Talk:Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder controversies

Status as a disorder

Scientific researchers have found ADHD causes impairment in life functioning and that behaviour associated with ADHD has been clinically shown to be abnormal in those with ADHD.[7]. - The citation doesn't match what is stated. Mimi ^(yack) 17:10, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

All the subsections of DESCRIPTION AND DIAGNOSIS cover the behaviors and processes which are impaired or shown to be altered in those with ADHD. Executive level control deficits, inattention, and impulse control to name a few are often altered between normal children and ADHD children. These manifest as inability to controlling themselves or being unable to stay on task both of which are important life skills. The top part of etiology of [1] touches on some of the altered behaviors as well. Maybe can you elaborate on what your concern is? I am going to readd the section. Sifaka ^talk 07:37, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi Sifaka, I maintain my position and obviously don't want to edit war so have removed it while we discuss. This looks the same ref I used before. Here it doesn't seem to me to match what is stated; "Scientific researchers have found ADHD causes impairment in life functioning" - well ADHD doesn't kill you and 'impairment in life functioning' seems to refer to the difficulties of modern western living which are argued to not produce 'abnormality' but discontent and protest in some. Hence the controversy, and rather than illustrate that controversy the section seemed to be a statement of the irrefutable truth of ADHD. There is no clinical evidence that objectively tests for the presence of ADHD and the presence of ADHD cannot be shown, it is a subjective diagnosis, hence the controversy. As this article is to detail that controversy I think that section would be better in the ADHD article. Regards, Mimi ^(yack) 01:25, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

The diagnosis of most disorders is subjective including migraines. Do migraines not exist? Or Autism? Or Tourettes? Or Parkinsons? All have a subjective diagnosis. When you look at the hyperactive diagnosis of ADHD...it has a remarkable predictive value and life outcomes are significantly impaired in many areas including school, work, family life...you name it.--scuro (talk) 03:08, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Discussion above seems off the point. ADHD is defined by a set of symptoms, most of which are some sort of dysfunction or other. This statement is a tautology: "Scientific researchers have found ADHD causes impairment in life functioning and that behaviour associated with ADHD has been clinically shown to be abnormal in those with ADHD."

To consider it other than a tautology, we have to believe that there is some specific thing other than a mere diagnostic category that is "ADHD." Perhaps there is such a thing, but this hasn't been clearly demonstrated, it still is true that ADHD is a diagnostic category and, as such, it is a set of symptoms, found in association, most of which show some kind of "impairment in life functioning," and "abnormal behavior." Not terribly abnormal, and often simply developmentally abnormal, but this is still true. There is also a detail: Mimi, above, challenged this text saying that the source did not say what was taken from it. That's a serious defect, if true, and it was not addressed except by denial when Scuro reverted Mimi's removal. I could look up the text myself, but .... don't edit war. I took the text out until it's established here as legitimate. Quote the source! --Abd (talk) 03:18, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I did just look at the source, and a source like that cannot be cited en masse; it should be easy for a reader to verify the claim that is based on the source, and it surely is not. Do we have to read a whole tome to find that part of it which is relevant? The course appears to be, as it were, a textbook, but it, in the beginning, notes that it presents the author's theory about ADHD. If this source is going to be used, exact quotes *must* be given here to support text in the article, and I rather doubt that there is anything there that belongs in the controversies article. What's the controversy? So even if the source is good, what is taken from the source, as presented, isn't. --Abd (talk) 03:31, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

• ADHD is defined by a set of symptoms - ADHD is defined by impairment. No impairment no disorder and it has to be in two settings.
• This statement is a tautology: "Scientific researchers have found ADHD causes impairment in life functioning and that behaviour associated with ADHD has been clinically shown to be abnormal in those with ADHD." - can we not use plain English? I know you write for those "few" who get you, but pragmatically speaking, are we not here to communicate to the whole community?
• ''To consider it other than a tautology, we have to believe that there is some specific thing other than a mere diagnostic category that is "ADHD. Perhaps there is such a thing, but this hasn't been clearly demonstrated, " - If you knew more on the topic, your point wouldn't be an issue.
• Mimi, above, challenged this text saying that the source did not say what was taken from it. That's a serious defect, if true, and it was not addressed except by denial when Scuro reverted Mimi's removal. I could look up the text myself, but .... don't edit war. -if you're not willing to do the reading then really why are you butting in?
• I took the text out until it's established here as legitimate. Quote the source! - even a bigger mistake...deleting sourced material based on an assumption.

Here is the Reader's Digest condensed notes on the topic for those who don't like to read. http://www.cdc.gov/NCBDDD/adhd/dadburden.htm If this source is not acceptable simple ask, more sources like this can be found. --scuro (talk) 03:49, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

My, my, a lotta words for nothing accomplished. ADHD is defined by impairment. So we would say that "ADHD causes impairment"? It is impairment, a specific collection of impairments or abnormal behaviors as defined by DSM or another standards manual. Is there some text, supported by source, proposed to be inserted? I did not see the text from the CDC to support the text removed. Interpretation of source isn't allowed, unless it is not controversial, is mere paraphrase. Further, I don't see this text as at all necessary or appropriate for this article. Pap.

How about "ADHD is a disorder, resulting in disordered behavior. Scientists have proven that abnormal behavior is not normal." Is that really any worse? --Abd (talk) 03:59, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

• So we would say that "ADHD causes impairment"? you got it Pontiac.
• It is impairment, a specific collection of impairments or abnormal behaviors as defined by DSM or another standards manual. - Impairment in life functioning .......as was noted in the text before you removed it. But you knew that already or you wouldn't have removed the text. Impairment is defined by subjective assessment by the assessor. I would say no friends and failing several subjects in school would do it for most who assess the disorder, especially if the subject had average to above average intelligence. Now don't get your knickers in a knot here. A good assessor would not make an assessment based on the DSM symptoms and impaired setting alone. They would look further. Some may choose a more formal adaptive assessment and look at other angles.
• Is there some text, supported by source, proposed to be inserted? I did not see the text from the CDC to support the text removed. Interpretation of source isn't allowed, unless it is not controversial, is mere paraphrase. Further, I don't see this text as at all necessary or appropriate for this article. Pap. Thank you for your opinion. It would be a pleasant surprise if you could be a little more accommodating...especially if you are the one asking questions for understanding.
• How about "ADHD is a disorder, resulting in disordered behavior. Scientists have proven that abnormal behavior is not normal." Is that really any worse?- and now you are just being facetious.--scuro (talk) 04:21, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Here is a definition right from the source provided earlier. "The domains of impairment in ADHD include: academic achievement/school performance, family life, peer/social interactions, self-esteem/perceptions, and accidental injuries and adaptive functioning".--scuro (talk) 04:32, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Scuro - I agree that hyperactivity/symptoms of ADHD make functioning in society very difficult and frustrating and I'm not saying these symptoms don't exist. All I'm mindful of is that part of the controversy is that these symptoms can be caused by a variety of reasons, and are sometimes normal behaviours for the causation, yet currently they are treated as one syndrome that predominantly attracts one treatment. Part of the controversy is that treatment; drugs, and also the failure to investigate or recognise at patient interface the causes of such behaviours, such as diet, environment, trauma etc. and treat accordingly. I don't think this article is the correct place for the section in question, as stated above, I think it should be moved to the ADHD article. This one should focus on the controversy - there's an entire article claiming that ADHD exists without question and the controversy article states from the off that "Attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) is a developmental neurobehavioural disorder widely recognized by the medical and scientific community as causing impairment, especially in children." I see no reason to repeat that. The controversy article should focus on the controversy. Mimi ^(yack) 11:28, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you on all the points you made. Thanks for being a considerate voice of reason. It would be best if a very thorough assessment were done in every case by well trained personal. After all these kids are having difficulty...sometimes great difficulty functioning in life. If you are going to label someone you better be sure that you have the label correct and that there is appropriate service available. Keep in mind though that medication works for many who don't have ADHD but have brain trauma or other causes of ADHD symptoms...after all the same areas of the brain have often been put under stress.

What I think should happen is that the valid points made in this article belong in the main article. This article is in major flux...as a sign of good faith we can leave it out and reconsider, if necessary, when the article is more stable and accurate. That is, if other editors have no problem with this.--scuro (talk) 12:25, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Scuro - I agree with the comments you've made and have no problem with your suggestion.

I am concerned that an 'unverified claims' tag is on the 'Alternative theories concerning ADHD' section. Both yourself and Snailgoop did some good work on that section. I wonder if perhaps we could all work together to sort that problem out? I'll check sources when I can. Regards, Mimi ^(yack) 14:56, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Sure I can help. I think the first thing that needs a template to let people know that this page is a work in progress. That way they will be more forgiving. Is this the right one? Template:Isrev

The social construct theory may go back a way to Thomas Szasz and beyond. That stuff looks to be on the antipsychiatry article. Why reinvent the wheel? If there are articles on things like hunter/gatherer lets link out. If there is a large section like social construct...find a link out, trim, or create an article to link out. What I see as a problem is undue weight for sections where previous editors have a major interest and have created a lot more content...as compared to other equally or more important areas that have less info because editors were not as interested in that topic. How does this approach sound? Focus on the alternative theories perhaps everyone working on one.--scuro (talk) 20:59, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I'll leave the template choice up to you but the idea sounds constructive for that section, also an invite to Snailgoop and maybe Barrylb? I think if an editors work is destined for change it's nice to give them an opportunity to do that. Something has cropped up I need to deal with Scuro, can you drive this for a while until I can help further? Hope so, I'll be able to help in a little while. Linking out rather than repeating sounds good if there is an article but some repetition may be necessary to make a point - I'm just concerned a reader would be landed with a lot of links to follow in order to understand a point but as long as the point is clear then I think it a good suggestion. Regards, Mimi ^(yack) 19:22, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm just going to slowly work on the Hunter/gatherer section.--scuro (talk) 04:34, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

which article?

Does this belong here in the controversy article or be better in the ADHD article do you think?

Genetic basis of ADHD
Research indicates that there is a highly probable link between genetics and ADHD. Research suggests that ADHD is a heterogeneous disorder and that a large majority of ADHD arises from a combination of various genes.[15] Dr. Joseph Glenmullen has focused his criticism based on the single gene theory, "no claim of a gene for a psychiatric condition has stood the test of time, in spite of popular misinformation". Although many theories exist, there is no definitive biological, neurological, or genetic etiology for "mental illness."[citation needed]

Miamomimi (talk) 17:26, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

It belongs on the controversy page. There already is a causes i.e. etiology section in the ADHD article which goes over the most likely genetic theories. The first sentence is irrelevant because no single gene is implicated in ADHD. Rather the main viewpoint is that "ADHD does not follow the traditional model of a "genetic disease" and is better viewed as a complex interaction among genetic and environmental factors," and "although several genome-wide searches have identified chromosomal regions that are predicted to contain genes that contribute to ADHD susceptibility, to date no single gene with a major contribution to ADHD has been identified."

My interpretation of the second sentence is that it is basically saying "Although there are many biological, neurological, and genetic theories on what causes a specific mental illness, none of them have been proved." Assuming I have interpreted it correctly this statement is confusing the common and scientific definitions of "theory" and "proof". Strict "proof" only exists in mathematics, so it is not possible to "prove" anything is science. Rather there are "theories" which in their scientific sense are simply an explanation or model that makes testable predictions and has not been falsified. It seems the second statement is trying to capitalize on the colloquial definition of the the word "theory," falsely characterizing it as a matter of opinion rather than of fact or evidence.

I should probably include this response in this quotes section, post modification. Sifaka ^talk 02:23, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Sifake - ok no worries. BTW, I've taken out this edit: "However, not all hyperactivity in children is due to ADHD, and dietary factors have not been implicated in ADHD etiology. " as that was kinda the point I was making and it looks as if it's a direct rebuttal of my previous edit but it's a good ref and I'd like to re-insert it with another of mine own (have found the copy I needed) and see what you think if thats ok? I have an errand to do that can't wait but will do this tonight and as it's here I won't forget it. Regards, Miamomimi (talk) 15:18, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

No problem, the article isn't going anywhere. It's good that you are checking the sources to see if they actually source what they are actually supposed to source by the way. Cheers, Sifaka ^talk 18:53, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Ok Sifaka, it's up, though I'll probably re-read tommorow - I thought that ref of yours was useful as it highlighted a tension in the genetic argument yet I wanted to use it in its current location as it demonstrated current medical guidelines. Sadly the one I quote from isn't online :-( regards, Miamomimi (talk) 23:51, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Clinical Research Involving Children split into a new article

I am concerned that this paragraph is not sufficiently specific to ADHD. It may be more appropriate to create an separate article for the topic since I can't find an article or a section of an article on WP at the moment that deals with the topic of children in clinical research. There is also the possibility that it could me merged into an already existing article like the ethical conduct section of clinical research, but I think there is enough debate on this matter to warrant a full article. Sifaka ^talk 08:23, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Done http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethical_problems_using_children_in_clinical_trials

Restepc (talk) 14:54, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Potential re-organization of the alternative theories section

I originally wrote this on the ADHD discussion page but I thought I would move it here, elaborate, and see if this proposal generates any interest. In order to clean up and organize the Alternative Theories section, it might be nice to structure each theory by issues. Potential issues might be

• What is ADHD? a disorder (i.e. a brain malfunction), a distinct phenotype within the normal range of human behavior, non-existent?
• What causes ADHD?
• How should ADHD be treated, if at all. With stimulant meds? Psychological therapy? A good wallop to the behind?
• Should there be accommodations/special aid for people with ADHD?

This might make the essentials of each theory easier to understand and could make it simpler to compare viewpoints with each other and mainstream scientific theory. Each viewpoint would be structured sort of like this:

Small introduction to each Alternative theory's basic premise/proponents

stance on issue 1

stance on issue 2

stance on issue 3...

theory specific issues (i.e. is the premise plausible etc...)

Any interest? Sifaka ^talk 20:22, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

If this is going to be a lengthy thing, shouldn't it be a separate article?--scuro (talk) 04:27, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

reworking article so as to combine two articles together?

Simply what I am proposing is prune this article until it is lean and pure for the purposes of moving all or most of it onto the main article. There is no way that we can move most of this stuff over now because of undue weight. One way to do that is to link out of the article. There is a hunter vs. farmer theory article. If you folks agree, I'll trim the Hartmann stuff on the article with a link out, so you can see where we should go with this. --scuro (talk) 03:28, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Combining the articles has always seemed sensible to me, however, when you say "prune this article until it is lean and pure for the purposes of moving" it rings alarm bells! If this article is factual and backed up with references and the facts presented are consistent with the subject then those facts shouldn't be pruned for the purposes of moving. If opposition is likely, due to the opinion of undue weight, then perhaps a mention of the main points of the controversy could be put in the ADHD article, linking to the 'controversy' article for greater detail. I think that would be a good idea as someone has lately missed the link to the controversy in the ADHD article, which may have prompted your suggestion. I agree with your suggestion that explaining a theory that is detailed in it's own article is misplaced here and linking out seems sensible to me. (also, pls see last comment in 'Status as a disorder' section) Mimi ^(yack) 19:35, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Well lets look at Hunter Gatherer theory. It has reached the mainstream population, it can be well referenced, but it is neither majority or minority opinion. It does deserve mention, but truncated mention. It deserves a few sentences at best, on the main page with a link out to the article H&G. The same goes for a lot of stuff in this article. The meatier issues deal with medication and they would most likely be longer on the main article because they may be minority or even majority opinion. But I'm not going to research and find great citations for the fun of it. The purpose of merging this article is to eliminate it. No other mental disorder also has a controversy article and this article has taken on the role of coatrack for a good deal of it's existence. I'm not going to expend a great deal of energy to edit and refine controversial viewpoints and then merge them into the main article to have the controversy page stand. It would be coatrack waiting for a new closet full of POV pushing edits. The choice is yours.--scuro (talk) 04:30, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Mimi. You are new here but if you take the time to go over what has been deleted and which links removed (by the mysterious person suggesting we do the "pruning") you will get a great education in this person's disingenuous motives. I urge you to take a look at his history and how he manages to make critics out to be members of the lunatic fringe. I have recently made explicit the position of an Oxford Professor, winner of the yearly Faraday award from the Royal Society , for her contributions to the scientific education of the English. She is very concerned about what is going on with ADHD. I'll bet he will remove it and leave criticism from the Scientologists, thereby continuing the myth that critics are antipsychiatrists or members of cults. That he continues to rule here is amazing. He wears down his critics who have better things to do then go on and on and on with him. The time he spends on this article has made me wonder whether he does this for a living. I know that sounds paranoid but I have seriously begun to wonder about him. I have asked him repeatedly to identify himself, but he refuses--Ss06470 (talk) 18:09, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Ss, you are aware that you are breaking wiki guidelines, and I ask to what end? ( WP:NPA. "Do not make personal attacks anywhere in Wikipedia. Comment on content, not on the contributor. Personal attacks will not help you make a point; they hurt the Wikipedia community and deter users from helping to create a good encyclopedia". ) Mimi is fully aware that my viewpoint is radically different from yours or hers, yet refreshingly she seeks to work together to seek consensus. She doesn't assume bad faith and nor should anyone. If you believe an editor truly is gaming the system, seek help or make a formal complaint. Otherwise what you post will simply be seen as flaming, very off topic, and bad form. I hope to work with you in the future to change the article for the better.--scuro (talk) 22:47, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

To what end? To alert her to the history of seemingly innocent editing that always has the same result, the elimination or trivialization of serious criticism of current dogma and practice--Ss06470 (talk) 23:38, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Are you helpless? Can you not point out the specific edits and discuss in talk why they should not be removed, changed, or added.... as other editors do? Could you be assuming bad faith on my part, by not to follow wiki guidelines, and seek to eliminate a viewpoint that is foreign to yours by building me up as a strawman? Have not other editors supported your viewpoint? Please stick to content, your approach is making talk highly personal and I do not not appreciate it at all. Please desist in this practice immediately. Make a complaint if you have any solid ground to believe that I am not following guidelines. Please don't waste everyones time by focusing on contributors instead of content on the talk page. Can I be anymore clear? WP:NPA --scuro (talk) 05:56, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I am willing to cut and paste huge tracts of debate (and ad hominum attacks on your part!!) that have been a part of the discussion here with me and many others who have disagreed with you. That is why I asked her to review your history. I did so and it is amazaing how you use the same tactics. Despite being corrected by me and others you invariably manage to place critics as "antipsychiatry" belonging to scientology, Breggin supporters or Fred Baughman's dupes. You use that again and again. You have managed to chase away, in complete frustration , person after person with your inability to hear what they were saying. For example: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Attention-deficit_hyperactivity_disorder&diff=115437334&oldid=115435277

Give it up User:68.35.248.242 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)

last word, wrong 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...

