Talk:Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder/Archive 5

message: In my personal experience with ADD (I have it, and it runs in my family), it seems to present itself less as a general lack of focus, but a tendency to hyperfocus paired with the inability to prioritize and/or cognitively select the subject of focus.  When I was younger, I tended to have the typical 'daydreaming' scenario in class, where my mind just wandered everywhere.  Now I have more of a tendency to focus intently on things, but not always what is appropriate or rational.  Instead of working on a proposal I have due (which cognitively should have a very high priority), I can spend endless hours on Wikipedia (significantly lower priority, but still requiring a high level of focus).  Instead of paying attention in a lecture, I may instead work on deriving an extended proof for a problem for a different class, and thus completely miss what's going on in the present class.
I have heard others referencing ADD as a hyperfocus disorder as well as an attention-deficit disorder.  Perhaps this is something for the researchers here to discuss. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 129.89.197.101 (talk) 12:44, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  ADD as a Hyper-focus disorder. 

message: St. Peter is doing the tour of heaven for all the newcomers. He shows them the pearly gates, god's throne, and the stables of the horses for the four horsemen. After several hours of touring they enter the backlot of heaven where there is a larger building with many rooms. St. Peter shhheshhhs everyone as they walk by the building. After they are a safe distance from the building one of the new comers asks St. Peter why they had to be so quiet near the building. St. Peter replied, "that building holds all the religious zealots in separate rooms and we have to be quiet because they all think they are the only ones here in heaven".
Okay, ADHD is a behaviour disorder period. It doesn't exist outside of the DSM4. It was made up by Psychiatrists who were in cahoots with the drug companies so everyone could get rich. No one can be trusted, they have all been corrupted by drug money...Wikipedia too!!!!!!!!!!!! 
All kidding aside, it would be nice to know your name 68.35.248.242..... See this link to give yourself a name. ->http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Tutorial_%28Registration%29
--scuro 23:08, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: This reminds me of the joke about the zealots in heaven

message: That's a good joke but I think people are missing the point. It doesn't minimize the severity of ADHD, or say much about drug companies or psychiatrists to say that ADHD is a mental disorder. It's just a fact that NIH calls it a behavioral disorder and that all the research cited throughout the piece uses the DSM definition of ADHD, therefore what else could it be referring to? 
If ADHD is not the existence of the DSM symptoms, what is it? Those criteria are the only thing that make it possible for it to be reliable- not that it is in actual practice, but that's another issue.
It's not 'JUST' anything...! Schizophrenia is serious and it's a mental disorder- it's not considered a neurological disorder. Same thing with major depression, PTSD, panic disorder, anxiety disorder, bipolar disorder. None of them are 'neurological' and they are as serious, actually more so, than ADHD.
'Neurological' sounds good but is not correct. 
If you all are using the international consensus statement signed by the proponents of medication treatment of ADHD, I thin that's a huge error. Not just for this part of the entry but any part.
And between the NIH consensus statement and the DSM, I think it's very clear that ADHD is a MENTAL DISORDER, period. 
68.35.248.242 00:39, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: http://www.ninds.nih.gov/disorders/adhd/adhd.htm Looks like the NIH doesn't have such a consensus.... although they may consider it a mental disorder, a more descriptive name they have used more recently is Neurobehavioral Disorder. User:Edward Bower24.148.48.31 02:10, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  good joke 

message: Glad to see work happening; for a sample, similar featured article, Tourette syndrome might be helpful.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:17, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Tourette's populations are not homogeneous either :-)  Notice how the interplay between genetic and epigenetic factors is dealt with in that article.  The non-genetic factors impacting upon the genetic vulnerability to the condition are more strongly proven in ADHD than in TS, but it is still a neurological condition nonetheless (both are, with environmental impacts).  At any rate, I agree about the time wasted on some issues, when this article has massive deficiencies that need to be addressed, including undue weight to speculative items while the serious research isn't even covered.  I'm going to be traveling for three weeks, but let me know if I can help after that.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:49, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think we should use epigenetic in titles instead of environment factors, anyone else have any expansions on this idea or any comments? Edward Bower 03:26, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: After looking at one of your Wiki style references I do think we need to add a Prognosis, and Prevention or Screening section. I'm not going to bother with standard forms of puncuation, capitalization, or bullet styles. The intro can also be improved. I have a little time this week and I'll try to get at it. --scuro 04:27, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Work in progress

