne more broad the results the better.

Merge? No!

Merge the adult add article with this one? No! This idea has already come up and been discussed before. The whole point of the separate adult article is the concentrate on the condition in adults, where the manifestations and treatments differ significantly from the better-known condition in children. IMHO, the adult article is adequately linked in the ADHD article, which is already too large by WP standards. Vaoverland 03:04, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

The ADHD article is already too long. It is common practice in Wikipedia to include a brief mention of a related subtopic (in this case Adult ADHD) and to refer the reader to see also the main article on the subtopic. Do not merge. Myron 15:42, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

removed portion

Critics do not believe in adhd; they comment that the degree of IMPAIRMENT(if indeed there is any) is not sufficient to warrant medication, not the degree of the adhd.(throat cancer is not "severe laringitis")

removed portion

"parents say they give more attention than humanly possible"

It is completely innapropriate to cite this as evidence to the contrary.

discus if you wish.

Im going to clean up

This whole article is subtly injected with the creator(s) bias. I am going to be reviewing these portions now, and it will be up to the people who created them to fill them in appropriately.

studies show them to be no more or less creative than the rest of us?

.25% of children diagnosed with adhd scored so high on creativity tests that they qualified for state scholarships

.There is a very well established connection between creativity traits and the symptoms of adhd.

It is one thing to discriminate what you would like to be shown or the light conflicting evidence evidence is shown in, but YOU told a downright LIE.And THAT is kicking us while we're down.This is intolerable.

Violating npov

Every section concerned with the view of ADHD as not being what its made out to be is centered around contradicting certain statements. It needs to be stopped and the sections changed.

Citation

The sources for the comparative behavior section must be cited. I am doubtful about the reliability of the information.

Citation!

There are pivital conclusions which are under the heading "Psychological Testing" that lack citations. Please cite your sources unless it is determined common knowledge. rmosler 09:59, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

first paragraph

There should be more to the symptoms listed, at least by means of a "among other things" or something like that, because there is much more the definition encompasses.Just a thought.

martial arts

I hear that certain martial arts may help ADHD......believers!

"never accept anything as authority because it comes from the mouth of a great man, or is written in a sacred book".

Irony

Does anyone else see the irony raidiating out of the relationship that obtains between the subject matter and the style with which it is written? 130.243.74.37 09:02, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

ADD_ADHD caused by "Conflict of Physiology"

A long article that mentions all the theories is not an encyclopedic level paper. That number of theories demonstrates the lack of knowledge about ADD and ADHD.

It is true that hunter gathers had survival issues with attention. Over hundreds of thousands of years pre-humans and early man developed a warning system that will break your concentration if something attempts to approach, usually from behind. We call that system “peripheral vision reflexes.” If you have been startled when someone stepped up beside you or caught something out of the corner of your eye, that was a peripheral vision reflex.

A small, thin slice of your vision field operates subliminally to detect “threat movement” and trigger the startle. We all have the ability to ignore detected movement once we identify it as harmless. But you can’t turn the system off.

The most likely cause of ADD and ADHD is that brain system. The phenomenon caused mental breaks for knowledge workers in the 1960’s. The cubicle prevents those mental events today.

In classrooms all the students do the same things at the same time preventing serious exposure to cause the expected mental break. But the constant inability to focus indicates exposure to Subliminal Distraction. Brain Fag, a Culture Bound Syndrome from Africa only happens in western style education not traditional apprenticeship training.

The problem is known only to a very few designers who work with Systems Furniture, cubicles. In three years of searching I cannot find any knowledge of the problem in any area of mental health services. The phenomenon does occasionally appear as a novelty on medical and magazine TV programs. A grad student from Australia says that the information is not in textbooks but is communicated in lectures. An explanation of the problem was included in psychology lectures up to about 1990. That's where I found it.

The phenomenon can be demonstrated with a simple psychology experiment.

http://visionandpsychosis.net/a_demonstration_you_can_do.htm

In places where no protection is offered while persons are confined in very small living arrangements, mental breaks still happen.

http://visionandpsychosis.net/Astronauts_Insanity.htm

A discussion of the problem is on this site page.

http://visionandpsychosis.net/ADD_ADHD_Cause.htm

I am the copyright holder for VisionAndPsychosis.Net.