Here is a note from someone else who gave up. Dr. Sobo, I am glad to see a new voice of reason and science on here. With even the admins vandalizing articles, we need experts on here to stand up to the zealots. Thank you for your comments on my page and your work in the field of psychiatry. Jkhamlin 03:38, 16 May 2007 (Jkhamlin is a medical student)

One...more...time. I have no need to prove anything. It is the defenders of this ridiculous piece of pseudo-scientific hogwash ( and of the laughably coy article about 'controversy' in which every gigantic doubt is followed by by a slippery 'but' qualification in no wise equal to the doubt expressed) who need to provide proof. It is precisely because they can't that they want to suppress the truth that there is some doubt about it. Whatever would happen if the uninformed got hold of that piece of knowledge? The 'single point' I wish to pick, and have picked, and propose to stick to, is that the diagnosis is controversial, a statement of the blindingly obvious ( for which I have provided ample evidence even for those unable to see the blindingly obvious). This 'single point' was censored from the article within hours of my placing it there, by its righteous self-appointed guardians, and would be so censored again, along with pious warnings about my misbehaviour, should I do so again. You can put it back whenever you like, using the references and links I provide in the draft I wrote. No need to trouble me. But you won't. You're not even remotely paying attention to what I say. This change, a statement that 'ADHD' is a controversial diagnosis is an incredibly minor one compared with what I would be entitled to do in a fair forum. The advocates of the existence of 'ADHD' need to prove it exists, and haven't done so because they have no proof that it does, and know they have no proof. That's settled, I think. None of you has offered any such proof or evidence despite my repeated urgings for you to do so. Having swallowed the flabby camel of 'ADHD', they now strain at the gnat of admitting that Terence Kealey and Susan Greenfield and the latest Buffalo University study are evidence of doubt about the diagnosis. If I 'write well' (and thanks so much) it is because I tell the truth. I'll stick to making sure the warning label remains until such time as this pernicious rubbish goes the way of pre-frontal lobotomies. PH signed in as Clockback (talk) 23:04, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

.

The reason you and some of your allies are the issue is that you manage to prevail, not by logic but persistence. You leave absurd statements on the page by all kind of fringe groups but not statements and arguments that are more reasonable. It drives reasonable people to fury, and finally they leave. This is just a quickly put together sampling, but if you want the whole thing I will be more than happy to document your pattern and the insults you have regularly directed at your opponents It is almost laughable that you regularly warn others of not sticking to the task at hand and insulting you.

Finally, in reviewing a good number of the debates you have entered into, the key one appears to be whether ADHD is or is not a predominantly biological condition. This is the issue that the pharmaceutical industry has spent undue energy trying to end all debate about. As evidence of this assertion I will post something from Professor Pelham who changed from a paid "expert" to a staunch opponent of the drug industry (I, by the way do not believe all of the problems come from corrupt "experts" in the hire of drug companies, but I know they have an absurd influence See the editorial by Marica Angell, former editor of the New England Journal of Medicine Is Academic Medicine for Sale)

"It Was Like A Whitewash"

Enter Dr. William Pelham, director of the Center for Children and Families at State University of New York at Buffalo (SUNY). A leading ADHD researcher for 30 years, Pelham is a former member of the scientific advisory board for McNeil Pharmaceuticals, which produces Tylenol and markets Concerta, a popular stimulant medication trademarked by Alza Corp. of Mountain View, Calif. Over his career, Pelham has penned over 250 research papers on ADHD, many with industry grants. In 2002, he was given a lifetime achievement award by the world's largest ADHD patient advocacy group, Children and Adults with Attention Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (CHADD). In interviews with AlterNet, Pelham provided glimpses into the dubious methods drug maker McNeil-Alza uses to ensure that studies it funds produce favorable results for its ADHD medications. Between 1997 and 1999, he was paid by McNeil to conduct one of three studies used to get FDA approval. The company currently uses the three studies to claim that 96 percent of children taking Concerta experience no problems in appetite, growth, or sleep. But Pelham says the studies were flawed. The original intent of the studies was to measure both side effects and main effects of the drug. But two of the three studies, including Pelham's, required that the subjects had to already be taking MPH and responding well to it in order to enter the study. In other words, by stacking the studies with patients already successfully taking stimulants, McNeil ensured the subjects would be unlikely to register side effects, Pelham says.

"It's really misleading and I'm surprised the FDA is letting them use the studies to advertise no side effects," he says. "They had no side effects because they took only people with only a positive history of medication. This is really pushing meds without telling the full picture." There was also pressure from the company to tweak the findings, he says. Part of Pelham's study involved "providing parent training to parents, having a simple behavioral program in place on Saturday lab days, and establishing simple behavioral programs in the children's regular school classrooms." When his paper was in the galley proof stage at the medical journal Pediatrics, Pelham says he joined a conference call with a number of senior people from the corporation who lobbied him to change what he had written in the paper. "The people at Alza clearly pushed me to delete a paragraph in the article where I was saying it was important to do combined treatments (medication and behavioral)," he says, adding that they also pushed him to water down or eliminate other sentences and words that did not dovetail into their interests. "It was intimidating to be one researcher and have all these people pushing me to change the text." McNeil offered no direct response to the allegations.

"We cannot comment on unsubstantiated allegations," says Gary Esterow, a spokesman for McNeil Consumer & Specialty Pharmaceuticals, in a written statement. "The protocols and full study reports for these clinical trials were reviewed by the FDA, and provided the basis for FDA approval. Prior to publication, there was ample opportunity for full discussion of the data among the investigators. Publication of the findings reflect the prevailing opinion of the authors and is further supported by the peer review process of the scientific journals in which these studies appear." Pelham says McNeil didn't stop there. The company commissioned a follow-up study on the conversion study mentioned above. This time McNeil did the data analysis and coordinated the paper writing. "I insisted on seeing the analyses and having major inputs into the manuscript and it was like pulling teeth to get wording and analyses changed," he says. "It was like a whitewash, a praise to Concerta." Pelham says the company submitted the paper twice to the Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry. Drafts were sent to Pelham several times but he says he never returned anything with his signature. In the end, however, he says the paper was accepted without his knowledge and published with his name on it).

My assumption for the reason Pelham was pressured to remove the paragraqh emphasizing the importance of combined treatments (medication and behavioral) is that this would expose the limitations of pediatricians, who would be required to meet this standard of care. By far, the biggest presecribers of Concerta is pediatricians. Use would go radically down if the pediatricians could not believe that they were giving appropriate care based on reasoning that they were simply fixing the chemical imbalance.

Dubious tags

Scuro has put some tags on this section

"The argument in regard to ADHD derives from a serious concern that medical professionals in cooperation with the education system are driving a dangerous trend; namely, that children with ADHD are mentally ill[dubious – discuss], abnormal, disabled, maladaptive, etc., because they do not conform to a standard that has been socially constructed[citation needed], and is ultimately dominated by the interests of a multi-billion dollar pharmaceutical industry[dubious – discuss]."

IMO, the information isnt't exactly dubious, but the section could use a less POV rewrite, particularly the last part.

Perhaps

"The argument in regard to ADHD derives from concerns that medical professionals and individuals within the USA education system are pushing a dangerous viewpoint; namely, that children with ADHD are mentally ill, abnormal, disabled, maladaptive, etc., because they do not conform to a socially constructed norm. Some people have suggested that this viewpoint is ultimately being pushed by the pharmaceutical industry in order to sell Anti-ADHD drugs[citation needed]."

would be better?

Restepc (talk) 18:35, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good to me Restepc. Mimi ^(yack) 19:36, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Generally the whole section looks to have a lot of OR going on. To me the bigger issue is attribution. Where are these ideas coming from? It's okay if they are POV as long as it is attributed and they don't receive undue weight...after all this is a controversy article.--scuro (talk) 04:05, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Well I've certainly heard those opinions expressed before, so I can't imagine it'll be hard to find sources, I'll find a few and put them in when I switch the current version to my suggestion (assuming no-one has a problem with my suggestion between now and then) Restepc (talk) 18:56, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Switched it, put in a (obviously biased, but that's the point in this case) source, I'll leave this for a week or so in case anyone else has any comments then if not I'll scrap this section of the talk page....assuming that's what's done on wikipedia with discussions which have completely finished with no real disagreements??? Restepc (talk) 09:44, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

No, you don't eliminate anything in talk. It's a record and a potential shortcut for editors seeking change to a section. You can't use an obviously biased source, and a personal website...that is unless you were, to say...use a direct quote from the individual and attribute that quote to the individual.--scuro (talk) 15:28, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the info.....I've been here quite a while now but still don't know how a lot of things are done. My point about the biased source was that this is a citation to show that some people are of that opinion, therefore I don't really see how a source could be objected to on the grounds that is does express that opinion......

I'm going to insert 'some people including' before Fred B, as right now it sounds a bit like it's just one nutter claiming this, whereas it is in reality a comparatively common viewpoint.

Restepc (talk) 20:55, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Page numbers, please

I put a couple of tags in the Social construct section (possibly not the right tags) because I would like page numbers for the bits where Timimi talks about "right wing capitalist ideology" and "should favor boys over girls". This is not requested in time-wasting spirit, but because these bits seem not quite to tally with what Timimi says elsewhere.Ancadi (talk) 11:22, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Diet section

I moved a part discussing the role of diet in ADHD from the "skepticism towards diagnosis" section to a newly created subsection which I uncreatively called "Dietary Link to ADHD" under the newly created major section which I even-more-uncreatively called "Debate About the Causes of ADHD." Feel free to improve upon the names.

The largest change between the content was to find references for and elaborate on both sides of the debate over whether hyperactivity is exacerbated due to certain foods or additives and whether dietary restrictions mitigate ADHD symptoms. I changed the line "After leading the first study of its kind into food additives" to "After leading a study into food additives." The reason for this is that there were several studies into the same food additives previously using similar methods. I also found the ref for the study. I added a citation needed tag to Professor John Warner's quote because quotes should be sourced. (I looked for it but couldn't find it). Finally I removed the line "Eminent practitioners in the field have questioned the rising number of diagnoses of ADHD and its variants" because it doesn't fit in with the diet themed section. If someone wishes to move it elsewhere, fine by me. I think that covers it. Sifaka ^talk 03:06, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

My quote was sourced, there was nothing wanting in the work I provided, I will restore the removed material when I can. If you choose to change the position and thereafter the subject/focus of the sourced work provided, that could be construed as censorship by stealth to suit your POV, which should not occur. Mimi ^(yack) 14:28, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

removing multiple citations that often don't support the point they are citing

I have eliminated a few citations behind statements where the citations do not support what is stated in the sentence.--scuro (talk) 06:28, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

These should be examined closely. --Abd (talk) 17:05, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I did, you are welcome to double check what was done. If you disagree you know the channels to follow.--scuro (talk) 18:26, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Reversion of Scuro revert due to "personal web site" argument

We've discussed this issue many times, Scuro should know better. This is a controversies article. Breggin is a noted critic. His opinions may be cited and sourced from his web site. Don't like it, RFC it. I think it would be a waste of time.--Abd (talk) 17:07, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

That was a different time when personal judgments and attacks were mixed in with talk. Because I did not respond to posts which appeared to contain flamebait, doesn't mean that I conceded any point on this issue. Having said that, I think this should be looked at by a case by case basis. Here is my take on the issue. Generally personal websites should be avoided like the plague. If a personal website is being used to illustrate a controversial and fringe viewpoint, quotes should be used which can be directly attributed to the owner of the website and the quote. The author of the quote should be notable and the quote should attributed to the author. Most importantly such a segment should not undermine undue weight. --scuro (talk) 18:34, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

No concession was implied, rather only prior notice, and there are no formal charges here making it necessary to claim lack of proper notice. "plague" is not mentioned in the guidelines, and personal websites of an expert or person otherwise of note may be, explicitly, cited as evidence that the person actually expressed the argument. Now, a series of requirements were stated. If the material in the article isn't a fair and accepted summary of the point made in the source, that is grounds for correcting it or removing it. Clearly, an editor who placed the source believed that the source was appropriate. What was done here was to remove the source, based on the "personal website" claim, yet now the argument shifts, apparently. Now, it's not the personal website -- because this has just been acknowledged as appropriate for sourcing an opinion by a notable author -- it's, I must guess to some degree, that there is no "direct attribution," but, presmably, an indirect implication. I.e., Breggin didn't say, perhaps, exactly what is in the article -- I have not researched that -- or perhaps there is doubt as to whether or not material on the site may be attributed to him. Wikilawyers could argue for centuries over this, but, bottom line, the text either fairly represents what is on Breggin's web site, or it doesn't. In the former case, the citation is appropriate and has nothing to do with "personal web site" -- which was Scuro's summary of cause for reversion -- or it is not appropriate synthesis and the entire thing should be removed, not just the source. If the substance is correct, and the details wrong, the details should be fixed. --Abd (talk) 21:26, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the research is once again lacking, and as in the past, it may be better to properly investigate something before one unilaterally changes someone else's edit. They may have done the homework. One could argue that an editor who does not do even the most basic investigation, and make changes based on nothing but pure assumption, shows a marked degree of arrogance. I presume the proper attribution would be to Baughman. If you would like to contribute, please be a little more thorough. I look forward to your future input in this regard.--scuro (talk) 22:14, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Why, yes, of course. simple error of memory, the point was that the source for the statement was [2], and that's Baughman's site. Now, it seems that the editor above is a bit overconcerned, shall we say, about "editor behavior," which is ironic if we look at his history, and all the warnings he has dropped on editor talk pages about not doing this.... but enough. If he wants to complain about editor conduct, apparently he knows how to do it, or imagines that he does. The procedure is outlined at WP:DR and I've explained it to him, as well, in detail. Every editor makes mistakes, and the proper response is to fix them, not to revert them out when the intention is clear, with a blaze of charges of "arrogance."

And the removal of the antipsychiatry adjecive applied to the critic mentioned is based on no asserted reliable source that this is accurate. Looks perjorative to me, in context. Show source, fine, we'll look at it. However, he's a neurologist, and that's probably what should be there. I'll make it so.--Abd (talk) 04:34, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Funny how you are not so forgiving when the shoe is on the other foot. Here is what you wrote when I made a "simple error of memory": What you wrote was incorrect, and you have not acknowledged that. I read the source, and it does not mention payment. Period. A statement like that to someone like Clockback simply convinces him that he is arguing with dishonest idiots. Abd, I'd like to work with you but wonder by what standard you want to operate. If we are to work together would you like us to be exact and thorough, or more congenial and forgiving?

I've restored the Anti-P designation with a citation. Baughman has not been a Neurologist for 15 years and now would be notable for his work for scientology and creating anti-psychiatry content. But you knew that. --scuro (talk) 05:08, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

He has retired from private practice; is his license revoked? Do you have source satisfying WP:RS that calls him "anti-psychiatry"? The web site you sourced isn't reliable. Looks to me like he is "anti-drug-company." It would be convenient to toss all that in the much loonier "Scientology" bin, wouldn't it, or, not quite so offensive, "antipsychiatry, where he would be in better company, people like Szaz and a lot of psychiatrists? Unless you can reliably source it, it's coming out, Scuro. You want to put in something from the antipsychiatry web site, fine. "According to the antipsychiatry web site, ..." What? Does it say that he is "antipsychiatry"? Even if attributed, it may be problematic, and it is, quite simply, an example of what appears to be an extended and persistent attempt to slant the articles involved according to a POV, and, yes, I'm thoroughly aware that I'm writing in full public view and that everything I say can be held against me. Don't bother warning me over this one again. Do what you've been constantly urging me to do if I have a complaint. Tell it to the judge. If you can get a judge to listen. (ask another user, ask an administrator, RFC a question or a user, mediation, arbitration).

