Involuntary Eye Movement May Provide Definitive Diagnosis of ADHD 200
Zothecula writes: If a child who's simply very active is mistakenly diagnosed with Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD), he can end up on pharmaceuticals such as Ritalin unnecessarily. The problem is, it can be quite difficult to determine if someone actually has ADHD, and misdiagnoses are common. Now, however, researchers from Tel Aviv University have announced that analyzing a patient's eye movements may be the key. "The researchers found a direct correlation between ADHD and the inability to suppress eye movement in the anticipation of visual stimuli. The research also reflected improved performance by participants taking methylphenidate, which normalized the suppression of involuntary eye movements to the average level of the control group."
I don't know what they're talking about (Score:5, Funny)
Re:I don't know what they're talking about (Score:5, Informative)
They need to be specific, this applies to ADHD-H. This does not apply to ADHD-I and is questionable with ADHD-C. I have ADHD-I and I have the problem that my eyes get sore from hyperfocusing to the extent that my body forgets to blink.
Besides, they already have a definitive diagnosis. A brain scan. Aside from the very obvious differences in brain wave patterns, the structure of the brain is physically different. ADHD-H will show the centre of the brain growing at an accelerated rate compared to the other areas of the brain. ADHD-I will show under development of the frontal and/or temporal lobes and a noted size difference in the rear of the brain (something on the right side rear is smaller)... I'm totally not awake so all the appropriate terms and thoughts in general aren't coming to me...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com] --this lecture talks about it... it's split into a bunch of random pieces so I don't know which one the ADHD-I brain portion is in... that or there's a 3 hour video with it all (I think it's the same lecture)
Re: (Score:2)
Proper diagnosis is not baloni anymore. 8-12 hours of intensive testing that objectively measures performance against millions who've taken the same tests gives a very reliable result that can be backed up with a CT scan or MRI.
Re:I don't know what they're talking about (Score:5, Insightful)
We also a problem of celebrating the ability to multi-task as an adult, and yet getting on the case of any child who exhibits those abilities because they're not "focused" enough.
Re: (Score:2)
Yet another load of bullshit linked to an ADHD article...
People that can juggle a lot of things in their head simultaneously can multitask. Most people can't and for those trying to multitask will strongly reduce work performance.
People that can't concentrate on things _may_ have ADHD. Or some other conditions or just bad genetics.
There's a huge difference between those things. Having ADHD doesn't give one a multi-tasking enhancement.
Re: I don't know what they're talking about (Score:4, Interesting)
As someone recently diagnosed, my experience has never been one of distraction, per se. I would force myself to sit at my desk and stare at a project. I might read an article every now and then, but I was never constantly going back and forth. My problem was actually forcing my brain to work on the task when it wasn't particularly interesting. If the task took no concentration it was much easier. If the task was highly stimulating (I.e. learning lots of new stuff) eventually I'd slip into "the zone". But for most stuff it was a daily struggle.
For 15 years I worked 60+ hour weeks (sometimes 80+), partly because I had to compensate with time for my inability to focus on work.
I thought I was just undisciplined. But in any event meds changed my life completely. Now I can work an 8 hour day, and while its sometimes still a struggle I don't feel like a failure at the end of the day. (A psychotherapist thought my anxiety about work was what kept me from focusing. But I kept telling her it was the other way around. Once I met a psychiatrist he understood immediately and even had anecdotes about a friend from medical school who exhibited my behavior.)
For anybody in my position, don't think you're stupid or it's your fault. I have an IQ in the 99.99th percentile, actually managed to fumble through a good law school, and I'm a well paid software engineer. In retrospect my "issue" helped make me who I am. It explains, at least in part, my varied interests and ability to deeply focus on stimulating activities. But in our culture it began to make my life miserable, especially in middle adulthood.
I used to be skeptical about ADHD. The list of symptoms reads like a horoscope; that is, everybody can identify. But frankly I don't care about any of that anymore. Psychiatry may still be in the stone age in many regards, but I'm doing much better now. So much about my life, even as a kid, makes much more sense now. I had invented all kinds of explanations for why I was the kind of student, worker, husband what I am. But in retrospect ADHD is such a much more elegant explanation.
I'm also a life-long stutter, which also fits the pattern. But ironically my stuttering helped keep me more reserved than the stereotypical ADHD kid or adult. To not stutter I always have to carefully and deliverstely think through what I want to say aloud, which mitigates my tendency to interrupt others or speak in a hyperactive manner.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"Diagnosing" someone with ADHD is equivalent to eugenics, especially if you act on your "diagnosis," and force them, or pressure them at least, into taking substances into their body that alters their thinking. If they come to you and ask for help, then you can whip out the, well, we have this concept of ADHD, and these are supposed to be the solutions, but we're not sure they really work, but I recommend trying this one first. And let the patient maintain their dignity, and self determination. An eye-movem
No worries about Ritalin (Score:3)
If used incorrect, just apply the antidote: Ritalout.
