Re: In ADHD Studies, Pictures May Lie

"Jeff" <[email hidden]> wrote in
news:[email hidden]:

Quoted message said:

Thanks.

It is well-known amongst physicians that thee is no single or group of
tests for ADHD, including brain-imaging. The diagnosis is based on
clinical criteria and reports from school and the home.

And this bothers a lot of people, who have somehow come to the conclusion
that all "real diseases" can be diagnosed by single, automated lab tests.
It's as if the necessity for human judgment in a diagnosis makes it
immediately suspect. I can understand why nerdy types would think that
way; they simply trust tech a lot more than they trust people. But lots of
technophobic, "altie" types also seem to hold the same attitude, even
though the diagnostic methods they advocate, even for things like cancer,
are far more subjective than the methods used to diagnose ADHD. I think
what's going on there is projection, a hunch that's strengthened by the use
of cargo-cult technology (electrodiagnostic devices, etc.) by some "alt"
practitioners.

"Eric Bohlman" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"Jeff" <[email hidden]> wrote in
news:[email hidden]:

Quoted message said:

Thanks.

It is well-known amongst physicians that thee is no single or group of
tests for ADHD, including brain-imaging. The diagnosis is based on
clinical criteria and reports from school and the home.

And this bothers a lot of people, who have somehow come to the conclusion
that all "real diseases" can be diagnosed by single, automated lab tests.

There are very few diseases that can be diagnosed based on a single or a few
lab tests. Clincial history and physical exam are required.

Quoted message said:

It's as if the necessity for human judgment in a diagnosis makes it
immediately suspect. I can understand why nerdy types would think that
way; they simply trust tech a lot more than they trust people. But lots

of

Quoted message said:

technophobic, "altie" types also seem to hold the same attitude, even
though the diagnostic methods they advocate, even for things like cancer,
are far more subjective than the methods used to diagnose ADHD. I think
what's going on there is projection, a hunch that's strengthened by the

use

Quoted message said:

of cargo-cult technology (electrodiagnostic devices, etc.) by some "alt"
practitioners.

I think you're right, in general.

In this particular case, I think the argument is trying to be made that
because we can't see ADHD on an MRI or CT scan, it is not real. However, the
basic science behind our understanding of the neural systems involved, like
those involving the neuromodulators norepienphrine, dopamine and serotonin,
the pathways involved, and the particular areas of the brain involved, like
the prefrontal cortex, as well as data people with ADHD, and various imaging
studies demonstrate, IMHO, that ADHD is a real condition.

In fact, the various brain scans show that kids with ADHD and kids without
ADHD are different. However, because of person-to-person differences, it is
nearly impossible to tell from an MRI of one kid whether or not that kid has
ADHD.

The same is true for just about every psychiatric condition. I doubt that
anyone would argue that Alzheimer's is not real. Yet, you can't tell if a
person has Alzheimer's from a MRI or CT either.

Jeff

Quoted message said:

Subject: Re: In ADHD Studies, Pictures May Lie
From: Eric Bohlman [email hidden]
Date: 9/20/2003 9:50 AM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id: <[email hidden]>

"Jeff" <[email hidden]> wrote in
news:[email hidden]:

Quoted message said:

Thanks.

It is well-known amongst physicians that thee is no single or group of
tests for ADHD, including brain-imaging. The diagnosis is based on
clinical criteria and reports from school and the home.

And this bothers a lot of people, who have somehow come to the conclusion
that all "real diseases" can be diagnosed by single, automated lab tests.
It's as if the necessity for human judgment in a diagnosis makes it
immediately suspect. I can understand why nerdy types would think that
way; they simply trust tech a lot more than they trust people. But lots of
technophobic, "altie" type

Unreal!!

Quoted message said:

lso seem to hold the same attitude, even
though the diagnostic methods they advocate, even for things like cancer,
are far more subjective than the methods used to diagnose ADHD. I think
what's going on there is projection, a hunch that's strengthened by the use
of cargo-cult technology (electrodiagnostic devices, etc.) by some "alt"
practitioners.

Mercy me, it is the fault of alties and cargo-cults that further studies are
not being done.

That must be the biggest twist, I've seen in some time.

Jan

"Jeff" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

Thanks.

It is well-known amongst physicians that thee is no single or group of tests
for ADHD, including brain-imaging. The diagnosis is based on clinical
criteria and reports from school and the home.

A good clinician will have recommended that the child also go through
a battery of psychological testing to rule out (or in) learning
disorders. As you know AD/HD is technically not a LD.