By the way, I'll just warn Scuro here this time: he pushed WP:3RR in yhis actions yesterday. 3RR is a bright line, it's actually possible to be blocked below that level. Even one stubborn revert can do it. If I'd intended to do something about it, this warning would have gone on his talk page. That could still happen... --Abd (talk) 18:42, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I've been trying to stay out of this mostly, but I'll say that Baughmans wiki article has a section on him being anti-p, as both of you are, according to the talk page and article history, aware...

For as long as Baughmans article says he's anti-p, then that is the consensus view of him by wikipedia and there should be no argument about describing him as anti-p on other pages. If Baughman is not anti-p, then his article should not say that he is, and the subject should be taken up there. If that section on his article should cease to exist then it can be strongly claimed that he shouldn't be described as anti-p elsewhere on wiki, but until then it's my opinion that wikipedia shouldn't contradict itself. Restepc (talk) 20:40, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Some local article "consensus" -- which may represent the opinion, simply, of a single editor -- cannot trump WP:RS. Wikipedia articles are not RS, ever. What is in one article cannot be used as an argument supporting what is or is not in another. Wikipedia does contradict itself, and it is entirely possible that the article Fred Baughman needs work. Indeed, who's been working on that article? Take a look, and then see who was insisting on "antipsychiatry" here: same editor: User:Scuro. Baughman criticizes, not "psychiatry," but what he calls "biological psychiatry." That his views are then taken up and promoted by some people calling themselves "antipsychiatry" is irrelevant. Unless he takes on the tag himself, or it is shown by reliable source, it's not appropriate here or in the Baughman article (and such a tag would require attribution unless it is not controversial). I looked there and fixed it there too. Thanks for pointing it out. By the way, WP:BLP policy is pretty strict, and this was in violation of it.--Abd (talk) 05:30, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

It's not a huge deal. As I read more and eventually see the two terms linked together, I will change the article. Problem is mainstream websites and media outlets don't write about the anti-psychiatry movement much at all let alone list all the adherents. But Abd knows that. When I do find a website he challenges it as being not suitable. The irony is deep and rich here...since he went to great lengths to allow other unsuitable websites onto this article as citations. Anyone who has listened or read Baughman wouldn't take issue with the Anti-P tag. Abd knows this to. Perhaps user Abd is simply restraining me once again, he believes he has the right to do so.

Dr. Sobo, you are correct that there has been long-term biased push on these articles, and Wikipedia is vulnerable to such efforts. Short-term push can be dealt with, but long-term, persistent warping of an article by someone really determined to do so can be very effective. However, be careful. Thinking of Wikipedia as a battleground can lead you into some serious mistakes, such as that here. Archiving of Talk is essential. If it is done incorrectly, it can be fixed. History remains for all of it. Nothing is lost. But the goal here is the article, not Talk. I've been distracted elsewhere, or I'd have been more active restraining the particular editor who is tangling with you. Abd (talk) 16:41, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I've change it to medical expert of the CCHR. Always attribute your sources, especially when they hold highly controversial viewpoints. Really this whole exercise is all silly because we have wikilawyering going on here and the apparent purpose is not the betterment of the article but could be to exert control and make every edit I make as difficult as possible.--scuro (talk) 06:22, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Removing Susan Greenfield from intro

I removed the following

"The most prominent of these critics is Oxford professor Dr. Susan Greenfield, winner of the yearly Faraday award from the Royal Society, for her contributions to the scientific education of the English. Dr. Greenfield called on ministers to examine how ADHD is diagnosed and treated in the UK."

The reason I did this is because it did not contribute to the content of the opening paragraph other than adding someone's name and achievments. The purpose of the intro is to give an overview of the topic at hand. ADHD controversy goes above and beyond one critic in the UK. Why include this one person and not any of the others? It would be best not to mention anyone specifically in the intro rather than flood the intro with many names. Secondly I have issues with calling her the most prominant ADHD critic. That point is certaintly debateable. She is just one person so giving her such a prominant mention in the beginning may violate the undue weight policy. If we need to make an international section to discuss ADHD by region then someone with more knowledge than I should do it. Sifaka ^talk 22:37, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I was the person who wrote that section because at the time it was repeatedly implied that critics were a fringe group, or members of the notorious scientology. The prestige of this prominent scientist speaks volumes about how reputable some of the criticism of ADHD is. The deletion is okay because I have now included a section on the media which refers to Dr. Greenfield, and the level of her accomplishments I know that the media can be very irresponsible but we are not talking about the National Enquirer here. These are BBC, The Times, New York Times and PBS. More importantly, the sources I have included have a treasure of links from all sides of the controversy which any person seeking reliable information will appreciate. I hope this section will be guarded by those who have been alerted to the bias that has ruled here. If it is removed for some technicality I think you guys ought to give up any pretence of being interested in having a fair presentation.--Ss06470 (talk) 01:06, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Critics who deny ADHD's existence are often from fringe groups or religions, that doesn't mean that all of them are. On the other had one can not negate the fact the a good deal of the critics are way out there. There opinion needs to be noted and attributed. They should not receive undue weight and that is why it is refreshing to see Susan Greenfield mentioned. Unfortunately she states nothing controversial in the citation. There are a few good objective critics of ADHD that are properly cited. It would be my pleasure in assisting in the editing and polishing of new material into the article. Perhaps you could lighten up on the constant barrage of name calling and accusations of total bias... which are often seen in your posts. Under such an arrangement we could work together in harmony. I look forward to working in the spirit of wikipedia.--scuro (talk) 04:00, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Controversy over the extent to which ADHD is, or is not a biolgoical illness

I am asking for help on how the following can be included in this article. I think it is coherent, logical and backed by irreproachable references. It also states that this is a minority point of view.

Is ADHD a biological condition?

One of the most controversial issues regarding ADHD is whether it is wholly or even predominantly a biological illness, a defect in the brain. The current predominance of opinion in medicine is that this is the case, but the fact is that the cause of ADHD remains unknown. Examples of this ongoing disagreement are found wherever research will support or not support the biological argument. Thus, there are radically different opinions about whether there is a genetic basis. For example the statement that there is a highly probable link between genetics and ADHDDisorder Nature, Course, Outcomes, and Comorbidity|last=Barkley|first=Russel A.|accessdate=2006-06-26}} Contradicting this is opinion of Dr. Jay Joseph. (THE MISSING GENE Psychiatry, Heredity, and the Fruitless Search for Genes Jay Joseph, Psy.D. Algora Publishing, January, 2006) Joseph Glenmullen, M.D., from Harvard Medical School had this to say "no claim of a gene for a psychiatric condition has stood the test of time, in spite of popular misinformation". (Glenmullin, Joseph (2000). Prozac Backlash. New York: Simon & Schuster, 192-198)

While there have been repeated articles citing physical differences in the brain of those with ADHD most of these have not stood up. Xavier Castellanos MD, then head of ADHD research at the National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH), and firmly convinced that ADHD is a biological illness, acknowledged this in an interview with Frontline Castellanos interview. Critics of Dr. Castellanos’ own research have pointed out that the differences he was claiming do exist could have been the result of medication taken. ( He has since been working on eliminating this variable) However, even if differences in the brain will be found, an important issue is that the physical brain can be changed by patterns of behavior. Thus learning Braille causes enlargement of the part of the motor cortex that controls finger movements. [3] After they have passed their licensing exam, London taxi drivers have been found to have a significantly enlarged hippocampus compared to non-taxi drivers[4][5]. Patients abused during their childhood with post traumatic stress disorder will have a flattened out hippocampus. [6] Professional musicians have brains that are different from non-musicians. [7] Monks who meditate show measurable differences in their prefrontal lobes.) [8][9][10]

So diminished concerted effort when confronted with tasks thought to be drudgery ( e.g. homework, paying attention to teachers, and the like) even if not caused by differences in the brain, could have brain changing effects. In “Rethinking ADHD: International Perspectives” (ed Timini,S 2008 Palgrave Macmillan) an alternative paradigm for ADHD argues that, while biological factors may obviously play a large role in difficulties sitting still and/or concentrating on schoolwork in some children, the vast majority of children manifesting this behavior do not have a biological deficit. For a variety of reasons they have failed to integrate into their psychology the ability to work at chores that are expected of them. Their restlessness and daydreaming is similar to the behavior of other, normal children when they are not engaged, and are bored and trapped by circumstances. Characteristically, children with ADHD/ADD have no difficulty concentrating on activities that they find to be interesting, or fun, (for example video games, which require enormous attention skills). When they are taught by a charismatic entertaining teacher, they similarly can concentrate.

I think a section such as this will deal with this issue directly and not create the chaos that has resulted as opposing editors enter and find deleted specific issues that support or deny their argument.--Ss06470 (talk) 01:37, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

By the way I notice that my addition of the word "presumably" neurobehavioral at the beginning of the article has been deleted, an obvious example of this kind of back and forth editing regarding this issue. It should be noted that I was not deleting neurobehavioral just adding a question and this was not tolerated, a perfect example of the absolute refusal to allow for disagreement. Would the person who made that change please explain it--Ss06470 (talk) 01:47, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

You are telling a narrative where two forces come in conflict with each other. Yet, when one looks at the major scientific bodies, they all sing the same tune about ADHD. The subjective narrative belongs in the minds of those who have faith in the story which is not rooted in objective evidence. There are individual noteworthy critics who make convincing cases, but in reality they are largely ignored. They have little to no bearing on research because they are not researchers. As such, scientists really don't give a toot about them or their theories. The narrative will continue as others come to believe what is being told but in the labs of the world they are not worrying about Timini, Glenmullen, Joseph, or Baughman.

I'll grant you that brains are changed by the environment they live, in and sometimes the change is remarkable and can look some what like ADHD. Yet a good Psychologist screens for that. They may receive a diagnosis of PTSD if there symptoms are highly significant. Anything that causes significant undue stress on the brain can cause ADHD like symptoms. Yet they have also looked at the angle of what role the environment plays in ADHD and I believe the figure estimated is 20% of all adhd is caused by environment. The rest is attributed to genetics. It is after all a heterogeneous disorder. Finally kids with major attention problems do also have difficulty keeping attention of fun things like video games or an outing at the Zoo. This was the first study I found which supported that theory. http://www.springerlink.com/content/v1362r77v3t12023/ --scuro (talk) 04:35, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I am not talking about PTSD. If you read what I wrote it also applies to musicians, meditators etc. Take a look at the PET scan beginning this article. The person(s) with ADHD are not using their brain to attend to an assigned task. If this is the pattern over many years could it change the brain? I don't know but it is very possible. If you read my article my speculation goes something like this, "Besides ADHD diagnosed adolescents, and their friends, who sometimes borrow their meds when they have to do chores that they dread, stimulants (“greenies”), according to David Wells , and more recently Mike Schmidt, have long been part of the professional athletes’ equipment, helping them to step up to the plate with confidence. It changes their state of mind from a passive, reactive, position to a take charge proactive stance. Or as one basketball player put it, "Give me the ball. I can make the shot." This taking charge, "I can do it" feeling, when approaching tasks, is a key element in most people's perception of whether they are up to a challenge, and whether it is “work” or pleasurable. I contend that this is what is happening when stimulants work for ADHD children (and adults) Actually let me quote the paragraph before that which may put it in perspective You will note that I accept that these drugs often work. My patients have told me often enough help helpful they are.

The medical cure for ADHD patients’ inability to confront drudgery is stimulants, which have a long history of working pretty well for this purpose. Most of the drugs work similarly to cocaine. In the 19th century cocaine was the most popular miracle drug in the world, regularly used and extolled by the likes of President McKinley, Queen Victoria, Pope Leo Xlll, Thomas Edison, Robert Lewis Stevenson, Ibsen , Anatole France and a host of other renowned members of society. Sigmund Freud wrote the following about it, "You perceive an increase of self-control and possess more vitality and capacity for work." According to the Sears, Roebuck and Co. Consumers' Guide (1900), their extraordinary Peruvian Wine of Coca "...sustains and refreshes both the body and brain....It may be taken at any time with perfect safety...it has been effectually proven that in the same space of time more than double the amount of work could be undergone when Peruvian Wine of Coca was used, and positively no fatigue experienced.”

After he read this article, my son, who was then at Yale, told me that one afternoon he was complaining about the work he had before him, two finals and three papers that were due. His schoolmate piped in, “I got some Ritaline, want it?” The daughter of a friend said the same thing was going on at McGill. They are not alone. Here is a headline from the NY Times

“Latest Campus High: Illicit use of Prescription Medication, Experts and Students Say”

“Ritalin makes repetitive, boring tasks like cleaning your room seem fun” said Josh Koenig a 20 year old drama major from NYU.

“Katherinen Plyshevsky, 21, a junior from New Milford NJ majoring in marketing at NYU said she used Ritaline obtained from a friend with ADD to get through her midterms “It was actually fun to do the work,” she said."

By the way Freud eventually turned against cocaine when he saw the effect it was having on some of his friends. And Robert Lewis Stephenson who wrote his novels on cocaine, eventully wrote Dr Jekyl and Mr Hyde while high on cocaine for 7 days and nights. Stephen King who wrote his novels on stimulants eventually stopped them. He's said (the nurse in Misery who locks up her injured guest represented) his stimulant use. There was no word from the two popes, Tom Edison, President Mckinley and scores of other prominent people who once freely used

So amphetamines and ritaline do improve attention for what I believe are the reasons cited above. This goes for people with ADHD and people without it. By the way, after the steroid scandal in baseball, an enormous number number of athletes who do not want to lose their greenies are now claiming they have ADHD. Drug companies who send out 3-4 mailings a week to doctors offices are intent on making stimulants the 21st century equivalence of cocaine in the 19th century It is great stuff.

One last comment. Obviously, not every kid with ADHD can concentrate on video games but I have been amazed by how often it is the case. Once again from my article regarding this aspect of the issue I treated a teen-ager who told me that he could not read without his medication. His eyes glazed over, he could go over a page a hundred times and nothing would be absorbed. During summer vacation he stopped his meds, except when he had to read something for school. I asked if he ever read anything else, something not required for school. He told me he didn’t but then remembered one exception. He loved mountain biking. Each month when his mountain biking magazine arrived he tore through it, reading every word, cover to cover. He did not require medication to do this--Ss06470 (talk) 14:35, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

One of the most controversial issues regarding ADHD is whether it is wholly or even predominantly a biological illness, a defect in the brain. The current predominance of opinion in medicine is that this is the case, but the fact is that the cause of ADHD remains unknown. Examples of this ongoing disagreement are found wherever research will support or not support the biological argument. Thus, there are radically different opinions about whether there is a genetic basis. For example the statement that there is a highly probable link between genetics and ADHDDisorder Nature, Course, Outcomes, and Comorbidity|last=Barkley|first=Russel A.|accessdate=2006-06-26}} Contradicting this is opinion of Dr. Jay Joseph. (THE MISSING GENE Psychiatry, Heredity, and the Fruitless Search for Genes Jay Joseph, Psy.D. Algora Publishing, January, 2006) Joseph Glenmullen, M.D., from Harvard Medical School had this to say "no claim of a gene for a psychiatric condition has stood the test of time, in spite of popular misinformation". (Glenmullin, Joseph (2000). Prozac Backlash. New York: Simon & Schuster, 192-198) There is already a section on genetics and ADHD which covers this.

While there have been repeated articles citing physical differences in the brain of those with ADHD most of these have not stood up. Xavier Castellanos MD, then head of ADHD research at the National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH), and firmly convinced that ADHD is a biological illness, acknowledged this in an interview with Frontline Castellanos interview. Critics of Dr. Castellanos’ own research have pointed out that the differences he was claiming do exist could have been the result of medication taken. ( He has since been working on eliminating this variable) However, even if differences in the brain will be found, an important issue is that the physical brain can be changed by patterns of behavior. Thus learning Braille causes enlargement of the part of the motor cortex that controls finger movements. [11] After they have passed their licensing exam, London taxi drivers have been found to have a significantly enlarged hippocampus compared to non-taxi drivers[12][13]. Patients abused during their childhood with post traumatic stress disorder will have a flattened out hippocampus. [14] Professional musicians have brains that are different from non-musicians. [15] Monks who meditate show measurable differences in their prefrontal lobes.) [16][17][18] So diminished concerted effort when confronted with tasks thought to be drudgery ( e.g. homework, paying attention to teachers, and the like) even if not caused by differences in the brain, could have brain changing effects.

In “Rethinking ADHD: International Perspectives” (ed Timini,S 2008 Palgrave Macmillan) an alternative paradigm for ADHD argues that, while biological factors may obviously play a large role in difficulties sitting still and/or concentrating on schoolwork in some children, the vast majority of children manifesting this behavior do not have a biological deficit. For a variety of reasons they have failed to integrate into their psychology the ability to work at chores that are expected of them. Their restlessness and daydreaming is similar to the behavior of other, normal children when they are not engaged, and are bored and trapped by circumstances. Characteristically, children with ADHD/ADD have no difficulty concentrating on activities that they find to be interesting, or fun, (for example video games, which require enormous attention skills). When they are taught by a charismatic entertaining teacher, they similarly can concentrate. It may be valuable to create a separate section about this because although similar points are made in the alternative views section, they are pretty disorganized and less clear. A section like this would enable the "neurodiversity" and "ADHD within the normal range of human behavior" facet of the debate to be addressed. The typical response of mainstream scientists is that the behaviors associated with ADHD are fundamentally different. Most ordinary people exhibit some of these behaviors but not to the point where they seriously interfere with the person's work, relationships, or studies or cause anxiety or depression. I will have to discuss this later since I have to go somewhere. Will address this soon. Sifaka ^talk 21:31, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry about that sudden cut off, I had to take off quickly and decided to post my thoughts anyway. I fixed the formatting. I still have some more to say regarding the second and third paragraph but I will have to do so at a later time due to time constraints on my end. I'm sorry about that. Sifaka ^talk 05:13, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Removal of "Presumably" in front of Neurobehavioral

I deleted the "presumably" in front of "neurobehavioral". The reason I did it is because it was the lead-in sentence describing what ADHD is and needed to concur with to the majority viewpoint per Wikipedia policy. When you say, "a perfect example of the absolute refusal to allow for disagreement" you have to remember that this article is not a platform for debate about the subject at hand. The purpose of this article is to present these debates in an encyclopedic context while being brutally honest about the merits of each side of the argument. This in practice means giving the most "weight" to the viewpoint accepted by the majority, and proportionally less weight to minority viewpoints. This is perhaps summed up well with this quote.