message: You missed the point. What is more reliable- the consensus among a select bunch of researchers, many of whom have extensive conflicts of interests, or the consensus from NIH...?
NIH doesn't mention neurological disorder.
This could be a good article, but it sure isn't yet, because the sources being used are not scientific sources (in the example of the neurological issue). THere are other issues throughout, though. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.35.248.242 (talk) 23:42, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  missed the point 

message: Give it up User:68.35.248.242. Your viewpoints belong in the controversy of adhd article. "extensive conflicts of interests" could come right off Fred Baughman's website. Again it doesn't matter what you believe, Wiki wants reliable citations. Virtually every researcher and all the US national institutions that deal with ADHD would not see it that way. Yours isn't even the minority viewpoint of experts but rather the controversial viewpoint.
Your NIH point is just another in a long line of red herrings not ment to improve the article. The 1998 consensus was about diagnosis and treatment, hence the title, "Diagnosis and Treatment of Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD)". The later and international consensus clearly makes the link between ADHD, the brain, and genetics. --scuro 12:47, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Give it up User:68.35.248.242

message: I believe you are incorrect. Here is why.
The viewpoints of others are irrelevant to what I am saying and I believe those that author and edit this site frequently write off any criticism as coming from a radical point of view and do not stop to consider the validity of claims. I am not Fred Baughman.
If you go to the NIH Consensus Statement on ADHD (at http://consensus.nih.gov/1998/1998AttentionDeficitHyperactivityDisorder110html.htm) you will see that it defines ADHD.  This is the National Institute of Health's definition of ADHD. 
The Internation Consensus Statement on ADHD is simply the point of view of some ADHD researchers. Indeed, some of them are very prominent. But it has a clear bias. They cite no evidence to demonstrate an empirically-driven change in position from 1998 to 2002. 
To say that NIH's conclusions should be discarded in lieu of this open letter is very interersting and difficult to justiy. On what basis would you conclude that NIH is wrong (the word 'neurological' does not appear in the text of the document).
It seems to me that scientific consensus is important when it supports people's point of view, but when it doens't, other sources are quickly found.
Neither the 1998 NIH statement nor the DSM define ADHD as neurological. Yet it still defined that way here on the basis of this open letter. 
Why?
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.35.248.242 (talk) 10:15, 15 March 2007
You say, "I believe those that author and edit this site frequently write off any criticism as coming from a radical point of view and do not stop to consider the validity of claims". 
Where does this validity that you speak of come from, I ask? Certainly we are not to take your unsupported thoughts and insert them into the article? Find the references from national institutions, respected publications, or respected members in the field. So far we have no support for what you say. Since there are no references why is it not correct to classify them as controversial especially since many of the ideas stated originally can from Scientology and the Antipsychiatry movement?
I'm not even going justify your NIH comments with a response because you are once again playing games by totally ignoring the 2002 international consensus statement when you made any of your conclusions. How can you so blatantly ignore such evidence even when it has been pointed out to you directly several times? Enough already.
--scuro 19:31, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  last word, wrong 

message: From what I have read, Epigenetic changes in genes beyond a few rare genetic conditions is far from conclusive. See Wikipedia's article on epigenetics. As far as I am aware, epigenetic occurrences with ADHD has not even casually been made.  I believe the term environmental should stay. --scuro 20:19, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: The use of terms Epigenetic vrs. environmental

message: someone should get somebody to mediate this dispute....DSM and NIH are quite authoritative... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Fred1001 (talk • contribs) 21:41, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  mediate 

