Question:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – > ->> Those pretty pictures on the NIMH website? Quite impressive. What > ->> treatment do they suggest? CBT? Meds? EEG Neurotherapy? What did your > ->> PET show? > -> > ->My PET, nothing. Neither did my MRI as I was being used as a control > ->subject. > ->Once you know what part of the brain is involved you then have > ->implications on how to treat it. For example, the focus for parkinson’s > ->is quite specific and because of that specificity we know that certain > ->medications will reduce the intensity of symptoms. Same rationale for > ->neurosurgery. In Alzheimer’s we know that there is an inefficient > ->processing of acetylcholine and lo and behold medications that enhance > ->acetylcholine slow down the progression of the disorder. > If you determine what part of the brain is involved, you are not > assuming medication is the only solution I hope.
Has anyone here EVER said that medications are the only answer. > A PET is simply a snapshot of the brain at that particular moment, > nothing more, nothing less. It is not a predictor of how the brain > will look tomorrow, nor next week.
actually it is. Tumors are unlikely to go away, dead tissue is unlikely to come alive, the way the brain is functioning today will be more alike how it is functioning tomorrow than it will be different. > People have been given PET’s and > told to recall sad thoughts and moments, and it resembles the > "depressed brain".
not really. There are changes in the brain but those changes are unique unto themselves and not like the "depressed brain." > If used as a diagnostic tool, some just plain > recalling sad events, or any emotion while the PET is going on can be > dx’d with any number of "diseases" when compared with a "normal" > brain. > It’s useless as a DX tool…..
That’s the purpose of testing multiple people accross multiple times. Single case studies are interesting but don’t tell a whole lot about the brain in general. When samples are large, background noise can be statistically controlled and you get some pretty convincing and consistent patterns. — "It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it." – Albert Einstein in Albert Einstein: The Human Side, edited by Helen Dukas (Einstein’s secretary) and Banesh Hoffman, and published by Princeton University Press http://home.gwi.net/~mdmpsyd/index.htm
Response:
Mark, please forgive a stupid question, but why are you trying to carry on a rational debate with someone who admits that he’s "nutso"? — — –John Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net (used to be jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
Response:
> A PET is simply a snapshot of the brain at that particular moment, > nothing more, nothing less. It is not a predictor of how the brain > will look tomorrow, nor next week. People have been given PET’s and > told to recall sad thoughts and moments, and it resembles the > "depressed brain". If used as a diagnostic tool, some just plain > recalling sad events, or any emotion while the PET is going on can be > dx’d with any number of "diseases" when compared with a "normal" > brain. > It’s useless as a DX tool…..
Do you also consider X-rays, mammograms, CT scans, etc… "useless as a DX tool"? After all, they, too, are simply "snapshots of the ____ at a particular moment, nothing more, nothing less…not a predictor of how the ____ will look tomorrow, nor next week." (At _____, insert whatever is tested with X-rays, mammograms, CT scans, etc…bones, organs, tissue, etc)…also, the exact same can be said about bloodwork, urinalysis, etc… — Buny —–" Nobody realizes that some people expend tremendous energy merely to be normal." ~ Albert Camus —– One Size does NOT fit all; Heck, one size don’t even fit MOST!
Response:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – > ->> If you determine what part of the brain is involved, you are not > ->> assuming medication is the only solution I hope. > -> > ->Has anyone here EVER said that medications are the only answer. > I don’t think one could deny it is by far the answer most often > chosen, and on what basis? > ->actually it is. Tumors are unlikely to go away, dead tissue is unlikely > ->to come alive, the way the brain is functioning today will be more alike > ->how it is functioning tomorrow than it will be different. > Not when it comes to dopamine levels, glucose levels, and other > theories of ADHD. > ->That’s the purpose of testing multiple people accross multiple times. > ->Single case studies are interesting but don’t tell a whole lot about the > ->brain in general. When samples are large, background noise can be > ->statistically controlled and you get some pretty convincing and > ->consistent patterns. > In the real world, insurance companies don’t even touch a PET scan, > but for various forms of cancer, so the realistic chance of even > getting one to prove this "theory" is slim to none.
you are the one who introduced PET scans. — "It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it." – Albert Einstein in Albert Einstein: The Human Side, edited by Helen Dukas (Einstein’s secretary) and Banesh Hoffman, and published by Princeton University Press http://home.gwi.net/~mdmpsyd/index.htm
Response:
> ->Do you also consider X-rays, mammograms, CT scans, etc… "useless as a DX > ->tool"? After all, they, too, are simply "snapshots of the ____ at a > ->particular moment, nothing more, nothing less…not a predictor of how the > ->____ will look tomorrow, nor next week." (At _____, insert whatever is > ->tested with X-rays, mammograms, CT scans, etc…bones, organs, tissue, > ->etc)…also, the exact same can be said about bloodwork, urinalysis, etc… > Yes, but they also have the potential for finding real diseases. > Another dumb analogy, the breast and the brain? That’s worse than ADHD > and eye color.