Re:No worries about Ritalin (Score:4, Funny)
Apply directly to forehead.
I would be very interested... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
As others have pointed out, in most cases this is called "being a kid." If something's presented in a boring way, try to do that differently. And, more importantly, try to think outside your box and find out things on which she does focus pretty well.
Re:I would be very interested... (Score:5, Insightful)
Nope.
Notice the "regardless of the circumstances".
Medicating with amphetamine all the time is obviosuly quite moronic.
I myself need it to function normally in the work-environment.
I didn't even realize what people meant by saying "just concentrate" until I took my first methylphenedate when I was 25.
ADHD is an issue, and it's NOT just kids being kids.
It's a fundamentally different way for the brain/body to function then the norm.
Re: (Score:3)
Yes and no.
There are two kinds of ADHD. The 'old' one and the hyped one.
The former is pathologically founded in the child; the latter is socially founded in the parent.
Blackcurrant juice? (Score:2)
Conce
Re: (Score:3)
It's a fundamentally different way for the brain/body to function then the norm.
And "anti-ADHD" people, having ignored actual information and studies about it, lack the knowledge that it's actually physically proven to be caused by irregular functioning of the brains dopamine system. Pardon my france in case the above seems linguistically wrong - personally I blame my ADHD ;)
Re: (Score:2)
Although you might disparage so called anti-ADHD people as being as a group ignorant, likewise some ADHD proponents exhibit a lack of knowledge of analogous medical anomalies like antibiotic abuse, or even somatic and conversion disorders (including, Münchausen syndrome or Münchausen syndrome by proxy)...
FWIW, it appears (to me anyhow) the current diagnostic of ADHD is problematic in that it is really an attempt to categorize a vague set of symptoms (effectively a syndrome) and associate this with
Re: (Score:2)
This post, unlike the ones just simply in denial of the whole AD(H)D existing at all, is hardly something I would disagree with :) You make very good points and present them clearly and politely (more so than I'm capable at times).
Also, I am concerned of misdiagnosis and over subscribing of stimulants (especially for children) that is rampant in some countries (USA being one such place as far as I've come to understand). It's not only damaging to those who are being misdiagnosed but in the long run it may w
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Unfortunately, yes I do.
Re: (Score:2)
That was a joke - hell, I even put a smiley there for morons and simpletons to get it right, but such efforts are often futile as we all know. English is not my native language but I've never had ADHD related problems in learning it - as said, it was a flaming obvious joke.
You can reply but don't expect an answer after this. I've no desire to argue with anti-vaccination, AGW denialism promoting useless science ignorant masses of morons.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, however I just took this as a generalization, since it'd be quite a statement to say that someone tried everything.
Not meaning to troll, but if you try some acid, you'll realize there's a whole spectrum of "awareness" and "concentration" that you weren't aware of, if you feel such a difference from methylphenidate. (Just make sure to ha
Re: (Score:2)
That was exactly my point.
That's also true (mostly), however some kids adapt better and some worse.
Eh, I thought there already was... (Score:3)
100 percent bullshit (Score:2, Insightful)
The persistence of the notion of this disorder is disturbing. The method by which it's diagnosed is faulty. You can't come in after all this legacy of crap and tell us that you can diagnose it physiologically using a single criteria like this. These assertions will be disproven within the year. The entire ADHD diagnosis phenomenon is the culture struggling with the ramifications of human interaction with technology. You can't set the example of "pay close attention to the stimulating box for long perio
Re: (Score:3)
The risks aren't zero, and there are certain people who should stay away; but psychostimulants are some very nice drugs.
Re: (Score:2)
On the plus side, even if we accept the assertion that the disorder is nonsense (which is questionable; but for the sake of argument); the usual treatment has the virtue of being sufficiently useful, safe, and even pleasant that plenty of people who don't even suspect ADHD will try to score some through alternate channels or complain until they get a prescription.
The risks aren't zero, and there are certain people who should stay away; but psychostimulants are some very nice drugs.
I have to reject that. Slippery slope. If we take enough drugs, we can totally mechanize and work/play on our machines/selves/machineselves all the time, and be "content" about it. Why would that be good, as opposed to changing our expectation of the next generation being the same mental configuration as the previous one?
Re: (Score:2)
ADHD meds are no more a slippery slope than Antidepressants before them. And they were no more a slippery slope than the Tobacco/Pot/Alcohol/Coffee before them. Arguments like yours are why Slippery Slope is considered a logical fallacy.