"The Wikipedia neutrality policy certainly does not state, or imply, that we must 'give equal validity' to minority views."

By simple virtue of their numbers, the majority viewpoint and the research they support gets the lion's share of the "weight." For the minority viewpoint which doubts the evidence or methods or whatever else, it will wind up seeming inherently "unfair." The problem is that the vast majority of relevant scientists and experts concur that ADHD is neurobehavioral and there is a large body of evidence which this same majority accepts as extremely compelling and rejects theories to the contrary which the minority viewpoint may put forth. On Wikipedia and elsewhere, one must reasonably expect that the minority viewpoint is going to be given the respect and weight of a minority viewpoint.

This may seem disheartening because minority viewpoints seemed locked in by a catch 22 and can't compete well with majority viewpoints. All you can do is hope that the "system" in place is a good system, so that if minority viewpoints gather together strong well validated evidence in support of a theory which can not be reconciled with the current majority theory, the minority side will attract more people and eventually become the majority viewpoint themselves. If you look at the development of science, you can see a clear trend for the truth winning out in time, even if it takes a century or so. So if a minority viewpoint has within it that pure grain of truth, take heart, because the majority will get around to the conclusion eventually. Sifaka ^talk 09:07, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Media Coverage of the ADHD Controversy should not be a list of everyone who wrote an article related to ADHD controversy.

Right off the bat I want to make it clear that I do support the inclusion of an well written Media Coverage of the ADHD Controversy section. My reason for removing a large portion of the section is that it appeared to be becoming a laundry list of various people's articles and programs with no regard to notability or impact. If we are going to mention specific programs or articles, we must also keep in line with appropriate weight. Any article or program we mention needs to have demonstrated significant penetration and influence on public and scientific thought. While this is fairly subjective, a good way to judge this may be to look at the magnitude of the response to the article/program in question and its influence on later works. Sifaka ^talk 20:55, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Anyway, here is a list of all the various articles that were mentioned already.

1. Terence Kealey a clinical biochemist and Vice-Chancellor of the University of Buckingham wrote a highly critical article for The Times [19]
2. A BBC Panorama programme which highlighted US research . (The Multimodal Treatment Study of Children with ADHD by the University of Buffalo showing treatment results of 600) suggesting drugs are no better than therapy for ADHD in the long-term.
3. Dr. Susan Greenfield took a strong stand about the controversy regarding ADHD in the House of Lords. [20].
4. PBS' Frontline ran a story Medicating Kids which has a large selection of interviews with important representatives of the various points of view.
5. Included in the above PBS' Frontline is an interview with Xavier Castellanos then head of ADHD research at the National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH) which contradicts many statements made on this page about what we know and don't know about the biology of ADHD.[21].
6. Frontline did a second program about the controversies in the widespread diagnosis of children The Medicated Child
7. Benedict Carey has written a number of critical articles in the New York Times on the practice of psychiatry, especially with children diagnosed with bipolar disorder and/or ADHD, for example, Parenting as Therapy for Child's Mental Disorders or What’s Wrong With a Child? Psychiatrists Often Disagree, Debate Over Children and Psychiatric Drugs

Well number 3 is itself justification for inclusion of number 2, but I don't think it should be counted as separate coverage, but more that The explanation of the panorama program should mention that it lead to debate in the house of lords. Restepc (talk) 21:06, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

If I am right, this is the transcript of the issue that was brought up. It could be worth an explicit mention considering this seems to be an excellent example of how the controversy issues have been brought to the attention of lawmakers in the UK to call for more in depth research. It would be nice if anyone here knows of any various reactions to this request for examination, both from the UK and stateside (if possible) that I could look through. On an unrelated note I think we should keep the listing of accolades of the neuroscientist and independent peer Baroness Dr. Susan Greenfield to a relative minimum. Her title alone just about covers it... Sifaka ^talk 05:55, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I am astounded that this has been done in the first place but that it was done without a single criticism of the action is even more amazing This is not a random list but the selection of coverage from some of our finest journalist sources: The Times, PBS' Frontline, The New York Times and the BBC. The Frontline links, in particular, have one of the richest sources of links for this topic I have seen covering interviews with most of the major voices in this controversy. If other editors are not going to object to the absurd reasoning used to cut these articles out I simply do not know what to say. Your demand for proof of impact is absurd. Did you take a look at the link provided there before you took it out. Were you willing to have a discussion before you did so? ABD if you are reading this, are you going to let this be done? The fact that you are a sophomore in college and you do something like this speaks volumes about your thoughtfulness.--Ss06470 (talk) 03:49, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to have to agree with Sifaka's reasoning here. -- Ned Scott 04:01, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I'll bet you do Ned. You've popped up here before in exactly this situation in the past, reliably aligned whenever these issues appear. So you feel simply mentioning Dr. Susan Greenfield by her name does justice to the prestige of this Oxford Professor who was chosen by the Royal Society to be the recipient of the yearly Faraday award. She was appointed to the House of Lord by the Prime Minister because of her scientific accomplishments. You feel that Frontline is just another trivial bit of journalism and the links in those two shows to the NIMH, consensus statement, the Surgeon General's Report, the interview with the head of ADHD research at the NIMH etc etc would not be a valuable addition to this site, helping readers to gain an enourmous amount of knowledge about ADHD controversies with great ease. You don't think that somehow all of the nut critics remain prominently displayed on this page, thereby giving the impression that critics are "antipsychiatrists" scientologists etc etc rather than some thoughtful people (some with great status) who are alarmed by what is going on in child psychiatry. Great Ned. You belong here guarding this site from the likes of me and them. Oh is that insulting? My apologies. Where are you Scuro? Or have you taken on a few user names Whoops My apologies —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ss06470 (talk • contribs) 04:30, 4 March 2008 (UTC) I indented this paragraph 05:03, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I only mean that I agree with Sifaka's reasoning, which considers undue weight. These sections are supposed to give examples of the media coverage, not list every single time it has happened. You're welcome to make arguments for why we should include these specific ones, but don't make personal attacks at anyone you feel is not supporting your view. -- Ned Scott 04:51, 4 March 2008 (UTC) I indented this paragraph 05:03, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I went ahead and made the edit because I was being Bold. I haven't had much of a problem with just making edits. Usually just going ahead and doing something is the best way to get people a discussion going. I made this edit in good faith in light of the Wikipedia policy WP:Not: Wikipedia is not a laundry list of articles/links. The "demand" for the proof of impact is absolutely necessary or else this section will simply accumulate descriptions of every article/program written about ADHD controversy and degenerate into unreadability. My suggestion on improving this section is to discuss the articles and their collective impact in general, referencing them of course, to avoid creating a "laundry list." In all likelihood going about it this way will produce a more readable end result. Should any of these articles prove especially noteworthy (read notable beyond the others) then it should be given an exclusive mention. Sifaka ^talk 05:03, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, I appreciate being Bold, and certainly Sifaka had the right to do that; however, to replace a whole section of sourced text with a summary that isn't sourced and is very generalized, isn't proper. If there is too much there, then we should discuss what to keep. Taking it all out, no. It's a big step from "We shouldn't list every time it happened," to arbitrarily taking it all out. That section was not long, in fact, and was not a list of every time "it happened." Taking it out was provocative, even if not so intended, so, while I regret Ss06470's ABF comments -- he should stop that -- I can understand them. He is frustrated with a long history of what indeed looks to me like suppression of critical points of view and evidence for the same. I reverted the change.--Abd (talk) 05:12, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Abd and Ss06470 for the criticism; it will help me be a better contributor. I will be more careful about being excessively bold in the future and try to seek consensus first like Ss06470 did up above. I didn't intend my edit to be provocative. I would have normally copy edited the section, but I have been under time constraints recently and just went ahead and deleted it. It was a little too shortsighted of me and I should have simply brought it to the attention of the talk page and waited until I had the time to copy edit it appropriately. Thanks again, Sifaka ^talk 05:22, 4 March 2008 (UTC).

Thank you, Thank you Thank you Abd. Truly my apologies to Sifaka who may not have realized she stepped into a hornets nest. I hope she has learned something here, but I still don't understand her reasoning, unless she did not actually use the links provided and understand what she was eliminating. Once again, it is a very rich source of information and is very much on topic. A reader of this article who goes to it will find his time profitably spent. It is 10 steps above the level of chaos that this page represents. As for my fury. I took the trouble to organize it and write it ( which took a few hours.) It has many points of view which are opposed to my own which is fine with me. The key issue is that there is a reasonable and coherent presentation of the controversial nature of ADHD (presumably the point of this article.) Frankly, I would not encourage this, but I would have no objection if editors with a differenet point of view wanted to add some articles or programs, or press releases from mainstream sources, academies etc that totally contradict the content, as long as the current media sources remain there The paragraph begins with a reference to extreme points of view, so in fairness a few articles blasting opponents would be just fine. Then let the interested reader decide.

On a different topic, my presentation of one of the key issues, the nurture/nature controversy about ADHD (historically an ongoing debate about almost every diagnostic entity) I would like to post this thing about biology in a way that won't get it deleted. I understand where the current thinking is. I have been in practice 37 years and have seen my field change from Freudian orthodoxy (and similar narrow mindedness towards the nature people) to the current state where biological people own the journals, the NIMH, and academic departments. I have no doubt the pendulum will eventually swing back again towards the nurture point of view since this kind of thing has been going on and on. Psychiatry was ruled by the nosological point of view when Freud appeared, then he took the crown, now the those with the same arguments freud faced are back in power. Both camps have been intolerant and both have exaggerated what is "known" and is not known. In this case the biological argument has been greatly strengthened by pharmaceutical companies for whom literally billions of dollars ate at stake. They have turned the whole thing into more of a farce than usual.

I never thought in my lifetime academicians could be so corrupted, especially academicians at prestigious top line universities, receiving enormous amounts of money from drug companies. ( I guess that is my special interest because I began in academia, until I realized I could actually have more intellectual freedom outside of it. I didn't realize, however, how much it would close off access, although I am not sure if I remained whether I could have had a decent career without spouting the party line, and thus access would still be denied. I posted elsewhere how academicians have whispered to me that they agreed with me and admired my courage, but as I noted there was no courage involved for me. In private practice I do not have a career to protect.

But returning to the main point. The biological point of view has been dominant since the 1980s were declared "The Decade of the Brain" by President Bush and Congress. The subsequent research has been okay, and some of the medications that have appeared have been great. However, to quote myself from the introduction to my ADHD article, this "article's main point of view is that bad science, science totally lacking science's clarity about what is known and not known, is worse than sensible, if imprecise, literary speculations and reasoning." All of this talk about experts and academies taking this position or that does not change the basic facts. We know surprisingly little in a scientific way (see the interview of the head of research at the NIMH at the Fronline link) This is also the opinion of the discover of Prozac. (I can provide the source if any one here wants it) It is the view of all real scientists as opposed to those who use the slogans and prestige (and misapplied technological fragmets of research) of science as a weapon to silence controversy. That this position now dominates the field is amazing, but I remember, when I dared to question something Freud claimed and was treated by my medical school professor as a wise guy heretic. Now merely uttering a Freudian position is treated with derision.

I would like to have more of my point of view represented here. My article is my best shot at trying to understand what is going on with ADHD but that has been closed off, even on the controvery page, because it is not an expert point of view, it has no statistical validity. As Scuro puts it I am just another guy with an opinion so why should it be represented even if it may clarify some key issues, or at least, present a reasonable attempt to make sense of the illness.--Ss06470 (talk) 12:12, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

ADHD as a social construct

As this section currently has a unverified claims/original research tag on it, I'm thinking it needs major editing.

Hopefully we can achieve consensus here as to how it should read, and then switch them over and remove the tag.

To start with the first paragraph, as of 04/03/08 it reads

"Psychiatrists Peter Breggin and Sami Timimi oppose pathologizing the symptoms of ADHD. Sami Timimi, who is a NHS child and adolescent psychiatrist, explains ADHD as a social construct rather than an objective 'disorder'.[40]. Timimi argues that right wing capitalist ideology[citation needed] has created stress on families which in turn suggests environmental causes for children expressing the symptoms of ADHD.[41] Parents who feel they have failed in their parenting responsibilities can use the ADHD label to absolve guilt and self-blame. However, Timimi's views are controversial. For example, in Naughty Boys: Anti-Social Behaviour, ADHD, and the Role of Culture, Timimi (2005) posits that Western cultural beliefs should favor[citation needed] boys over girls as a means to reducing psychopathology in males.[42] A common argument against the medical model of ADHD asserts that while the traits that define ADHD exist and may be measurable, they lie within the spectrum of normal healthy human behaviour and are not dysfunctional. However, by definition, in order to diagnosed with a mental disorder, symptoms must be demonstrated as maladaptive."

perhaps it could instead read

"Psychiatrists Peter Breggin and Sami Timimi oppose pathologizing the symptoms of ADHD. Sami Timimi, who is a NHS child and adolescent psychiatrist, explains ADHD as a social construct rather than an objective 'disorder'.[40]. Timimi argues that western society creates stress on families which in turn suggests environmental causes for children expressing the symptoms of ADHD.[41] Parents who feel they have failed in their parenting responsibilities can use the ADHD label to absolve guilt and self-blame. A common argument against the medical model of ADHD asserts that while the traits that define ADHD exist and may be measurable, they lie within the spectrum of normal healthy human behaviour and are not dysfunctional. However, by definition, in order to diagnosed with a mental disorder, symptoms must be demonstrated as maladaptive."

As the 'right-wing capitalist' part has been challenged, a change to 'western society' would make much the same point and is much more easily cited, and I suggest removing the sentence about his views on reducing psychopathology in males as irrelevant to the subject at hand, and possibly prejudicial.

As always, comments welcome, indeed even wanted. Restepc (talk) 19:09, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

An editor inserted,[22] today, a phrase, Contrary to the widely held belief that ADHD is a true disorder, Psychiatrists Peter Breggin and Sami Timimi oppose pathologizing the symptoms of ADHD. The same editor then inserted a qualifying phrase into the language shown above, which was technically correct though possibly unnecessary: They believe that parents who feel they have failed in their parenting responsibilities can use the ADHD label to absolve guilt and self-blame. Another editor reverted that out. This reversion was proper. The description of Breggin and Timimi stands on its own as NPOV, and an introduction that claims that this opposition is contrary to the "widely held belief" is unsourced synthesis. There is no intrinsic opposition. For starters, "true disorder" is undefined. ADHD is a diagnostic category, and it is associated with differences in these children from "normal." The diagnostic category is based, mostly, on identifiable disordered behavior, that is, impairments in socially-desirable function (and often desirable from the point of view of the patient as well). Therefore, that ADHD is a "true disorder," in a basic sense, is a tautology, it conveys no meaning beyond "ADHD is a disorder." The meaning of this is another matter.

It is claimed, and the claim seems incontrovertible from twin studies, that ADHD has some genetic basis. If so, then it is a genetic variation. It's a basic principle that common genetic variations, and ADHD is common, carry with them some function, they are not pure disorders. As an example, Sickle-cell anemia is a genetic disease that is functional in certain environments, conveying resistance to malaria. I'm suspicious of the comment attributed to Breggin and Timimi, the significance of it is unclear, but I haven't looked at the source, I'm writing here on general principles of WP:NPOV and a knowledge of ADHD.--Abd (talk) 13:00, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

The section creates undue weight. If you don't like the wording, improve upon it as you have often extolled other editors to do. Also Breggin and I suspect Timimi are more noteworthy for their anti-psychiatric viewpoints then they are for being Psychiatrists. To simply state that they are Psychiatrists is misleading.--scuro (talk) 03:47, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Can anyone believe that Abd is arguing that the mainstream viewpoint is that ADHD is a social construct? This borders on harassment...either that or it speaks to a high degree of ignorance. Does he truly know no better?...and if so why is he editing on this page. Abd, you need not "restrain" me. That goes against Wiki policy and probably is one of the reasons your application for administration failed. That same issue may come up again in a future application. May I suggest that you treat your fellow editors with respect which means that you don't try to control them by reverting their edits.--scuro (talk) 00:15, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I reverted your edit, not Abd, the article already makes it perfectly clear that these are alternative viewpoints, the rules about not presenting viewpoints in disparaging tones still apply. Restepc (talk) 03:31, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Abd did revert the second time. I respectively disagree with you and will be adding a tag to the section.--scuro (talk) 04:39, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Could you please clearly outline what specific phrases (or whatever) you believe are unbalanced so we can fix them :) Restepc (talk) 14:24, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

In a nutshell it's one sided...this is neither minority or majority viewpoint and there is no context given to the reader to indicate this. There are other things wrong with this section and I have mentioned some of the problems. For the time being I'll leave it at that until I see that my edits are treated with good faith, and an editor who seems to be on a mission like Robocop allows any one of my edits to stand freely on this page, even if it is only the addition of a tag.--scuro (talk) 04:16, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Material moved to new article entitled, Social construct theory of ADHD. That article could use a clean up if you have time to spare. :)--scuro (talk) 13:42, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Refs removed that do not support claims

I've restored the dietary ref and cleaned up that section, and taken out refs that do not support claims made in the copy. They were:
note 23: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17048717?ordinalpos=1&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVAbstractPlusDrugs1

As it said nothing conclusive.

note 24: http://www.nimh.nih.gov/health/publications/adhd/complete-publication.shtml

Where’s the relevant quote??

and note 25: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17542236

Abstract detailing intentions but not conclusions.