Both are parts of the body-are they not? Should one part of the body be deemed unworthy of study, unworthy of diagnosing? Or is the brain somehow "above" that-is it not capable of injury, disease, or difference? What makes the brain different from any other organ in the body? — Buny —–" Nobody realizes that some people expend tremendous energy merely to be normal." ~ Albert Camus —– One Size does NOT fit all; Heck, one size don’t even fit MOST!
Response:
> ->> In the real world, insurance companies don’t even touch a PET scan, > ->> but for various forms of cancer, so the realistic chance of even > ->> getting one to prove this "theory" is slim to none. > -> > ->you are the one who introduced PET scans. > So then, they are useless?
no Why is it that I get the impression that several of "you" are engaging in categorical, black and white thinking? For example, the assertion that we know nothing of how the brain works. While we may not know everything we know lots of things. While PET may not be the most effective way of diagnosing ADHD, it has it’s uses and those uses may be in an arena other than diagnosis. — "How do you do Nothing?" asked Pooh. "Well, it’s when people call out at you just as you’re going off to do it, `What are you going to do, Christopher Robin?’ and you say, `Oh, nothing’ and then you go and do it. It means just going along, listening to all the things you can’t hear, and not bothering." http://home.gwi.net/~mdmpsyd/index.htm remove peterhood69 for mail
Response:
> >Why is it that I get the impression that several of "you" are engaging >in categorical, black and white thinking? For example, the assertion >that we know nothing of how the brain works. While we may not know >everything we know lots of things. While PET may not be the most >effective way of diagnosing ADHD, it has it’s uses and those uses may be >in an arena other than diagnosis. > Really, I interested as to what uses other than diagnosis they have – > in the real world that is and not some biopsychiatry fantasyland.
Well, not using them certainly helps perpetuate the "we know nothing about the brain" perspective. If you are going to learn about the brain, it is going to be essential to do the type of research that will allow one to do that learning. Imaging studies are one such way. — "How do you do Nothing?" asked Pooh. "Well, it’s when people call out at you just as you’re going off to do it, `What are you going to do, Christopher Robin?’ and you say, `Oh, nothing’ and then you go and do it. It means just going along, listening to all the things you can’t hear, and not bothering." http://home.gwi.net/~mdmpsyd/index.htm remove peterhood69 for mail
Response:
>->Mark, please forgive a stupid question, but why are you trying to carry >->on a rational debate with someone who admits that he’s "nutso"? >-> >->– >Beyond your level? Just think of Nutso as "biological", we are >mentally ill brothers!
There’s a difference between "genetically ADHD" and "purposefully stupid". You’re not demonstrating signs of insanity on any level that I can see. I suppose it *IS* possible that your stupidity is biological… were you ever dropped on your head as an infant? — Everything I needed to know in life I learned in Kindergarten. Like: If it’s from Acme, and the words "rocket powered" or "explosive" are on the package, walk, don’t run, away quickly, and don’t bother the nice birdie on your way out.
Response:
> I never said the brain is unworthy of diagnosis, just that current > biopsychiatry isn’t even close to having a method of accurately > diagnosing ADHD, unless your living in some fantasy world.
Your repeated refusal to consider other points of view as valid-insisting that they belong to those who live in fantasy worlds is becoming quite boring…. <plonk> — Buny —–" Nobody realizes that some people expend tremendous energy merely to be normal." ~ Albert Camus —– One Size does NOT fit all; Heck, one size don’t even fit MOST!
Response:
> >Beyond your level? Just think of Nutso as "biological", we are >mentally ill brothers! > There’s a difference between "genetically ADHD" and "purposefully > stupid".
Genetic? Huh? Where is the ADHD gene? Another "theory" not proven. Saying it over and over doesn’t make it so. I guess you are purposefully stupid then?
Response:
says… > ->> I agree, it’a all a theory. > -> > ->and a theory that has empirical support to back it up. > Once a theory has the support to back it up, it is no longer a theory.