Re: (Score:2)
ADHD meds are no more a slippery slope than Antidepressants before them. And they were no more a slippery slope than the Tobacco/Pot/Alcohol/Coffee before them. Arguments like yours are why Slippery Slope is considered a logical fallacy.
I'm saying that seeking chemical sources to soothe over the overabundance of reward-based interactions we are experiencing will naturally progress towards escalating both the drugs and the reward-based interactions. I apologize if I misused the term "slippery slope". Invoking antidepressants as an example of harmlessness is far more questionable than any incorrect naming of a type of fallacy I may have done.
Re: (Score:2)
No, you used the term "slippery slope" correctly. The very premise of your slope is flawed. As a society, we've had mind altering drugs that directly stimulate our reward centers for as long as we've been a society. Nearly everyone takes some kind, but we still have an incredibly small percentage of people looking to use the harder stuff (antidepressants, ADHD drugs, street drugs). Given this history, it seems highly unlikely that we're heading toward a future of "mechanized work/play" any time soon.
Re: (Score:2)
No, you used the term "slippery slope" correctly. The very premise of your slope is flawed. As a society, we've had mind altering drugs that directly stimulate our reward centers for as long as we've been a society. Nearly everyone takes some kind, but we still have an incredibly small percentage of people looking to use the harder stuff (antidepressants, ADHD drugs, street drugs). Given this history, it seems highly unlikely that we're heading toward a future of "mechanized work/play" any time soon.
FWIW, historically, Opium dens and crack houses did not consume much more than a small percentage of actual people, but it was significant enough to cause wide-spread effect on the population as a whole. Just because we aren't headed toward a future of "mechanized work/play", doesn't mean that the slope isn't slippery, it's just that you aren't likely to slip too far, but even then some might not like the consequences of slipping a small amount (depending on your definition of "small")...
Re: (Score:2)
No matter what happens, there are going to be some who don't like it. That's life.
Re: (Score:2)
but psychostimulants are some very nice drugs.
Indeed. Caffeine is remarkably safe an effective, if not incredibly powerful. Coca leaves are also quite safe. Cocaine and amphetamines not so much. Of course, then one gets into the murky question of how much you let individuals control and take responsibility for their actions. I give the US another generation before pretty much everything is either on the table for everyone to snort or everything the other side of the classic triumvirate (alcohol, tobacco and firearms, oops, coffee) will get you tos
Re: (Score:2)
uh... caffeine is sixty times more potent than cocaine. Read the literature.
Re: (Score:2)
WTF are you talking about, they work on completely different neurotransmitter systems and by different mechanisms (one an agonist, the other an antagonist). How can you even make meaningful comparisons of such apples and oranges?
The problem with cocaine is that it's short lived, and the brain's dopamine circuit activity undershoots when it wears off, leaving one with an awful depressing crash.
Cocaine is nothing but a novelty, though one that sheds valuable light on the workings of the brain.
Someone figu
Re: (Score:2)
Humans have been interacting with technology since the dawn of the species.
"Hey grog, stop staring into that fucking fire all the time, it'll ruin your eyes"
"That beer is going to kill you"
"That meat stuff you're eating is unnatural. Humans were meant to eat berries and plants and shit."
"Cooking is going to rot your brain. Meat was meant to be eaten raw."
I mean, come on. Blame chemicals, which are more likely to be the problem than "man interacting with technology." That's like blaming your fleshbot for the
Re: (Score:2)
You misunderstand me. I'm not blaming technology. I'm blaming our lack of understanding of how our interaction with it affects us as a group over time.
Re: (Score:2)
Could you please just talk with any psychiatrist for this subject for five minutes?
Stop trying to apply common sense, which is basically just a nice word for prejudive, instead of lookint at the facts.
Re: (Score:3)
If you're looking for facts, don't go to a psychiatrist. Solace, understanding, compassion, drugs maybe. But not facts.
Re: (Score:2)
Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, but from I know of human history the expectation of children was that they should be able to quietly observe their parents and learn from them. And of course early actions like hunting would require paying close attention for long periods of time. I suppose ADHD would've been ok when we were hunter gathers, but once we moved on to tool useage and planning on ways to procure food, it it would've become a liability.
