> 5.4% of girls and 14.1% of boys age 11 - 17 have been diagnosed with ADHD.
Wait what?! How did we manage to have a disorder that affects nearly 10% teenagers? There must be something odd with either the school system or the term "disorder" itself, because otherwise, such a flaw would likely have been filtered out of the gene pool. I wonder which it is.
(Same remark for learning "disabilities" by the way, though I'm less confident.)
"How did we manage to have a disorder that affects nearly 10% teenagers?"
A combination of rising maternal age, increased body load of many environment contaminants, terrible diets, ubiquitous TV watching before age 2, parental drug use (everything from starbucks to antibiotics), etc. From a draft version of the latest EPA report:
"Between 1993 and 2007, the rate of preterm birth rose from 11.0% of births in 1993 to 12.7% of births in 2007. This increase was statistically significant. [...] Long-term motor, cognitive, visual, hearing, behavioral, social-emotional, health, and growth problems may not become apparent for years, and may persist throughout a child’s life. The birth of a preterm or low birth weight infant can have significant emotional and economic effects on the infant’s family."
"The role of environmental contaminants in contributing to ADHD, either alone or in conjunction with certain genetic susceptibilities, is becoming better understood, as a growing number of studies look explicitly at the relationship between ADHD and exposures to environmental contaminants. Recent epidemiological studies (most published since 2006) have linked increased levels of lead in hair
and blood, mercury in blood, phthalate metabolites in urine, and the pesticide chlorpyrifos in cord blood (indicative of prenatal exposure) with increased likelihood of ADHD.
Additionally, many of the behaviors that are observed in children with ADHD have been associated with elevated exposures to certain environmental contaminants. Several studies have found a relationship between attention problems, hyperactivity, and impulsivity, which are common behaviors of ADHD, and exposures to lead, PCBs, mercury, and certain pesticides. Animal studies that examine the link between environmental exposures and animal models of ADHD, or common ADHD behaviors, provide supporting evidence that exposures to lead, PCBs, mercury, and pesticides may contribute to ADHD."
It's most definitely over diagnosed. When we were seeking help for my son, the blanket solution was to diagnose ADHD even if some of the results contradicted it. One doctor even went so far as to say that she would diagnose him with 'whatever' to qualify for the most services possible.
> ...and impulsivity, which are common behaviors of ADHD, and exposures to lead, PCBs, mercury, and certain pesticides. Animal studies that examine the link between environmental exposures and animal models of ADHD, or common ADHD behaviors, provide supporting evidence that exposures to lead, PCBs, mercury, and pesticides may contribute to ADHD.
Sure, so how do you explain my two brothers along with myself and mother all having different severities of ADHD? From everything I've read, especially newer studies, genetics play a much larger role in ADHD, specifically genetic relationships with dopamine levels.
The PDF you cited actually notes genetics as a frontrunner:
Research indicates that individual genetic features
influence the incidence of ADHD, but
often in combination with environmental factors
Further, ADHD-PI has a much higher incidence of genetic cause (sometimes referred to as SCT, or Sluggish Cognitive Tempo) [1].
Like ADHD, those with SCT symptoms have a condition
that appears to be genetic in nature.
I wouldn't disagree that environment plays a factor, but the frontrunner is genetics.
"From everything I've read, especially newer studies, genetics play a much larger role in ADHD, specifically genetic relationships with dopamine levels."
As the paragraph I quoted says, most of the studies the EPA report cites were published within the last five years. Even if ADHD is caused mostly by DNA variations, that still doesn't tell us what is causing the DNA variations. E.g. is it something that's relatively stable across all countries and time periods, or is it something specific to certain ethnic groups, or are there environmental factors that are altering DNA or even directly altering brain functioning.
We have many ways of defining [ab]normality in human physiology and behaviour. Statistical abnormality, what you are using in your comment, is just one, and it alone is insufficient: if we only relied on statistical abnormality, maths geniuses would be just as in need of treatment as those with downs syndrome!
So, we must consider other factors, such as distress, social norms, and maladaptivity. Obviously these bring their own attendant set of intractable ethical problems. Such is the lot of the medical practitioner.
Disorder: a disturbance in physical or mental health or functions; (dictionary.com)
Disorders are of varying degrees. Just because medical science starts figuring out something exists in the gene pool doesn't mean it's serious enough to qualify for "filtering out". It also doesn't mean that every "disorder" has to be disabling in order to exist.
Even if it did, it's a long leap to claim that it would have already been "filtered" out. Humans are dealing with a flood of more incoming data/stimuli than even 40 years ago. We have no idea if humans are actually better at handling it today than in decades past.
Wait what?! How did we manage to have a disorder that affects nearly 10% teenagers? There must be something odd with either the school system or the term "disorder" itself, because otherwise, such a flaw would likely have been filtered out of the gene pool. I wonder which it is.
(Same remark for learning "disabilities" by the way, though I'm less confident.)