It isn’t? Then what is it? And if you’ve really killfiled me you won’t respond to this. If you do respond we know you’re a liar. — — –John Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net (used to be jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
Response:
> ONe theory that ADHD only exists in the minds of greedy pdocs and drug > companies.. OH and lazy or overworked school teachers
"lazy or overworked school teachers"…LOL…you mean to tell me that you think that a teacher complaining about a hyper kid would instinctively ask for *stimulants*???? When is the last time you were in a classroom? Some of use in asad (like me) have been volunteering in classrooms (my specialty is special ed) for many years….what is your experience? — Buny —–" Nobody realizes that some people expend tremendous energy merely to be normal." ~ Albert Camus —– One Size does NOT fit all; Heck, one size don’t even fit MOST!
Response:
> ->Prof, I believe you are in the wrong newsgroup. This is > ->alt.support.attn-deficit. You want alt.support.morons. > Isn’t it one in the same?
<SNIP of the third identical post in response to different questions in thread> Hmmmm… the psychological aspect of repetition…."say it often enough and you (and others) will believe it"? — Buny —–" Nobody realizes that some people expend tremendous energy merely to be normal." ~ Albert Camus —– One Size does NOT fit all; Heck, one size don’t even fit MOST!
Response:
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – > -> > ->> I thought the theory was that ADHD was a "chemical imbalance"? > -> > ->That’s a gross oversimplification. > ->one theory is that the reticular activating system is under > activated.->There’s other research that points to underactivation of > the right->frontal striatum. Certain medications increase that > arousal level and->bring the activation level to baseline. > -> > ->That’s not the same thing as saying "chemical imbalances *cause* X, > Y,->or Z." > I agree, it’a all a theory.
Einstein’s had several theories. There are many many theories and few actual Laws in science. I guess you don’t know much about science do you. —- —–BEGIN PERL GEEK CODE BLOCK—– P+++>++++c–>*P6 >?R >++M+>++O++MA+E PU BD++C++D++S++X WP MO PP n+CO?PO-o+G+A-OLC+OLCC+OLJ+OLP–OLR–OL CO–OLS–OLL–OLA–Ee Ev-Eon+Eot!Eob Eoa!uL++>+++uB!uS!uH!uo!w—m!osA!osBE! ——END PERL GEEK CODE BLOCK—— elizabeth at psy dox dot com
Response:
> ->> I agree, it’a all a theory. > -> > ->and a theory that has empirical support to back it up. > Once a theory has the support to back it up, it is no longer a theory.
Theories are supported or refuted, not proven. > So what is the empirical support for the ADHD mental illness theory > that ADHD is caused by [insert theory here]?
have you looked at the imaging studies? > Is it the "reticular activating system is under activated" theory, or > the "underactivation of the right frontal striatum" theory?
yes, and theories that have empirical support. > Yet another "mental illness" voted in by the APA, and modified, now > looking to "science" to explain the stereotyped set of symptoms.
– "How do you do Nothing?" asked Pooh. "Well, it’s when people call out at you just as you’re going off to do it, `What are you going to do, Christopher Robin?’ and you say, `Oh, nothing’ and then you go and do it. It means just going along, listening to all the things you can’t hear, and not bothering." http://home.gwi.net/~mdmpsyd/index.htm remove peterhood69 for mail
Response:
> Psychologists allowed to prescribe drugs for mental illness > Deborah Josefson Nebraska > New Mexico has become the first US state to allow psychologists to prescribe > drugs. The controversial move pits psychologists against psychiatrists and may > be followed by similar legislation in other states. > Clinical psychologists hold doctoral degrees and have extensive training in > psychotherapy but are not medically qualified.
wanna bet? — "How do you do Nothing?" asked Pooh. "Well, it’s when people call out at you just as you’re going off to do it, `What are you going to do, Christopher Robin?’ and you say, `Oh, nothing’ and then you go and do it. It means just going along, listening to all the things you can’t hear, and not bothering." http://home.gwi.net/~mdmpsyd/index.htm remove peterhood69 for mail
Response:
> ->Einstein’s had several theories. There are many many theories and > few->actual Laws in science. I guess you don’t know much about science > do->you. > That theory of gravity, is that a law?