Re: (Score:2)
There is no "massive change" in percentage of people with ADD/ADHD though, it just was previously not understood. I can sympathesize with you though as you come from diseased culture where over- and mis- diagnosing AD(H)D is the norm (wtf is that shit about "pat close attention..." about? That has nothing to do with methods of diagnosing ADD or ADHD in civilized societies) and adults that are lazy fsck's who do happily accept drugs as substitute for parenting to escape their responsibilities. Sad as it is,
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
He was right except for the part about "interactions with technology." We've built up some sort of model kid and heavily medicate those that fail to follow the model closely. That model kid happens to be highly risk adverse, entirely compatible with quiet suburban life and profoundly concerned with the sensitivities of its elders, their jet set lifestyles and half dozen credit lines. It's got little to do with stimulating boxes and everything to do with shoehorning kids into compliant slots in their pare
Re: (Score:3)
His skepticism of this supposed new diagnostic method is spot on. This is pseudo-science used to rationalize drugging people that don't fit the model, employ vast numbers of highly paid specialists and sink wealth into "health care."
This is just Chomsky style conspiratorial nonsense. What model? Who came up with the plan to employ these specialist, and to what end?
Western family structures have not been as diverse as they are now for a very long time. You are as much an enabler of modern society as you are a victim of it. Human nature is what it is, you cannot escape it at best you can be aware of it. A major theme in human nature with an unbroken trail leading back to a time before we were anatomically human is that every generati
Re: (Score:2)
What do you propose we do for kids who do not fit the standard model and are therefore thrown to the wolves without pharmaceutical help?
Does your question have as a premise that all those treated are supposed to be treated? I think it does and I don't believe that, so I wont address your question. I believe most shouldn't be treated because their behavior isn't wrong; it just fails to fit well into a badly distorted culture. So if you accept my premise of widespread over medication we're left with these alternatives; stop the abuse of drugs and let the wolves, as you say, have them or continue this sick spiral of pseudoscience and physco
Re: (Score:2)
how about just be a fucking parent??
Sincerely,
A hugely successful parent.
Re: (Score:2)
Which medical school did you graduate from?
You don't know? I graduated from the school that passes out pieces of paper that prove I'm more authoritative than you are. Look at my creds, they prove everything! It's way better than thinking about what I'm saying. Now shut up and call me Doctor.
The drugs are terrible (Score:5, Informative)
They put me on methylphenedate. Then they put me on Risperdone to control the psychosis induced by methylphenedate. The drugs are horrible. The only thing worse is Prednizone.
Phenotropil is effective in small doses, with fewer and less severe side effects. I did the pharmacology myself, with lots of Googling. Psychosis isn't a side effect--Phenotropil sharply controls, reduces, and prevents dementia--but INSOMNIA sure as hell is!
Okay, I found better drugs. But the drugs still have bad side effects. Let's face it: Insomnia is bad. I have always had delayed sleep phase disorder (self-diagnosis): if I don't rigidly discipline my sleep, any deviation causes me to stay awake. Stay up until 10:30? Become no longer tired, until 1-2am, then sleep until noon--and continue to do this until I somehow fix my sleep cycle, so I can't ever have a night out. On-call fucking sucks. And now, due to further conditioning, I not only can't sleep early, but I can't stay in bed past 7am; I'm sleep-deprived because my body refuses to get more than 4-6 hours of sleep!
I could take sleep drugs. Melatonin no longer works: after some occasional use, it now only works in high doses; and both high doses and chronic use cause my nuts to ache for extended periods, which I thought was just me sleeping on my side or something... until I found out melatonin affects testosterone production and can be bad for the testicles. Whoops. Valerian... I ran through a railroad crossing barrier. Ambien and Allegra I've seen do the same: you're incredibly fucking high, but you feel fine... until you crash into a parked car, or smile and nod while a pedestrian wanders in front of you. Thud.
That doesn't mean drugs are BAD; they're risk. You risk side effects against a disease. Is your ADHD worse than ... potential insomnia? Potential minor psychosis? Psychosis can be MAJOR if you're prone to dementia. Sleep drugs may not ruin your life; out of millions of cases, I know one person who almost died because Ambien affects him for 10 hours and he didn't know that. Of course you should take life-saving drugs, and life-enhancing drugs, if the side effects don't occur or are less bad than your symptoms.
I think we should drop back to Cognitive Behavioral Therapy and floatation-REST as our first attempts for ADHD and Aspergers [nih.gov] and insomnia [circle.ubc.ca]. CBT is a particular sticking point in insomnia: bad sleep hygiene is terrible, and parents are horrible parents for forcing their kids into bed. Go to bed even if you're not tired? Fuck you, mom. If you're not asleep in 10 minutes, GET OUT OF BED. Don't do other things in bed. Wake your ass up in the morning; if you're tired, too bad. Get up. When you're sleepy, you'll sleep at night.