The ref restored was of an article not online, which is why I quote from the hard copy I have sourced. And I've removed a line that, because this section was moved, is no longer relevant to this section. regards, Mimi ^(yack) 14:12, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

the coatrack issue

When will this article shape up? There are so many constant additions of poor quality that the editing task seems endless. Can we even get an intro that is simply a proper synopsis of the whole article instead of a coatrack of issues, some of which should be explored in other articles? Why are editors constantly trying to add the kitchen sink into the mix instead of simply focusing on the known, if any, truly controversial (minority and majority opinion), and properly citable issues related to ADHD?--scuro (talk) 04:35, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

• 1 Skepticism towards diagnosis -(non controversial issue in majority and minority circles)
• 1.1 Sub-clinical ADHD -(really don't know what this is doing in the article and how it is controversial)
• 2 ADHD as a Biological Illness -(non controversial issue in majority and minority circles)
• 2.1 Genetic basis of ADHD -(non controversial issue in majority and minority circles)
• 2.2 Dietary Link to ADHD -(accepted as true...very poor or toxic diet can cause ADHD symptoms ->non controversial issue in majority and minority circles)
• 3 Concerns about medication -(minority controversial issue)
• 3.1 Over-prescription -(questionable)
• 3.2 Drug safety -(non controversial issue in majority and minority circles)
• 4 Concerns about the impact of labeling -(non controversial issue in majority and minority circles)
• 5 Media Coverage of the ADHD Controversy -(non controversial issue in majority and minority circles)
• 6 Alternative theories concerning ADHD -(should have it's own article ->non controversial issue in majority and minority circles)
• 6.1 ADHD as a social construct -(should have it's own article ->non controversial issue in majority and minority circles)
• 6.2 ADHD as a variably adaptive or maladaptive cognitive trait -(should have it's own article ->non controversial issue in majority and minority circles)
• 7 Clinical Research Involving Children -(probably controversial)
• 8 Scientology/ antipsychiatry controversy -(controversial)

It's my opinion that in looking at the major subheadings, a large majority of the subsections are not controversial. Looking at the history, the article has always been a coatrack and it still needs a major overhaul. Then we need editors who vigilantly block any attempt to add new coatrack material. The intro is not a reflection of the article and has info that can be found nowhere else in the article. It is not a summation. Basically we editors who are willing to work together or this article is fated to be doomed forever.--scuro (talk) 14:49, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Most of the sections you labeled as 'non controversial' are clearly controversial in my opinion, and I strongly suspect the editor consensus will agree with me. I'm afraid I'm too busy/ill to put any work into this article at the moment, but will try to continue to monitor and edit edits. Also, describing Baroness Greenfield as a Baroness is clearly not a peacock term, and neither are the others, I've reverted those changes, if you still object I suggest you consult the wiki advice article on peacock terms. I can see your point about 'strongly' in the intro, I'll try to think of something better when my head doesn't feel like there's a Frenchman living in it. Restepc (talk) 18:12, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a democracy so votes on what is controversial really isn't going to cut it. The issue simply stated is that anyone can call something controversial. Often fringe opinion labels something as controversial when minority or majority opinion clearly doesn't see it as controversial. For instance looking at the first heading, fringe opinion sees great skepticism towards the diagnosis but scientists and national research bodies don't. You may get the odd Dr. or Psychiatrist who has written broadly on the topic...like Sobo, perhaps even written a book, but there is ZERO interest in their ideas within academic circles because they don't do research and have zilich relevance to the current academic understanding of an issue. A solution here may be to create another article called, Fringe Ideas about ADHD.

So what we have is a collection bin of ideas most of which are neither minority or majority opinion, or unrelated to controversy because there is no argument about the issue. That is why the coatrack tag has been added.

I remember reading somewhere in Wikipedia that "puffery" should be avoided. We don't need to know what title they hold at such and such university, won which medal, etc. Their ideas and the importance of the idea should stand by themselves and if puffery is needed to make them sound important the ideas may have little merit. Certainly an encyclopedia wouldn't get into that type of "puffery" when citing the opinion of someone. If you really feel it must stay I'm not going to remove the "puffery" until I find the actual policy.--scuro (talk) 21:42, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Scuro, Hi. Restepc is correct about the title of Baroness, I believe - Susan Greenfield is a life peer and as such can use her extensive knowledge to direct her opinions, and votes, on law making in the UK. The title of Baroness therefore is not puffery, as such, but an indication that she is a member of the House of Lords and therefore part of the process of law making in Great Britain. She was given the title because she was already important. Also, the controversy connected with diet and ADHD is that "the causes of hyperactivity due to external factors, such as diet, were being ignored". Regards, Mimi ^(yack) 22:55, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

If it were just the title I wouldn't take issue with it, if that is the policy of Wiki. I believe I remember seeing the title Dr. removed because this goes against wiki policy. Perhaps an editor can enlighten us on this issue. We are told she is leading neuro-scientist and that she won a medal...the editor is indeed puffing her up and you wouldn't see that in an encyclopedia. No big deal though...it's not going to make or break the article. With regards to diet, it is not controversial that very poor diet or toxins can cause ADHD symptoms. This was never ignored and never in question, simply the research focus was on the main causes of ADHD which has been attributed to genetic causes. Just like inattentive ADHD gets little attention compared to hyperactive and combined ADHD. Now when someone states that there is no cause for ADHD because the disorder doesn't exist...that is fringe opinion and goes to the heart of the coatrack tag. I could remove fringe opinion from this article but would want support to do so. Some editors have gotten "their knickers in a knot" with my edits and have tried to control very basic and obviously good edits that I make. --scuro (talk) 23:50, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

As you mentioned peacocks, I went to the wikipedia advice page with that title and reverted your edit in line with what I read there. If there is a separate article on puffery I haven't seen it....but I find new wikipedia policies all the time so do direct me to it if ya find it :)

In my opinion the titles Dr and Baroness are obviously not puffery, those are the peoples actual titles, and the information that she is a leading neuro-scientist I think you'll agree is highly relevant to the topic at hand. The Faraday Medal is certainly something that would be mentioned in an encyclopedic entry on Baroness Greenfield, but on reflection it isn't really relevant to her opinions in this specific field, and I have no objections if you'd like to remove it. Restepc (talk) 00:03, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

There are bigger fish to fry. If several editors are working together for the betterment of the article...really that is a much bigger issue/accomplishment then reaching consensus on accolades. Can you see the difference between majority, minority, and fringe opinion in this article? Can you also see that some parts of this article are not controversial like diet?--scuro (talk) 04:27, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I believe my contribution regarding diet should remain unchanged in the article - it is sourced and is relevant. I have shown that I am more than happy to stand back but removing this contribution would be wrong - diet IS a factor and my sources show that it IS being ignored in treatment and diagnosis. There IS controversy over this in the UK and I have shown this in the sources chosen. Mimi ^(yack) 17:21, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I'd prefer to move slowly and with consensus....one section at a time. Looking at the section that you contributed to, I'd opinion that these ideas could probably be classified as minority opinion. I have read studies on red food dye, and how certain nutrients improve adhd symptoms and how toxins cause ADHD symptoms. Each child is different and responds uniquely to their environment. I also know of a child who improved significantly because of diet change. Is diet the major cause of ADHD? I think majority opinion would say no but I think a case for minority opinion that diet influences some of the ADHD seen should be made. In other words these ideas should be transfered to the main page. There has been so many problems on this page, more then I can remember for any other page, that I'd like to review each section, one section at time and do it right. I'd like to attempt consensus...to make change together.--scuro (talk) 04:20, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

In looking at the article and potential areas that may not meet the criteria for inclusion into this article, should a new article(s) be created with the deleted material? For instance an article entitled something like, "The social construct theory of ADHD", could capture a lot of the material.--scuro (talk) 13:54, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Without further input from other editors, the material in the Social Construct section of the article, plus other material from this article, will be used to form the new article.--scuro (talk) 10:56, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

--Ss06470 (talk) 12:56, 26 March 2008 (UTC)Here we go again. "Zero interest in their ideas" I am not going to once again list the support I have received from academia for my ideas. Since you seem to totally ignore what I have listed. But being the featured speaker at Grand Rounds in the Psychiatry Dept at the University of Alabama is not zero, and Bruce Charlton's (editor of Medical Hypotheses) comment specifically about my ADHD article, not to mention Anna Freud's references to my work (some feel she was the most prominent child analysts in the 20th century etc etc is hardly zero. There is no question my ideas are not the ideas of mainstream psychiatry. I am challenging many of those ideas but to say they have zero interest is typical of you Scuro. (I suppose that is an insult to you according to the rules) but your comment about zero interest is not? The reason I made a point of Oxford professor Dr. Greenfield's selection for the Faraday award and explained what it is )is that it places her alarm over ADHD in proper perspective. She is a baroness only because the Prime Minister appointed her to the House of Lords because of her scientific prominence. I did not include baroness becasue it counts for nothing in scientific argument whereas her scientific prominence is of great importance. Including it is not puffery. It is an attempt to counteract Scuro's usual "critics are inconsequential or Breggin nuts" He is at it again here. Scuro there is controversy about this illness whether you and the mainstream people are willing to accept it (My apologies I may have inadvertently changed text below-don't know how to fix it) The next paragraph is typical of his attitude (which then leads to demolishing content in the article To quote "So what we have is a collection bin of ideas most of which are neither minority or majority opinion, or unrelated to controversy because there is no argument about the issue. That is why the coatrack tag has been added."--Ss06470 (talk) 14:20, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I hope you don't mind Ss but I moved your post to it's proper chronological position. It is generally considered rude to cut another editor's post in half, in talk. Apologies for the alteration but hopefully the edit will add clarity to this discussion and help draw other editors in.

Ss, the issue is this. While folks like yourself and others have written a great deal on ADHD, you are not experts with regard to the validity of ADHD. I am assuming you do no scientific research and I am also assuming you are not really qualified to interpret scientific research. Perhaps I am wrong and you could post your links to papers you have written in scientific journals. If the passage is about the validity of the disorder then you or other non-experts on this topic really would be considered fringe viewpoint. You are neither part of the majority viewpoint in that field or the minority viewpoint on this issue. This is not at all true for other passages of the article where the topic speaks specifically to your expertise, then you would be majority viewpoint or minority viewpoint. Think about it, should Wikipedia really rely on your opinion on things like brain imagining technology? Support that you receive from other experts doesn't mean a lot on Wikipedia unless it citable. Better would be to ask one of these experts if they have published their views and then use it to support the idea that you want in the article. Do you see the point I am driving at? If we can agree here, that is progress.

I'd also ask you very kindly not to try and characterize me or the motivations of my past or present behaviour. For an imaginary example...hopefully you can see how an editor who wrote this about another editor, "stop trying to control everyone in talk", would not be furthering the article. "Focus on content and not the contributor".--scuro (talk) 03:25, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Scuro, It turns out that my knowledge of brain imaging technology is sufficient to understand and interpret the meaning of a good deal of brain image technology. It doesn't take expertise to do this, merely medical competence Your editors often seem to entirely get it wrong (for instance focusing on differing glucose metabolism in different parts of the brain rather than understanding that the glucose merely represents which parts of the brain are being used (in response to the assigned task.) This confusion is what I would expect given that your editors are totally untrained in the meaning of most of the material they edit. My blurb describing the meaning of the pictures of the brain beginning this article is highly relevant. It didn't take an expert to interpret what was going on. Merely a logical presentation of the facts. I can't tell you how often those pictures have been used to indiscrimately "prove" ADHD must be biological. How else could the brains look so different? Easy, as the blurb explains.

As for being part of the minority viewpoint rather than counting for zero why is my ADHD article to be included in Rethinking ADHD:International Perspectives [23] You might be interested to know that the publisher Palgrave Macmillan "is a global academic publisher serving learning and scholarship in higher education and professional markets." Naturally you will totally ignore that, but at least you haven't taken out the many many prestigious critics now on the site with your usual "They are antipsychiatrists or work for the Scientologists." I still think the fact that Oxford professor Dr Greenfield is the recipient of the Faraday award is highly relevant (rather than the fact that she is a baroness) since this is one of the most prestigious scientific awards given in England to a scientist. It points to non fringe oppostion to the viewpoint of the "experts" that you seem to have made sacrosanct. - - This is it for me for a while. I'll be back though if and when the usual shennanigans take place, the thought police getting rid of important content that points to real controversy about the subject of ADHD. I wonder what justifications will be given the next time - --Ss06470 (talk) 03:23, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh I think my knowledge "is sufficient to understand and interpret the meaning" of many things related to ADHD. That doesn't mean I consider myself an expert on much related to ADHD. Nor would I try to cite my ideas on the validity of ADHD. Simply, I don't have the recognized expertise in that field and it appears neither do you. What my background allows me to do is to know where to look for the proper citations and also how to find information quickly. I'm picturing you are in the same boat, so finding credible expert opinion that supports your views on the validity of the disorder should be a relatively easy task for you. More on Wiki standards for expertise here ->http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NPOV_tutorial#Expertise

By the way the brain image blurb is lacking a citation, could you provide a good citation from an expert in the field that supports the caption under the image. Could you ALSO please...please...please, not continually stoop to the lowest common dominator's of persuasion such as strawman, false association, putting words in people's mouths, and libel. Really if you are a Doctor, the behaviour is far beneath your calling and against wiki policy. Your continued actions in this regard will result in further administrative action.--scuro (talk) 03:52, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

coatrack-Skepticism towards diagnosis

first section I don't believe that Kauffman believes what is stated in the intro. Compare, "have argued that this increase is due to the ADHD diagnostic criteria being sufficiently general or vague to allow virtually anybody with persistent unwanted behaviors to be classified as having ADHD of one type or another, and that contrary to the mainstream scientific consensus,[14][15] the symptoms are not supported by sufficient empirical data.[16]"

...to this statement,

"The most common reason that children are referred to child-guidance clinics is for attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). ADHD is a behavioral disorder with a strong hereditary component, which likely results from neurological dysfunction. According to the American Psychiatric Association's Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Text Revision (DSM-IV-TR), there are three diagnostic categories of ADHD: (1) ADHD, Predominantly Inattentive Type; (2) ADHD, Predominantly Hyperactive-Impulsive Type; and (3) ADHD, Combined Type. ADHD often occurs simultaneously with other behavioral and learning problems, such as learning disabilities, emotional or behavioral disabilities, or Tourette's syndrome.

A 1998 study by Russell A. Barkley stated that ADHD is a deficit in behavior inhibition, which sets the stage for problems in regulating behavior. Students with ADHD may experience problems in working memory (remembering things while performing other cognitive operations), delayed inner speech (self-talk that allows people to solve problems), problems controlling emotions and arousal, and difficulty analyzing problems and communicating solutions to others. Hence, students with ADHD may find it difficult to stay focused on tasks such as schoolwork–tasks that require sustained attention and concentration, yet are not intrinsically interesting. In addition, the majority of individuals with ADHD experience significant problems in peer relations and demonstrate a higher incidence of substance abuse than that of the general population.

Although professionals did not recognize ADHD as a diagnostic category until the 1980s, evidence of the disorder dates from the beginning of the twentieth century. The physician George F. Still is credited with being one of the first authors to bring those with "defective moral control" to the attention of the medical profession in 1902. In the 1930s and 1940s Heinz Werner and Alfred Strauss were able to identify children who were hyperactive and distractible–children who exhibited the Strauss syndrome. Later, in the middle of the twentieth century, the term minimal brain injury was used to refer to children of normal intelligence who were inattentive, impulsive, and/or hyperactive. This term fell out of favor and was replaced by hyperactive child syndrome. Professionals eventually rejected this term, as inattention, not hyperactivity, was recognized as the major behavior problem associated with the disorder.

Students with ADHD are eligible for special education services under the category "other health impaired (OHI)." This category has dramatically increased in size; however, the number of students served in this category remains well below the estimated prevalence rate of 3 to 5 percent of the school-age population. From discrepancies such as this, researchers have estimated that fewer than half of all students with ADHD are receiving special education services.

As Barkley noted in his 1998 study, the effective diagnosis of ADHD requires a medical exam, a clinical interview, and teacher and parent rating scales. During the medical exam the physician must rule out other possible causes of the behavior problem, and through the clinical interview, the clinician obtains information from both parents and child about the child's physical and psychological characteristics. Finally, parents, teachers, and in some cases children themselves, complete behavioral rating scales, such as the Connors scales and the ADHD Rating Scale–IV in order to quantify observed behavior patterns.

