|
ADHD
and the Meaning of Evidence
Barry Turner. BA MPhil.
There are some people that are denying that Attention Deficit
Hyperactivity Disorder exists. They are accused of being
irresponsible, causing the condition to be underdiagnosed and even causing
the sufferers of this disease to "unwittingly self medicate with
illegal drugs or alcohol". If it were not for the fact that the
explosion in ADHD diagnosis and treatment with stimulants such as Ritalin
(Methylphenidate) represents the greatest medical catastrophe since
Thalidomide these statements would be laughable.
Do the makers of such statements really believe that the millions taking
Ecstasy (MDMA), and other illegal substances that are closely related to
Ritalin (methylphenidate), at thousands of night-clubs every weekend, are
"self medicating" because they have not been "properly
diagnosed". How can a "medical scientist" say that a
"disease" is underdiagnosed (based on what data?)
There is absolutely no reason why those opposed to the myth of ADHD as a
disease need to justify that position. The matter is clear. It
is for those who maintain the position that ADHD is a disease to
adduce evidence of it. That evidence must be in the form of data
collected in experimental conditions that can be validated by objective
repeat studies.
Evidence is made up of three elements. The autoptic evidence which relates
to material or physical evidence such as chemical residues or
fingerprints. Direct evidence, which is that, proposed by a witness
or an expert, and circumstantial evidence, the weakest form of all.
What do the proponents of ADHD have in the way of evidence from these
sources?
Autoptic evidence is perceived by the senses and is commonly called 'real'
evidence. In disease this evidence is always present. In
carcinomas biopsies will reveal evidence of cell mutation. In
cardiovascular disease necrotic muscle tissue, arterial plaques or
calcified arteries can be observed. In infectious diseases the
pathogens causing the infections can be collected and identified.
The evidence is there for all medical professionals to see. Not so
with ADHD.
Direct evidence is that which an eyewitness or expert describes from their
own first hand observations. What do the experts say?
ADHD may be (may be) genetic…
no one has extended this to its logical and necessary conclusion
by identifying which chromosome has this defective gene and
why the defect is there. Blue eyes incidentally are genetically
determined does that make them a disease?
ADHD may be due (may be, again) to
biochemical imbalance…Not one piece of evidence exists to indicate this.
Indeed where biochemical imbalances are suggested there is again a signal
lack of empirical evidence to support the theory. (Empirical means that it
can be repeated, tested, measured, verified.)
ADHD may be (and again) hereditary… Just as in quoting spurious
"genetics" this is meaningless at best and deliberately
misleading at worst. Criminal behavior is also hereditary, criminal
fathers more often than not are followed by criminal sons (and daughters)
The behavior is learned and just as musical parents produce musical
children and enthusiastic sports loving parents produce sporting offspring
this is no indicator of genetics or hereditary cause. It should be
noted that Chinese children have a propensity to grow up speaking Chinese
if they grow up in China. Those that have been adopted by western
parents and taken to America for instance have not as yet spontaneously
begun speak to Chinese because it is hereditary or genetic for them to do
so. Language like behavior is learned.
What about the weakest form of evidence, circumstantial. Ah, well
here at last the ADHD proponents have something. Children misbehave
and run about wildly, they are defiant and get bored easily. Er, yes
they always have done. The circumstances of this
"aberrant" behavior suggest to these ADHD observers that
something is wrong, the child must be "ill". It perhaps
should be put to them that the children are fine, it is they that are
suffering from "Observational Inaccuracy and Distortion
Disorder"
What about the famous suggestion that these children have
"different" or smaller brains? Well the studies that came
up with that theory look good until you spend five minutes reading them.
After five minutes the reader will notice that the "research
cohort" is in fact mixed, some children on medication, some not. Some
of the "normal" children are several years older than those with
the smaller brains. The statistics invite the well known scientific
and legal observation "correlates are not causes". This is
the kind of science that concludes that oranges are different to avocados
based on the fact that oranges are less green than avocados. How
much more enlightened these "scientists" would become if they
actually tasted the fruit.
