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

[u/Budget_Shallan]

[u/BioMed-R]

I don’t know, a basic Pubmed search shows no abscence of literature displaying how poorly understood it is (“Hidden heritability”, come on man that’s noise reading) and how it’s questioned by scientists.

Edit: I mean just read this list of diagnostic symptoms:

The symptoms begin at a young age and usually include lack of attention, lack of concentration, disorganization, difficulty completing tasks, being forgetful, and losing things.

Reads like a horoscope. And even though this article immediately stresses how the symptoms begin at a young age there’s allegedly another thing called “adult onset” as well.

And the validity of ADD seems to be challenged both by wishy-washy philosophical papers and purely systemic meta reviews.

This isn’t an unbiased review of me, I’ve been skeptical of this diagnosis for many years. I’ll do some more reading about it in the morning and try to see both sides.

[u/Budget_Shallan → u/BioMed-R]

"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

[u/BioMed-R → u/Budget_Shallan]

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.

[u/Thadrea → u/BioMed-R]

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?

[u/BioMed-R → u/Thadrea]

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!

[u/Thadrea → u/BioMed-R]

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.

[u/BioMed-R → u/Thadrea]

Science.

Denialist.