Law of Gravity —- —–BEGIN PERL GEEK CODE BLOCK—– P+++>++++c–>*P6 >?R >++M+>++O++MA+E PU BD++C++D++S++X WP MO PP n+CO?PO-o+G+A-OLC+OLCC+OLJ+OLP–OLR–OL CO–OLS–OLL–OLA–Ee Ev-Eon+Eot!Eob Eoa!uL++>+++uB!uS!uH!uo!w—m!osA!osBE! ——END PERL GEEK CODE BLOCK—— elizabeth at psy dox dot com
Response:
> >Einstein’s had several theories. There are many many theories and >few actual Laws in science. I guess you don’t know much about science >do you. > Psychiatry is to Science > As Astrology is to Astronomy
Actually, that is a very inapt comparison. Astrology knows what stars to look at and measure them very very precisely in the sky. Those stars (planets) pass through the constellations at the same time each year. It was astrologists who found the patterns in the sky. 1000 years ago the two were synonomous. People used it to measure when to farm. It’s a tool to measure the seasons and years. Astrology is the study of the pattern of the stars. Astronomy is the study of those stars. The problem is that, though, real astrologists are scientists, theirs been a lot of crappy mumbo jumbo put into it, like those stupid monthly or daily horoscope deals. Those are written in a precise manner so that there is little chance they could be wrong. That’s a different science and has more to do with sociology…hehe. I’ve heard this quote before, and it’s just plain silly. It shows only the ignorance of the person posting it. —- —–BEGIN PERL GEEK CODE BLOCK—– P+++>++++c–>*P6 >?R >++M+>++O++MA+E PU BD++C++D++S++X WP MO PP n+CO?PO-o+G+A-OLC+OLCC+OLJ+OLP–OLR–OL CO–OLS–OLL–OLA–Ee Ev-Eon+Eot!Eob Eoa!uL++>+++uB!uS!uH!uo!w—m!osA!osBE! ——END PERL GEEK CODE BLOCK—— elizabeth at psy dox dot com
Response:
>->> That theory of gravity, is that a law? >-> >->Law of Gravity >Yes, at some point a theory is either dismissed, or actually means >something. There can’t be 10 theories of gravity.
Nod. There’s "Newton’s Law of Universal Gravitation", and Einstein’s theory of general relativity. Both explain gravity. There probably can’t be ten theories of gravity; that’s only two, and they explain nearly everything about it. — Everything I needed to know in life I learned in Kindergarten. Like: If it’s from Acme, and the words "rocket powered" or "explosive" are on the package, walk, don’t run, away quickly, and don’t bother the nice birdie on your way out.
Response:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – > -> > ->> I thought the theory was that ADHD was a "chemical imbalance"? > -> > ->That’s a gross oversimplification. > ->one theory is that the reticular activating system is under activated. > ->There’s other research that points to underactivation of the right > ->frontal striatum. Certain medications increase that arousal level and > ->bring the activation level to baseline. > -> > ->That’s not the same thing as saying "chemical imbalances *cause* X, Y, > ->or Z." > I agree, it’a all a theory.
and a theory that has empirical support to back it up. — "How do you do Nothing?" asked Pooh. "Well, it’s when people call out at you just as you’re going off to do it, `What are you going to do, Christopher Robin?’ and you say, `Oh, nothing’ and then you go and do it. It means just going along, listening to all the things you can’t hear, and not bothering." http://home.gwi.net/~mdmpsyd/index.htm remove peterhood69 for mail
Response:
> Here’s the truth: no one has any idea how the brain works.
another gross over simplification. Just because we don’t have the brain mapped out and understood completely, that is not equivalent to saying "we don’t know how it works." There is a large body of knowledge as to how the brain works. > No one has any idea how psychotropic drugs work.
ditto > There are no "mental illnesses."
what were you saying about "appeals to authority?" > Talking about "serotonin levels" as if you could put a > dipstick in your brain and measure them is laughable. Don’t be such a > bunch of suckers.
actually, you are the sucker for perpetuating that image. Everyone else can see through who you are. > The relationship between consciousness and neurochemistry probably > won’t be unraveled with another thousand years of research.
it’s being unraveled every day > Just for starters (assuming anyone is willing to think): When SSRIs > were new, we were supposed to believe that they corrected the specific > "chemical imbalance" that "caused" depression.
