In his language he conflates the diagnostic code with the etiology. He tries to avoid this, but is missing the concept for etiology, so he winds up in a situati

In his language he conflates the diagnostic code with the etiology. He tries to avoid this, but is missing the concept for etiology, so he winds up in a situation where he can't talk about the relationship between the diagnosis and what is really going on, because there is only the question of whether the diagnosis is "real." The answer is that yes, the diagnosis is always real, but it is not what we care about if we want to understand what is really going on. This is why I said he is on the right track. In his ADHD example he has nearly all the parts, diagnosis and symptoms, but is missing the free variable for the etiology. You can see this because if he had this concept then it would be clear that there is no cure for ADHD, it isn't even clear that it is a "problem" except in the context of modern civilization, and the etiology is a fundamental difference in the structure of the brain, not something you can "cure."