So yeah. Let's eject this ADHD magic pill bullshit. Cognitive Behavioral Therapy, physical activity, and flotation-REST to start; move up to lighter drugs (lighter side effects, even if less effective), and then into the heavy shit (methylphenedate, adderall, drug cocktails). Throwing methylphenedate down someone's throat as a first option is like launching MIRV nukes three seconds after someone stands and shakes his fist at the UN table.
Re: (Score:2)
move up to lighter drugs (lighter side effects, even if less effective), and then into the heavy shit (methylphenedate, adderall, drug cocktails)
What are "lighter drugs"? Not trying to call you out; I appreciate the level of honesty in your post. But I thought that stimulants were lighter drugs, compared to, say, antidepressants or antipsychotics
Re: (Score:3)
On Melatonin, this [oxfordjournals.org] study says there is no decrease in testoserone production.
Re: (Score:3)
In my experience (I'm from Sweden and have an ADHD diagnosis and know a lot of people with the same one), the right way is to have a bit of both.
The pills won't "cure" anything.
They will, in many cases, dampen the symtoms.
And that is all.
Extremely useful for some, including me.
Re: (Score:2)
I have always had delayed sleep phase disorder (self-diagnosis)
Melatonin no longer works: after some occasional use, it now only works in high doses;
Melatonin isn't a sleeping pill* and you're probably not using it correctly.
The correct** way to use melatonin is in low doses 5~8 hours before bed time.
Melatonin is your brain's way of saying "hey, it's dark out, let's push over the chemical dominoes that will lead to sleep."
On the other end, when you wake up, you either need a light box or some sunshine.
(Ideally you want a light source of at least 10,000 lumens at 480nm (IIRC))
This sets off another chain of chemical reactions that let your brain know that
Re: (Score:3)
Let me guess:
You often wake up to go to the bathroom, only to find once you're there that you really didn't need to go that badly. (Remember when you were a kid and you'd wake up in the morning almost ready to burst? That's normal. Waking up several times a night to empty a half-full bladder is not.)
Also, you sometimes have nightmares where you're running away from something, or doing anything that's physically exhausting, and then you wake up and breathe heavily for a while to catch your breath? (Guess
Re: (Score:2)
Not all ADHD folks are hyperactive. The "H" is common but not universal. Poor sleep can definitely cause a loss of ability to focus, though. It can also contribute to risk of stroke, heart attack, type 2 diabetes, and a lot of other problems. I wouldn't doubt that hyperactivity could be among those.
Re: (Score:2)
What you're describing is not insomnia, it sounds much more like a circadian rhythm disorder. I'm not just being pedantic, it's important to understand the differences between the two because the treatments can be significantly different. For instance, it's generally not wise with circadian disorders to medicate to sleep, the sleep you get won't be restful because your body is pretty much convinced that 1AM is a good time to be wide awake.
A small dose of melatonin taken at the right time of day (some expe
Read Summary Wrong (Score:2)
I read the summary wrong at first and thought that it meant they "fixed" ADHD by participants taking meth. If that's the cure, I think I'd stick with being uncured.
I'm not sure of the chemical makeup of the compound they are talking about versus the illegal drug. (Chemistry was one science class I always stunk at.) They might be somewhat-related with the name similarity. Perhaps someone can explain the difference?
Pfft (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I appreciate how movie instructs in the proper etiquette should the line of questioning become too uncomfortable or the questioned feel the inquisitor is learning of negative traits best left undisclosed: "My mother? Let me tell you about my mother!" *BLAM* *BLAM*
[citation needed] (Score:4, Interesting)
I'd be interested in the basis for the claim about misdiagnosis being "common". I have known a number of people with ADHD who were misdiagnosed with something else. I don't think I've ever met anyone who got a misdiagnosis of not having ADHD.
The quality of the anti-ADHD-diagnosis rants can be pretty much summed up by the fact that people are claiming that a stimulant drug which makes people twitchy is going to "drug people into zombified submission". It really is that blatantly stupid; there is nothing remotely like "zombified submission" on the table.
Re: (Score:2)
I'd be interested in the basis for the claim about misdiagnosis being "common". I have known a number of people with ADHD who were misdiagnosed with something else. I don't think I've ever met anyone who got a misdiagnosis of not having ADHD.
The quality of the anti-ADHD-diagnosis rants can be pretty much summed up by the fact that people are claiming that a stimulant drug which makes people twitchy is going to "drug people into zombified submission". It really is that blatantly stupid; there is nothing remotely like "zombified submission" on the table.
It's kids being diagnosed with ADHD when the correct diagnosis is really poor parenting.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, I know what the allegation is. Where's the evidence? Where's the clinical studies?
People love to assert that someone with a cognitive disability isn't really disabled, just "lazy". But that people enjoy asserting it doesn't make it true.
Re: (Score:2)
It's kids being diagnosed with ADHD when the correct diagnosis is really poor parenting.
You're not a parent are you? I'd have a hard time calling anyone that didn't beat their kid a bad parent. That'd be like calling someone that fell off a bridge a bad sky diver. You do what you can, there's no way to do it right, and they landing's going to hurt no mater what you do.
Lack of impulse control (Score:2)
This shouldn't really be news.
One of the major ADHD tests is if you can control impulses in various situations.
Impulse control is way, way harder, bordering on impossible for people with strong ADHD.
I still remember my test for instance.
I was supposed to press for every symbol that came up on the screen, except for X and Y.
I couldn't help pressing for X as well.
I literally said the equivalent of "fuck" each time, which made my psychiatrist laugh.
This would be something similar.
Stop and think.... (Score:3, Interesting)
The premise that over-diagnosis is a systemic problem is common, and has been propagated by the media, with very little actual scientific proof behind it.
The national average is that 7.8% of children are diagnosed with ADHD and somewhere around half (depending on where you live) get prescribed medication. So the idea that we are diagnosing a whole generation of kids as having ADHD is ridiculous. The idea that we have a culture of medicating our kids unnecessarily is also ridiculous. The statistics simply don't bear this out. The CDC did a study that has been dramatically misinterpreted to create this perception.
Here is the big article that most people reference when they say that there is a plague of over-diagnosing ADHD.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/01/health/more-diagnoses-of-hyperactivity-causing-concern.html?pagewanted=all&_r=1&
First, they only reference ADHD's increase in the CDC study, when it wasn't the only one, nor was it the largest disorder having an increase in diagnosis. It was a 3% increase.
Second, there are three corrections, only mentioned at the very bottom that change facts stated in the study. That should tell you something right there.
Third, and increase is an increase, but they fill in the blanks as to the cause of the increase. My favorite is the change in the definition of ADHD, some media and researchers pose that the changing definition of ADHD has weakened its diagnostic criteria so it is going to be more common. But the DMS IV, the standard psych diagnostic manual in the U.S. hasn't had a change for ADHD in 20 years and the DSM V wasn't out yet, or not long enough to have an effect.
Yes, ADHD diagnosis have increased, and yes so has the rate of medication being prescribed. But at the same rate, on average (some less, some more) than other childhood disorders. Additionally, the study merely referenced the increase in the number of diagnosis and prescription, not the amount of misdiagnosis or anything like that. The only studies that I know of that did that were severely flawed. One did a survey where they told the sample of Psychiatrists to make a diagnosis of a selection of cases, some which did not show all of the symptoms for ADHD and some did. But they told them to make a diagnosis, already biasing those participating towards making some diagnosis rather than none at all. The other was a world wide study that compared the DSM IV diagnostic guide to the cases that were diagnosed, the problem is much of the world doesn't use the DSM IV but a different resource entirely. So they were judging those diagnosing using and apples and oranges measuring stick.
I of course, am not saying it never happens, clearly misdiagnosis does happen. And it may be more common with ADHD than with some other disorders. That could be due to big pharma wanting to schill pills, or it could be due to the very visible and noticeable nature of ADHD and it's commonality, meaning just the shear numbers increase the chances. It could be that ADHD has some similarities to behavior that is not ideal but not to the level of a disorder. It could be it is no worse than other cases of misdiagnosis. And to my mind, more likely, if it is happening more than other disorders, is because we need better diagnostics, which is what this research is about. No one is going to say that one test like this is the only thing needed to make such a diagnostic, not really. That is headline grabbing garbage that will never make it into a real serious clinical environment. No diagnostic manual is going to recommend a diagnosis based on one symptom or type of behavior, period.
bluefoxlucid makes some good anecdotal points, but they are anecdotal, meaning they are one specific case, specific to that person. You cannot extrapolate anything out of it to the general populace. They had bad reactions to medicine, which unfortunately happens. I can't be used to make any judgements about the whole, however. Nor can it give us any insight into the usefulness of
Re: (Score:2)
Issue #1. I (and other people over 40) do not see a radical shift in adult behavior. That means either a) It is what used to be called 'a phase that the kid will grow out of', or b) the 'disease' is basically nothing new or that bad - just slightly bad behavior that we not as bad put a new label on it or c) It is over diagnosed despite what you think.
Issue #2. Ritalin and the other drugs that affect ? They only work on some of the kids diag
Diagnosed (Score:4, Insightful)
I've got ADHD for real. My doctor used to joke that I was the only kid he knew of that definitively had it, the rest he was just pretty sure about. At the time they were heavily medicating children for it... much worse than they do now and my parents refused to have me walking around like a zombie. Like it or not that was probably the most instrumental decision my parents made in my upbringing. Without the medication, I was left to cope with the symptoms on my own. If given several tasks to complete, I'd spend hours bouncing from one to the other and never really start any of them. Eventually I learned to deal with it on my own but never really knew how until I got to talk about it with a few shrinks.