The language of the ADHD lobby is a wonderful indicator of how
exact the science is that created it. "ADHD may be…"
"ADHD is probably…" "Studies indicate…"
"Scientists believe...". Not one piece of evidence exists
to categorically place this condition in any classification of diseases.
The three kinds of evidence mentioned above are the categories of legal
evidence. They are the material that decides the case for or
against, guilty or not guilty. There is one that has been missed
out.
Hearsay evidence is that which is reported second or third hand. Its
value to probandum (actual proof) is severely limited as it cannot be
tested by the normal methods employed to examine the other kinds of tangible
evidence. The person that relates it does not know the facts,
only the facts as they were reported to them. Just like the Connors
rating for ADHD.
Little Johnny is hyperactive says the teacher. Give him Ritalin says
the doctor. Little Jimmy can't concentrate on his schoolwork says
the teacher. Give him Adderal says the doctor. Little Sally
misbehaves in class says the teacher. Give her Concerta says the doctor.
How many doctors prescribe insulin to patients because their neighbour
reports that they have seen them drinking lots of water and heard that
their feet often tingle?
If in the future the proponents of ADHD find themselves indicted for
inflicting this scourge onto the world they will surely demand that their
accusers bring strong evidence before they are convicted. Rest
assured they would complain about rights abuses if they were convicted on
circumstantial and hearsay evidence. What an irony that such poor
evidence is sufficient to convince them they are right now, so right in
fact that on hearsay and circumstantial evidence alone they will give
addictive and dangerous medicines to children some of whom are barely out
of infancy
Those of us who oppose this outrageous abuse of medical science do
not need to justify our position. We
do not need to produce evidence that ADHD does NOT exist any more than we need to produce evidence
that Santa Claus does not exist. The proponents need to answer these
questions.
§ What is the aetiology of ADHD?
§ Where is the hard evidence?
(Objective, scientific and empirically validated)
§ If it is actually a disease,
why is no one looking for a CURE?
In the lack of coherent answers to these questions ADHD is a belief
system only, like believing in fairies or Santa Claus,
not a disease or any other kind of medical condition.
The author is a Lecturer in Legal Studies in Forensic Science in the
Department of Biological Sciences, University of Lincoln, Criminal
Litigator and Mental Health Law Consultant
Legal
Expert Barry Turner’s description of ADHD as a belief system is
reaffirmed by a Pharmaceutically Funded Organization claiming advocacy for
those afflicted with ADD/ADHD?
It appears so.
The
following Excerpt is from “Putting Power Back In Parental Hands”
The
Washington Times: Insight Magazine
By
Kelly Patricia O’Meara
April 28, 2003
E.
Clarke Ross, chief executive officer of Children and Adults With Attention
Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (CHADD), the nation's leading nonprofit
organization representing individuals with ADHD.
CHADD
claims to be an advocacy organization representing 20,000 dues-paying
members diagnosed with the alleged psychiatric disorder ADHD, the Ross
group reported in its yearly financial statement that last year it
received more than $500,000 in financial support from various
pharmaceutical companies, including Novartis, the makers of Ritalin, the
No. 1 stimulant "treatment" for ADHD. And as an advocacy group
representing people with ADHD, the CHADD lobby supports the mental-health
community's theory that ADHD is a "real" disorder and further
reports that it "disseminates the science-based information"
about ADHD. Insight asked Ross to describe the scientific information
disseminated by CHADD to support its contention that ADHD is a brain
disease
"The
surgeon general of the United States [David Satcher]," Ross explains,
"called ADHD a brain disorder with a neurological origin in his 1999
Report on Mental Health. It's not a CHADD position, it's the surgeon
general's position." While the former surgeon general did suggest
that ADHD is a brain disorder with a neurological origin, no conclusive
scientific evidence was presented in the report to support the theory.
Finally,
Insight asked Ross why it is that only the "science" that
supports the validity of ADHD is disseminated by CHADD. "It
really is a matter of belief," Ross says. "Do you want to
believe the surgeon general of the United States? He said ADHD
is a valid disorder and has serious symptoms and we don't know 100 percent
of the cause of it yet.
|
'01