L K Tucker 68.211.73.143 19:52, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

References -- lost!

I've just been cleaning up some of the referencing, and found the following (slightly hilarious) omission. The following reference "(see: Krause,Dresel,Krause in psycho 26/2000 p.199ff.)" has been in the article since July 2002[13] . Apart from the fact that I can't find any article that matches it, it seems most likely it was a reference for dopamine in the striatal region, but it somehow managed to get stuck with the norepinephrine reference, with which it has tagged along from 2002 until now. RIP Krause et al. --Limegreen 04:45, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

More on Sleep Apnea and ADHD

There is a section in the article which talks about sleep apnea as a possible cause for ADHD. I'd like to see if anyone can come up with correlations between sleep apnea and ADHD and post them to the article.

I was diagnosed with sleep apnea in 1995 (age 28), although I am sure I had it in my childhood, based on my symptoms. Recently, I have also recently suspected of having ADHD, although I have not been tested to confirm it yet. Only learning about inattentive ADHD recently, I am now 100% sure that I have it... or, at least, all of the symptoms of it. I have 19 out of 21 symptoms on the Hallowell questionnaire, and the other two I didn't say yes to happen to me occassionally. For example, like many others with ADHD, I calm down with caffeine. That's just the tip of the iceberg. I cannot stay focused on anything. I literally can't work for more than 5 minutes at a time...

Anyway, getting back to my point, assuming that the test comes back positive, I am hoping to understand my ADHD better, assuming that the test results show that I have it. I think sleep apnea holds the key. I have several co-morbidities - ADHD is just one of them. I'd like to see more about sleep apnea, especially in adults, in the main article. --Bmeloche 05:44, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

You should never diagnose yourself with things like ADHD because the symptoms are similar to other conditions. Talk to a doctor instead of wikipedia because Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not, blah blah blah. --Ignignot 17:03, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I already HAVE talked to a doctor about it, Ignignot. I am just waiting for the tests to be scheduled, but he agrees that I have sufficient symptoms enough to be tested for it. --Bmeloche 07:27, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Personal Comments

I am sure that this is not the *appropriate* type of comment to make here, but I must say that as a (41 year old) adult recently diagnosed as having "classic ADD" I would never have recognized myself in this article. Indeed, reading this article made me feel as if having ADD was equivalent to being significantly brain damaged! My doctor gave me the book, "Driven to Distraction : Recognizing and Coping with Attention Deficit Disorder from Childhood Through Adulthood" by Edward M. Hallowell, John J. Ratey which (I feel) explained the condition I recognized as having in a much more balanced and less pathologizing way. I have never been told that I was stupid in any way. I was always in "gifted" programs in school, I have owned and run my own businesses, and am currently a PhD candidate in the top program for my subject in the country. Friends call me for advice because they say my "brain has more neural connections than anyone they know and (I) can always see connections others can't." I think I was the only person who truly recognized that I would have to read every page 7 times, simply because every mention of a subject, object or idea sent me off thinking about other things I knew about that related to that s/o/i. Thus, this ability to make connections between disparate things is a great amazing blessing and also a curse. But it is not just a curse! Reading this article was like reading a Wiki entry, "Dropped on the Head"! Since being prescribed Ritalin I have an amazing sense of peace and calm and the books I read are about there own subjects. However, if I *want* to make connections, accessing that aspect or faculty of mind is as easy as ever. I just think that if this Wiki entry was my only or first access to this (disorder) I would never think I had anything like it, because I would not believe (or my ego would not let me believe) that I could have attained what I've attained and be recognised as intelligent and creative if I had the disorder described herein. And I think the Wiki is such a wonderful and amazing project that I am sure like-minded others come here first for their appetizer introduction to every subject. Anonymous 18:53, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree, and am in a similar situation. I was always considered gifted at school, making unusual creative connections. I would also always lose track of my coat, shoes, assignments and appoinments, but could make up for it on the fly so never had a strong negative result. After graduating college I saw a therapist (for unrelated reasons) who suspected I might have ADHD. I was very surprised and in denial, in part because I didn't think that I fit descriptions like this article. But many hours of neuropsychiatric evaluations say that I do have ADHD inattentive type. It's difficult to say how, but I think the article should be modified to include the diversity of abilities and variety in magnitude. Also, in response to the poster above, see adult attention-deficit disorder. Anonymous 15:13, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

