|
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. |