message: I've ignored no evidence. I've made the point before but my post was deleted. There is a difference between NIH, the DSM, and an open advocacy letter authored by scientists with a certain point of view. It's appropriate to note what they said, somewhere in the article, but to think that they have the accurate definition of what ADHD is- in contradiction to NIH and DSM- makes no sense whatsoever.
There are levels of evidence. Certainly that letter goes down the list from DSM and NIH. I am concerned that people editing his page seem to think that just because a letter says it is authoritative, and it is available on the web, it is.
In fact DSM and NIH should be used as authoritative sources and alternate points of view might be noted.
The problems with evaluating evidence can be found throughout the article, but the fact that it leads off with a definition contradicint NIH and DSM is a pretty big problem. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.35.248.242 (talk) 21:55, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  psyche 

message: :: "neurological in nature" is cited by an excellent source in the article, that is all Wikipedia wants. Period. As Wikipedians that is all we should care about. There is no debate because once again we have no citations for any other viewpoint. I welcome new viewpoints that can be referenced. But, this is really is getting silly, can I kindly ask that unless citations are brought to the discussion area that we stop with this? You can debate this issue at ADDF forums if you like.--scuro 23:18, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That source is only excellent in your opinion. I refer you back to the real international consensus the DSM and the ICD.--Jkhamlin 17:40, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: "neurological in nature"

message: Are you kidding me? The DSM and the NIH are the two most authoritative sources and I've posted them repeatedly, they are always wiped out or edited out. The source that is being used is NOT authoritative, it is simply an open letter by some scientists. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.35.248.242 (talk) 23:33, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  dishonesty or confusion? 

message: I feel like this page really needs an editor to visit it. 
To restate the issues that have been re-stated again and again:
The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) defines what ADHD is- there are hundreds of experts that come to a consensus. This consensus document does not say that ADHD is neurological in nature.
Also as referenced  above, the Consensus Statement from the National Institute of Health in 1998 did not conclude that it was neurological, and there has not been any great findings from 1998-present in terms of etiology. (The DSM definition for instance, did not change).
People keep inserting that ADHD is a neurological disorder because it involves the brain. There is a consensus statement from pro-medication advocates that calls it such but this document is simply an open letter and has no authority.
At present ADHD is a mental disorder. This is how it is classified in the DSM, in abnormal psychology textbooks, in graduate psychopathology courses, etc., etc.
There has been constant back-and-forth over this VERY simple point and people keep inserting statements that are speculative. Informatoin can be found on the web that says that ADHD is neurological but this does not mean this is scientific consensus or factual.
Someone should revise this page so that includes the DSM definition and the NIH consensus information is great also.  If they want to include the statement that some people think it is neurological, fine, but the governing body in charge of defining the disorder, and the largest health research organization on the planet- neither find that it is neurological. 
You're grossly misleading anyone who visits this page.
68.35.248.242 23:45, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please don't use  for content disputes... and 68, if you follow our host of guidelines/policies (eg WP:ATT, WP:NPOV), feel free to be bold in updating the page yourself (or see the manual of style for formatting issues). If someone disagrees with you and you want a third opinion, see WP:3. GracenotesT § 00:21, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  need editor 

message: I just looked up the International statement that is cited as evidence. nowhere does it claim that ADHD is neurological.
I think I am really done for real this time, but this exemplifies the problem with wiki...even the most simple facts here cannot be accurately maintained without a level of commitment that I don't have. I don't care if this entry is correct, and fact is, it's NOT. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dareu2move (talk • contribs).
:I've already commented waaaay above that the distinction between the two sciences is often arbitrary and artificial. You are finding more significance than there is for this situation. Also, the main reason you are getting so much resistance with this is because you are trying to change the wording as an attack on the topic of ADHD. Maybe that's just my wild speculations for your motives, maybe I'm not assuming good faith, but looking at your contribs I'd bet you're here to push a POV far more than actually improve the article. The POV pushing is obvious, that's why we revert you. This would be the same for any article, medication, children, or even something on a plant. -- Ned Scott 03:28, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  neuro 