Frequently students with ADHD are treated with psychostimulants, such as methylphenidate (Ritalin), which stimulate areas of the brain responsible for inhibition. Despite some negative publicity in the media, most authorities in the area of ADHD are in favor of Ritalin's use. In addition to medication, students with ADHD also benefit from carefully designed educational programming. In the early 1960s William Cruickshank was one of the first to establish an educational program for students who would meet what has become the criteria for ADHD. This program, proposing a degree of classroom structure rarely seen in the early twenty-first century, advocated: (1) a reduction of stimuli irrelevant to learning and enhancement of material important for learning and (2) a structured program with a strong emphasis on teacher direction. In addition to educational programs that emphasize and provide structure, a 1997 study by Robert H. Horner and Edward G. Carr indicated that students with ADHD benefited from instructional approaches examining the consequences, antecedents, and setting events that maintain inappropriate behaviors. Other researchers' findings indicated that they also profited from behavior management systems in which the student with ADHD learns to monitor his or her own behavior. These strategies, although effective, are not generally powerful enough to completely remedy the symptoms of children with ADHD. The majority of children diagnosed with ADHD continue to demonstrate symptoms in adulthood."

The Wiki passage seems to be paraphrased and not truly stating what he believes or he has changed his opinion over time. Regardless, Kauffman is neither a minority or majority expert on the validity of the diagnosis. If this article is to ever be anything but a coatrack, then it should focus on the controversies of ADHD that reach the standard of minority or majority opinion. Otherwise the article title should be changed to Fringe Theories on ADHD. I'd suggest the whole first paragraph should be deleted. --scuro (talk) 14:03, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Material moved to new article entitled, Social construct theory of ADHD.--scuro (talk) 13:40, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Those with ADHD commonly have another comorbid condition estimated at roughly 60 and 80%.[12] Psychiatrists and social critics believe that this indicates that the nuances of diagnosis have not been adequately described; i.e. ADHD may be different from ADHD with other comorbid conditions such as conduct disorder or Tourette syndrome.

The above entry is from the skeptism towards diagnosis. I don't believe the first sentence is debated by anyone. The second sentence seems to be inferring that a diagnosis of ADHD creates a strict black and white entity in the indidual with the diagnosis. The contributor then seems to be implying that since there are comorbid disorders, the nuances of the individual or the diagnosis are generally not flushed out.

How is this controversial within the standards of minority or majority opinion? There is no debate that ADHD has several faces. First off there are three types of ADHD. Researchers are looking at a possible 4th called SCT. That designation may be in the next edition of the DSM. When someone gets a dual diagnosis that individual is seen as having a majority of the symptoms of both disorders. This leads to many possible varients and combinations of symptoms. Neither of the above realities is debated by majority or minority opinion so it would not be controversial. If you are the contributor who created this section please explain the entry. Help from any contributor in understanding what this section means would also be appreciated. If I hear from no one this entry will be deleted shortly.--scuro (talk) 16:43, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

second paragraph

Behavior checklists, such as the Brown scale or the Conners scale, may be one component of information used in a competent diagnosis. Yet, social critics point out that these behaviors may be interpreted subjectively, especially when family and cultural norms are taken into consideration. These critics believe that a diagnosis based on such a scale may actually be more subjective than objective.[12] (see cultural subjectivism).

In reading this section the question(s) that should be asked are: i)is the use of rating scales as a single tool of many tools for diagnosis, controversial? ii)Secondly I ask is there anything specifically controversial about using rating scales? iii)Finally, is the subjective nature of the diagnosis controversial? The citation provided in the article doesn't speak to the rating scales, instead it speaks to symptoms mentioned in the DSM-IV.--scuro (talk) 04:40, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Off of the top of my head the answers to the questions are i) rating scales definitely have a place as a diagnostic tool for ADHD, ii) the scales while appearing simplistic or too bound in methodology to capture nuances...is a clinically proven effective tool, iii) the diagnosis of many disorders is 100% subjective and the criticism is not mainstream. --scuro (talk) 10:53, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Subclinical ADHD

The section basically states that if the number of symptoms is under six it is not a valid diagnosis. Okay...so what? How is this controversial and what does it have to do with this article?--scuro (talk) 13:33, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

This section has been deleted.--scuro (talk) 16:50, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I had gathered from the talk page discussion, that the COAtrack tag was focused on the diet section, and the kids section, so when they were gone I thought that was the problem fixed. I can't see anything else in the article which isn't relevant, what is it you're still concerned about? Restepc (talk) 15:53, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Media coverage controversy section

There's been a lot of work on that section recently, does anyone still think we need that tag on it? Restepc (talk) 20:22, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

OOOOOOOhhhhhhhhh yeah. Don't take off that tag, it's very unbalanced. I'd work on that section myself but I wonder if it will exist in the future. What is a "media coverage controversy"? Is it that the coverage is controversial or that the media is covering controversy in ADHD?--scuro (talk) 23:41, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

It's giving examples of the controversy over ADHD being highlighted in the media.

Unbalanced how? Restepc (talk) 00:24, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Google news has approximately 500 news stories on ADHD over the last month. Did you ever ask yourself why these particular examples were chosen for the Media controversy section? ADHD used to be a much more popular topic. Especially around the time of the ritalin class action lawsuits. One of the sources used in this article is 7 to 8 years old. Knowing the long lasting interest in this topic, in that time frame one can conservatively estimate that there were 42,000 news worthy items posted on the internet. Who knows how many more in other mediums. Is something really controversial if it is a tiny minority of the total output and not necessarily all of minority or majority opinion?

Then there is the issue of what is news? For example if you are posting an opinion letter, is this controversial even if you are famous? Is it not controversial, only if the author's opinion is directly related to there area of expertise? For example there was a nobel prize winning scientist, I believe in the field of DNA research who wrote some pretty bigoted stuff. He was a brilliant guy but the bigoted ideas had no traction...he was speaking outside of field of expertise. Were his bigoted ideas controversial? No, because there was no "beef" to what he said. It was simply an obvious expression of bias. I could go on about this section but I have bigger fish to fry. While I agree that there are occasionally controversial news stories about ADHD, I would suggest that there are many, many more articles that deal with the topic in a non-controversial manner. If you only focus on controversy and do not mention how media treats this topic in general, then the original contributor was obviously POV pushing.--scuro (talk) 04:30, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

The section focuses on the media coverage of the ADHD controversy, because it is called 'media coverage of the ADHD controversy'. If you would like to add something about how the media treats this topic in general then do, but for the section entitled 'media coverage of the ADHD controversy' to focus on media coverage of the ADHD controversy isn't unbalanced, it's logical. Restepc (talk) 14:01, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Do not remove a tag from any section if a contributor opposes that action, until the issue is vetted out in talk.--scuro (talk) 14:37, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I cannot see your point (and strongly disagree with what I do see) on this section, despite us already having talked about it a fair bit, so I suggest we get a third opinion: someone who has never edited this article or any related articles, as it's a matter of checking the balance and doesn't need any knowledge of the subject or articles history, and obviously someone who isn't friendly with either of us. Your thoughts? Restepc (talk) 14:51, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Scuro, I can not see any way in which that section is unbalanced, do you still object the removal of the tag? If so could you please dicuss how we should resolve this, I have waited for any changes you feel needed, and I have suggested getting a third opinion....Restepc (talk) 17:07, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I do feel it is still unbalanced. I could do a rewrite and post in talk. I'd do it on the page but I believe that section is dear to Ss. That to me would be the next logical step.--scuro (talk) 16:39, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Here is an attempt at creating balance, I tackled only references to the US, to briefly show you what I would consider to be a more balanced section.

Media coverage of ADHD in the US peaked around the year 2000. The interest in the topic coincided with a sharp increase of stimulant medications in the US at that time. PBS' Frontline ran an extensive report with a large selection of interviews with important representatives of the various viewpoints. Critics included who contended that ADHD is a controversial disorder were, Fred Baughman and Peter Breggin. Scientology and Scientology members such as Tom Cruise also have used the media to contended that ADHD is a controversial disorder.--scuro (talk) 04:34, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Media coverage of ADHD in the US peaked around the year 2000. The interest in the topic coincided with a sharp increase of stimulant medications in the US at that time. need citations for that, and the 'at that time' at the end doesn't seem necessary.

PBS' Frontline ran an extensive report with a large selection of interviews with important representatives of [removed the word the, as it minorly suggests that all the viewpoints were covered, which I doubt as there are so many on this subject] various viewpoints.

Critics included who [contended isn't a NPOV word, 'stated' would be better, but I'd suggest there two people should be mentioned elsewhere in the article, not really here] that ADHD is a controversial disorder were, Fred Baughman and Peter Breggin.

Scientology and Scientology members such as Tom Cruise also have used the media to contended that ADHD is a controversial disorder. This last part surely would be better in the scientology section?

Basically I think most of what you're suggesting should be in other sections, I'm not happy with the first parts focus entirely on the US (and it would need to be clearly cited), and the PBS thing is already mentioned. I'd really like to know what exactly the problem you have with that section is? The selection or the phrasing or what? Restepc (talk) 12:04, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I've made some edits to that section, removed a few odd words, grammar, punctuation etc, sentence saying that the interview contradicts this page and titles for articles that are already titled in the ref section and I felt unnecessary. I'm thinking perhaps the Panorama study should be cited in that section, but the house of lords part should be moved somewhere else, it certainly doesn't come under the heading of media coverage.Restepc (talk) 12:19, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

If the article really needs a media section then get it right. The general public is highly aware of Tom Cruise and his viewpoint on medication and contended controversies that he believes exists. He deserves a lot of weight in this section. You can't have your cake and eat it too. Get ride of the section all together or balance it fairly.--scuro (talk) 12:32, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Tom Cruise=actor/celebrity/scientologist. Like I said, shouldn't he be in the scientology section? Restepc (talk) 12:37, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Sure he should be in the media section but when interviewed about Brooke Shields he made some very controversial remarks about ADHD. http://www.bellaonline.com/articles/art33219.asp If you are writing about ADHD and media and controversy how can you exclude him? To do so imparts bias.--scuro (talk) 12:46, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not saying he should be excluded, I think he should be in the article, just not in that section, he isn't media coverage. Restepc (talk) 12:52, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Please.....he isn't media coverage but his viewpoints were certainly covered to death by the media. What he said became watercooler fodder. It's highly noteworthy and to purposefully exclude it smacks of POV pushing.--scuro (talk) 13:02, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

As I have repeatedly and very very clearly said I am not excluding mentions of Tom Cruise from this article, I am however struggling to see why that section of the article should have an unbalanced tag on it. Restepc (talk) 13:11, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I've changed a lot of what you put, mostly grammar/phrasing/spelling wikilinks. The internet thing needs some sort of citation, and who is lawrence diller? I'll work on the second paragraph when I get chance, think it needs expanding and the house of lords thing moving to a separate section....possibly a section about legal debates around ADHD, house of lords, class action law suits, debate in congress etc, your thoughts? Restepc (talk) 18:38, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Made further corrections. Worked on the second paragraph separating media shows from opinion which is in the second paragraph. Added Tom Cruise. Expand as you wish, I may do likewise. Did a quick check on the the Baroness, I didn't see that the inquiry was actually held. I don't know how you feel about this but this section could now be put in the main article...where I believe it actually belongs.--scuro (talk) 00:07, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

There are many controversies surrounding ADHD, I don't think they could fit comfortably in the main article, what we have here isn't nearly enough, the media coverage section makes more sense here I think, because it's the controversies which generate such interest. What you wrote seems fine to me at a glance.

I'd still like to include some info on who diller is seeing as he doesn't have an article here, then I intend to replace the house of lords part with the actual panorama show, and move the house of lords to a different section as it doesn't really fit there. Then hopefully we will have one section in this article without major problems and I'll move onto the lead :) Restepc (talk) 02:10, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Dietary issues and ADHD

In the main ADHD article under causes there is this single sentence.

Despite the lack of evidence that nutrition causes ADHD,[31] studies have found that malnutrition is correlated with attention deficits.[32]

and a separate section

Complicating factors

Many studies point to synthetic preservatives and artificial coloring agents aggravating ADD & ADHD symptoms in those affected.[35][36] Older studies were inconclusive quite possibly due to inadequate clinical methods of measuring offending behavior. Parental reports were more accurate indicators of the presence of additives than clinical tests. [37] Several major studies show academic performance increased and disciplinary problems decreased in large non-ADD student populations when artificial ingredients, including artificial colors were eliminated from school food programs.[38][39].

I'd like to merge the above with what we have in the main article here on this talk page and then after editors have a chance to give input, cut the section from this article and move the improved material to the adhd article. It makes no sense to me why dietary issues is controversial. --scuro (talk) 13:54, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Here is a draft of a merge with an interesting addition about food alergies. It's my first draft and citations will need work, but tell me what you think. I believe this should go on the main page.

It is believed that there are several different causes of ADHD. Roughly 75 percent of ADHD is considered genetic in nature. Environmental agents also cause ADHD. These agents, such as alcohol, tobacco, and lead, are believed to stress babies prenatally and cause ADHD. Studies have found that malnutrition is also correlated with attention deficits. Diet seems to cause ADHD symptoms or make them worse. Many studies point to synthetic preservatives and artificial coloring agents aggravating ADD & ADHD symptoms in those affected.[35][36] Older studies were inconclusive quite possibly due to inadequate clinical methods of measuring offending behavior. Parental reports were more accurate indicators of the presence of additives than clinical tests. [37] Several major studies show academic performance increased and disciplinary problems decreased in large non-ADD student populations when artificial ingredients, including artificial colors were eliminated from school food programs.[38][39]. Professor John Warner stated, “significant changes in children’s hyperactive behaviour could be produced by the removal of artificial colourings and sodium benzoate from their diet.” and “you could halve the number of kids suffering the worst behavioural problems by cutting out additives”. Roughly 5% of children with ADHD are helped significantly when their diets are restricted. The vast majority of these children are believed to have food allergies. http://www.nimh.nih.gov/health/publications/adhd/complete-publication.shtml#pub4 --scuro (talk) 21:10, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Add what is here to the main article if you want Scuro but the diet issue is controversial for the reasons previously stated. Off the top of my head they are that the effects of diet are being ignored in diagnosis and treatment of ADHD and the clinical study cited was only done at the end of last year and calls for the American health body to respond have been made and as yet they haven't responded. (There is also a possible legal issue of negligence) But for only the first reason my contribution should remain in this article - it is true, sourced and relevant. Mimi ^(yack) 02:01, 4 April 2008 (UTC) Um.. where is it by the way? Some consensus. Oh do what you like, you will anyway. Mimi ^(yack) 02:07, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

The simple solution is just to change the title of the article to, Attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder controversies and fringe theories on ADHD controversy. Then anyone can pile whatever they like into the article. I'd be fine with that because then the reader would be at least aware that some of what they are reading goes well beyond majority or minority viewpoints. Now such a solution would cheapen any real controversial issues by association but if you are fine with that so am I.

I thought you would actually be happy that with the transfer to the main page. Readers will learn more about diet now then they did previously. I'm sure the main ADHD page is read many more times then the controversy page so that move actually makes the issue a lot more visible. I've wanted to bring more to that page from this page. It would be good to merge the two pages. Why can't controversy exist on the main page? The only reason I can come up with for that question is because then the wheat would get separated from the chaff and I am gathering that some contributors really want to protect the chaff. Fringe viewpoints need the association with valid criticism so they have currency in the readers mind.

Now to your criticisms and bashing:

• Off the top of my head they are that the effects of diet are being ignored in diagnosis - if the disorder is caused by toxins the damage has been done. Eat enough lead or drink enough while pregnant and you can do real harm. If quantities are not huge then the symptoms and the damage resembles ADHD. The treatments are also similar. As noted in the research I did and added, food allergies are the main dietary reason for symptoms that look a lot like ADHD. Food allergies have been estimated to be roughly about 5% of all cases. If you have food allergies you will have other symptoms and any good Dr. would be looking for that. So how is this controversial?

• and treatment of ADHD - beyond changing diet for those who have food allergies, dietary supplements help some people with ADHD improve some of their symptoms. You don't get the overall bang for the buck by changing diet. It is not a magic bullet for all and seems to really only work for a few. Still, it is probably the first treatment that most parents attempt because that is what is most often recommended to them. So how is this controversial?

• and the clinical study cited was only done at the end of last year and calls for the American health body to respond have been made and as yet they haven't responded. (There is also a possible legal issue of negligence) - Just because a study recommends something, doesn't mean that it must be done...and on a timeline at that. There could be many reasons why they wouldn't respond or delay their response.

• my contribution should remain in this article - it is true, sourced and relevant.-you would think it would have more relevance on the main article.

• Um.. where is it by the way? Some consensus. - Um...like I didn't telegraph every edit I was going to make on talk, and delayed the edits so that other contributors could respond? If everyone chooses to be silent or to ignore the page for week or two at a time, must I wait for every editor to respond before I make a change?