During the testing sessions for this, the psychologist will have
extended opportunity to observe the child and beable to make his/her
own observations. They do compare their observation to what the
parents and schools report. IOW, the child is evaluated in three
settings.

This tends to heighten the objectivity of the diagnosis greatly. AD/HD
is a diagnosis of exclusion.

"Eric Bohlman" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"Jeff" <[email hidden]> wrote in
news:[email hidden]:

Quoted message said:

Thanks.

It is well-known amongst physicians that thee is no single or group of
tests for ADHD, including brain-imaging. The diagnosis is based on
clinical criteria and reports from school and the home.

And this bothers a lot of people, who have somehow come to the conclusion
that all "real diseases" can be diagnosed by single, automated lab tests.
It's as if the necessity for human judgment in a diagnosis makes it
immediately suspect. I can understand why nerdy types would think that
way; they simply trust tech a lot more than they trust people. But lots

of

Quoted message said:

technophobic, "altie" types also seem to hold the same attitude, even
though the diagnostic methods they advocate, even for things like cancer,
are far more subjective than the methods used to diagnose ADHD. I think
what's going on there is projection, a hunch that's strengthened by the

use

Quoted message said:

of cargo-cult technology (electrodiagnostic devices, etc.) by some "alt"
practitioners.

Some of the more voiciferous alties, e.g. Jan Drew, claim that MCS, amalgam
disease, CFS, and fibromyalgia are real medical conditions and not
psychosomatic.

Then, they flip around and claim that ADHD is not real, as there is no
pathonmeumonic test for it.

When one tries to explain it to them, they never understand.

Eric Bohlman <[email hidden]> wrote in
news:[email hidden]:

Quoted message said:

And this bothers a lot of people, who have somehow come to the
conclusion that all "real diseases" can be diagnosed by single,
automated lab tests. It's as if the necessity for human judgment in a
diagnosis makes it immediately suspect. I can understand why nerdy
types would think that way; they simply trust tech a lot more than
they trust people. But lots of technophobic, "altie" types also seem
to hold the same attitude, even though the diagnostic methods they
advocate, even for things like cancer, are far more subjective than
the methods used to diagnose ADHD. I think what's going on there is
projection, a hunch that's strengthened by the use of cargo-cult
technology (electrodiagnostic devices, etc.) by some "alt"
practitioners.

I especially distrust these brain imaging technologies, since it is such a
simple matter to load the images into Photoshop and create the desired
'diagnosis' in about three minutes flat with a few mouse clicks.

anonymouse unbeknownst said:

Eric Bohlman <[email hidden]> wrote in
news:[email hidden]:

Quoted message said:

And this bothers a lot of people, who have somehow come to the
conclusion that all "real diseases" can be diagnosed by single,
automated lab tests. It's as if the necessity for human judgment in a
diagnosis makes it immediately suspect. I can understand why nerdy
types would think that way; they simply trust tech a lot more than
they trust people. But lots of technophobic, "altie" types also seem
to hold the same attitude, even though the diagnostic methods they
advocate, even for things like cancer, are far more subjective than
the methods used to diagnose ADHD. I think what's going on there is
projection, a hunch that's strengthened by the use of cargo-cult
technology (electrodiagnostic devices, etc.) by some "alt"
practitioners.

Quoted message said:

I especially distrust these brain imaging technologies, since it is such a
simple matter to load the images into Photoshop and create the desired
'diagnosis' in about three minutes flat with a few mouse clicks.

BRAIN IMAGING: IS IT THE NEW PHRENOLOGY?
DANIEL WADDLE
DEPARTMENT OF PSYCHOLOGY
HANOVER COLLEGE
Sponsored by JOHN KRANTZ([email hidden])

http://clearinghouse.mwsc.edu/manuscripts/85.asp

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

ABSTRACT
There have been many methods through time which have been used to
study the human brain. Phrenology was a method which attempted to do
this. It was quickly refuted and today is laughed at. Today there are
many
highly technological methods in use for brain research such as EEG,
PET, and MRI. These methods resulted in insight into the functioning
of the human brain, but they are not without their limitations. It is
possible

that the limitations of these methods may cause them to one day be
refuted and laughed at as phrenology is today.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

INTRODUCTION

Gaining insight to the brain is at the very core of understanding what
it is that makes us human, but as Watson (1996, p. 544) points out,
"Bridging the gap between understanding the brain and understandingthe
mind and behaviour continues to elude us." Throughout history many
methods to study the brain have developed. Although, with all of the
advances some of the methods have quickly been dropped while others
still remain accepted and are still used. Some techniques such as the
autopsy, which looks after death at the brain directly, have been
around for many years and are still major techniques used today.

