|
Post by fuzzywuzzy on Mar 11, 2014 11:18:04 GMT
Following on from all the media frenzy....and lots of PR naturally.....for Richard Saul's book "ADHD Does Not Exist".... ......The Wright Stuff with Matthew Wright 'will be taking another look at ADHD' tomorrow 9.15 Channel 5 Prepare yourselves!
|
|
spok
Member posts quite a bit
Posts: 119
|
Post by spok on Mar 11, 2014 12:15:30 GMT
Am I the only person still thinking I would still like to read the original article posted at the top???
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 11, 2014 15:51:52 GMT
Following on from all the media frenzy....and lots of PR naturally.....for Richard Saul's book "ADHD Does Not Exist".... ......The Wright Stuff with Matthew Wright 'will be taking another look at ADHD' tomorrow 9.15 Channel 5 Prepare yourselves! If you are eloquent then phone in!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 12, 2014 0:05:27 GMT
Following on from all the media frenzy....and lots of PR naturally.....for Richard Saul's book "ADHD Does Not Exist".... ......The Wright Stuff with Matthew Wright 'will be taking another look at ADHD' tomorrow 9.15 Channel 5 Prepare yourselves! Thanks FW. I'll put it on record....if I remember Don't like MW's journalism much so don't expect a fair game. Edit, TBF I don't like British journalism much because it just panders to the very basics of human instincts. I'll probably get more out of re-reading this entire thread again. Some excellent stuff! <Thinks: "Do C5 have a catchup app like iPlayer">
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 12, 2014 1:10:33 GMT
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 12, 2014 8:39:21 GMT
Thanks PD. Have to admit, I'm not really a follower of C5, and I can't remember when I last watched anything on there, so haven't a clue of their technology. But that's cool if I can watch T.W.S. on my phone with my earplugs in.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 12, 2014 9:24:29 GMT
I regularly watch TWS (I am now).
It can drive you nuts with all the eejits spouting BS but I find it useful since it makes me think up rebuttals to stupid arguments on the fly - and amazingly there are some great opinions from guests which make you reconsider your preconceptions. Sometimes.
|
|
|
Post by fuzzywuzzy on Mar 12, 2014 9:42:56 GMT
Already sent text!
last time I did....on similar subject....it appeared on screen, so you never know
|
|
|
Post by shapes on Mar 12, 2014 9:48:30 GMT
I'm not sure if I should watch it. It seems like encouraging this sort of silly headline grabbing stuff but I suppose also, it is getting ADHD more coverage.
|
|
|
Post by fuzzywuzzy on Mar 12, 2014 10:39:13 GMT
Go Dave!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 12, 2014 10:43:25 GMT
Not long enough and you never get asked what you prepared for. Grr.
And you can't match your voice to the TV, you have mute on but the video has a time delay so it's mouths moving all over the place like a badly dubbed Japanese film.
|
|
|
Post by fuzzywuzzy on Mar 12, 2014 10:49:50 GMT
You got the adult issue out there!
and I think everyone who phoned in was anti the views of Saul
there was just one text waffling on about naughty kids, bad parents
didn't think much of panel's views....they're usually a bit more with it than that
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 12, 2014 10:59:46 GMT
I had all the stuff about Sauls issues being rubbish but might be the final straw exposing ADHD, how Dr Mengele was a qualified doctor, Eric Von Daniken did a lot of research and wrote lots of books (can't trust everything you read in books), how it smacked of a 'retirement' book (pad that account) - I'm 77 you know...I wear a bow tie, have halitosis and touch peoples knees in a worrying way - how I prefer research to be done by a Professor leading a team where they check with each other that they're not nutty before work each morning.
And the killer - it's in the Daily Mail - so did Saul attend the Katie Hopkins school of medicine? (low blow - but they like that sort of punchy behaviour when you're live).
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 12, 2014 11:14:07 GMT
Will catch it later and comment. Eric Von Daniken?
My bro read all his stuff in the seventies! --> Became a convert! --> Went to uni --> Became embarrassed LOL
|
|
|
Post by fuzzywuzzy on Mar 12, 2014 11:21:52 GMT
It gets worse in the Daily Fail.... link
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 12, 2014 12:16:55 GMT
Will catch it later and comment. Eric Von Daniken? My bro read all his stuff in the seventies! --> Became and convert! --> Went to uni --> Became embarrassed LOL He made a lot of money out of gullible teenagers like me - it's easy to pull the wool over the eyes of the under informed and a lot of people want to believe that other people don't know how to raise their kids and want a label as cover.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 12, 2014 12:29:21 GMT
And their quote? "In other cases, the diagnosis of ADHD invariably masks something far more serious: depression, bipolar disorder, even schizophrenia"
UGH? So not content with dissing the condition, even if it was a tangible and measurable condition, then it's not as serious as other conditions? Okay, whatever you say tabloid!