message: The points have been made. Yes, please bring in a moderator and spare the drama.--scuro 04:00, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: it's not worth discussing anymore

message: There is no POV here. There is an effort to make sure the information included here is scientific, a cause I fear is largely lost. Information in mental health is not commonsensical. This page at present mostly includes a common-sense but inaccurate portrayal of ADHD. I tried to modify the page so it was congruent with NIH and DSM yet this was objected to...enough said! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.35.248.242 (talk) 17:30, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  NO POV 

message: Sorry if I stepped on some toes. The article was becoming a real hodgepodge of info and was visually distracting.--scuro 04:15, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Certainly unreferenced statements should be deleted.  As it currently reads, this article needs a good editing. Maybe someone could make some suggestions here? JohnsonRon 18:37, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Took a crack at the opening paragraph in an attempt to meet the standard of a GA. I'm not totally pleased with my efforts. I did try to include important info but perhaps someone else can make it all flow a little better. --scuro 00:43, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: further changes to make the article reach the standard of GA

message: ALternative treatments should be kept in the treatment section. We do not need new subsections. Either the alternative treatment has shown some degree of clinical success or it shouldn't make it into the main article. For this reason I have removed the brain exercise paragraph and smoking paragraph(the smoking section is good info but doesn't belong in the treatment section unless someone wants to make this case in discussion)
Another possibility is to start a new article entitled Alternative treatments for ADHD.
--scuro 16:43, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Alternative treatment

message: Removed this ref from Methylphenidate, as the drugs tested didn't include that drug:
:
It doesn't look like it's referenced here, but it might be an interesting thing to add in somewhere.--Eloil 22:12, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reference from ''Methylphenidate'': 'Hyperactivity Paradox Resolved?' 

message: I rearranged the opening of the article so the information is presented in a more logical order so the characteristics of ADHD are presented first, followed by the demographics, and then finally the information on the causes of ADHD. I think this is an improvement over the previous format which had information about the causes and heritability first, then the demographics, and finally the characteristics. When someone who doesn't know what ADHD is reads this article they will want to know what the characteristics are first and then about the demographics and heritability. Other articles about disorders like bipolar disorder and clinical depression describe the characteristics first as well. If anyone has concerns or objections, I would love to discuss them with you and reach a consensus. Sifaka talk 02:37, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rearrangement of the opening 

message: The section about the PET scan studies of cerebral glucose metabolism needs to be removed.  This study has been found to be unreliable to say the least.  Zametkin himself could not reproduce these results and further analysis has shown errors in the the colecting and interpreting of the data.  All the subsequent claims about differances in brain metabolism were based on this study.  It is imparative that this false notion be stopped until it is either verified or disproven.  
In this article Zametkin states that he could not reproduce the results:
Arch Gen Psychiatry. 1996 Nov;53(11):1059-61.
Brain metabolism in teenagers with attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder.
Zametkin AJ, Liebenauer LL, Fitzgerald GA, King AC, Minkunas DV, Herscovitch P, Yamada EM, Cohen RM.
Section on Clinical Brain Imaging, National Institute of Mental Health, Bethesda, Md.
....."CONCLUSIONS: Global or absolute measures of metabolism using positron emission tomography and fludeoxyglucose F18 did not statistically differentiate between normal adolescents with ADHD. Positron emission tomography scans can be performed and are well tolerated by normal teenagers and teenagers with ADHD. The feasibility of normal minors participating in research involving radiation was established." —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.173.212.154 (talk) 02:11, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The more Wikipedic approach would be to note that the PET scan study done in such and such a year appeared to indicate, etc., etc., but also note that Zametkin, one of the researchers on that study, later reported himself unable to reproduce the results of the study.  Simply removing mention of it altogether as if it had never existed, when obviously it did exist and had a significant effect, is not the best solution. -- Antaeus Feldspar 02:34, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Even Zametkin has stated that his PET scan study was faulty.  This information needs to be removed. 

