> You refuse all the decades and heaps of evidence by some summary hand-waving over what science is supposed to be.

Yes -- myself and the NIMH. We're on the same wavelength. You need to learn this topic, find out what's going on in your own field. Your ignorance is embarrassing. And there is no "science is supposed to be" trope -- science has been clearly defined in the law, laws meant to keep Creationism out of public school classrooms, laws with requirements psychology cannot meet.

> Your rant about the DSM is completely off topic.

Say what? The DSM is the source for information about ADHD. NO DSM, no ADHD. This was true about Asperger's as well, until it became too embarrassing and was removed from the new edition of the DSM. Asperger's has recently been discarded by being removed from the DSM.

> I just can't explain why you want to prove the non-existence of ADHD ...

What the fuck are you talking about? I never said ADHD is not real, I said it's not science, and until it is, the NIMH will refuse to accept it or allow funds to be disseminated to study it. Those are the facts.

Prove me wrong -- locate where I claimed that ADHD isn't real. In other words, imitate a scientist and locate some evidence for your false claims.

It's not as though ADHD information is difficult to locate:

Link: http://www.psychiatrictimes.com/adhd/problems-overdiagnosis-...

Title: "Problems of Overdiagnosis and Overprescribing in ADHD"

Quote: "Doubt and confusion as to where this disorder fits into the general spectrum of illness further feeds the general perception that ADHD is a socially constructed disorder rather than a valid neurobiological disorder. -- With the production of more stimulants every year, worries about the increased availability of stimulants for abuse and diversion rise as well. Rising production rates are cited as proof of stimulant overprescribing by physicians and indirect evidence of the overdiagnosis of ADHD among children."

I emphasize the above doesn't constitute science evidence for or against anything, only that your claim that ADHD is a solidly established disorder backed by reliable research is, simply put, a lie.

> If you were inclined to listen to scientific evidence ...

There is no scientific evidence, and it's time for your to learn something about science. This is why the NIMH has decided to reject the DSM -- it's become an embarrassment.

> ... you will probably find some reason, why this evidence is not clear enough to draw conclusions you donb't like.

AS does the NIMH, and for excellent reasons -- scientifically clueless people like you who take positions out of ignorance.

Prove me wrong. Name the property that all scientific findings and theories must possess to be regarded as science (a property included in the laws that define science). It can be expressed in a single word, and it's something psychological research lacks in droves.

> "DSM contains conditions which don't have physical/physiological manifestations" is not proof for ADHD not existing.

And? I never claimed anywhere that ADHD doesn't exist. I do say that, until we know what it is, we cannot meaningfully treat it. And the above quotation from the literature fully supports my position.

Now stop lying. ADHD is neither true nor false, it's in limbo because there is no science being done.

> For one thing, because these physical and physiological features have been well studied...

So your claim is that if something is well studied, then ipso facto it must be real. If that were true, it would make astrology real -- it's certainly been well studied.

Learn science -- stop embarrassing yourself.