• Oh do what you like, you will anyway. - it's so much easier to bash then actually do real work in Wikipedia.--scuro (talk) 03:56, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

psychminded.co.uk

Psychminded is the leading UK-based publisher providing independent news, features, comment and other online services - including job vacancies - for all who work in psychology, psychiatry and mental health. Psychminded.co.uk and psychminded.com are managed by the Midlands-based publisher, Psychminded Ltd, and is independent of any professional society. Adam James is the editor and a contributor. A search on google gives no biographical details on credentials. He appears to be active in the antipsychiatry movement and the website appears to be POV pushing.--scuro (talk) 14:26, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

"the vast majority of children manifesting this behavior do not have a biological deficit"

From the skepticism section. This appears to be fringe opinion from critics with no expertise in field population studies or any field that would allow them to make such sweeping generalizations.--scuro (talk) 02:45, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Over-prescription

2 points made...i) that there was a dramatic increase in the use of stimulants in the US during the 90's. ii) there are a lot prescriptions.

• Response to i): The rate is now steady
• Response to ii): There is even a much greater amount of people with a diagnosis of ADHD.

The controversy would be?...that there was a sharp increase in prescriptions for meds back in the 90's? That less then 1/2 of those with ADHD use stimulant medication? Neither majority or minority opinion see this as being controversial. I move to delete this section. If you disagree please find proper citations to support claims.--scuro (talk) 13:11, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I believe that this information applies to this ADHD page: According to information found in Milt Freudenheim’s article in The New York Times, the sale of behavioral drugs has grown more rapidly than any other type of medicine taken by children, including the previous leaders, antibiotics and asthma treatments. Most of the drugs were treatments for depression and attention deficit disorder, including prescriptions combining both treatments for the same patient. Over the past decade more children and younger children have been diagnosed with attention disorders. And the selling of attention disorder medications for children under the age of 5 rose nearly 50 percent from 2000 to 2003[24]. --Bethyd25 (talk) 19:03, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

That is a good link. From what I have read about the issues, the meat and potatoes issue is the prescriptions for stimulants for those under 5. Here you will find active debate in the field. Information like that should not only be on this page but the main page. The growth of the use of behavioural drugs is not so clear cut. How do you quantify it to ADHD when other drugs and disorders are mixed in? From what I have read, prescription rates have leveled off for ADHD in North America.--scuro (talk) 19:33, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Preschooler subsection added to article.--scuro (talk) 12:38, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Introduction

Makes what claims? I really don't understand that tag....

"Among the other issues are" is what is tagged....are you asking for a citation saying that those issues listed are issues? In which case surely they should be sourced individually, as they are (kinda, major problems with some of the sources currently used). As I understand it the 'who' tag is to query who specifically said something, I'm basically asking 'who said what?' Restepc (talk) 15:50, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

The intro needs to be a synopsis of the article. --scuro (talk) 12:40, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid that doesn't really help me understand your concern with the phrase 'among other issues are' Restepc (talk) 17:41, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry Restepc, I didn't connect all the dots the first time. The attribution tag is there to determine who believes ALL the stated points in that sentence to be controversial? If it was the NIMH website which stated all of those points, that would be significant. If it's a bunch of mad hatters that is also significant. Or is it simply a "synthesis" or original research which determined these specific points to be controversial? Wikipedia wants controversy to be attributed.--scuro (talk) 20:13, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I have to say I still don't get it, the controversy should be attributed, but that's what the citations on each point are for (although there are many problems with the current citations, I'll get to that after this) Restepc (talk) 20:54, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

For example, violent video games are considered controversial. You could say they are controversial because they increase aggression, lead to poor child social development, and cause cancer. In my example, all three criticisms have been linked together, some of which may be valid and others bogus. Yet if a noteworthy source stated this then the claim becomes significant. In the intro the question is, is this a synthesis of ideas by a contributor or can this list be attributed to a noteworthy source?...in which case the whole is much stronger then the parts.--scuro (talk) 23:12, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

genetic basis of disorder

Glenmullen is neither a minority voice or majority voice on genetics. He does not work in that field and has no related expertise to the study of DNA. He was trained as a psychiatrist. He his criticism is based on the single gene theory. Even though he is a Dr. and did work at Harvard at one point, he is a fringe critic with regards to genetics.--scuro (talk) 12:46, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I know of no minority or majority opinion in the field that believes that ADHD does not have genetic underpinnings. Unless someone can provide such information this section should be deleted.--scuro (talk) 16:48, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Pseudoephedrine = coatrack issue

"Pseudoephedrine, which is similar, has been attacked for its use in cold medicine given to children". The sentence was removed but then restored in the article. Pseudoephedrine is a decongestant which is also a stimulant. I'm pretty certain that Dr.'s do not prescribe this medication for ADHD...not even off label..but hey prove me wrong. From what I gather those who take stimulant medication should be careful when taking decongestants. So what is this doing in a ADHD controversy article? If we are ever going to get this article even half cleaned up we need to stop wasting time on silly issues like this.--scuro (talk) 20:25, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

It's used by suffers to control their condition, I haven't heard of it being prescribed, but that's pretty much irrelevant considering it's available without prescription.... Restepc (talk) 21:12, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't at all get the controversy of Pseudoephedrine as related to ADHD and this is why I am labeling it as a coatrack issue. It really has nothing to do with ADHD or even ADHD medication. It is a stimulant but there are a number of stimulants, some in common use such caffeine and nicotine...both also in use without prescription. Could you please cite a reference to the drug and adhd that explains it's controversial relationship? Thanks,--scuro (talk) 22:58, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Can we please get permission to delete this sentence? It doesn't belong. It will be removed if it is no longer defended.--scuro (talk) 16:52, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

bold editing

The article has been reorganized for clarity. Some material was moved to the social construct article. Other material which was fringe material or unrelated to the topic was deleted.--scuro (talk) 13:31, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Is ADHD a Biological Illness

The section below is now gone. Can someone tell me who did it, when and for what reason?

''One of the most controversial issues regarding ADHD is whether it is wholly or even predominantly a biological illness, a defect in the brain. The current predominance of opinion in medicine is that this is the case, but the fact is that the cause of ADHD remains unknown. Examples of this ongoing disagreement are found wherever research will support or not support the biological argument. Thus, there are radically different opinions about whether there is a genetic basis. (See below) While there have been repeated articles citing physical differences in the brain of those with ADHD most of these have not stood up. Xavier Castellanos MD, then head of ADHD research at the National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH), and firmly convinced that ADHD is a biological illness, acknowledged this in an interview with Frontline Castellanos interview. Critics of Dr. Castellanos’ own research have pointed out that the differences he was claiming do exist could have been the result of medication taken. ( He has since been working on eliminating this variable) However, even if differences in the brain will be found, an important issue is that the physical brain can be changed by patterns of behavior. Thus learning Braille causes enlargement of the part of the motor cortex that controls finger movements. [4] After they have passed their licensing exam, London taxi drivers have been found to have a significantly enlarged hippocampus compared to non-taxi drivers[5][6]. Patients abused during their childhood with post traumatic stress disorder will have a flattened out hippocampus. [7] Professional musicians have brains that are different from non-musicians. [8] Monks who meditate show measurable differences in their prefrontal lobes.) [9][10][11]

So diminished concerted effort when confronted with tasks thought to be drudgery ( e.g. homework, paying attention to teachers, and the like) even if not caused by differences in the brain, could have brain changing effects. In “Rethinking ADHD: International Perspectives” (ed Timini,S 2008 Palgrave Macmillan) an alternative paradigm for ADHD argues that, while biological factors may obviously play a large role in difficulties sitting still and/or concentrating on schoolwork in some children, the vast majority of children manifesting this behavior do not have a biological deficit. For a variety of reasons they have failed to integrate into their psychology the ability to work at chores that are expected of them. Their restlessness and daydreaming is similar to the behavior of other, normal children when they are not engaged, and are bored and trapped by circumstances. Very frequently, children with ADHD/ADD have no difficulty concentrating on activities that they find to be interesting, or fun, (for example video games, which require enormous attention skills). When they are taught by a charismatic entertaining teacher, they similarly can concentrate.''

I was gone for a month or two and am not surprised it is gone. I see there has also been a constant attempt by guess who to rid the page of the media coverage section . So far it has been resisted, but I am sure through his usual persistence that will soon be gone. ABD are you out there?--Ss06470 (talk) 01:09, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

To be perfectly blunt Ss, this style of writing does not suit Wikipedia. It is written in a persuasive essay format whereby the author builds a viewpoint up using several different ideas as support, and typically argues one side of the coin. The passage also does not fit the the encyclopedic format that WIkipedia wants. A significant section of the passage appears to be original research or a synthesis of ideas. Viewpoints expressed appear to be neither majority or minority opinion. When citations are given they are often by people who have no expertise in the field which is being discussed.

I could attempt to rewrite it for you if you like. I'm sure some of it has been rewritten and/ or moved to the social construct article. Have you looked in that article?

Of greater importance to me is that the article has been cleaned up significantly to the point that tags could be taken off. I believe that a good deal of the information left could be moved to the main ADHD page and it would be good if we could discuss this. If we can agree to things it would be hard for anyone to disagree with us.--scuro (talk) 03:24, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Is anyone else out there? The section that was removed directly addresses the most controversial issue, one that comes up again and again ans again. It is clearly written and yes does some educating about the significance of biological findings. What do you mean the cited research are not from "experts" in this field. This is empirical research and the point being made is conclusively showing that behavior can change the physical brain. On that issue their research is either valid or not. One does not ask are these scientists ADHD experts? What kind of reasoning are you using to get a "cleaned up article? Is that really your motive? Or do you want to get rid of content that challenges the point of view you have? By the way the removed section explicitly states that the biological point of view represnts "the current predominance of opinion in medicine" so when you say it is one sided it isn't as if it is claiming to be the "expert" opinion. It is simply developing another way of looking at things, which is the whole point of a controversy page. (only, for some strange reason you won't allow this other side to be presented )

As for the second part, the hypothetical position about the psychology involved in ADHD (as it relates to a certain kind of bonding with parents) it is by no means proven, but deserves to be represented since that way of looking at ADHD is not presented anywhere else in the two articles. It is a position taken in the book "Rethinking ADHD" Instead of eliminating it why don't you bring up articles that argue with it. Are you afraid to let readers see this way of thinking on the controversy page. Once again who are you Scuro? How do you manage to eliminate anything that challenges mainstream thinking? How do you keep at it week after week, month after month? Where do you find the time to do it? Who employs you? Why are you so passionate about this subject? Why is it worth all of that effort? Do you not have other subjects that you can also "improve" or is this the one that you guard so steadfastly. Why???? That is the part I don't understand,----24.151.119.232 (talk) 02:07, 2 May 2008 (UTC)24.151.119.232 (talk) 01:29, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I assume it's Ss once again? You bring up several points and I'd love to address them fully. First, you are a Dr., are you not? We know how to have a civilized conversation without making baseless accusations? Can we not convince others of our ideas without attempting to create bias by making slurs? Wikipedian policy states, comment on the content and not the contributor. That is the point of talk...to discuss and agree upon. Yet the personal attacks never stop now...do they? Have you not already gotten a formal warning for attacking me previously? I'd step away from the keyboard and think things over if I were you.

We can move forward when you are ready. Commit in talk to the guiding principle of Wikipedia, and that is to come to consensusWP:CON in a spirit of good faithWP:GOODFAITH, and I will answer your questions and probably concede some points to you. Without that commitment from you, discussion is useless because I am not required to constantly be abusedWP:EQ.--scuro (talk) 03:17, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

the possibility of moving "concerns about medication" to the main ADHD treatment article

I think we could move the whole section to the ADHD treatment article. We could could then link internally to that article as the "alternative treatments" in this article also are linked to their respective articles. Any thoughts?--scuro (talk) 19:48, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

the possibility of moving "alternative theories of ADHD" to the main ADHD article

I think we could move the whole section to the main ADHD article at or near the bottom. These sections link out anyways. The farmer/hunter theory is well known. Any thoughts?--scuro (talk) 22:35, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

status of article

Much of the info has been moved to the main article or used to create new articles. What we are left with are these subsections.

   *   Misconceptions
   *   Media Coverage of the ADHD Controversy
   *   Religious and Social critics claims of controversy

None of which are the basis of controversy of ADHD and really offer little value to this specific topic. Since the main article now contains specific criticisms such as medication and diagnosis, the question becomes does this article have a reason to exist? --scuro (talk) 12:03, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Scuro you are one step away from obliterating the contributions of me and many others who attempted to do something constructive here. You have already removed item after item from me and others using thin excuses. And now what is left is the media section which contains a rich variety of links that bring readers to outside sources addressing the purpose of this article. I note that you are warning me not to make short snipes at you and then leave. I am not trying to be sneaky or anything else. You have driven me and numerous other contributors (who disagree with you)away so there is nothing productive to do here. As you know I have written pages and pages and pages of arguments on these pages. In the end, through sheer persistence and obtuseness you have prevailed. Now you are trying to get rid of this page altogether. Yes, at this point, I take a look at this page every month or so and yes I am newly shocked that you are still at it. As for your threats to report me, or ban me, or whatever else you are warning me about I can assure you that my experience with you has convinced me that Wikipedia, while an interesting experiment, is close to worthless unless it truly is policed to remove the power of someone like you. Its standards are presumably shcolarly, but giving power to annonymous people like you is absurd. I have asked you repeatedly to identify yourself, so readers can know where you are coming from, but you have refused. Yet you dig up and distort every bit of trash that you can find about crtiics in this field. If you would like to report me please do. Perhaps that will bring an outside person to go over what you have managed to pull off here. I simply don't have the time to learn about how I might get an independent person to evaluate your behavior. (I am not talking about talk here I am talking about what you do with impunity.) For a while abd, who seems to know about Wikepedia, was taking you on, but he also seems to have found more productive ways to spend his time. So please!!!!! bring in someone fromn Wikepia to evaluate my misbehavior. Hopefully he/she will then review your actions-- Simon Sobo MDSs06470 (talk) 10:30, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Except for the long paragraph of bold which hurt my eyes and which I've converted back to plain, taking the liberty of harmless formatting, I must say that I understand where Dr. Sobo is coming from. When I had occasion to review the history of the main article and this one, over the last couple of years, I found that the articles had devolved. They became duller, less interesting, and, indeed, less informative. I'm pretty sure that they became better sourced, but, gradually, good writing and good text was removed. Scuro is an WP:SPA and he has pushed the limits of what an SPA should do. But things like this happen all the time, hardly anyone is minding the store. Unless someone *else* can do the same thing, stay on top of an article, there will be people like Scuro who will steadily push the article in one direction, and, slowly, it will move as long as that person does not go too far. I became involved in other things, and so, while the articles are still in my watchlist, my watchlist became so enormous that this article was more or less lost in the flood.

However, I'll point this out. If anyone wants to take an old revision and bring back in removed material, it can be done. Absolutely, it's a lot of work. That's the problem. Trying to maintain a Wikipedia article on a controversial is like pushing that old boulder up the mountain. Obvious vandalism? Wikipedia is really good at dealing with it quickly. But subtle shifts in article content? Steadily and slowly? Very difficult to prevent, unless one is one it. Every day. Experts such as Dr. Sobo can't afford the time, generally. I have a similar problem, long-term. I'm expert elsewhere. As to ADHD, I merely know it from the inside. 18 mg/day Concerta, plus 5 mg Ritalin straight in the morning, and 150 mg/day bupropion SR. And when I get a cold, I look forward to the pseudoephedrine, though it only has that effect for a couple of days at the most.--Abd (talk) 03:52, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Abd, I focus on a limited number of articles because I have fixed amount of time and the number of articles in serious need of major editing seems to be endless. You see that as a fault that you use as a springboard to negatively focus on me as a contributor, and that speaks volumes. Once again I'll ask that you please stop. It's not constructive in the least.

There were many edits and they were all done in good faith. Each edit was documented. A good number of the potential edits were mentioned in talk before they happened. There were also a limited amount of edits per session after which I usually paused for several days giving other contributors a chance to contribute. You and Dr. Sobo also forgot to mention that I have moved a good chunk of the text on this page to the main pages of ADHD articles. In effect I have given the topics more exposure then these topics previously had received here. I also added extensive information with citations to the medication and children section...making a point to show warts and all on this topic. These edits have happened over months and improved the remaining material significantly. Much of the clean-up focused on improving poor written material or eliminating extraneous coatrack material. Unsourced material received citation requests and if none came over an extended period of time, the material was eliminated if it looked to be extraneous or unsupportable by proper citations. Ample opportunity to give feedback was given every step of the way so I really don't see how you or anyone else for that matter can criticize my approach. Now I am suggesting that this article be eliminated. There is not much to this article that isn't in one of the ADHD articles. All the material which I have moved from this article to the main articles has not been challenged, demonstrating the point I am making here which is there appears to be no reason for this articles existence. Feel free to suggest edits that should not have been done. I am open to discussion but I would appreciate if it was done in a civil manner that focused strictly on content.--scuro (talk) 11:08, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Poor sources make for a poor article: include academic and medical journals

I stumbled upon this article today. I know precious little about Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder, which is probably a good thing. Here is a brief sample of the controversies based on JSTOR results from an outside editor offering a third-opinion. There is much to include in this article from the mainstream.:

Nola Purdie, John Hattie and Annemaree Carroll. “A Review of the Research on Interventions for Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder: What Works Best?” Review of Educational Research, Vol. 72, No. 1 (Spring, 2002), pp. 61-99 Published by: American Educational Research Association.