if you could pull your head out of your ass long enough to provide a citation for this, it would be appreciated. Nobody asserted a causal link. > They were "selective." > Leaving aside the fact that (1) pharmacodynamic selectivity was > deliberately conflated with selectivity for mood states for marketing > purposes, (2) the causality between neurochemistry and consciousness > isn’t even *slightly* understood,
it is more than slighly understood but, albeit, less than completely understood > and (3) the phrase "chemical > imbalance" doesn’t actually mean anything,
so stop using it–you seem to be the one stuck on it. — "How do you do Nothing?" asked Pooh. "Well, it’s when people call out at you just as you’re going off to do it, `What are you going to do, Christopher Robin?’ and you say, `Oh, nothing’ and then you go and do it. It means just going along, listening to all the things you can’t hear, and not bothering." http://home.gwi.net/~mdmpsyd/index.htm remove peterhood69 for mail
Response:
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – >-> "I ‘had’ it"….is like saying, "I ‘had’ diabetes….I ‘had’ >->autism….I ‘had’ brown eyes….", you don’t "outgrow" ADHD, autism, brown >->eyes, diabetes… though with intervention, therapy, training (colored >->contacts), you can learn coping mechanisms enough to mask it and "pass for >->normal"…. >-> >->Or, you can be like me– "I have ADHD, but my symptoms are not noticeable >->when on medication and with the proper supports in place"…. >You are assuming the diagnosis made was a correct one. I function just >fine without an amphetamine, facing no greater challenges than the >average Joe. I never had "it" to get rid of. >I thought the theory was that ADHD was a "chemical imbalance"? Are you >saying chemical imbalances and mental illnesses are permanent?
Wow… the straw man fallacy, bifurcation, and begging the question. Not bad. >ADHD sure is a strange "chemical imbalance". It’s OK to correct it >from 7-3 in kids, but let the chemical balance bounce back? It also >seems to target white middle class American boys. Maybe it’s >selective. <shrug>
Have you ever noticed that no one who has not had an HIV test has ever been diagnosed as HIV positive? Does this suggest that HIV infection is caused by HIV testing? — Everything I needed to know in life I learned in Kindergarten. Like: If it’s from Acme, and the words "rocket powered" or "explosive" are on the package, walk, don’t run, away quickly, and don’t bother the nice birdie on your way out.
Response:
>> I often wonder what people hope to >accomplish with bad logic, poor science, and, frequently, outright >lies. >Welcome to psychiatry!
Thank you for an excellent example of trying to accomplish something with bad logic, poor science, and, frequently, outright lies, but what I was asking was *WHAT* you think you might accomplish, not for another example of you trying to accomplish it. — Everything I needed to know in life I learned in Kindergarten. Like: If it’s from Acme, and the words "rocket powered" or "explosive" are on the package, walk, don’t run, away quickly, and don’t bother the nice birdie on your way out.
Response:
> I thought the theory was that ADHD was a "chemical imbalance"?
That’s a gross oversimplification. one theory is that the reticular activating system is under activated. There’s other research that points to underactivation of the right frontal striatum. Certain medications increase that arousal level and bring the activation level to baseline. That’s not the same thing as saying "chemical imbalances *cause* X, Y, or Z." … > Set the follow-ups as you wish – I’m in the depression medication > group. I thought it relevant in the Depression NG’s as Ritalin seems > to be increasing used as an adjunct to anti-depressants.
because it’s activating and can often make the difference between sitting around feeling sorry for yourself or becoming engaged with life such that the depression can be treated. — "How do you do Nothing?" asked Pooh. "Well, it’s when people call out at you just as you’re going off to do it, `What are you going to do, Christopher Robin?’ and you say, `Oh, nothing’ and then you go and do it. It means just going along, listening to all the things you can’t hear, and not bothering." http://home.gwi.net/~mdmpsyd/index.htm remove peterhood69 for mail
Response:
>What exactly is your interest in ADHD? Do you have it, treat it, >have a loved one who has it, or are you just a busybody in need of >a life? > I’m working on a FAQ to counter Parsons. I "had" it.
Hmm, I wasn’t aware that trolls actually *read* FAQs, but maybe it would be helpful if a troll wrote a troll-FAQ as the trolls don’t seem to understand that some knowledge on the subject might make them more believable. As you can see, Mr.Clark has helpfully provided some of the more frequently asked questions toward trolls. You’ll have to work a bit to improve the quality of the trolls here, but I’m sure you’ll find it worth your while. Everyone needs something to occupy their time… Good luck! Vashti
Response:
>What exactly is your interest in ADHD? Do you have it, treat it, have a >loved one who has it, or are you just a busybody in need of a life? > I’m working on a FAQ to counter Parsons. I "had" it.