message: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Attention-deficit_hyperactivity_disorder/archive3#zametkin_issue
There are several entries there dealing with this issue. --scuro 02:35, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: flogging the Zametkin dead cat

message: I forked this article out of the Treatments section because it was becoming rather listy and unwieldy. If you have any comments or suggestions please reply. Sifaka talk 00:20, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder treatments]] 

message: I thought there was a slight difference between the two, and that with ADHD hyperactivity was a symptom, but that it didn't necessarily factor in to ADD. I may be wrong here. Is there actually a difference between the two, and if so, why is this article about ADHD instead of ADD?--Jcvamp 20:35, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you'll understand it better if you read an older version of this article: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Attention-deficit_hyperactivity_disorder&oldid=75974226 Edward Bower 20:53, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  I was trying to get info on ADD but this seems to be about ADHD only 

message: This would seem to call into question the diagnosis and the book used to diagnose.
A result in a poll of psychiatrists of the ten WORST psychiatric research documents:
DSM-IV - Diagnostic and Statistical Manual: (4th ed). Containing every psychiatric diagnosis, it is criticised for reducing psychiatry to a checklist. "If you are not in DSM-IV, you are not ill. It has become a monster, out of control."
(Excerpt from THE INDEPENDENT (London) March 19, 2001, Monday; Pg. 5 By Jeremy Laurance Health Editor)
Bizfixer 21:51, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Bizfixer, in my opinion, this is the type of thing that belongs in your blog, why have you posted this on a talk page?Edward Bower 02:27, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inventor of ADHD Speaks Out 

message: I'm going to revert the edits by DashaKat that removed the references to the ContinuingEdCourses, stating that they were not legitimate. I don't know anything about any other CED's, but the one that this article refered to was written by Russell A. Barkley, Ph.D., who is Research Professor of Psychiatry at the SUNY Upstate Medical University, Syracuse, NY, and Clinical Professor of Psychiatry, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, SC. He's is a recognized expert on ADHD, and the text itself (the one that Barkley wrote) is very well referenced. So I can't see why this would not be a legitimate reference. DashaKat, if you don't agree with me, please explain! Lova Falk 18:14, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The academic definition of a reference is something that you can go and read.  While it is true that some individuals may have access to the esteemed Dr. Barkley's classes, not every one does.  That makes the references not workable.  Referencing them as not legitimate may have been too strong a turn of phrase, but my point was, if Dr. Barkley has published something, great, reference that.  Citing course curriculum as supporting evidence just doesn't fly by Wiki standards, or any academci standards that I know of, as it is transient information.  DashaKat 21:04, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm re-reverting.  The reference provided is indeed "something that you can go and read," and I've seen no indication that the information is going to be taken down anytime soon.  Until such time as the page is inaccessable, the reference is perfectly acceptable by Wikipedia standards: it is a well written article by an expert in the field which specifically mentions the point or topic it is intended to back up.  The fact that it happens to be part of a course curriculum is irrelevant. -- Y|yukichigai (ramble argue check) 21:11, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia policy states that articles be sourced "...to ensure that the content of articles is credible and can be checked by any reader or editor."  The content of this article can be checked, but not via these sources, unless you are a student of the professor, or have access to the class notes.  The original link brought you to a course outline, not an article.  That precludes "any reader".  Find another source.  DashaKat 21:21, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  You need to read the link in full.  There is a large, large section underneath the general course outline detailing some of the points this author is making about ADHD, including the one the citation is there to back up. -- Y|yukichigai (ramble argue check) 21:29, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

text:  It's not a course outline, it's the whole course. I'm undoing the undoing. --scuro 22:55, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Weak. DashaKat 13:06, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Continued Ed Courses as reference 