What I did was learn a type of "Hyper focus" they described as common amongst the afflicted. I would drive all other thoughts from my mind, almost like a Buddhist, and then focus exclusively on my task. If I allowed other topics into my mind, I'd wander and lose track of what I was doing, so I instead learned not to let myself think about anything else. This skill has it's upsides I was told. I was able to grasp larger, more complex tasks because my mind was not preocupide with other things. It also had it's downside. I'd be so focused on the task at hand that if someone interupetted me I'd fly into a rage: :-)
Me:WHAT?!?!
Wife: Dinners ready. Is programming the thermostat really that frustrating?
Me: um... sorry?
I'm glad to see they may have a definitive test, and it seems superior drugs. I don't want to say I wish I had them... I wouldn't be me without ADHD, but I welcome any tools that help parents be more informed. I wouldn't give up being abnormal for the world, but I wouldn't wish it on my worst enemy either.
Re: (Score:2)
Getting enraged when interrupted probably isn't normal. Although I do the hyperfocus thing and it is pretty annoying to get interrupted. My wife knows not to call me at work. But I don't think I'm ADHD.
Pruitt Taylor Vince (Score:2)
Wait, so Pruitt Taylor Vince has ADHD?
(no, just kidding, from imdb: "Has nystagmus, a condition which causes a person's eyes to move involuntarily." But he was who I thought about when reading the summary.)
It won't narrow the diagnostic criteria (Score:2)
Because then the pharmaceutical industry won't sell as many drugs.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Fake diseases (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
1. We hypothesize a disorder X
2. We observe eople respond differently to stimulants
3. We conclude disorder X exists
Nope, back to logic 101 for you
Re: (Score:2)
Nice try. Not quite right though. It's more like:
1. We observer some people having concentration issues across the board.
2. We hypothesize disorder X with prediction Y
3. We run brain scans and find out prediction Y is right
4. We hypothesize that stimulants may work differently on these people
5. We run tests and find out that stimulants work differently on these people
6. We conclude disorder X exists and stimulants can treat it
So, back to scientific method 101 for you.
Re: (Score:2)
plenty of reputable doctors question the very existence of the disease, since children diagnosed with it in one setting show no signs of it in others (doing something they are actually interested in). So your point 1 might have a problem and if so the whole thing collapses.
Re: (Score:2)
They can question all they want, but if they want to disprove it, they'll have to provide some evidence to counteract the evidence that's already there.
Re: (Score:3)
Nobody (outside Slashdot and other highly reputable bits of the Internet) really questions whether ADD exists.
Many people wonder about a number of aspects of the problem:
- Where the break between normal and abnormal is. Like most biological issues, this behavior is on a continuum. Where do you intervene?
- Which leads to the question of diagnostic accuracy and efficiency.
We know that amphetamine class drugs are helpful in real ADD. But these drugs (like virtually all drugs) have risks and benefits. Since
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
We have an excuse for our bad behaviour!.
What's your excuse for that post, "delusions of grandeur"?
Re: (Score:2)
Why do people assume that any disease that they can't physically see the scars of isn't actually a disease at all?
Re: (Score:2)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I... [wikipedia.org]
Re:inb4 (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
I so wish I had mod points :)
Re:inb4 (Score:4, Informative)
It is overdiagnosed. I've seen kids with ADHD that can sit and play a videogame for 3 hours. They can watch a full-length movie no problem. But when it's time for homework or school, they "can't focus". THOSE kids DO NOT have ADHD.
And then I've seen kids that can't do any of those things. Every 5 minutes they HAVE to do something different. They can't watch a 30-minute TV show. Those are the real cases and need medication.
Re:inb4 (Score:5, Insightful)
Nice diagnosis doctor assface.
Check the research. [nytimes.com]
Basically, ADHD isn't being able to sit still for a long time, it's not being able to focus on things that aren't fun.
For most brains, being able to get through say, homework, isn't a problem. You just sit down, figure, it's going to take about 20 minutes to do all the math problems and you go play video games.
For someone with ADHD, the brain is constantly craving rewards. So video games, movies, etc. all basically jam a fork into the pleasure centers of the brain. So ADHD kids can sit still and enjoy the fuck out of it. When the gears shift, and into say work mode, there's nothing jamming against the pleasure center and the mind loses focus.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
That's NOT what its all about. It's primarily an executive function disorder. Every aspect of day to day life, including the "pleasurable" aspects are affected. ADHD-H the hyperactivity is to increase blood flow to the brain to allow the communication to occur between the problem solving centres of the brain and the executive function. The attention and emotion centres border the executive area and so, depending on the person, they'll end up distracted or they'll become emotional/stressed.