First–which of the cross-posted newsgroups are you posting from? alt.support.attn-deficit (where I am posting from), or alt.support.depression.manic? Second… "I ‘had’ it"….is like saying, "I ‘had’ diabetes….I ‘had’ autism….I ‘had’ brown eyes….", you don’t "outgrow" ADHD, autism, brown eyes, diabetes… though with intervention, therapy, training (colored contacts), you can learn coping mechanisms enough to mask it and "pass for normal"…. Or, you can be like me– "I have ADHD, but my symptoms are not noticeable when on medication and with the proper supports in place"…. — Buny —–" Nobody realizes that some people expend tremendous energy merely to be normal." ~ Albert Camus —– One Size does NOT fit all; Heck, one size don’t even fit MOST!
Response:
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – > -> "I ‘had’ it"….is like saying, "I ‘had’ diabetes….I ‘had’ > ->autism….I ‘had’ brown eyes….", you don’t "outgrow" ADHD, autism, brown > ->eyes, diabetes… though with intervention, therapy, training (colored > ->contacts), you can learn coping mechanisms enough to mask it and "pass for > ->normal"…. > -> > ->Or, you can be like me– "I have ADHD, but my symptoms are not noticeable > ->when on medication and with the proper supports in place"…. > You are assuming the diagnosis made was a correct one. I function just > fine without an amphetamine, facing no greater challenges than the > average Joe. I never had "it" to get rid of.
Oh, you confused me with your assertion that "I ‘had’ it"…now you are saying you did not have it….
> I’m working on a FAQ to counter Parsons. I "had" it. > I thought the theory was that ADHD was a "chemical imbalance"? Are you > saying chemical imbalances and mental illnesses are permanent? People > who have the "chemical imbalance" of depression need meds their whole > life? The "chemical imbalance" of panic disorder, they need benzos > their whole life? People who have a psychotic episode from a "chemical > imbalance" need anti-psychotics their whole life?
Depends on the source of the imbalance…if the source of the chemical imbalance is a brain structure that does not produce enough of a chemical (like a pancreas that does not produce enough insulin), then yes, the medication only brings the chemistry to normal temporarily (like insulin injections are only temporary) and the fact of life-long need of such meds is a distinct possibility. However, if the source of the imbalance is something that is temporary (such as lack of sleep, or an allergy to a food reducing the levels of the chemical….as well as hormonal levels/weight gain causing the body to not use insulin efficiently when pregnant-causing gestational diabetes {which I have had]), then the treatment is likewise temporary (a good night’s sleep, avoidance of the allergen…the gestational diabetes is diet/exercise and possible insulin injections *only during the pregnancy*) "One size does not fit all" is a major player in this…. > I’m sure there are a small segment who actually do, including ADHD, > but to compare it to ones eye color is absurd and a stretch by any > reasonable person’s logic. > ADHD sure is a strange "chemical imbalance". It’s OK to correct it > from 7-3 in kids, but let the chemical balance bounce back? It also > seems to target white middle class American boys. Maybe it’s > selective. <shrug>
Interesting…since I am an *adult female* with ADHD….care to explain how that fits into your theory? Not all ADHDers need medication to deal with this–just as not all diabetics need insulin injections…and not diagnosed with diabetes have to live with the problems for life (such as my gestational diabetes-though it does increase my risk for deveolping it later if I do not watch my weight)… > Set the follow-ups as you wish – I’m in the depression medication > group. I thought it relevant in the Depression NG’s as Ritalin seems > to be increasing used as an adjunct to anti-depressants.
Many who have untreated ADHD seem to get depression as well…I wonder if the feelings of failure, the ridicule, the being told "you are only ADHD to get drugs", etc is a factor in this…also the ‘theory’ that some depression is also caused by chemical imbalances in the brain might have something to do with this…. How would you feel if someone took your statements about "ADHD" and meds and substituted "depression" for the ADHD? …don’t worry, we at a.s.a.d, know-because we get it all the time… — Buny —–" Nobody realizes that some people expend tremendous energy merely to be normal." ~ Albert Camus —– One Size does NOT fit all; Heck, one size don’t even fit MOST!
Response:
What exactly is your interest in ADHD? Do you have it, treat it, have a loved one who has it, or are you just a busybody in need of a life? — — –John Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net (used to be jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
Response:
>What exactly is your interest in ADHD? Do you have it, treat it, have a >loved one who has it, or are you just a busybody in need of a life?
The last is probably the closest, but Ithink it’s much too kindly put for accuracy. I often wonder what people hope to accomplish with bad logic, poor science, and, frequently, outright lies. — Everything I needed to know in life, I learned in kindergarten. Like: Evaluation of the defensive, and retreat, possibilities of your position is essential. Especially when an angry nun with a metal ruler is approaching.
Response: