ADD/ADHD: Disease or Croc?

The same way that ruling out other causes of death leads to a diagnosis of SIDS.

 

In the case of SIDS, a big difference is that a death has occured. There is an objective test for SIDS...a death has occured. "Death" is an objective "symptom". The tests for ADHD are subjective. Just pointing out other disorders does not prove the existence of ADHD.

 

What about all of the doctors that disagree about ADHD existing?

 

With ADD/ADHD, something is happening. That makes it an equivalent comparison, ccdnt.

A death occurred.

Was it caused by foul play? No.

Was it the result of neurological, cardiovascular, or gastric malformation or disease? No.

Was it accidental in nature? No.

Yet the baby is dead. Thus, SIDS.

Now, for ADD:

The child has trouble concentrating, keeping track of conversations, thoughts, staying on-task.

Are there environmental factors which could cause this reaction? No.

Are there neurological factors which could cause this reaction? No.

Are there physiological factors which could cause this reaction? No.

Are there dietary factors which could cause this reaction? No.

Are there psychiatric factors which could cause this reaction? No.

Are there developmental factors which could cause this reaction? No.

Yet the child has trouble concentrating, keeping track of conversations, thoughts, staying on-task. Thus, ADD.

This is what the term "exclusion" means.

 

What about all the preachers who disagree on when the Gospel of Mark was written?

 

They are not mine.

 

So is it not real until 100% of physicians agree it is?

(coming from someone who believes it is grossly over-diagnosed, but believes it does exist)

 

My comment about "what about all the doctors that disagree that it exists" was just to make a point in response to the statement made earlier in the thread of "I just love it when people think they know better than Drs..."

That statement seems to imply that all doctors are in agreement about ADHD existing as a disorder which they are not. It also implies that the "people that think they know better..." are not doctors. My question was just to show that there are doctors that do not accept that ADHD exists in response to the other statement that was made.

 

See my post in #89.

 

See post #89.

 

No, it is not equivalent. "Death" is an objective observation. A doctor does not have to ask a parent if his/her child is dead. It can be objectively tested for. Also, a person obviously cannot be dead sometimes and then not be dead sometimes. The behaviors, etc. that are used to decide if a person has ADHD are not always present.

SIDS – Sudden Infant Death Syndrome

In SIDS, the "problem" is death. There is no question that death is a "problem"(I am speaking about this in context of what we are discussing and am not referring to the fact that death is not a "problem" for a Christian). A person's body no longer functions after death. All physical activity shuts down.

ADD / ADHD – Attention Deficit and Hyperactivity Disorder

Not giving close attention to details or making careless mistakes in schoolwork.
Not seeming to listen when spoken to directly.
Not following through on instructions and not finishing schoolwork or chores.
Often has difficulty organizing tasks & activities.
Reluctant to engage in tasks that require sustained mental effort.
Distracted by extraneous stimuli.
Fidgets with hands or feet & squirms in seat.
Running about or climbing excessively in situations in which it is inappropriate.
Talking excessively.
Difficulty awaiting turn.

These are some examples of what is looked for in diagnosing ADHD. What children do not do these? As for someone saying...well, there are those that do more of these than others and more often...what constitutes "more" and "more often"? What is the "magic number" of these that definitely proves that the child is doing these things due to the supposed disorder, ADHD? Who decides what is "more" and/or "more often"? With diseases such as cancer and diabetes, there are objective laboratory tests that can confirm these, biological markers, etc. There are none for ADHD. What about a culture that may consider some of these behaviors non-troublesome (normal)? If a disease exists, then it exists. It is not subject to a specific cultural group. If someone has diabetes, he has it regardless of what his society deems appropriate behavior. With ADHD, it is determined based on whether or not a person exhibits certain behaviors in given situations. Where is the objectivity in that?

Along the lines of this being equivalent to SIDS…
Even those that believe ADHD exists agree that children can exhibit one or more of these “symptoms” but not have ADHD. With death, either a person is dead or not (I know this is obvious; I am just comparing the two)

This is not true. Part of the controversy about ADHD being a legitimate disorder is because the behaviors associated with ADHD have been linked to other factors such as environmental, dietary, etc.

 

OK, I tried.

 

Does the phrase "wizzin' into the wind" have any
meaning for you?

But you did give it a try.

 

But isn't the issue over "what" is happening??

If everything here has been ruled out, aren't we safe to say that it is not a true disorder? It is probably a sin problem ... and remember, that is if none of these things are causative.

If we test everything and nothing is wrong, and there is still a problem, that means that we either missed something in the testing, or it is a different sort of problem. What else is there?

This is one of the drawbacks of discussing ADD/ADHD. It becomes emotionally charged because people who "have it" will defend it at all costs to avoid the alternative ("I have a sinful lack of self-control") and those who don't have it will beat up on those who do.

Earlier LeBuick said, "If it is not ADD, then what ever it is I have is sure helped by the meds." I think this is part of the issue. We treat it medically and get results, so we stop there, often. (I am not saying LeBuick has stopped there.) "It works" is not always a good way to solve the problem, particularly when we don't know why it works, and what it fixes, nor what the long terms affects are.

I would never tell someone to go off their meds. But neither would I let that keep me from exploring other reasons.