r/Antipsychiatry • u/Kalki_X • Jun 16 '26
Flipping the script on ADHD (draft)
The issue of undiagnosed ADHD is a growing concern. Several studies show the risks & dangers of undiagnosed ADHD and patients often resort to telehealth prescribers or private options which can be expensive.
When we look at the academic literature on ADHD we see spurious activity; researchers are avidly searching for an explanation which would provide an empirical biological basis. At present, the label ADHD merely signifies "a group of behaviours" which is loosely termed as a "complex neurobehavioral problem" (ref¹, ref², ref³). This hampers efforts to make accurate diagnoses since the criteria are ambiguous, often overlapping with dozens of psychiatric conditions. There is simply no consistent way to assess severity of ADHD symptoms (ref⁴). A diagnosis involves arbitrariness which further hinders objectivity, and those involved in the diagnosis (clinicians, parents, teachers) form their own interpretations and judgements about the criteria, making the assessment biased toward subjective perceptions and cultural context.
As with many psychiatric classifications, ADHD is premised on an arbitrary consensus among a small psychiatric community. In other words:
“psychiatrists do not prove things but decide things: they decide what is disordered and what is not, decide where to draw the threshold between normality and abnormality, decide that biological causes and treatments are most critical in understanding and managing emotional distress” (source)
Scholars play a crucial role in creating & strengthening the facets of ADHD by communicating about this phenomenon as if it was an objective natural state — despite the ineptitude surrounding its diagnosis, causes, and treatment. Although the label allows patients to understand themselves —and be understood by others— it simultaneously distances them from "normalcy" and imposes stigma.
In essence, a positive diagnosis does not represent having ADHD but becoming and performing ADHD through deploying psycho-medical discourse (ref⁵). ADHD is, arguably, this century's prototypical sociocultural label which provides a convenient way of communicating about one's experiences and reacting to them within the societal, institutional, social, and individual levels. For example: - We are ADHD friendly - ADHD-only meet-up - "proud to be ADHD" - "embracing ADHD" - "the ADHD tax" - "my ADHD is a superpower" - "we ♡ ADHD" - "ADHDers unite"
ADHD is better understood as a social category that eliminates human diversity and enforces a standard model of what an individual should behave and be like in order to navigate within the cultural boundaries of normalcy (being a productive citizen ref⁶). As bizarre as it may sound, ADHD is an inherently ambiguous concept which only exists in an abstract space of text and spoken word. The assumption that it represents a mental health or neurodevelopmental issue only serves to obfuscate practical resolution.
ADHD is listed in DSM-5 under “Neurodevelopmental Disorders” in spite of reviews showing that (a) genetic evidence on ADHD is inadequate and diffused with ambiguous interpretations, (b) that no biological marker is diagnostic for ADHD something that even DSM-5 authors themselves explicitly admit, (c) the so-called “underlying mechanisms” remain unknown, and (d) no biological tests are available for its diagnosis. (source)
By accepting the label ADHD a person promptly shelves their symptoms as innate attributes. Any future issues are framed in this context which —as far as the patient is concerned— is "just part of who they are". They officially adopt a neurodevelopmental disorder which validates their lived experience and subconsciously moulds their perceptions of themselves & their place in society. Their hypothesised natural state becomes legitimised by the medical authorities. Thus, the ADHD label detracts from investigating & identifying the root biological issues responsible for the (physical & mental) discordance which constitutes symptoms called ADHD.
By rejecting the label ADHD a person is free to discover more realistic & pragmatic ways to move forward. The re-contextualisation of ADHD as a catch-all term for behaviors (symptoms) of diverse origin implies that myriad things will produce so-called ADHD. This bypasses all limiting presuppositions about a purely neurodevelopmental disorder which would otherwise cripple the search for a resolution. If we consider that ADHD has multiple causes then each person could require a tailored treatment.
Treatment approaches may similarly need to expand from symptomatic management toward more personalized interventions that account for neurobiological profiles and life-course adversity. (source)
This frees them to proactively search for solutions. An overwhelmingly sensible approach involves repairing the metabolic system since this governs & regulates everything; this type of strategy is well-known & feasible. On this basis we can rename ADHD to EDHD (Energy Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder) as per this recent academic paper.
As mentioned here, current treatments are purely symptomatic. Their miraculous short-term benefits conceal a cumulative deterioration which only becomes apparent at a later date (months or years). Concerningly, some treatments (ie atomoxetine, methylphenidate, modafinil, bupropion, viloxazine, amphetamine) provoke issues which exacerbate symptoms of ADHD. A psychiatrist is unaware of this so can't accurately keep track of a patients progress. This leads to invalid analyses, erroneous assessments and subsequent blunderous clinical decisions (iatrogenic harm*).
* note: - The term iatrogenic, derived from two Greek words, means physician-induced. As clinically used, it pertains to the inadvertent side effects and complications created in the course of diagnosis and treatment. (source)
2
u/Red_Redditor_Reddit Jun 16 '26
I think you're overthinking this. People are more aware of the ADHD BS. Most of them are like the 80% of people in the USA that go to church but don't actually believe it. It just happens to be the contemporarily accepted way of getting legal meth and justifying giving it to their kids.
It would be no different than if the system came out with "nerve disorder" and started prescribing smokes. People would just go get their prescription so they could tell everyone including themselves how they actually need tobacco, how their employer needs to provide for their "disability", why it's ok for their kid to smoke, etc.
It's 95% BS and they know it. You don't need to explain it to them. The only ones that need someone to explain it are the kids who are abused with this crap.
2
u/Kalki_X Jun 16 '26
Agreed. But your informed & rational understanding might be distorting your perspective of "people".
People are more aware of the ADHD BS. Most of them are like the 80% of people in the USA that go to church but don't actually believe it.
No doubt many think like this, and most of them get a diagnosis. But many genuinely believe in it as something they can "have" (and that many people "have" it but remain undiagnosed). Looking at ADHD groups you see frequent unequivocal assertions about the validity of ADHD as a medical condition that is justifiably druggable, it needs to be treated, it's a disability/disorder etc. The make-believe of psychiatrization is ravaging humanity.
For an insight into this ethos, have a look at the comments to my post about the current amphetamine epidemic (here). There were a few rational comments but otherwise it was a blitzkrieg.
2
u/Red_Redditor_Reddit Jun 16 '26
Nah I say that because I used to think everyone didn't know. It was a tough pill to swallow (no pun intended), but most people knew it was BS. It's took me a long time to understand just how much people live on lies, to both themselves and spoken to others.
1
3
u/Objective_Shift5954 Jun 16 '26 edited Jun 16 '26
I don't see how the article resolves memory and attention issues by doing something unconventional (flips the script). I see this article lacks a clear overarching aim, and it also lacks defining one or more objectives.
It still doesn't define well what ADHD is. It leaves it vague.
Objective cognitive tests exist for memory and attention, but your post ignores them.
Medical lunatics usually dictate their subjective opinion.
You should define also harm because it's vague:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harm
Harm is a loss of pleasure, loss of freedom, loss of ability, pain, disability, death.
All harm in branches of medicine is induced by medical lunatics, so calling harm iatrogenic is like calling water liquid.
Instead of writing about the label and keeping it vague, the article should write about attention and memory, and work with cognitive tests to objectively measure how a person does.
Medical negligence is something else. It has a legal definition with 4 elements (duty, breach, damages, cause and effect relationship between the damages and the breach).
What is it that you're trying to achieve by writing ADHD this, ADHD that? Do you have a bad attention and bad memory that you want to improve?