ADHD
ADHD:
There are some people that are denying that Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder exists. They are accused of being irresponsible, causing the condition to be under diagnosed, and even causing the sufferers of this disease to “unwittingly self medicate with illegal drugs or alcohol“. If it were not for the fact that the explosion in ADHD diagnosis and treatment with stimulants such as Ritalin (Methylphenidate) represents the greatest medical catastrophe since Thalidomide, these statements would be laughable.
Do the makers of such statements really believe that the millions taking Ecstasy (MDMA), and other illegal substances that are closely related to Ritalin (methylphenidate), at thousands of night-clubs every weekend, are “self medicating” because they have not been “properly diagnosed”. How can a “medical scientist” say that a “disease” is under diagnosed (based on what data?).
There is absolutely no reason why those opposed to the myth of ADHD as a disease, need to justify that position. The matter is clear. It is for those who maintain the position that ADHD is a disease to adduce evidence of it. That evidence must be in the form of data collected in experimental conditions that can be validated by objective repeat studies.
Evidence is made up of three elements. The autoptic evidence which relates to material or physical evidence such as chemical residues or fingerprints. Direct evidence, which is that proposed by a witness or an expert, and circumstantial evidence, the weakest form of all. What do the proponents of ADHD have in the way of evidence from these sources?
Autoptic evidence is perceived by the senses and is commonly called ‘real’ evidence. In disease this evidence is always present. In carcinomas, biopsies will reveal evidence of cell mutation. In cardiovascular disease necrotic muscle tissue, arterial plaques or calcified arteries can be observed. In infectious diseases the pathogens causing the infections can be collected and identified. The evidence is there for all medical professionals to see. Not so with ADHD.
Direct evidence is that which an eyewitness or expert describes from their own first hand observations. What do the experts say? ADHD may be (may be) genetic: no one has extended this to its logical and necessary conclusion by identifying which chromosome has this defective gene and why the defect is there. Blue eyes, incidentally, are genetically determined. Does that make them a disease?
ADHD may (again), be due to biochemical imbalance: Not one piece of evidence exists to indicate this. Indeed, where biochemical imbalances are suggested, there is again a signal lack of empirical evidence to support the theory. (Empirical means that it can be repeated, tested, verified.)
ADHD may be (and again) hereditary: Just as in quoting spurious “genetics“, this is meaningless at best and deliberately misleading at worst. Criminal behavior is also hereditary. Criminal fathers more often than not are followed by criminal sons (and daughters). The behavior is learned, and just as musical parents produce musical children and enthusiastic sports loving parents produce sporting offspring, this is no indicator of genetics or hereditary cause. It should be noted that Chinese children have a propensity to grow up speaking Chinese if they grow up in China. Those that have been adopted by western parents and taken to America, for instance, have not as yet spontaneously begun to speak Chinese because it is hereditary or genetic for them to do so. Language, like behavior, is learned.
What about the weakest form of evidence, circumstantial? Ah, well here at last the ADHD proponents have something! Children misbehave and run about wildly, they are defiant and get bored easily. Er… yes, they always have done. The circumstances of this “aberrent” behavior suggest to these ADHD observers that something is wrong - the child must be “ill”. It perhaps should be put to them that the children are fine, it is they that are suffering from “Observational Inaccuracy and Distortion Disorder”.
