r/skeptic • u/Budget_Shallan • 26d ago

💩 Misinformation Neuroscientist podcaster with 20+ hours of ADHD content discovers it MIGHT be genetic "but there are too many variables to separate"!!!

Post image
1.8k Upvotes

97% Upvoted

204 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

5

u/Budget_Shallan 26d ago

"Questioned by scientists???" I Googled the authors. One has a doctorate in philosophy. The other is a counsellor qualified in "sand play".

Who are these scientists you're referring to?

In the meantime, check out this video by ADHD expert Dr Russell Barkley explaining what we do and don't know about ADHD genetics.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_E7af1XEvh8

1

u/BioMed-R 25d ago

Woah, buster… ADHD literally has a whole Wikipedia page about its controversies.

The study I cited (PDF) was one of my top DuckDuckGo articles. Authors of the paper:

  • Michael Quinn is President & CEO of Autism Support Now. He holds a PhD from University College Dublin, Ireland, where he specialized in behavioral intervention for children with developmental challenges.

  • Andrea Lynch has a PhD in ADHD research.

There’s nothing wrong with the authors and nothing wrong with the study. It highlights known controversies.

1

u/Thadrea 17d ago edited 17d ago

You're citing a paper with a negligible number of citations (6) written by two people who do not and have never worked in any part of health care (a writer and a religion teacher), who appear to have no education or training in any part of healthcare, published in a journal that no one has heard of with an impact factor of 0.6 (which is abyssmal) and expecting people to take you seriously?

0

u/BioMed-R 17d ago edited 17d ago

What’s your fucking problem? I literally just gave you the CV’s of the authors who are academically qualified professionals in their fields and you’re making shit up about who they are just like the last guy.

There’s nothing wrong about the authors, the journal, and how many citations you get is irrelevant. If you actually read the paper you’d see it’s actually a quite measured and inoffensive paper which backs up its reasoning with 67 references.

Edit: hey, the journal even has its own Wikipedia page!

1

u/Thadrea 17d ago

What’s your fucking problem?

People spreading disinformation bothers me. Ergo, you, as a peddler of disinformation, are my problem.

I literally just gave you the CV’s of the authors who are academically qualified professionals

Their CVs wouldn't be the first thing you've linked to in this thread without reading. Probably won't be the last either; your aversion to science seems to run pretty deep.