It's ever so funny, you often hear charges that ADHD is a cover for bad behaviour, yet the very same people often find other DSM "debatable" conditions acceptable. Let's raise some conjecture suggesting that ADHD is perhaps MORE widespread than they, the Establishment, will have us believe and so destroys their narrative surrounding the bad behaviour that sells newspapers.
Roll on further research into the mind leading to easily attainable and cheap, but safe, brain scans for a multitude of diagnoses.
|
|
|
Post by shapes on Mar 12, 2014 15:11:44 GMT
I actually think there is some merit in the view that children might be being wrongly diagnosed as having ADHD. Think of the questionnaire that is used to diagnose ADHD and then imagine a child who is perpetually bored, set no boundaries and given a diet high in sugar. Then throw in a pushy parent who has half an eye on some sort of secondary gain.
It's probably not half as widespread as tabloid media would suggest but I can believe that does happen.
My biggest issue with these shows and articles is the fact they treat ADHD as a behavioural disorder, which I don't think is correct. I was always "well behaved" as a child. This means that parents of children, and adults, are less likely to realise their problems might be caused by ADHD because the media stereotype is often wrong.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 12, 2014 17:05:43 GMT
It happens - I can see where Saul is coming from but not the wholesale and systematic dereliction of professionalism.
If you've ever taken a baby for a hearing test you might well have witnessed how bloody difficult diagnosing kids with anything is.
Of course professionals have off days, and there will always be a % of ADHDers that are misdiagnosed, but Saul is flying in the face of mainstream medicine and is in danger of being classed with Dr Andrew Wakefield of MMR infamy.
|
|
|
Post by shapes on Mar 12, 2014 17:28:04 GMT
Well yes I agree with that. His article is completely awful.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 14, 2014 9:42:56 GMT
I don't think we should be frightened or defensive about Saul's opinions at all, I think he's trying to help in a weird way - even if that is by playing Devil's Advocate. Even protagonists of ADHD believe the acronym is a bit of a misnomer (see Barkley et al), but all Saul is really saying IMHO, is that ADHD is mainly a basket of symptoms and of those diagnosed, only 5% to 10% respond to stimulants in a positive way beyond the temporary benefit that EVERYONE experiences whether diagnosed or not - and we've already seen one research paper discounting dopamine dysfunction as a causal factor for ADHD. We could be really scathing if, for example, Saul was denying ADHD symptomatically - but he's not. I think Saul is inviting research teams within his 'fraternity' to redefine a separate, but real, condition he believes exists in much smaller numbers amongst a wider group he's NOT denying are ADHD symptomatic. There are examples where people on here have agreed with him, such as @planetdave's comment hereI don't think we should be afraid of the wider debate either - even if it means each of us on here end up joining completely different support groups as technology and diagnostic methods advance to enhance our understanding of the brain and mental health thus leading to a plethora of more specifically defined conditions. One example personal to me: when I was a kid at primary school, my parents asked my teachers if I could sit at the front of the class because I complained I couldn't "hear" what was going on. Didn't make a blind bit of difference because, as a subsequent test realised, I had perfectly good hearing. What I couldn't do was differentiate the sounds feeding into my brain. Take that one example then all Saul is perhaps saying is this , " ...test hearing first, if that's good, then test for conditions where the brain has problems differentiating sounds, conversations and comprehending (or at least put them aside while we look at other symptoms) and then if more easily identifiable conditions are not met, please consider a diagnosis that responds to taking stimulant meds for a condition I will not call ADHD but something else that further research will define in the near future ". It ain't rocket science!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 14, 2014 10:16:29 GMT
I'm defensive because we have something fragile to defend!
We're still battling widely held stereotypes and any opinion that is patently supporting the ignorance needs shouting down (with logic).
In a time of severe funding crises (my CCG is reviewing mental health right now and wants to stop out of area treatment eg me) negative opinions can contribute to the decision making process that affects medical care - so it's bloomin' important.
I have sympathy with some of Saul's ideas - but most of the issues he raised could be headed off by thorough diagnostic practices - I needed to 'prove' my medical history and undertake a series of tests before being diagnosed and it would be negligent to have a diagnosis without, which kind of stomps on several of Saul's ideas.