I am in a similar situation to Anonymous above me, and I accepted my condition upon being diagnosed as I knew there was something that seperated me from many others. Fortunately, I've learned to proactively use my ADHD gift with my field of work. The solution to raising children who definitely have ADHD is not doping them with drugs but to guide them down a path where they can utilize their ADHD and keep their minds constantly challenged. --24.36.156.75 00:42, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

problem with page? or what?

Under the heading "Feingold diet" I was adding some opinion from other reviewers, when suddenly part of what I had added disappeared, and the following paragraphs appeared there:

The various neuro-imaging studies have converged to suggest that at least three areas are involved in ADHD, these being the frontal lobes (particularly the orbital frontal region, more on the right side than the left), the basal ganglia (in particular the striatum), and the central cerebellum (vermis). Some research also implicates the anterior cingulate as possibly involved in ADHD. These various regions appear to be between 3–10% smaller than normal and between 10–20% less active than normal.

Genetic research was discussed above and is also supportive of neurotransmitter problems being associated with ADHD.

However, in looking at the history, I cannot find where this change was made. Also, there are footnotes by my sentence more than what I put there, and they don't "go" anywhere. It made me wonder if some sort of glitch happened on this page. Shulae 03:59, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

There was a </ref> tag missing. I added one, and I think that fixed the problems. Can you confirm? --Qviri (talk) 17:47, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Split out Controversy section into article Controversy about ADHD or Anti-ADHD?

I think this article is getting a bit unwieldly and it would make sense to split-out the Controversy section into a separate article. Doing this split seems to be the most logical-- when one consider psychiatry versus anti-psychiatry. Nephron  T|C 00:16, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Such a suggestion Talk:Attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder#Merge 'Controversy' section with 'Hyperactivity' article? has been rejected as a potential POV fork before. The content that you have copied over also contains some recent sloppy editing, compared to a recent version [14] and I'd be concerned that it will be less monitored there. --Limegreen 03:31, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that split doesn't look good. It actually appears to be a covert way to censor content away from the main page. I don't even like the title. It should've been something like 'Controversies in ADHD' or 'ADHD Criticism'. The only valid reason to split might be article size. Neurodivergent 03:51, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

I'd support a split due to the fact that there is similar content in the page Adult attention-deficit disorder that should be merged with the content here. In fact, I just proposed such a split on the talk page there, not realising that it had already been proposed here. IMO, given the replication of information, we should simply move the majority of the information from both pages to the new one and include a brief summary of the arguments and link to the new article. However, I firmly believe that the one currently existing at Anti-ADHD should be renamed. JulesH 08:30, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Refs

I have sent the following e-mail to Limegreen which I think should be public. My apologies in advance for the self promotion I display in this e-mail but I am a little miffed.

I just noticed that you eliminated by contribution to the ADHD article as "flaky" I do believe a little discussion with me would have been in order. First of all I have been a psychiatrist for 30 years and the observations made in that article are based on clinical experience. Exactly what is your clinical experience? I understand the conclusions are completely at variance with the shared beliefs in psychiatry but that does not make it flaky, or put in a category for the far out writers, particularly when the ADHD article does have a lot of very flaky references

As a begining comment, did you read the article itself? I have been published in the Psychiatric Times, the Psychoanalytic Study of the Child, Yale Review etc. Anna Freud wrote the following to me about another article, which means a lot in my field.: "I read immediately what you have written and found it very interesting and convincing...I have searched for the right words to describe the processes...but I was not able to find them... I believe you have done much better in this respect and I find myself quite fascinated by your elaborations..."

(I'll be happy to attach a copy of the letter.) Scott Peck wrote to me regarding a different article that it represented one of the few superlative articles he had read in his career as a psychiatrist.