message: Considering that ADHD is one of the most researched areas in neuropsychology, I was surprised that there was no Current Research section in this article.
I was also surprised not to see any mention of Continuous Performance Tests. It has been common practice for the last decade (or two) for psychologists to use CPTs for ADHD screening and for psychiatrists and doctors to use CPTs to titrate medications and monitor development.
The article seems to get a lot of churn, so I'm hesitant to add these things myself. --IanOsgood 16:01, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It gets churn because of the agenda-driven contributions of a few editors.  The additions you suggest would be welcome by most here.  DashaKat 19:52, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You're funny DK. The article gets little churn...we just have POV pushers who try to insert bogus material or delete supported material. The CPT has little validity as a diagnositic tool and is not used much in current practice. I'd prefer not to see a current research section. Do other articles have one that I could look at? I'd fear that we would get every tidbit of research that POV pushers can dig up, without the relevance or analysis needed to spring stuff like that on the general public.--scuro 20:13, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Current research data should be -- can be -- incorporated into the article in the relevant section.  CPT is becoming a less used methodology because of it's lack of validity as a DX tool.  JohnsonRon 17:10, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Research section? CPTs? 

message: I have been working on a project for Health, and was wondering on the connections between AD/HD and metabolism, if there are any. I have done some very broad internet searches that have all come up blank. however i see that there were questions of this type somewhere in the past of this article.
Xiaden 02:44, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  AD/HD and metabolism 

message: "Only five percent of those with ADHD will get a college degree compared to twenty seven percent of the general population. (US Census, 2003)"
Was there a US census in 2003? William conway bcc 16:02, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, there certainly was a publication from the Census Bureau using Census data regarding AD/HD in 2003.--Mrdarcey 19:49, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Could you give us a more specific citation? --*Kat* 01:40, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The sentence is badly written and misleading.  I assumed that the note referred to this , which was indeed published in 2003/4.  However it is only general statistical data for educational attainment in the population with regards to ethnicity and gender.  Mea culpa.  The 5% degree cite appears to be this, The adolescent outcome of hyperactive children diagnosed by research criteria: I. An 8-year prospective follow-up study, the first of a three part 1990 study by Barkley, et al.  I think a more accurate complaint to the sentence is the age of that study compared to that of the census data.--Mrdarcey 00:10, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citation Issues 

message: I propose that we merge ADHD predominantly inattentive to this article. Not officially recognized in the DSM-IV, only has two references, and is really just one paragraph with a symptom list. -- Ned Scott 05:01, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not.  In response to the discussion in "ADD", I revised the article to include the information and the redirect in the first paragraph 2 days ago.  Blessings. --DashaKat 12:05, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Only if all the sub-categories of ADHD are oncluded in said subsection. --DashaKat 17:23, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I could go along with that JohnsonRon 19:58, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why not...that sounds like a good idea. Wouldn't a reader also want to know the difference between a combo and plain hyperactive also?--scuro 02:57, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge 

message: Most people don't know that ADD is a form of ADHD, so they might get confused when they get redirected to a page that is generally about ADHD.  I think "ADD" on the disambiguation page should redirect to the ADHD predominantly inattentive article, so that people realize more quickly that it is in fact a specific form of ADHD.  Who agrees? --82.31.161.14 18:28, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  ADD on the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ADD disambiguation page] should redirect to [[ADHD predominantly inattentive]] 

message: While recent studies have shown that nutrition plays a role in the reduction of some ADHD symptoms and studies show that genetics does not account for the entire ADHD population, no reliable source states that the fast majority of ADHD is caused by nutritional factors. In fact several good secondary sources state that poor nutrition does not cause ADHD. The nutrition paragraph in this subsection has become too large and too reliant on single studies and not secondary sources. Furthermore, while it is interesting that higher or lower levels of certain nutrients effect symptomology no author of these studies draws the conclusion that nutrition is the cause of ADHD. Much of what is written here should be moved to the ADHD treatment article where the information is more relevant.--scuro 13:10, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Causes of of ADHD and nutrition