Talk:Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder/Archive 1

message: 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)
thread_title:  ADHD 

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  Arguments for Excluding Feingold Diet from ADHD Article 

message: 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%</font> 
* Swanson 1980  = <Font="10">85%</font>
* Rowe 1988  = <Font="10">72.7%</font> 
* Egger 1989  = <Font="10">80%</font> 
* Kaplan 1989  = <Font="10">58%</font> 
* Egger 1992  = <Font="10">76%</font> 
* Carter 1993  = <Font="10">75.6%</font> 
* Rowe 1994  = <Font="10">75%</font> 
* Boris 1994  = <Font="10">73%</font> 
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)
thread_title: Rebuttal

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Caps?

message: 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)
thread_title:  Country specific view of drugs 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Concerta as a treatment option 

message: 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)
thread_title: causes

message: 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)
thread_title: not always a bad thing

message: 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: , . -- Antaeus Feldspar 18:35, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Minimal brain d-----

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Scare quotes 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  One angle 

message: 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)
thread_title:  The wikiPedia Search results 

message: 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)
thread_title:  I'm really sorry... 

message: :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)
thread_title:  "among the mentally handicapped" 

message: 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)
thread_title:  attention flag removed 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Adding your experiences 

message: '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)
thread_title:  "has been repudiated" 

message: 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)
thread_title:  My changes and See Also 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Changes and reversions of great magnitude

message: 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)
thread_title: Improving the Impact of Stimulant Use for the ADD/ADHD Diagnosed

message: 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:
# ADD psychosis is the co-occurence of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder with psychotic features of various kinds.
# ADD psychosis may be the result of personality detioration from severe symptoms of ADHD, possibly involving the prefrontal cortex.
# ADD psychosis may resemble schizophrenia or an affective psychosis (i.e., bipolar disorder with psychotic features or clinical depression with psychotic features).
# 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  ADD Psychosis? 

message: 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 . 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)
thread_title:  About Certification in the field 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Self-medicating treatments: request for references 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Restructuring the article 

message: 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)
thread_title:  RV changes by 137.132.3.6 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  removed sentence 

message: 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)
thread_title:  wikipedians with ADHD 

message: 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)
thread_title:  "Attention-Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder" solely defined by APA's DSM 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Methylphenidate (ritalin) and Scuba Diving? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  "is a diagnosis" 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

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

text: 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)
thread_title:  First sentences. Confusing!  

message: 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)
replies: text: 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: . Neurodivergent 17:58, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Status of Ritalin? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Explanation of social contruct view 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Source of this? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Positive aspects 

message: 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
[] oneismany 22:33, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments froma  reverted contributor

message: 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)
thread_title:  Born to explore 

message: Perhaps we should make a separate article focusing specifically on the criticism of ADD/ADHD? oneismany 22:33, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: If you can build such a page with appropriate references, I say go for it. oneismany 00:08, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

text: 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)
thread_title: Merge 'Controversy' section with 'Hyperactivity' article?

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Stop Diagnosing the Dead

message: 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 . Neurodivergent 19:28, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Feb 6 should be fine. Let's wait half a day to do the revert. Neurodivergent 22:40, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Definitely support reverting to before the vandal and integrating (good, obviously) changes since. Hatchetfish 10:46, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: <strike>Censorship of content</strike> Content blanked out 

message: :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)
thread_title:  <strike>Symptoms section disappeared?</strike> Never mind 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Will remove paragraph 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  ADD is NOT synonymous with ADHD 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Merge? No! 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Citation! 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Irony 

message: 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)
thread_title:  ADD_ADHD caused by "Conflict of Physiology" 

message: 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 
. 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)
thread_title:  References -- lost! 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  More on Sleep Apnea and ADHD 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Personal Comments 

message: 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.</FONT>
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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  problem with page? or what? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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  and I'd be concerned that it will be less monitored there. --Limegreen 03:31, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Split out ''Controversy'' section into article [[Controversy about ADHD]] or [[Anti-ADHD]]? 

message: 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 . 
: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)
thread_title: Refs

message: 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)
thread_title:  Feingold section change 

message: 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)
thread_title:  ADHD Rah Rah-ing