ADHD
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
28-05-2013, 08:32 PM (This post was last modified: 28-05-2013 08:35 PM by Dom.)
RE: ADHD
I said that was my take on it.

I can't prove it, and it cannot be disproven.

But the fact is that we didn't use to eat any of this shit during all of evolution, so it stands to reason that all of a sudden introducing all of this stuff into our bodies on a regular basis will have an effect.

And most likely it will affect different people in different ways, depending on genes, specific body chemistry and also meds taken. There is zero research on this stuff, they just nilly willy say that no one has dropped dead or whatever in a given number of months and hence it's safe.

And no, we didn't eat animals pumped full of adrenalin. The animals we ate were killed skillfully. Has anyone bothered to test the effect of adrenalin added to food on the hormonal household of humans, embryos, sperm, eggs and infants? On people who take hormone supplements and a myriad of drugs, which we also have not evolved to process. I have seen no research like that.

Me thinks humanity went a bit berserk with "better living through chemistry", and moves ahead wayyy too fast, without proper research on effects.

So if at the same time we have all these disorders and diseases pop up in great numbers, it stands to reason that there could easily be a connection.

And it is well known that any chemical you put into your body has "side effects".

Since this thread went the direction of asking where all these maladies come from all of a sudden, I put forth a hypothesis.

[Image: dobie.png]

Science is the process we've designed to be responsible for generating our best guess as to what the fuck is going on. Girly Man
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-05-2013, 08:44 PM
RE: ADHD
Quote:But the fact is that we didn't use to eat any of this shit during all of evolution, so it stands to reason that all of a sudden introducing all of this stuff into our bodies on a regular basis will have an effect.
Changing what we ingest and are around could influence us, yes. But by problem with this quote is that you seem to be assuming that the symptoms of ADHD did not exist before we had a name for it. How do we know early humans didn't have kids with ADHD? I think it's possible that, as somebody said, they were just called brats before that. Same with a lot of mental disorders, I imagine people with certain personality disorders were just called "assholes" before they came up with a name for the condition.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-05-2013, 08:49 PM
RE: ADHD
(28-05-2013 08:32 PM)Dom Wrote:  I said that was my take on it.

I can't prove it, and it cannot be disproven.

But the fact is that we didn't use to eat any of this shit during all of evolution, so it stands to reason that all of a sudden introducing all of this stuff into our bodies on a regular basis will have an effect.

And most likely it will affect different people in different ways, depending on genes, specific body chemistry and also meds taken. There is zero research on this stuff, they just nilly willy say that no one has dropped dead or whatever in a given number of months and hence it's safe.

And no, we didn't eat animals pumped full of adrenalin. The animals we ate were killed skillfully. Has anyone bothered to test the effect of adrenalin added to food on the hormonal household of humans, embryos, sperm, eggs and infants? On people who take hormone supplements and a myriad of drugs, which we also have not evolved to process. I have seen no research like that.

Me thinks humanity went a bit berserk with "better living through chemistry", and moves ahead wayyy too fast, without proper research on effects.

So if at the same time we have all these disorders and diseases pop up in great numbers, it stands to reason that there could easily be a connection.

Since this thread went the direction of asking where all these maladies come from all of a sudden, I put forth a hypothesis.

I get what you're saying. But "plastics" have been in pretty wide use for over a hundred years. That's not to say they can't still be causing a problem but there's never been any discovery that plastics are causing some genetic birth defect and frankly, that's what biological science does... it finds trends in genetic malformations and looks for the cause. Where's the genesis gene? The trend?

Bakelight, the first and most widely used plastic (for decades) in the US was made from formaldehyde and we're now on 4-5 generations past the first people who were widely exposed to this plastic. I think the same applies to foods and still, we have no noticed trends... that I know of.

We do, however, know that kids are more intelligent now than they were in the past. We also know that highly intelligent people become bored much more quickly than people of lower intelligence. And we also know that parenting techniques and the structure of schools has not changed to any appreciable degree in the past 200 years or so.

So what's the harm in tailoring our parenting and schooling efforts to meet the changing abilities of the humans we create?

They may all still die of plastic induced cancers but I'd wager that the number of schools and theaters being shot up by troubled youths would drop to nearly nothing.

The beginning of wisdom is to call things by their right names. - Chinese Proverb
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-05-2013, 06:22 AM
RE: ADHD
Yeah, but since the industry influences the government openly with lobbies and always has in the US, governments are slow to approve any studies that hurt the industries.

No one suspected Teflon of anything until people's pet birds started dropping dead without explanation, and Veterinarians are the ones who started yelling about it. (I happen to have watched that closely since I was raising parrots at the time).

We haven't even properly defined the disorders yet, never mind identified the gene that causes them. Or maybe they aren't caused by genes at all, maybe it's the current local food supply. In food plants plastics are used more and more instead of steel. And we have identified some plastics as obviously cancer causing. Plastics are not one chemical, they are compounds of chemicals and the composition changes constantly with the times. The plastic people ate from decades ago are not the same as today, nor were they used as widely.

