• So right, psychology practices offering ADHD assessments are popping up like mushrooms and existing ones are recruiting psychologists who can offer this service. I guess when there is money to be made you can deceive yourself that ADHD actually exists and that it is treatable with groundbreaking approaches such as time management skills.

      Report comment

  1. This one is a great piece by Peter Simons, I encourage more in that vein!. Yipee!.

    “Thus, even a pretty accurate test is likely to hugely overdiagnose the condition.” if the disease is rare enough or very rare. 95% of pregnancies do OK, so if I were negligent and tell ALL pregnant women they are going to be OK, I would be right 95% of the time, merely “wrong” around 3-4% of the time. And CATASTROPHICALLY wrong the rest…

    Not that ADHD is antyhing like that, I am not expressing a medical opinion, but an skeptic one.

    “Imagine that 5% of the population actually has ADHD…” as it stands now, just because Abbot and Costello say someone has ADHD does not make Abbot and Costello diagnosticians. There is no “objetive”, no GOLD STANDARD, way to say ANYONE has ADHD, or that ADHD exists at all… .

    From wikipedia:

    Gold standard (test)

    “In medicine and statistics, the gold standard or criterion standard[1] is the diagnostic test or benchmark that is the best available under reasonable conditions.[2] It is the test against which new tests are compared to gauge their validity[*], and it is used to evaluate the efficacy of treatments.[1] The gold standard test is usually chosen to be the most accurate test available without restrictions.”

    Now, that sounds heavy. But if “mental disorders” are biological, it’s gold standard, by definition, being biological, should be biological, not Inter-rater reliability based…

    Otherwise: How do you know it is biological if there is no biological test for it?.

    From wikipedia:

    Inter-rater reliability

    “In statistics, inter-rater reliability (also called by various similar names, such as inter-rater agreement, inter-rater concordance, inter-observer reliability, inter-coder reliability, and so on) is the degree of agreement among independent observers who rate, code, or assess the same phenomenon.”

    Independent observers does not happen in psychiatry!. They are trained to agree uppon so called “symptoms” on the belief they are biologically caused, without a biological test to prove or meassure thus!. How is that even logical? how even reasonable?. To agree among them?.

    If Abbot and Costello are TAUGHT to agree on something that does not exist in reality, that is: a biological “disorder” without a biological test for it, as in psychiatry, they will still agree 80 to 90% of the time, at best, and that will not mean ANYTHING at all. As the rest of PS review, I think shows or suggests.

    “…base rate of the disorder…” does not exist in psychiatry. There is no objective way to calculate the base rate. Period. There being no gold standard and/or no biological test for a claimed biological disorder.

    That is: there is no BIOLOGICAL way, no not only Inter-rater reliability way, to know how many people have ADHD. Period. Just opinions of people taught to agree with each other regardless of the biological reality of the patient. Since the biological reality of the patient is NEVER, EVER, meassured in psychiatry. Period.

    “Most did not explain how they determined whether someone actually met criteria for diagnosis…” ditto, no gold standard. Even Inter-rater reliability seems lacking, precisely because it is not objective, but intersubjective, or worse: subjective. Just an opinion, and a biased gainst reality one, as this PS review shows.

    “And some used different cut-off points for different analyses within the same study!”, hahaha, nothing like inconsistency to make one’s beliefs solid… in the field of dogma. Any claim contratry to my dogma just makes my belief stronger…

    “The tests are for screening only—designed to overdiagnose, with the assumption that clinicians will then do a more thorough clinical interview and weed out the people who don’t actually have ADHD.” how does one do that with overdiagnosing tools?. Would not that only lead to less overdiagnoses in the best case scenario?.

    ““We are currently spending more than $10 billion dollars a year for ADHD drugs…”, yeah, disregarding what it will cost when they TRY to stop taking them. Just ask Paul Erdos…

    “We [psychiatrists] have turned normal immaturity into a mental disorder.” I did not play any role in that crime against minors, or young adults. Not even as a member of society at large: I always fought against cackomamie and overdiagnosis.

    “…It would be much smarter to spend most of this money on smaller class sizes and more gym periods.” Nope, it would make more sense spending it in abolishing psychiatry. Maybe the effective altruism crowd cared to chip in on that?.

    “Other studies have found that stimulants don’t improve academic performance—instead, they increase the likelihood of kids dropping out of school. Ritalin was found to lead to an 18-fold increase in depression, which decreased back to baseline when kids stopped taking the drug. And up to 62.5% of kids may experience hallucinations and other psychotic experiences after taking stimulant drugs.”, how much does that cost to the sufferers and society? I bet WAY more than the money made by practitioners, pharma and regulators/legislators getting kickbacks or campaing donations… that’s called HARMS not COSTS…

    * Validity is the boogey man of psychiatry, precisely because they claim “mental disorders” are biologically caused, or biological based, but there is no biological way to claim so. Several prominent psychiatrists have claimed that psychiatry and it’s diagnoses, as far as I understand, have no VALIDITY. In lay terms: “mental disorders” have no basis in reality, just mere belief, and agreement in beliefs. Period.

    From wikipedia:

    “Validity is the main extent to which a concept, conclusion, or MEASSUREMENT is well-founded and likely corresponds accurately to the real world.” Uppercase mine. Meassurement is what corresponds to a biological phenomena, because it is a physical one. Interrater agreement is not a meassurement when there is no gold standard to correlate the agreement with A biological/physical MEASSUREMENT.


    Report comment

  2. Peter’s report reads rather Kafkaesque. But, then, how else could it read when reporting on the fallout from 6 decades of mindless behaviorism masquerading as science? Well… here’s to another 6 decades of doubling down on the asinine “Minimal Brain Damage” lie that grew into today’s ADHD Frankenstein.

    The bigger problem, however, is that the leadership class (in all Western societies) no longer have to concern themselves with substantive facts, the history of facts, facticity, or the epistemological or “scientific” foundations of “facts”; a nice ancillary benefit for an institution (ergo psychiatry) from which facts-et al- are, effectively, kryptonite.

    Theodor Roszak said as much- and way better-when he posited that technocracy as ‘‘That society in which those who govern justify themselves by appeal to technical experts who, in turn, justify themselves by appeal to scientific forms of knowledge”. “And beyond the authority of science there is no appeal”. Thus, the ADHD damage is only getting started folks! More experts with unlimited expert solutions from the very same assembly line of indoctrinated and rewarded experts who cooked up this scientific turd 6 decades ago, and who have kept it’s deceptive enterprise exponentially growing ever since.
    Regarding the elephant in the corner of Peter’s report. What are we to think about all the ignored or suppressed “actual” causes surrounding this substantial population of “over diagnosed” ADHD kids? If a kid has been misdiagnosed/over-diagnosed (admittedly, a murky if not impossible distinction to begin with, for ADHD is more a linguistic phantasm than “a thing”), the causes for their inattention challenges not only go unattended, they are negatively compounded to the extent that taking pills is seen to be solving those unattended issues. Simply put, as California Surgeon General Nadine Burke Harris said, “There is no pill for sexual abuse”! Nor is there a pill for dozens of other reasons anyone’s attention aptitudes would be compromised; no matter how much utilitarian pseudo-science or bad faith virtue signaling is thrown in with the pills.

    FWIW: I regard the moniker “ADHD over-diagnosis” more accurately to be a “Maldiagnosis” (from Mal, to be malformed, evil, bad, etc.) An over-diagnosis must have an actual scientific etiology and correlating statistical confirmation for an over-diagnosis to have occurred. Simply put, confirmed scientism cannot over-diagnose, only further maldiagnose…

    Report comment

    • Correction: I mislabeled the ADHD precursor as Minimal Brain Damage, when in fact it was named Minimal Brain “Dysfunction” (MBD). Although, whenever I critically consider MBD as a scientific premise following a scientific process- using Münchhausen, Fries’s, or Agrippa’s trilemma, etc., I tend to feel as though I’m self-inducing a kind of brain damage as a result…

      Report comment

  3. If you’re against psychiatry then you should be all for self diagnosis. It puts the power back into the hands of the people! Etc.

    I remember the good old days where kids were under diagnosed and teachers just said I was in lala land and made the whole class laugh at me but sure

    Wtf even is this magazine with its kneejerk reaction to everything

    Report comment

  4. This article assumes that an entity called ADHD exists in the first place, in other words, that it’s an identifiable brain disorder – yet no reliable objective evidence for it has been found.

    The concept of ADHD should, therefore, be abandoned and people with symptoms of inattention, impulsivity, restlessness, etc., if causing significant distress, should be offered drug-free treatment.

    Report comment