A Dmoz search http://www.dmozsearch.com/index.php?browse=/Science/Social_Sciences/Psychology/Cognitive/Articles/ reveals that a different article by me “On the Banality of Positive Thinking” is listed as one of ten important "cognitive"essays along with the “APA 2000: Historic Dialogue between Beck and Ellis” and “Chomsky Essays Discussion Salon – (A site at MIT hosting a collection of essays honoring Chomsky on his 70th birthday.)”

Similarly, a google search of “mood stabilizers” finds still another article by me as number two on a google search. http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&rls=GGLD,GGLD:2004-28,GGLD:en&q=mood+stabilizers

A Yahoo search on the subject of "chemical imbalances finds my article among the most read (right after the article about this on Wikimedia http://search.yahoo.com/search?ei=utf-8&fr=slv1-sbc&p=chemical+imbalances

This site created by Jim Phelps M.D. http://www.psycheducation.org/depression/SoboOnKids.htm refers readers to my ADHD article and he disagrees with me.

Here is an e mail from Bruce Charlton editor in chief of Medical Hypothesis

Dear Simon,

Wow - that was quick!

I am fine - and I hope you are thriving. You were in mind since I have been grading students exam scripts and they had been citing you (I had given them details of your SSRI paper during the course, and clearly quite a few have read and understood it).

I was wondering whether you would be interested in contributing an invited paper to Medical Hypotheses, of which I am now editor (you can see the journals web site via the link in my signature). You may have new ideas, or you might like to write up some of your previous work (especially that on the nature of SSRIs - which seems to me so important) as a 'formal' paper.

What do you think?

Best wishes, Yours, Bruce Bruce G Charlton MD Reader in Evolutionary Psychiatry Editor in Chief - Medical Hypotheses

School of Biology Henry Wellcome Building Medical School University of Newcastle upon Tyne NE2 4HH England

Tel: 0191 222 6247 www.hedweb.com/bgcharlton www.intl.elsevierhealth.com/journals/mehy

I could go on and on with other respected members of the psychiatric community who not only take my thoughts seriously but find them valuable.

I think you acted a little impetuously. Please restore what you deleted —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ss06470 (talk • contribs) 00:49, April 16, 2006 (UTC).

Simon, I think your sense of "miffedness" may have led you to misinterpret my actions. The reference that I deleted was a published abstract of a poster presentation. You will see a reference to it here with the deletion [15].

I felt that the poster abstract was poorly written, and was making some fairly large claims, relative to its weighting as an unreferenced poster abstract. Unless you publish under the name J. Breakey sometime, then I don't believe that the "flakey" call was directed at you.

Thus, I assume you object to my deletion of this sentence Others have found indication that children with ADHD are metabolically different from other children, in zinc response to food dye, water/electrolyte handling, and an increased need of essential fatty acids., which was unreferenced. While I respect your experience, and find much of your work on this article excellent, wikipedia is working to to improve its verifiability, and thus I'd encourage you to reinsert your content, but reference your contributions. WP:FN has information on how to format the footnoting used on the ADHD page. I apologise for inflaming you. It was not my intention. --Limegreen 00:41, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

My apologies to Limegreen

Sorry I assumed you had deleted my contribution. It seemed that the addition disappeared after your visit to the site. My even stronger apologies to readers at this site which I did not know existed. My self congratulation was obnoxious. I thought I had to validate that my very different views are coming from someone who is not automatically dismissed by thoughtful people in the field. However, I am glad I was directed here. After reading through some of the controversies raised on this site I feel even more strongly that my article, which is totally in opposition to most "expert" consensus views, might be worth the time of some of your contributors. It is written in a literary style rather than as a formal scientific paper, but that is precisely the point. While it tries to address scientific evidemce it also allows the freedom to discuss what is sensible and what isn't. This is important because despite the impression of many that we have nailed down all kinds of scientific facts about the biology of ADHD it just ain't so. See Dr. Castellanos' comments to Frontline. [16] And despite the dismissal of environmental factors as opposed to biology, I hate to say it, but we are not dealing with a fair playing field in the discussion. See It was like a whitewash]] But I would also like to emphasize that I try to be fair. I have been asked many times to write for Peter Breggin's group of psychiatrists who are totally against meds and turned them down. Similarly, you might be interested in this e-mail sent to me which I also turned down.