Other techniques came along which attempted to make a connection
between the living brain and behavior.

One of these was phrenology. The idea behind phrenology was that
certain behavioral characteristics of people could be linked to the
bumps and depressions on their skulls (Morse, 1997). Phrenology was
quickly disproved by the scientific community, and today, when people
think of phrenology, it is laughed at.

Now, like phrenology attempted there are brain imaging techniques
which are used to study the living brain. Some of the techniques that
are in use today are computed tomography (CT), positron emission
tomography (PET), and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). Brain
imaging techniques can provide pictures that in some ways can be
linked to the functioning of the brain.

However, it is possible that with time, science may prove these
imaging techniques provide no more insight than phrenology did. People
might be laughing at these techniques a hundred years down the road
like phrenology is laughed at today.

Phrenology

To understand how the imaging techniques which are currently in use
might be like phrenology a basic background in to this pseudo science
is needed. Phrenology was, for a brief period of time, accepted as a
method of linking the brain and behavior. Obviously, phrenology is not
accepted in the scientific community today.
Phrenology was developed by a German born physician, Franz-Josef Gall.
Gall first lectured on the topic in 1796 (Spitz, 1998). Phrenology
attempted to look at the brain in an indirect manner. The belief of
phrenology is that a person's personality and abilities can be deduced
from the sizes and shapes of various bumps and depressions on the
skull (Morse, 1997).

Specifically, the brain could be separated into 37 different faculties
at different distinct locations in the brain (Bank, 1996). Today, it
seems obvious that studying bumps on the head and inferring things
about the brain under it seems silly. This would mean that the soft
tissue of the brain would have, in some way, shaped the hard bone of
the skull. However, the impact that this idea had on the 19th century
was tremendous. According to Morse (1997) it was an extreme hunger for
insight into the human mind that spun phrenology into acceptance.

Phrenology found its way into everything, from employers to women's
hairstyles, and all of this was happening without in-depth scientific
research on phrenology. When research began the flaws of phrenology
immediately began to show, and their findings spread from the
scientific community to the general public. People soon began to
realize the

erroneous assumptions of this science called phrenology.

For all that it was not, phrenology did provide psychology with some
insights into studying the brain. Most importantly it began to get
people

thinking about the living brain. This is an idea which is still worked
with today. The scientific community showed that the assumptions of
phrenology were incorrect by the end of the 19th century. According to
Morse (1997) there was not a thread of scientific authority behind
phrenology by the beginning of the 20th century. However, people still
had hunger to acquire more knowledge of the link between the brain and
behavior.

Today, there are techniques like MRI and PET to study the living
brain. These technologies are driven by that same hunger for insight
into the human brain. Like phrenology imaging techniques use indirect
or secondary techniques to look at the living brain. What is the
difference between phrenology and the imaging techniques in use today?

What are these pictures generated by them really showing? Possibly new
technologies will come along that prove the imaging techniques in use
today are not showing the link between behavior and the brain which
they are believed to be showing.

In other words, have these great imaging techniques truly brought
more insight into the functioning of the brain or are they creating
colorful pictures which are comparable to the bumps of phrenology?

__

"When society turns a blind eye to the dangers of drugs and rushes to embrace a
pharmaceutical cure for nearly every condition, there is almost no end to the
harm that may result".

Thomas.J.Moore

"anonymouse unbeknownst" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Eric Bohlman <[email hidden]> wrote in
news:[email hidden]:

Quoted message said:

And this bothers a lot of people, who have somehow come to the
conclusion that all "real diseases" can be diagnosed by single,
automated lab tests. It's as if the necessity for human judgment in a
diagnosis makes it immediately suspect. I can understand why nerdy
types would think that way; they simply trust tech a lot more than
they trust people. But lots of technophobic, "altie" types also seem
to hold the same attitude, even though the diagnostic methods they
advocate, even for things like cancer, are far more subjective than
the methods used to diagnose ADHD. I think what's going on there is
projection, a hunch that's strengthened by the use of cargo-cult
technology (electrodiagnostic devices, etc.) by some "alt"
practitioners.

I especially distrust these brain imaging technologies, since it is such a
simple matter to load the images into Photoshop and create the desired
'diagnosis' in about three minutes flat with a few mouse clicks.

Th enew head of NIDA is an expert in brain imaging. You are absurd.