If what you sa
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
The ability to "hyper-focus" on certain stimuli (such as video games) is a hallmark symptom of ADHD...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Most people who don't have ADHD or who don't deeply understand the neurological research simply don't, will not, or cannot understand.
Hyperactive ADHD is at least directly observable as an abnormal condition. Inattentive ADHD, however, leads to children having their self esteem wrecked by ignorance adults telling them they "lack character" or some other treachery.
As a kid I was able to focus for 16 straight hours, daily, for weeks on end on building electronics projects. That was what my brain found rew
Re: (Score:2)
Those are the real cases and need medication.
Those are real cases. Medication may or may not be the appropriate therapy.
Re:inb4 (Score:5, Insightful)
Ignorance is a bliss. ADD and ADHD can actually be physically shown as disorder of the brains dopamine system - but you wouldn't know that since you haven't actually studied any real information about ADD/ADHD as it's easier to hold on to your pre-determined opinions when you have no facts to confuse you.
Also, that ADD/ADHD is a "children issue" only is something that makes me angry. I was diagnosed with ADHD at age of 26. Since I've started with medication my life, in certain areas has become much easier - some would say much more "normal", but I like to avoid that term. I was finally able to get through education on IT field - something people like you claimed I had problems only because of lack of motivation. They say that lack of motivation was the reason I couldn't pass a 3-year education even though I tried for 5-years, and they happily miss seeing anything illogical in their statement.
I do sometimes wonder how different my life had been if ADD/ADHD had been known when I was a kid. For sure I would have avoided many problems with school as well as with other problems I made my family go through... Child services tried to find ways to help me and my family, but they didn't know about ADHD back then, so the reasons behind my misbehaviours remained mystery.
May I presume you are a US citizen? I apologize if I'm wrong... However if I'm right then I have less problems understanding how, no matter how ignorant and irrational, you have come to your conclusions. It is true that medical industry is milking this thing - and USA is the leader in over-diagnosing of ADD/ADHD. Still, just like with chronic depression, the fact that some doctors are over diagnosing a medical condition and the fact that pharmaceutical companies are always more than willing to milk such errors to the maximum does not mean that said medical condition is false. Also it's logical fallacy to say that because a condition had not been known before a time, it didn't thus exists before said time.
Re: (Score:2)
Isn't it funny how they accuse you of having a lack of motivation, but they don't understand that why they are motivated is because of computations performed by their neural circuitry, including the part that arises the thought "I'm doing this because I really want to succeed!"
Re: (Score:2)
It is. ADD and ADHD are fake "disorders" invented by doctors and pharmaceutical companies to get kids addicted to their drugs and make lifelong customers.
When I was a kid, nobody had ADD/ADHD because it hadn't been fabricated yet.
You were born prior to 1775? Must suck stepping on your balls so much.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, my God, THIS!
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, no. I presume you are talking about MBD (minimal brain dysfunction)? It's a broad generalized diagnosis that was often the diagnosis for ADD and ADHD people before medical science progressed to know of, understand and diagnose ADD and ADHD. It covered (and still covers?) many other medical conditions that were not fully understood back then.
Re: (Score:2)
You make a good point that would be hard to disagree with and not look like fool, but going to the other extreme and denying the whole existence of ADD and ADHD (especially in countries where over diagnosing of it is not rampant as it is in USA) would be irresponsible as well.
Re: (Score:2)
You make a good point that would be hard to disagree with and not look like fool, but going to the other extreme and denying the whole existence of ADD and ADHD (especially in countries where over diagnosing of it is not rampant as it is in USA) would be irresponsible as well.
I don't think there is much argument that ADD/ADHD are recognized and classified conditions. It's also obvious that the treatments do help those who have it, otherwise those treatments likely wouldn't be demanded by so many parents/teachers/doctors to try to help their kids. In the US, it seems far too common that we are too quick to diagnose ADD/ADHD and give treatment for symptoms when the underlying cause isn't ADHD at all but often bored kids with unfocused energy merely acting like energetic kids.
Rubber stamp scripts (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
You know typical ADHD drugs would actually make neurotypical children worse, right? ADHD drugs tend to be stimulants, care to guess what that would do to normal children? Give a five year old some coffee and find out. It's a far cry from "drug them into zimbified submission."
Re: (Score:2)
The theory is that children don't develop the relevant dopamine circuits until later, and boys much later than girls.
Coffee works on adenosine primarily.