Think about it this way:

Everything is a bunch of chemicals. You are, natural food is. Evolution made you so that your chemical composition interacts favorably with the chemical composition of all kinds of foods, and you depend on these chemicals for life. We still even have no idea what makes an orange for instance a good food. We have isolated some chemicals we call vitamins, and we likely don't know about all of the vitamins yet. We know about fiber. We know a bunch of things, but we are not anywhere near understanding the whole thing.

We cannot simulate the nutrition one gets from an orange or any other food. We cannot simulate any nutrition. When you put someone on intravenous feeding, they stay barely alive but lose every ounce of fat and muscle, even though we feed proteins and lipids. We just don't know enough.

Medications are chemicals that get a bit more testing for "side effects". They are justified because they do fix one thing that has gone wrong and may even save lives, but they can also cause a string of other thing to go wrong. And what does and doesn't go wrong varies from individual to individual.

Other chemicals surely affect us equally. But we don't even know anything they do. Testing is a lot more sloppy. You invent a new plastic that can be used to transport warm foods within the factory. You measure what it might leach into the food - but you can also only measure what you know exists. You don't have tests where you feed the leached substance to people to measure side effects.

Look at Asbestos. It was so widely used. That shit can kill you miserably.

All I am saying is that it is entirely possible and plausible that there are a lot of human conditions being caused by the use of badly understood and tested chemicals in the mass production of foods.

And it is never the industry or the government that discovers connections and yells foul, it doctors and veterinarians. We are statistics and guinea pigs.

When I grew up, there were no kids with autism and adhd in any of my classes in school. I would have known, they would have acted differently. Today, you can't walk into a class that doesn't have kids with visible disorders. Probably there has always been some of it around, part of evolution is that if it can evolve, it will. But there seems to be an acute rise in incidences these days.

Like I said, I don't know any of this, no one does. But that is just the scary part, no one does and yet we live with it on a daily basis.

So it's a valid hypothesis, but you are not going to see any action on the part of government or industry except in the rare occasions where the medical profession raises red flags because the issue has become rampant.

Proper research would be very enlightening, but it is way too expensive to conduct, and it goes against the interest of industry. And government certainly won't pay for it. Long as we don't drop dead quickly and in great numbers, research is just not done.

We do know that our chemical balances are fragile, and a fine tuned phenomenon.

It stands to reason that the introduction of additional chemicals has an effect. We should find out what it is.

Basically all I am saying here is that we are falling way behind in researching what we do to ourselves before we implement it.

end of rant (maybe, lol) Drinking Beverage

[Image: dobie.png]

Science is the process we've designed to be responsible for generating our best guess as to what the fuck is going on. Girly Man
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Dom's post
29-05-2013, 11:49 AM (This post was last modified: 29-05-2013 01:59 PM by fstratzero.)
RE: ADHD
(28-05-2013 07:46 PM)bbeljefe Wrote:  
(28-05-2013 06:23 PM)fstratzero Wrote:  Meh I give up. It's a big pharma conspiracy.

You seem to be hung up at an either or impasse.

I never argued ADHD didn't exist, I merely challenge both the frequencies of its diagnoses and the veracity of claims that it's a genetic disease. But those arguments aren't meant to mean the disorder doesn't exist.

As for the drugs being prescribed, they are indeed a hit or miss proposition and there is indeed a huge push by the pharmaceutical lobby to get them passed by the FDA as fast as they can be made.... with no objective tests available for any of the diseases any of them are purported to treat. That's not to say that psychotropics haven't or can't help someone who is suffering from some mental injury but it is to say exactly what the science says about them... nothing objective.

I'm not hung up on an either or.

I don't believe that pharmaceutical companies are in control of anything other than their own data.

Although I do know I came off as either or. And I apologize.

Member of the Cult of Reason

The atheist is a man who destroys the imaginary things which afflict the human race, and so leads men back to nature, to experience and to reason.
-Baron d'Holbach-
Bitcion:1DNeQMswMdvx4xLPP6qNE7RkeTwXGC7Bzp
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-05-2013, 08:01 PM
RE: ADHD
(29-05-2013 11:49 AM)fstratzero Wrote:  
(28-05-2013 07:46 PM)bbeljefe Wrote:  You seem to be hung up at an either or impasse.

I never argued ADHD didn't exist, I merely challenge both the frequencies of its diagnoses and the veracity of claims that it's a genetic disease. But those arguments aren't meant to mean the disorder doesn't exist.

As for the drugs being prescribed, they are indeed a hit or miss proposition and there is indeed a huge push by the pharmaceutical lobby to get them passed by the FDA as fast as they can be made.... with no objective tests available for any of the diseases any of them are purported to treat. That's not to say that psychotropics haven't or can't help someone who is suffering from some mental injury but it is to say exactly what the science says about them... nothing objective.

I'm not hung up on an either or.

I don't believe that pharmaceutical companies are in control of anything other than their own data.

Although I do know I came off as either or. And I apologize.