Abstract: This meta-analysis examined 74 studies in which there had been an intervention that aimed to improve the behavioral, cognitive, and/or social functioning of people with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), or attention deficit disorder (ADD). Overall, there were larger effects of the various interventions on behavioral than on educational outcomes. These overall effects were larger for medical interventions than for educational, psychosocial, or parent training interventions, but there was little support for flow-over effects, from the reduction in behavior problems to enhanced educational outcomes. The effects on educational outcomes were greater for educational interventions than for other types of intervention.

Claudia Malacrida. “Alternative Therapies and Attention Deficit Disorder: Discourses of Maternal Responsibility and Risk”. Gender and Society, Vol. 16, No. 3 (Jun., 2002), pp. 366-385.

Abstract: In response to controversies about Attention Deficit Disorder (ADD) and Ritalin, many alternative therapies have proliferated in professional and lay circles. This study examines alternative therapy discourse and asks whether these texts offer any real challenge to traditional discourses of medicalized motherhood. Indeed, alternative therapies employ most of medicine's discursive strategies, portraying mothers as inadequate and responsible for their children's problems and positioning the child as both at risk and a danger to society. Furthermore, the speculative causal factors and the lengths to which mothers are encouraged to go in alternative therapy texts place a heavier burden on women than do traditional medical texts. Thus, while the medical treatment for ADD might be challenged, alternative therapy discourse supports the legitimacy of ADD as a diagnostic category, argues that its causes are personal and gendered, and claims that professional intervention remains the proper response.

Peter Conrad, Deborah Potter. From Hyperactive Children to ADHD Adults: Observations on the Expansion of Medical Categories” Social Problems, Vol. 47, No. 4 (Nov., 2000), pp. 559-58

Abstract: Medicalization is, by definition, about the extension of medical boundaries. Analogous to "domain expansion, " extant medicalized categories can expand to become broader and more inclusive. This paper examines the emergence of Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) in adults. ADHD, commonly known as Hyperactivity, became established in the 1970s as a diagnosis for children; it expanded first to include "adult hyperactives" and, in the 1990s, "ADHD Adults." This allowed for the inclusion of an entire population of people and their problems that were excluded by the original conception of hyperactive children. We show how lay, professional, and media claims help establish the expanded diagnostic category. We identify particular aspects of the social context that contributed to the rise of adult ADHD and outline some of the social implications of ADHD in adults, especially the medicalization of underperformance and the availability of new disability rights. Adult ADHD serves as an exemplar of several cases of diagnostic expansion, an important avenue of increasing medicalization.

Janet Currie. “Health Disparities and Gaps in School Readiness.” The Future of Children, Vol. 15, No. 1, School Readiness: Closing Racial and Ethnic Gaps (Spring, 2005), pp. 117-138

Abstract: The author documents pervasive racial disparities in the health of American children and analyzes how and how much those disparities contribute to racial gaps in school readiness. She explores a broad sample of health problems common to U.S. children, such as attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, asthma, and lead poisoning, as well as maternal health problems and health-related behaviors that affect children's behavioral and cognitive readiness for school. If a health problem is to affect the readiness gap, it must affect many children, it must be linked to academic performance or behavior problems, and it must show a racial disparity either in its prevalence or in its effects. The author focuses not only on the black-white gap in health status but also on the poor-nonpoor gap because black children tend to be poorer than white children. The health conditions Currie considers seriously impair cognitive skills and behavior in individual children. But most explain little of the overall racial gap in school readiness. Still, the cumulative effect of health differentials summed over all conditions is significant. Currie's rough calculation is that racial differences in health conditions and in maternal health and behaviors together may account for as much as a quarter of the racial gap in school readiness. Currie scrutinizes several policy steps to lessen racial and socioeconomic disparities in children's health and to begin to close the readiness gap. Increasing poor children's eligibility for Medicaid and state child health insurance is unlikely to be effective because most poor children are already eligible for public insurance. The problem is that many are not enrolled. Even in- creasing enrollment may not work: socioeconomic disparities in health persist in Canada and the United Kingdom despite universal public health insurance. The author finds more promise in strengthening early childhood programs with a built-in health component, like Head Start; family-based services and home visiting programs; and WIC, the federal nutrition program for women, infants, and small children. In all three, trained staff can help parents get ongoing care for their children.

Jane D. McLeod, Bernice A. Pescosolido, David T. Takeuchi, Terry Falkenberg White. “Public Attitudes toward the Use of Psychiatric Medications for Children” Journal of Health and Social Behavior, Vol. 45, No. 1 (Mar., 2004), pp. 53-67

Abstract: Psychiatric medication use for children has increased dramatically over the past three decades. Despite substantial media attention to the issue, little is known about how the lay public feels about the use of psychiatric medications for children. Drawing on theories of medicalization, we describe and analyze Americans' attitudes towards the use of psychiatric medications generally and Prozac specifically for children described as having three types of behavioral problems. Using data from the 1998 General Social Survey s Pressing Issues in Health and Medical Care Module, we find that more Americans (57%) are willing to use psychiatric medications for children who have expressed suicidal statements than for "oppositional" behaviors (34.2%) or for hyperactivity (29.5%). Across the board, respondents are less willing to give Prozac than the general class of psychiatric medications. While socio-demographics do little to identify Americans with differing positions, the strongest and most consistent correlates of willingness to give psychiatric medications to children are trust in personal physicians, general attitudes towards psychiatric medications, and the respondents expressed willing- ness to take psychiatric medications herself or himself.

Neil Scheurich. “Moral Attitudes & Mental Disorders” The Hastings Center Report, Vol. 32, No. 2 (Mar. - Apr., 2002), pp. 14-2

Terrie E. Moffitt. “The Neuropsychology of Juvenile Delinquency: A Critical Review” Crime and Justice, Vol. 12, (1990), pp. 99-169

Donna L. Terman, Mary B. Larner, Carol S. Stevenson, Richard E. Behrman. “Special Education for Students with Disabilities: Analysis and Recommendations” The Future of Children, Vol. 6, No. 1, Special Education for Students with Disabilities (Spring, 1996), pp. 4-24

Kenneth A. Kavale, Steven R. Forness. “The Politics of Learning Disabilities” Learning Disability Quarterly, Vol. 21, No. 4, The Politics of Learning Disabilities (Autumn, 1998), pp. 245-273.

Seth J. Schwartz, Howard A. Liddle. “The Transmission of Psychopathology from Parents to Offspring: Development and Treatment in Context”, Family Relations, Vol. 50, No. 4 (Oct., 2001), pp. 301-307

I would have included all the abstracts, but they take far too cut and paste. My only point is to demonstrate that there is a wide untapped literature for this encyclopedia article (there are several more medical and academic articles to read). Editors of this article should maybe consider looking into these articles further before deciding to merge, delete, or substantially whittle down this article. If other editors who are passionately involved in this subject, found these citations to be unhelpful, I understand. I'll stay out of it. Regards, J Readings (talk) 08:30, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

The question I have is what information provided by these abstracts in noteworthy, controversial, and can't be put in one of the main ADHD articles?--scuro (talk) 03:04, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. To be honest, that's not the question that I would have automatically asked. As I mentioned, these academic journal citations are only put on the talk page to demonstrate that there is a fairly large untapped literature out there that editors of this page should seriously consider reading before any hasty decisions are made to delete, merge, or whittle down this article. I know virtually nothing about this topic myself, so I can only contribute what I've read over the past two days.

According to LexisNexis, another good research database, a keyword search for "controversy," "ADHD" and "Attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder" (with emphasis on 3 mentions or more within the article) reveals quite a few articles just about this subject. Indeed, just from the Scientology aspect alone, LexisNexis generated 26 articles from independent, reliable third-party sources discussing all of the controversies between the religious organization and pharmaceutical companies, medical associations and other interest groups. These sources are quite mainstream, albeit newspapers in various parts of the world (not just America). Titles include "ADHD drugs ridiculed", "ADHD flier draws fire from advocacy groups", "Portsmouth School Board's ADHD flier draws fire", "ADHD guide aims to reassure", "Scientology's war on psychiatry", "Troubled teens need more than just drugs", etc.

Then there is the controversial nature versus nurture debate (of which ADHD plays a large role), discussed within the journal articles above and within published magazines and newspaper articles. I could list all of the articles relating to ADHD, but I think you get the point: there is a wealth of information from which editors here can draw in order to write this article. I would be happy to help if both sides are interested in including these sources.

I understand that some editors continue to believe passionately in a certain POV and don't like to call attention to other documented viewpoints. Consequently, articles like this become battlegrounds for POV-pushers on both sides. The side that doesn't want the article will always scream "POV-fork" while the other side will scream "censorship". Please understand: I'm not interested in taking sides or causing trouble. All I'm saying is that I'm surprised that the large number of resources available to both sides has not been included in the article yet. It is very much possible to document the debate without actually participating in it. As editors of an encyclopedia, that is what we should be striving to do. Best regards, J Readings (talk) 06:43, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I have yet to see a feature article on the controversial nature of ADHD by say Time or the Economist or any major circulation magazine. Of the multitude of webpages by national health institutes, from what I can see, only the Every Child Matters website makes reference to the controversial nature of the disorder.

There is no escaping the fact that ADHD remains a controversial diagnosis, however. Some health practitioners believe it is under-diagnosed in the UK, and that children are going without the help and support they need in order to make the most of their education and life chances; other practitioners fear it is being over-diagnosed, and some have serious doubts about or even reject the concept of ADHD altogether. Some practitioners are particularly concerned about the use of medication for children diagnosed with ADHD. Others argue that medication is often a vital part of a broad programme of treatment because it provides a 'window of opportunity' by calming children down. Without the medication, they say, some children would simply be unable to benefit from other kinds of kinds of behavioural or therapeutic support. There are no easy answers to these dilemmas. But it is important to recognise that recommended treatment for children with ADHD generally includes a range of social, psychological and behavioural interventions. Medication is not prescribed for all children and even when it is prescribed, guidelines from the National Institute of Clinical Excellence make clear it should only be used as part of a comprehensive programme of treatment, which should always involve families and schools. It is also important to recognise that however their problems are conceptualised, the outlook for children diagnosed with ADHD can be bleak if their problems are left untreated; not only is their education likely to be seriously impaired, but poor self-esteem, relationship problems and emotional problems are likely to develop. And for families, the pressures on living with an over-active child can be particularly acute.

Does that passage read like a ringing endorsement for the controversies of ADHD?

Sure, esteemed people may write an opinion piece, or give a choice quote but most often they are talking outside of their field of expertise. There is no established minority that broadly makes the case of controversy. Furthermore, references to controversy were made a lot more frequently at the time of the Ritalin class Action Lawsuits with the rising use of medication at that time in the US. Things have changed a lot in eight to ten years. We don't have congressional hearings on ADHD medication anymore. The lawsuits all bit the dust and there now is very wide support that ADHD is a disorder that can be helped with medication. As for searches using the term controversy and ADHD...try another search using the terms "controversy and butterflies" or "controversy and gardening". This shouldn't be a justification for article inclusion into Wikipedia. After all where is the wikipedia gardening controversy article?

If this is a noteworthy topic then there should be active debate by minority and majority opinion on the controversy. What exactly is the controversy by the way? When you actually get down to it, you here that term being used with reference to medication most often. Thing is, there is no real active debate between majority and minority opinion. Demonstrate the majority or minority opinion that believes that medication is the only answer or that medication should never be used? Both sides see that it is effective, some think it should be a first line treatment and others...one of possibly many treatment options. No majority or minority opinion viewpoint believes that medication should never be used. Is that controversial? I think you could demonstrate that the use of medication in preschool children is a controversial to some degree. That is where I think you could make the best case for an existence of an article. But the title should change then and this article would need to change.

What we have seen is that this article has a lengthy history of being a coatrack. It's had many fringe viewpoints added to it, and also extraneous content. For instance what is "misconceptions about ADHD" doing in a controversy article? If the title was changed I could see a purpose for its existence. You could name this article, "Fringe theories of controversy and ADHD". Really, something needs to change here. This article shouldn't be justified merely as a collecting spot of beliefs for those who state they are being censored.--scuro (talk) 00:13, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I have yet to see a feature article on the controversial nature of ADHD by say Time or the Economist or any major circulation magazine Scuro. You have to be kidding. A couple of years ago Time magazine ran a cover story on Bipolar Disorder in Children (an equally controversial subject. It was absurd in its one sidedness. SeeBipolar Disorder in Children and Adolescents: a Caution I called the reporter to complain about the inaccuracies. She was a young woman not very long out of journalism school, who immediately made it clear that she knew little about bipolar disorder, or pscyhiatry in general. She had been assigned the story, put in a week or two speaking to "experts" and now was covering an entirely different story having nothing to do with mental health. So you are claiming that an article by someone like her would officially mean this is a controversial area.

The implications of whether ADHD is, in the great majority of cases, a biological illness are enormous. Just last week a teacher who is my patient, told me about a child who was misbehaving in a hallway at school. She let him have it. Her principal called her in to explain to her that this child has ADHD and she was out of line. In the long run this is going to hurt this student. The issue is not just medication, which I have repeatedly told you I agree is often helpful. (although still used far too often) It is the belief that the child was born this way and all of the ramifications that has on parents, teachers, and the child, in terms of expectations. Self fulfilling prophecies can be devastating.

There is however, also the issue of the meds There is little question that drug companies are promoting stimulants. Cocaine was once the most used drug in the world, extolled by popes, Sigmund Freud etc. It was used by President Mckinley, Robert Lewis Stephenson (who wrote Dr. Jeckyll and Mr Hyde during a seven day and night period on cocaine.) It was freely sold in Harrads and Sears and openly advertised for its mind clearing qualities. Sherlock Holmes turned to it when he wanted to think more clearly. Thomas Edison used it regularly. People generally, love how they feel on it and how well they think. So do monkeys when they are exposed to it. They will go back and back and back for more. If Adderall (or I might add Provigil) are offered to cocaine addicted monkeys they will choose them. So this really is quite a hot topic with all kinds of implications. The promotion of "Adult ADHD" is an attempt to regain a market that had been lost during a more drug cautious era. I've written here that I get two, three,sometimes four or five mailings a week, from companies and paid "experts" trying to exploit this market niche (The very real success of some psychiatric drugs in our era and the current paradigm in academia where almost all psychiatric "illnesses" are deemed biological has made it clear to drug sellers that the time is now to get people back to cocaine like drugs.) I am not denying they can be useful, just trying to return some of the caution, and pointing out how phoney some of the research in this field has become.

Thank you ABD for briefly returning here, but I am not sure Scuro can be stopped. With all that has been presented here he has not been influenced one iota and will probably win out. I keep asking for his identity because of a growing suspicion (paranoid perhaps) that he polices this site for a living. I realize there can be other motivations besides simple corrupt manipulation, and this charge may be off base, but frankly if his one sideness is not being done for money, he is even worse off than I am claiming--Ss06470 (talk) 10:42, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Really Ss, must you attempt to sway fellow contributors by personal assassination? I've been reporting your recent behaviour. Stop before you are banned. I'd ask other contributors to speak out also about keeping the focus on content and not specific contributors.

If you want to contribute to Wikipedia, I'd also suggest staying away from personal anecdotes. While your stories illict attention they can't be used in Wikipedia. Best probably would be to use such stories sparingly to make obvious points. On the other hand personal stories work great in a blog and that might be a perfect vehicle for you.

The reason I suggested a mag like the economist is because they hire good reports and have good fact checkers. Generally the more esteemed the reporting is considered, the more likely that issue has been properly addressed. Your example of the newbie newspaper reporter working for an unknown rag is a perfect case in point. If you keep it civil and work within the framework of Wikipedia, you would be surprised by what we could accomplish.--scuro (talk) 17:11, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

misconceptions about ADHD

Not sure if this section belongs in this article. Misconceptions are not controversial. Misconception comes from a lack of understanding, not from an active debate. This section will be moved to the talk page of the ADHD with the suggestion that it be included in that article, that is unless anyone objects.--scuro (talk) 12:55, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I think it could be included in either article, it needs a lot of work though. Restepc (talk) 12:58, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

PBS medicating kids series about antipsychotic meds

The recent addition and past editing additions related to the PBS medicating kids series should probably go in the Bipolar disorder in children article. This series is about antipsychotics which are used commonly to treat BiP but not ADHD. Stimulants are mainly used to treat ADHD and the these two different classes of drugs have completely different profiles. For this reason the material has been deleted from this page but could be added to the BiP page.--scuro (talk) 11:42, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

See below--Ss06470 (talk) 03:03, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Intro

The intro was recently expanded. Editors editing this section should be familiar with WP:LEA. Info inserted should be provide an overview of the topic and not be material that normally would belong in the body of the work. I'm going to edit the intro unless I hear from someone.--scuro (talk) 16:06, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

You are hearing from me. The recent revelations about the number 1 "expert", Dr. Biederman hiding the money he was getting from drug companies is very much to the point of the controversies surrounding ADHD (as I noted repeatedly!!! on these pages in the past.) It belongs there along with the statement of how drug company money was paying for the leading advocacy group for ADHD.--Ss06470 (talk) 02:57, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Also Frontline's The Medicated Child is not just about Bipolar disorder. Did you watch the show. Please do before you are so quick to eliminate it. ( It is of interest that here too Dr. Biederman was the leading point man)