"Marko Proberto" <[email hidden]> wrote in
news:[email hidden]:

Quoted message said:

Th enew head of NIDA is an expert in brain imaging. You are absurd.

That doesn't prevent him from also being an expert at perpetrating fraud.
You are a bird.

"anonymouse unbeknownst" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"Marko Proberto" <[email hidden]> wrote in
news:[email hidden]:

Quoted message said:

Th enew head of NIDA is an expert in brain imaging. You are absurd.

That doesn't prevent him from also being an expert at perpetrating fraud.

And, it does not mean that you have a clue. Dr. NORA Volkow is a highly
respected researcher. And, she is a she, Get a clue.

Quoted message said:

You are a bird.

There are some very intelligent birds.However, your being clueless is your
way of life.

anonymouse unbeknownst <[email hidden]> wrote in
news:[email hidden]:

Quoted message said:

Eric Bohlman <[email hidden]> wrote in
news:[email hidden]:

Quoted message said:

And this bothers a lot of people, who have somehow come to the
conclusion that all "real diseases" can be diagnosed by single,
automated lab tests. It's as if the necessity for human judgment in a
diagnosis makes it immediately suspect. I can understand why nerdy
types would think that way; they simply trust tech a lot more than
they trust people. But lots of technophobic, "altie" types also seem
to hold the same attitude, even though the diagnostic methods they
advocate, even for things like cancer, are far more subjective than
the methods used to diagnose ADHD. I think what's going on there is
projection, a hunch that's strengthened by the use of cargo-cult
technology (electrodiagnostic devices, etc.) by some "alt"
practitioners.

I especially distrust these brain imaging technologies, since it is such

a

Quoted message said:

simple matter to load the images into Photoshop and create the desired
'diagnosis' in about three minutes flat with a few mouse clicks.

Do you think it is a simple matter to photoshop the dozens of pictures in
a few seconds each? If you believe that, you have never seen a full MRI
or have any idea about who does what. What about the written report from
a third party that describes in detail any anomolies?

I suggest you go to http://www.med.harvard.edu/AANLIB/home.html and debunk
each and every case displayed there.

You can diostrust anything you want, but thousands if not millions of
people are alive and well thanks to MRI diagnoses.

Whining about MRI, etc is like whining about X-Rays at the dentist's
office. Without MRI, Xray, PET, etc., you might as well be trying to
rebuild an automobile transmission with a rock and a stick.

r

--
Nothing beats the bandwidth of a station wagon filled with DLT tapes.

Rich Andrews <[email hidden]> put fingertips to keyboard and
tap-tap-tapped out the following communication:

Quoted message said:

Do you think it is a simple matter to photoshop the dozens of pictures
in a few seconds each?

You'd be amazed at what can be accomplished with the more recent versions
of Photoshop and similar imaging software.

Frankly, I'm unwilling to trust the authenticity of any digital images,
especially those presented by someone with an agenda. The promoters of
biological psychiatry certainly fit within this group.

anonymouse unbeknownst <[email hidden]> wrote in
news:[email hidden]:

Quoted message said:

Rich Andrews <[email hidden]> put fingertips to keyboard and
tap-tap-tapped out the following communication:

Quoted message said:

Do you think it is a simple matter to photoshop the dozens of pictures
in a few seconds each?

You'd be amazed at what can be accomplished with the more recent

versions

Quoted message said:

of Photoshop and similar imaging software.

Frankly, I'm unwilling to trust the authenticity of any digital images,
especially those presented by someone with an agenda. The promoters of
biological psychiatry certainly fit within this group.

Do you think that there would be several people involved in a conspiracy
of this nature? If you don't trust digital images, then you certainly
should not trust DVD movies, CD players, and satellite radio as well as
digital TV broadcasts.

Let's see, the images are recorded by a tech who doesn't care, they are
then read by a radiologist who doesn't care who then writes a written
report. Optionally the films are then sent to your doctor along with the
report. Of course the doc then risks his entire career for a few thousand
dollars? Makes perfect sense to me. Forget it pal. You have been
watching too many reruns on TV. Better yet, the radiologist and the doc
are working together meaning that two careers would be ruined as well as
lengthy jail sentences for both. Yup, everyone is in it for the money and
to kill, maim, and steal money.

If you still really believe that, then I suggest you get some professional
help and get it in a hurry. Your accusation or suspicions are unfounded,
unwarranted, and faulty. You might as well say your Grandmother was a
clone from the planet BZXVCXXX-122-2020-alpha. Someone might actually
believe you.

r

--
Nothing beats the bandwidth of a station wagon filled with DLT tapes.