And if, at some point, we are filtered into new groupings (egs ADD, SCT, Kinetic Disoder, what have you) then so be it - but it should be done scientifically and not as an exercise in rabble rousing for a contentious and illogical, and let's not forget profitable, cause.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 14, 2014 10:31:15 GMT
I'm defensive because we have something fragile to defend!In a time of severe funding crises (my CCG is reviewing mental health right now and wants to stop out of area treatment eg me) negative opinions can contribute to the decision making process that affects medical care - so it's bloomin' important. And if, at some point, we are filtered into new groupings (egs ADD, SCT, Kinetic Disoder, what have you) then so be it - but it should be done scientifically and not as an exercise in rabble rousing for a contentious and illogical, and let's not forget profitable, cause. I'm totally with you and I think we're in broad agreement. But I don't think we're defending it robustly enough with the right arguments. Of course any process that creates a diagnostic vacuum isn't going to help the poor mother with a son hauled up in front of a judge for some misdemeanour that could be readily attributed to a diagnosed condition. Take that diagnosis away and the poor sod's got the book thrown at him. Agreed in that and many alternative contexts. But screw the denials, we should take on board what he says that's relevant and true and turn it to our advantage instead of screaming invective. On the positive side, I think what we get over here in the UK as a diagnosis on the whole is very robust. I mean my psyche was adamant that she wouldn't proceed with a formal diagnosis unless she could find corroborative and genetic evidence through my mother, which led to further evidence, albeit anecdotally, via the behaviour of my maternal grandfather. So for me it doesn't really matter if Saul gets his way and we call the ADHD-like condition relevant to a smaller group something else more meaningful. What matters is that we're properly and professionally diagnosed. If in the future, expert medics have to say, "please prescribe this patient Ritalin, because they are classic ADHD symptomatic and will benefit from such interventions" or "your honour, the defendant is clearly symptomatic of a real brain dysfunction we used to refer to as Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder, and can therefore act impulsively but with remorse and regret", then so be it! The problem is of course, we don't yet live in a civilised society, so the Daily Hack and Co get more ammunition to feed the latest frenzy.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 14, 2014 10:40:53 GMT
It's not easy to defend.
I occasionally get an outing in the media but you're at the mercy of their agenda - if you don't respond to their thread then you get short shrift and they're rarely well informed so frequently ask 'less useful' questions.
Unless we make our own program (editorial control) the media has the upper hand and all we get is responsive comment instead of wide dissemination of useful fact.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 14, 2014 10:45:50 GMT
It's not easy to defend. I occasionally get an outing in the media but you're at the mercy of their agenda - if you don't respond to their thread then you get short shrift and they're rarely well informed so frequently ask 'less useful' questions. Unless we make our own program (editorial control) the media has the upper hand and all we get is responsive comment instead of wide dissemination of useful fact. I know. You had no chance of developing an argument given the platform and time you had on Channel 5's TWS last Wednesday. What you did with the hand being dealt was terrific. I take nothing away from that. But I do think we ALL have to knock the ball with a straight bat on here though if we want to recognise the reality for what it really is. Our own program? Well now, there's an idea!!! Not difficult to start up an Internet radio station. There's already a US based ADHD site I've highlighted on here before.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 14, 2014 12:00:41 GMT
I was thinking more along the lines of a documentary and getting it on a minor TV station (or just You Tube). A joint effort with the cooperation of UKAAN or similar would be good (and I'm well up for it ). My issue with our own station is filler (all filler, no killer to misquote Sum 41). Again - I'm game to put in a shift if anyone else is interested in putting one together.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 14, 2014 12:03:16 GMT
My issue with our own station is filler (all filler, no killer to misquote Sum 41). Plenty of filler if it was run as a general MH site
|
|
|
Post by purplepower on Mar 14, 2014 19:38:04 GMT
I'm defensive because we have something fragile to defend! We're still battling widely held stereotypes and any opinion that is patently supporting the ignorance needs shouting down (with logic). In a time of severe funding crises (my CCG is reviewing mental health right now and wants to stop out of area treatment eg me) negative opinions can contribute to the decision making process that affects medical care - so it's bloomin' important. I have sympathy with some of Saul's ideas - but most of the issues he raised could be headed off by thorough diagnostic practices - I needed to 'prove' my medical history and undertake a series of tests before being diagnosed and it would be negligent to have a diagnosis without, which kind of stomps on several of Saul's ideas. And if, at some point, we are filtered into new groupings (egs ADD, SCT, Kinetic Disoder, what have you) then so be it - but it should be done scientifically and not as an exercise in rabble rousing for a contentious and illogical, and let's not forget profitable, cause. Well said Dave! I'm in a situation at the moment where I'm having to defend my dx with some people and things like this is the last thing I need. I am sure that Andrea said that in Saul's book he described a boy who was textbook ADHD and instead of admitting the boy had ADHD, he labelled the dx with some other name. I'm all for appropriate dx of health conditions, and people being overdx doesn't do anyone including us any favours. However, it bothers me immensely that Andrea said he had chosen the title in order to get attention. ADHD is hard enough to deal with without someone coming up with controversial titles in order to get attention.
|
|