Talk:Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder/Archive 4

message: I would like to throw in that many individuals with Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorder (FASD) have attention difficulties and are frequently diagnosed with FASD. Is there any place for overlapping or co-ocurring disorders or differential diagnosis in the article? Just curious, as I know this article is frequently edited and updated.MLHarris 21:29, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorder]] 

message: re: alzheimers, they can tell if a person had alzheimer's at autopsy. Same with MS. These are neurological diseases.
how you tell if a cadaver had ADHD? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dareu2move (talk • contribs).
:Unlike Alzheimer's Disease, ADHD does not cause obvious structural changes in the brain. Alzheimer's is a progressive, destructive disease, while ADHD is a lifelong disorder whose symptoms sometimes actually disappear or be reduced over time. ADHD requires more finesse to diagnose, and diagnosis always involves taking a detailed history not only from the subject, but from individuals close to him or her (e.g. teachers, parents, spouses), and neuropsychological testing is secondary. Alzheimer's is generally diagnosed primarily through neuropsychological testing. The only complete confirmation of an Alzheimer's diagnosis comes at autopsy with the examination of brain tissue, but there is no such complete confirming test for ADHD. --Ginkgo100talk 04:39, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Dementia of the Alzheimer's Type is diagnosed through psychological testing and is an Axis I diagnosis. Alzheimer's Disease is diagnosed medically, not psychologically, and is an Axis III disorder. The only current accepted methods of conclusive diagnosis for Alzheimer's Disease are biopsy and autopsy. Really, people who know what they are talking about (ie: those with an education in the field) should be the only ones editing these pages.--Jkhamlin 19:40, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Your comment is based on the DSM-IV, which is published by the American Psychological Association. Other countries use different criteria to diagnose physical and psychological illnesses. Don't forget that Wikipedia is an international project. Also, Wikipedia is the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit. Its mission is not to be written only by experts; there are other encyclopedias with that philosophy. Of course, all editors must provide verifiable and neutral information, previously published in a reliable source, and thoroughly cited. --Ginkgo100talk 20:17, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you talking about my comment regarding ADHD or the one above regarding Alzheimer's? The one regarding Alzheimer's is the internationally accepted standard based on ICD-10, the WHO, the AMA, and many, many other objective sources. True, the multiaxial scheme is supported by the DSM, but it is the standard in behavioral science. The DSM is the leading international standard for diagnosis of psychiatric disorders. Just because it is published by the American Psychiatric Association doesn't mean it isn't international. It is based on extensive international research, and is generally considered THE authority on pathopsychology/psychiatry. Even the World Health Organization had a hand in editing it. The use of the diagnostic criteria increases agreement among psychological and medical authorities. Edward Bauer intentionally reverted a factual statement to a non factual statement without providing a reference. Of course he couldn't provide a reference because there is not any reference that demonstrates that ADHD is a neurological disorder. In short, he didn't provide information that was verifiable and neutral. I notice also that you reverted it previously to this factual inaccuracy after someone else fixed it, but you didn't appear to have malicious intent, or an agenda, you just appear not to know that this is not a neurological disorder. Any person editing Wikipedia should AT LEAST know what they are talking about. Having an education is a good way to achieve this; in fact, it is the BEST way to achieve this. If not, they should not revert articles when people who know what they are talking about fix the factual errors.--Jkhamlin 20:59, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  re, alzheimers 

message: well what I guess we have here is the disconnect between wiki-world and real-world information. you can call it a neurological disorder if you like, but please reconcile its inclusion in the DSM with that, please. since almost all billing for ADHD comes from a disorder code included in the DSM- a list of mental disorders- and furthermore the entry that describes the disorder in the DSM says the etiology is unknown...this is real-world stuff. reconcile! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.35.248.242 (talk • contribs).
:The DSM isn't the end all be all, it is constantly changing, and at a slower pace than wikipedia I might add. But I am thankful for the DSM, and anticipate DSM V.Edward Bower 19:44, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  hmm 