No worries brother. Mental injury is a sensitive topic. Thumbsup

The beginning of wisdom is to call things by their right names. - Chinese Proverb
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes bbeljefe's post
30-05-2013, 10:41 PM
RE: ADHD
(29-05-2013 08:01 PM)bbeljefe Wrote:  
(29-05-2013 11:49 AM)fstratzero Wrote:  I'm not hung up on an either or.

I don't believe that pharmaceutical companies are in control of anything other than their own data.

Although I do know I came off as either or. And I apologize.

No worries brother. Mental injury is a sensitive topic. Thumbsup

ADHD isn't a brain injury, rather it's a different sort of brain.

I feel compelled to make sure that when I'm wrong to admit it.

I agree though no worries.

Member of the Cult of Reason

The atheist is a man who destroys the imaginary things which afflict the human race, and so leads men back to nature, to experience and to reason.
-Baron d'Holbach-
Bitcion:1DNeQMswMdvx4xLPP6qNE7RkeTwXGC7Bzp
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-05-2013, 11:13 PM
RE: ADHD
(30-05-2013 10:41 PM)fstratzero Wrote:  
(29-05-2013 08:01 PM)bbeljefe Wrote:  No worries brother. Mental injury is a sensitive topic. Thumbsup

ADHD isn't a brain injury, rather it's a different sort of brain.

I feel compelled to make sure that when I'm wrong to admit it.

I agree though no worries.

There's psychical damage to the brain, which is consistent with other known brain injuries. Since we know that there are precious few people who're actually born with brain damage/malformations, we can only presume that mental disorders are the results of brain injuries, not different brains. I mean, we don't say that a Chinese woman whose feet were bound as a child has a different sort of feet. We say her feet were injured.

The beginning of wisdom is to call things by their right names. - Chinese Proverb
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-05-2013, 11:19 PM
RE: ADHD
(30-05-2013 11:13 PM)bbeljefe Wrote:  
(30-05-2013 10:41 PM)fstratzero Wrote:  ADHD isn't a brain injury, rather it's a different sort of brain.

I feel compelled to make sure that when I'm wrong to admit it.

I agree though no worries.

There's psychical damage to the brain, which is consistent with other known brain injuries. Since we know that there are precious few people who're actually born with brain damage/malformations, we can only presume that mental disorders are the results of brain injuries, not different brains. I mean, we don't say that a Chinese woman whose feet were bound as a child has a different sort of feet. We say her feet were injured.

There is simply so many scientific journals to bury the brain injury idea, I don't know where to begin.

Perhaps I'll simply have to say I disagree with you.

Member of the Cult of Reason

The atheist is a man who destroys the imaginary things which afflict the human race, and so leads men back to nature, to experience and to reason.
-Baron d'Holbach-
Bitcion:1DNeQMswMdvx4xLPP6qNE7RkeTwXGC7Bzp
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes fstratzero's post
01-06-2013, 03:50 AM
RE: ADHD
— Turns out Sir Ken Robinson was right all along. ADHD is a false epidemic.

Allen Frances, who chaired the 4th edition of The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) in 1994 has admitted that it has resulted in the mass overdiagnosis of people who are actually normal. He states that it "...inadvertently contributed to three false epidemics -- attention deficit disorder, autism and childhood bipolar disorder...". He has written a piece for the LA times here: http://articles.latimes.com/2010/mar/01/...2010mar01.

It gets worse than that. The medication used to "treat" such disorders are not only addictive but also dangerous (they cause brain atrophy). One of my favourite researchers on the subject, Professor Jeanne M. Stolzer of the University of Nebraska, has two excellent papers in the AIMHS journal. You can find them here: http://newmalestudies.com/OJS/index.php/...view/46/43 and here: http://newmalestudies.com/OJS/index.php/...iew/77/83.

Here, more references if you're interested:
  • Breggin, P. (2011) Psychiatric drug-induced chronic brain impairment (CBI): Implications for long-term treatment with psychiatric medication. International Journal of Risk & Safety in Medicine, 23, 193-200.
  • Rouve, N., Baheri, H., Telman, N., Patnak, A., Franchitto, N. & Schmitt, L. (2011). Prescribed drugs and violence. European Journal of Clinical Pharmacology, 3, 45-51.
  • Stolzer, J.M. (2011). The medicalization of boyhood. The Journal of Critical Psychology, Counseling, and Psychotherapy, 10, (4), 22-30.
  • Stolzer, J.M. (2009). Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder: Valid medical condition or culturally constructed myth? Ethical Human Psychology and Psychiatry, 11, 5-20.
  • Stolzer, J.M. (2007). The ADHD epidemic in America. Ethical Human Psychology and Psychiatry, 6 (2), 37-50.
  • Baughman, F. (2006). The ADHD Fraud: How Psychiatry Makes Patients of Normal Children. Oxford, England: Trafford
  • Preda, A., MacLean, C., Mazure, C., & Bowers, M. (2001). Antidepressant- associated mania and psychosis resulting in psychiatric admission. Journal of Clinical Psychiatry, 62, 30-41

My blog: http://nomereape.tumblr.com/
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes No Mere Ape's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: