> After reading all the literature I concluded there were huge problems with almost every aspect of it. Then you go try to tell people and you are tarred and feathered.
Now that I've commented on these papers in the sibling post, I can complain that you do not seem to understand what a citation is. What you provided are sources. Citations are references to sources. You're not referencing anything, just throwing them around implying they prove your point. To make them proper citations, you'll need to be clear on what you're actually pointing at.
A very nice summarization paper on ADHD. You do not seem to have read the summary at the end, as it does not support your points of argument. It primarily suggests a wider approach using additional medication, as well as DNA based diagnosis and treatment. The latter does not seem to be available yet.
This suggests the brain adapts to long-term medication with methylphenidate, but does not go as far as establishing a causal relationship, or show that the dopamine transporter alterations are to the detriment of the patient.
In fact, this meta-study seems to be a contribution to the field of establishing the origins of ADHD; its argument is that these dopamine transporter changes may not be useful in understanding ADHD as they are caused by the treatment. However, there's this:
"It is, however, also possible that lower dopamine transporter density and lower dopamine release in medication-naive ADHD patients reflect prefrontal pathology, well demonstrated in neuroimaging results for ADHD (5), since frontostriatal glutamatergic circuits regulate striatal dopamine release."
It's hinting at a possibility that, in reverse, the unmedicated state without the long-term effects may be a key contributor to ADHD itself.
This discusses distinctions between ADHD diagnostic criteria in DSM-IV vs. DSM-5. The ones in DSM-5 cast a wider net than DSM-IV. The study comes to the conclusion that the net is still not wide enough, particularly in adults. I don't know why you believe this paper supports any of your points.
I suggest you read the paper (https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fsoc.2022.81476) which you dismissed. I have found that it summarizes most of the realizations I had from my own research. Otherwise it takes too long for me to explain.
Assistant professor, lecturer, reviewed by post doc. It's an article that summarizes stuff nicely referencing papers.
> but does not go as far as establishing a causal relationship
I love how the attitude is: here is a drug that you would think would cause side-effects and tolerance...which is does...and then the onus is on everyone to conclusively prove that it's bad. Smoke until we realize it causes cancer. Take opiates until we realize they are extremely addictive in certain packaging.
It's very much carefree experimentation on the world, rather than being risk-averse and acknowledging what we don't know.
It is common sense that the body will seek homeostasis to deal with this artificially increased dopamine levels. Which this study seems to indicate.
But it comes down to risk-appetite.
> DSM-IV vs. DSM-5.
We changed the diagnosis criteria and got: surprise, 27% increase in expected prevalence. How convenient.
The diagnosis criteria are just made up. The cause is not proven at all. There is no biomarker or imagery that can diagnose the condition successfully.
So patients present with an impairment...then you look at who has the impairment and craft the criteria such that it explains the impairment. Its a circular definition and extremely broad.
My dismissing that first paper was to your benefit. It is directly contradicted by the second source you link, which quite clearly points at genetic distinctions and markers in ADHD patients. Meanwhile that first paper argues ADHD may be "unreal" because current diagnostic criteria are ambiguous, redundant and arbitrary; and how we socially build it up.
I have no idea how you reconcile that in your head, but apparently you do. Everyone is entitled to their beliefs and opinions.
> There is no biomarker or imagery that can diagnose the condition successfully.
This, equally, is contradicted by the 2nd paper you link. It seems it's just too expensive (for the time being) to use DNA analysis in ADHD diagnostics.
Anyway, this discussion is no longer productive. These arguments are made, researched, exchanged, and resolved between medical experts. You are at odds with the current consensus of the medical community. It is your right and privilege to have your own well-researched opinion on this topic. However, when you then take this and argue for changes affecting a whole bunch of people across all of society, it becomes my right to call you out for the conflict of your opinion vs. medical consensus. I can see quite clearly why you believe "It is now practically forbidden to criticize anything related with ADHD." You expect people to agree with you, and you argue these things even in the face of people negatively affected by it.
You have two choices here. Study medicine (or pharmacology, or biochemistry), go into this field, and move the consensus. Or consider your belief exactly that: a belief, researched as it may be, that is still likely to be wrong because consensus is against you.
Sure, consensus is sometimes wrong. The way you're going about it is not how you change it, it's how you make an ass of yourself.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2626918/
https://ajp.psychiatryonline.org/doi/10.1176/appi.ajp.2011.1...
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25066615/