message: So if we have the time maybe we should discuss what the introduction to the Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder should say, before we post it. If we can colaborate on what it says 
I understand that we dont have to do this, but I feel we should including in the intrudction a mention of the Central Nervous System or the brain. Any proposals on what it should say?? (was this already done in the talk page, i'll check the archives when I have time, and if this is already addressed, and we deem that the former conclusions arived deserves further scrutany, then perhaps we should bring that part back to this page(while perserving it in the archives as well))Edward Bower 19:44, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am happy to leave the task of sorting through the archives to you. I did notice that the word "neurological" in the article introduction was quite stable from at least several months ago until a few days ago, when several users began to remove it and, perplexingly, to refer to its inclusion as "vandalism". Out of respect to this original usage, presumably reflecting an old consensus in the archives, I am reintroducing the term for now, while we re-evaluate it. Meanwhile I have begun searching the literature (see below). --Ginkgo100talk 21:17, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That is a bad idea. You are misinforming a lot of people. The reference you gave is an opinion piece by a fringe minority of the psychiatric and psychological community. That is highly inappropriate especially for an administrator to do. And, it is appropriate to call even what you did vandalism based on the link you provided that explains vandalism. I have already covered this with you. Who do I report you to for the vandalism since you are an administrator?--Jkhamlin 22:49, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I posted the below about accusations of vandalism before reading this, ironically. --Ginkgo100talk 19:20, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reverts 

message: Please, let's dispense with accusations, mild or insistent, of vandalism in relation to the "neurological" dispute. According to the vandalism policy, NPOV violations, making bold edits, unintentional misinformation, stubbornness, and even harrassment are not vandalism. These issues, should they come up, should be addressed on this talk page and/or on user pages. If this is unproductive, an WP:RFCU can be considered.
:Sneaky vandalism: Vandalism which is harder to spot. This can include adding plausible misinformation to articles, (e.g minor alteration of dates), hiding vandalism (e.g. by making two bad edits and only reverting one), or reverting legitimate edits with the intent of hindering the improvement of pages.--Jkhamlin 16:14, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have also been reading up, and it appears that the neurology references are also an NPOV violation, hence I put the NPOV tag on the page.--Jkhamlin 16:14, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not vandalism 

message: I am opening a Request for Comment. This discussion is not only not progressing, but I fear it is getting ugly. I am hoping some outside views will be helpful. --Ginkgo100talk 19:32, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for Comment 

message: I replaced the "US" that Garrondo removed in the opening paragraph. I tried to check the ref but it doesn't lead to an article. I'm not saying it isn't biased. My point is to be careful about altering referenced statements without verifying that's what the ref is saying. Garrondo may have done that, but didn't state it, so I assumed it was pulled without this consideration. If I'm wrong, please pull it back out. 
Also: we need to fix that ref so there's no ambiguity about which article is being referred to (ref #4 http://www.webmd.com/add-adhd/default.htm). --DanielCD 14:41, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am moving anything about the Epidemiology of ADHD to the Epidemiology section.If anyone has objections lets hear them. Also, Garrondo made a section about Anaylitical testing, which i put a call to cite a reference. This section has bad style in my opinion, and I dont know how to attempt to fix it, just point that out. Here is what I removed from the main section of the artcle: Different studies across the world lead us to believe that ADHD affects between 3-6% of the population, including both children and adults.Edward Bower 01:34, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: US

message: Ref #4 (http://www.webmd.com/add-adhd/default.htm) doesn't seem to refer to any particular article, only to a page that has links to several articles. Could someone look at this. I don't see any use for this ref as it is. --DanielCD 16:43, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Ref

