Comments on: “No Promising Biomarkers” Identified for ADHD

By: Steve McCrea

Steve McCrea — Wed, 15 May 2024 04:17:30 +0000

Actually, very few even bother with brain scans.

By: Critical comment

Critical comment — Tue, 14 May 2024 15:40:34 +0000

In reply to Topher.

20 billion, at the very least, from 2010 to 2020. All premised on the notion that research must adher to DSM-5 labels and that you must use brain scans.

Report comment

By: Gerard

Gerard — Tue, 14 May 2024 00:07:56 +0000

This echoes what David Kupfer (Chair of DSM-5 Task Force Discusses Future of Mental Health Research) said in 2013 already:

“The promise of the science of mental disorders is great. In the future, we hope to be able to identify disorders using biological and genetic markers that provide precise diagnoses that can be delivered with complete reliability and validity. Yet this promise, which we have anticipated since the 1970s, remains disappointingly distant. We’ve been telling patients for several decades that we are waiting for biomarkers. We’re still waiting.”

Said differently: We have been lying to the public for many years and will continue to lie as long as we as psychiatrists and the pharmaceutical companies can profit from made-up entities.

Report comment

By: Gerard

Gerard — Mon, 13 May 2024 23:21:57 +0000

In reply to Topher.

Well said

Report comment

By: Critical comment

Critical comment — Mon, 13 May 2024 18:41:21 +0000

When studying such papers, usually published in psychiatric journals and what not, I usually use papers done on ADHD as a comparison group. They serve me as a fairly good indicator of the amount of medicalization and pathologization that is due to DSM-5/ICD dogmatism and corporate interests because I assume, maybe naively so, that the studied ADHD cases are not in any meaningful way different from “normal” people other than the side effects brought on by stimulant drugs. You can’t necessarily assume that if you’re, for example, reading something on schizophrenia. The cases described there may not really be “normal” and probably aren’t once they’re put on drugs.

Either way, the fact that ADHD is very aggressively promoted as a neurodevelopmental life-long disorder has made me question the validity of the same classification in regards to learning disabilities or autism. For ADHD, practically in total, and to a large degree for the latter two, the notion of them being neurodevelopmental disorder doesn’t hold up.

Report comment

By: John Hoggett

John Hoggett — Mon, 13 May 2024 18:21:22 +0000

I bet this study gets buried for 20 years. Wait till the Lawers start raking it in from damage by ritalin cases then it will get in the news.

Report comment

By: Topher

Topher — Mon, 13 May 2024 17:24:21 +0000

It would be handy to estimate how much money has gone into this ‘research’ or ghost hunting nonsense and how many millions of people have been duped into accepting this marketing ploy as a real disorder. Informed Consent simply does not exist in the mental ill health industry.

Report comment

By: beokay

beokay — Mon, 13 May 2024 12:45:59 +0000

They were setting quite a low goal post there. 0.8 specificity and sinsitivity. Assuming ADHD did exist and had an incidence rate of 0.1 that would produce nearly 50% false positives.

Also: calling ADHD a neurodevelopmental disorder in the same abstract stating that there is no detectable difference is WILD.

Report comment