Dear Dr. Sobo,

I read with interest your article entitled, A Reevaluation of the Relationship between Psychiatric Diagnosis and Chemical Imbalances.

I am working with Citizens Commission on Human Rights to assist in producing a series of short documentaries on abuses on psychiatry and abuses on the mental health system.

Our researches have inevitably led us to the theory of chemical imbalance and the way in which this is being used as a basis for prescription of some very serious drugs. We are very interested in your views on the use of the chemical imbalance theory and your explanations of the fact that there is no evidence to prove the existence of such imbalances. Would you be willing to grant us an interview on this subject?

The videos will be part of a permanent exhibit at the headquarters of CCHR and additionally will be distributed on DVD as part of a public education project.

Sincerely, Sheila Macdonald

Here is the response.

If I gave you an interview it would have to follow strict rules. I would have to approve of the edited footage! Because I have no intention of being part of a documentary that completely denounces these drugs as child killers or killers of any type. In my experience they have saved many, many more children than they have harmed. That would have to be in your documentary. I genuinely feel you will, despite good intentions, harm far more children than you will help if you scare the hell out of parents and they won't allow their children to be medicated when they could be helped by them. I am already finding that happening due to sensationalist news reporting. Your docuumentary sounds like it would merely reiterate the hysteria against the medications and that I am very against. So in that context you are the enemy as much as the drug companies.

(in response to an earlier e-mail:) As for ADHD please take the time to read the whole article instead of skimming it. There is no doubt that many children meet DSM IV criteria for ADHD, and the use of these drugs may be sometimes warranted. I am against the argument that the problem is simply biological and therefore drugs automatically follow.

So it seems I am that rare bird who disagrees with almost everyone. In other words, like most people I am not an "expert" but simply trying to make sense of the issues and argue what I believe to be true. My article on ADHD can be found with this link ADHD and Other Sins of Our Children

Support Group For Adults With ADD/ADHD

Hi;

I am the webmaster for the Manhattan Adult ADD Support Group.

http;//www.maaddsg.org

I would like to know how to add my site to the support resources section here. If anyone knows, please E mail me at addontheweb@aol.com.

Tx......

Feingold section change

Although I have left in Schnoll's basic premise that the diet works but the studies are incomplete, I have removed reference to the supposition that the diet removes all processed foods and reduces the amount of sugar. Actually, it doesn't. The Feingold Program Product Information Committee volunteers spend many hours a week researching products with manufacturers so that we can provide members with Foodlists of more than 150 pages listing thousands of products -- and many of them are processed foods. We also do not eliminate sugar, and sugar is not automatically reduced by using the diet. In fact, we often encourage parents to make sure that they have plenty of treats on hand -- especially in the beginning -- so that the child will be comfortable and happy with the diet change. Later, for the sake of general health, it may be preferable to reduce sugars, to use organic foods when possible, etc. -- but in the beginning all that takes a back seat to implementing a diet that still has enough fun foods to make the child happy. Yes, that includes pizza, hot dogs, and cake mixes. Shulae 13:09, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

ADHD Rah Rah-ing

Clearly certain individuals have benefited greatly from ADHD. Michael Flatley, originator of Riverdance, was diagnosed with ADHD during his childhood in Chicago. He was also a golden glove boxer. He has also repeatedly walked out on situations where people in charge tried to tell him what to do.

This idea seems to have a false conclusion: that Michael Flatley would not have been successful in his life without ADHD. Since there is no way to tell one way or another, this is just whistling in the dark and really doesn't belong in a wikipedia article. Not only that, it has a "famous people with ___" reek. And then later on it links to an article which seems based on diagnosing famous successful dead people with ADHD. Since it is impossible to say if people in the past had certain disorders or not (I have heard that Edison was everything from an autistic to ADHD to insomniac to an idiot) commenting on it is meaningless. Add that to the length of the article, and I suggest paring down sections like this as much as possible. When I have time I will come back and try to do some myself. --Ignignot 18:31, 1 May 2006 (UTC)