message: Yes eventually if ADHD is a real, objective brain disease, it will be moved from the DSM and will be neurological in nature. THis happened with epilsepy. of course with homosexuality it didn't go this way! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.35.248.242 (talk • contribs).
:Again you missed points made previously. ADHD will never be a brain disease because there is no pathogen. The environment or agents from the environment does not cause ADHD. A wide body of evidence points to the conclusion that genetics plays a highly significant role as the main cause of the disorder. We are born with it. As to the checklists validating ADHD...wrong once more. Any Doctor can diagnosis ADHD, with or without the use of a checklist. A checklist is only one tool used by a skilled practitioner to diagnosis the disorder. And a skilled practitioner also wouldn't simply only use a checklist to diagnosis the disorder. Finally when our national scientific organizations label the disorder as neurological, how can you simply discount that so quickly? Oh I forgot, Breggin said that the scientific insitutions of the US have all been bought off by the pharmaceutical companies.
:--scuro 05:18, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I hope you don't edit this article. Gingko100 is adamant but fair. 
Which locus is ADHD affecting? Do you have a background in genetics? You either don't have any at all, or you are highly educated and trying to get published. I have some other theories that would violate wiki's policy even though I'm anonymous. I've seen the studies, they really don't prove anything.
Insofar as there not being a pathogen involved, I wouldn't be surprised if there was. 
-cyanide_sunshine —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 139.225.242.164 (talk) 21:11, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Stop the bickering, kids.  ADHD is a neurologial disorder because it constitutes non-linear brain function.  It is not a disease because there is no pathogen.  If there is a pathogen, it has yet to be discovered.  If there is an environmental antecendent during gestation, it has yet to be isolated.  But, by definition, it is neurological...  DashaKat 21:34, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  neurology 

message: I really feel like people are missing the point. When a person is diagnosed with ADHD, it's because ADHD has a checklist and description used for diagnosis. Other instruments may be used to diagnose it, but the diagnosis they are seeking to confirm is * DSM *. Outside of the DSM description you are not dealing with ADHD- because all of the brain research, the med research, the behavioral research- all of it- uses the DSM definition of ADHD. So when you point at someone and say, "he has ADHD" the reason we know this is similar to someone else who is also diagnosed with ADHD is that both use the DSM for diagnosis.
:Ok I agree with this first halfEdward Bower 16:43, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK ADHD is a label we use to describe a neurobehavural disorder, would you compromise towards that lable? Just as with any other symbol any society chooses to use for a disease or disoder, the symobl is is existential from the chemical reactions taking place within the body, in that the symble indexes something real, but it is a symbol humans have constructed. We dont have to discuss this concept everywhere because it would be a waste of time to do so because it is implied with (I believe) almost every word we use to describe the physical universe.Edward Bower 16:43, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

text: There are disorders in the DSM with neurological (organic) causes. That is not to say they are 100% neurological, which is why they are still in the DSM, and not relegated to medical etiology in a publication such as the ICD. Examples are schizophrenia, dementia, bipolar disorders, delerium, mental retardation, etc. The fact is that there is a neurological section in the DSM, but disorders such as ADHD are not listed there. The research shows that ADHD has much more in common with Conduct Disorder, which few (if any) are arguing is a neurobiological disorder.--Jkhamlin 16:48, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  MISSING THE POINT 

message: these issues are very important, this not a semantic debate. ADHD is a *MENTAL DISORDER*. Not a neurological disorder. Which are considered to be disorders because they meet criteria created by the american PSYCHIATRIC association- not the american neurological association!!!!!
if ADHD is a neurological disorder then why don't neurologists write the criteria for it rather than psychiatrists??? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 146.201.100.221 (talk) 19:27, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Because they the American Neurological Association does not need to repeat efforts that the American Psychiatric Assocation has put forth. They are both compitent enough and are not trying to compete for who treats which humans.Edward Bower 20:01, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Because there are no useful or consistent laboratory findings for the diagnosis of ADHD.--Jkhamlin 16:50, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  important issues 

message: Oh and you can call it a neurobehavioral disorder if you like- but I think someone should go through the 377 other disorders from DSM that are scattered throughout wiki-land and change all those pages also. 
does anyone writing this page even have a DSM? or are you all just copying information off the internet based on your personal experience? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 146.201.100.221 (talk) 19:28, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you implying that there is more information in the DSM relavent to ADHD then can be obtained on the internet. I live next door to the university library and have read the DSM section on ADHD atleast 4 times recently. Neurology deals with the central nervous system, the -ology suffix translates roughtly to study off. I do not know what these terms mean to you but, where do you think the chemical reactions behind something 'mental' are taking place? A vast amount of resouces would be needed to change the boundries of what neurologists treat and what psychiatrists treat, any this would never happen 'over one night'.Edward Bower 19:56, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Me! Me! I have one! What's more is I have a degree in psychology, and I have studied the DSM and the research under the guidance of experts in both undergraduate and graduate classes at a respectable and accredited university.--Jkhamlin 16:53, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  oh and 

message: I have access to the DSM4 so what's you point? That you have special knowledge about the disorder because you have your own personal copy? Or are you suggesting subjective bias on our part due to ignorance? I'd say that bias and ignorance is a double edged sword. Several people have made many important points in this discussion area but it's like some haven't even read these posts. We simply get the same mantra repeated over and over again like a broken record. That is a display of dogma like Breggin/ Baughmans's viewpoint on ADHD which NEVER changes. Read their literature from 1990 and it is identical to what they write in 2007 even as science has told us so much about this disorder in the last 30 years. True academics change their viewpoint as they learn more about a subject.--scuro 21:27, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: broken record discussion

message: Look up the definition of mental disorder in the DSM. Look up ADHD, which is a mental disorder. Compare them. Mental disorders are complex entities that largely lack reliability and validity. The arguments are articulated throughout the scientific literature, but consider a child diagnosed with ADHD who is moved to another school and whose ADHD no longer needs treatment. Since the behavior (not lesion) is not causing problems anymore, they could eventually undiagnose such a kid.
Consider multiple sclerosis. The social context matters ZERO. IF you scan their head and they have lesions, they have MS. A trained neurologist can find reason to suspect that in a 5-min neurological exam and can confirm it with MRIs. Now that's a neurological. You will notice that social context matters zero and that reliability is very high. 
These things are different so they are called different things. One is a mental disorder. The other is neurological.
If you will fight like this over a minor point like this, all in the biased direction of making ADHD seem more legit, essentially, then no wonder this page is so bad and no wonder psych professors tell students not to go to this page!!! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.35.248.242 (talk) 16:17, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no "undiagnosing" a psychiatric disorder.  Psychiatric labels are forever.  That they are arbitrary and suspect makes no difference to the people who make their living by applying them.  208.181.100.29 16:08, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  definition of mental disorder 

message: "neurological in nature", is the exact text within the article which seems to offend some and which some have tried to delete. What does Neurological mean? Again, the Merrian Webster dictionary defines Neurology as, "the scientific study of the nervous system especially in respect to its structure, functions, and abnormalities". The brain is part of the nervous system, brain functions are impaired. How can one not accept that ADHD is not neurological in nature? You would either have to say the disorder is a FRAUD like Fred Baughman does, or you would have to believe that ADHD is caused by other regions of the body besides the nervous system, or finally you would have to believe that brain functions are not impaired. But...again, it doesn't matter what we believe because there are numerous highly reliable sources that state the majority view and that majority view is that ADHD is neurological brain disorder. Where does this majority view come from? Not from anecdotal stories about children being moved from school to school but rather this majority viewpoint is based firmly on the overwhelming and wide body of evidence of scientific research. Call this a joke, nazism, or what not...but it keeps zealot and crackpot minority viewpoints from overwhelming Wikipedia. 
I will defend the inclusion of "minor" contributions that ring true because the uniformed may first turn to Wikipedia for information. If you don't like that, try finding reliable majority viewpoints that support your contentions. --scuro 18:45, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: "neurological in nature"

message: No this is not true. This speaks to why ADHD is controversial and why it is a mental disorder and not 'neurological'.
For someone to have a mental disorder, the symptoms MSUT be negatively impacting their life in some way. Their social context MUST be examined. If a child is hyper, or has the entire checklist of symptoms, but they are homeschooled and have patient parents, and no one is bothered by these symptoms, then you shouldn't diagnose ADHD. No matter how closely they meet the criteria! 
A disease like MS which is neurological- well they could care less about social context. If you have the signs and lesions then you have the disease. It doesn't matter at ALL how it impacts your life.
Being designated a 'mental disorder' rather than a 'neurological disorder' says nothing about the severity of the syndrome (schizophrenia is a mental disorder and is NOT treated or diagnosed by neurologists).....but it is the most accurate way to portray it. 
I haven't even gone through the entire article, but if there is this much kicking and screaming over the first sentence, I can't even imagine all the miststated facts that probably plague this article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.35.248.242 (talk) 04:15, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What are your thoughts on if the article was changed from saying its a neurological disorder to a neurobehavioral disorder?User:Edward Bower66.82.9.46 04:26, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: By your broad definition of "neuro," every mental disorder is neurobehavioral or neurological. The point is that no research has conclusively demonstrated that there is an organic cause for ADHD. There is great effort to medicalize this disorder because of many factors. One is pharmaceutical companies (sorry Scuro, but it is true). Another is due to the stigma that goes with mental disorders. People with the condition, or with affected family feel that somehow if it is mental, then it is their fault; but if it is medical, then it is no one's fault. A third reason is because of deterministic beliefs of laypeople that we can find a simple, single cause. As part of this, it is also popular these days to find the gene for everything so we can explain it away. I have studied genetics. The funny thing about genetics is that genes don't provide the simple, single answers we expected them to. Genetics are much more complicated than that. Finding a gene is only the beginning.--Jkhamlin 17:13, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  WRONG, fundamental misunderstanding 

message: As I have stated previously ADHD has been defined as a neurological disorder by highly reliable and numerous sources which hold the majority view on ADHD. Why is this fact being ignored?
As to your challenge, "Find me another neurological disorder that cannot be detected with a neurological assessment",...how about 2 which I found in a minute.
Opening line from webpage..."Tourette syndrome (TS) is a neurological disorder".http://www.ninds.nih.gov/disorders/tourette/tourette.htm
Second line from webpage...."Asperger syndrome (AS) is a developmental disorder.  It is an autism spectrum disorder (ASD), one of a distinct group of neurological conditions..." http://www.ninds.nih.gov/disorders/asperger/asperger.htm  
My thoughts on changing it to neurobehavioural...not a chance. 
We simply get one red herring after another and they never really deal with the fact that what is posted is the the majority view of the scientific community. We have numerous excellent reliable sources which can be cited. From the negative side we have whining, no citations, anecdotal stories, and a dogmatic belief that ADHD wouldn't exist without the DSM4....not a chance I want to see those words changed.  --scuro 05:36, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't like the fact that the correct medical term is Tourette's disorder any more than the next guy, but the facts are the facts, and Wiki reports the facts as the majority views them.  ADHD is a neurological disorder, for encyclopedia purposes.  This articles has much bigger problems than that one sentence, though, and a really sustained effort is needed to bring it even to GA level (I've been meaning to initiate a GA review for a long time, because this article is not GA quality).  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:09, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Scuro - if it is the majority view of the experts, then why isn't this majority view being taught in universities? Have you been to a single class on the subject?--Jkhamlin 17:16, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Do we have anything at all to back up this claim? -- Ned Scott 17:32, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Have you taken a class in a university that covers the subject like I have?--Jkhamlin 17:58, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Another uni kid who thinks that his class gave him all the answers. -- Ned Scott 18:30, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Honestly, have you the practice that my psychiatrist has?--Mrdarcey 14:41, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: As much as you would like to define what ADHD is, your opinion simply doesn't matter to Wikipedia

message: I believe you are correct and that my opinion doesn't matter to wiki! I do believe the downfall of wikipedia will be the reporting of popular opinion that can be acccessed via the internet as fact. it's fine for reporting what happened to brittney spears lately but it's an embararasment as far as science.
There is popular opinion and then their is scientific opinionhttp://www.addwarehouse.com/shopsite_sc/store/html/consensus.html, Wikipedia's policy would guide us towards the more reliable scientific opinion. I actually like Wikipedia's policy, it limits propaganda on important issues. --scuro 13:08, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  ahhh