3 ms·

> I finally talked to an MD about the symptoms I’d had my entire life, and they diagnosed me with a quite intense version of ADHD Like what? There are only thr

> I finally talked to an MD about the symptoms I’d had my entire life, and they diagnosed me with a quite intense version of ADHD Like what? There are only three subtypes. ADHD-C, ADHD-PI, ADHD-PH (Combined, Primarily Inattentive, Primarily Hyperactive). There are no "intensive versions." > started taking meds for it and it was revelatory, like a nearsighted person putting on glasses for the first time. Now you understand why these powerful psychoactive substances are Schedule II controlled substances with a high potential for abuse, commonly misused across academic and industry settings, outright banned in some countries, etc.. I won't gatekeep you or declare you do or do not have ADHD. I do not even think it matters at the end of the day. Hell, there is no definitive way to determine if someone has ADHD anyway. No blood biomarkers, no genes, fMRI scans, etc.. One has ADHD only if a medical professional says so. Nothing more and nothing less. One doctor says you have ADHD, and another doesn't. Which one is right? How can it be proven? I'm not the GP of this comment chain, but you didn't take my/our meds. You took something that helped you, and that is all that matters. I find this false dichotomy of having ADHD or not to be ridiculous. Every professional diagnosis is of equal until science progresses. Perhaps on some kind of deeper level, we might not even have the same disorder, and what we call ADHD could be multiple separate disorders. Until then, we have to work with what we have. Congratulations on finding relief. I don't care if people have some kind of arbitrary made-up acronym to describe a set of symptoms that are heuristically diagnosed or not. I just want people to not struggle with what I had to go through and still go through. ADHD is my obstacle, it is not my identity.

JohnMakin 3y ago
> Like what? There are only three subtypes. ADHD-C, ADHD-PI, ADHD-PH (Combined, Primarily Inattentive, Primarily Hyperactive). There are no "intensive versions." They certainly meant more intense representation of symptoms, of which there is a broad range. > I won't gatekeep you or declare you do or do not have ADHD. I do not even think it matters at the end of the day. Hell, there is no definitive way to determine if someone has ADHD anyway. No blood biomarkers, no genes, fMRI scans, etc.. One has ADHD only if a medical professional says so. Nothing more and nothing less. One doctor says you have ADHD, and another doesn't. Which one is right? How can it be proven? I’m not going to nitpick on whatever standard of “proof” you need here but you’re wrong in that there aren’t any tests for it. There have been CPT’s around for over 20 years now such as the IVA-2 test that tests a broad swath of things like reaction times, fidgetiness, and attention span that can differentiate with very reasonable accuracy ADHD groups vs non ADHD groups, and differentiate between ADHD sub-types (which you mentioned). I know this because I didn’t have any relief in symptoms until I took a few types of these and learned that my symptoms are far more of inattentative type than hyperactive and I had been completely mistreated for a long time. We also targeted different therapies that have been far more effective for me now that I would not have even been able to try before I took them - so I know there is something to it. There are many types of these that have been around and used for a while, it isn’t necessarily a doctor just saying “yup you’re adhd” after a 7 question survey (although overdiagnosis in this way is for sure common). I suggest you brush up a little on the subject before speaking so condescendingly about it. We know way more about ADHD now than we did 15 years ago which sounds like where maybe your opinions are sort of coming from. These tests and studies are extraordinarily expensive and not covered by insurance typically which is why I think people think they just don’t exist.
- hirvi74 3y ago
  > They certainly meant more intense representation of symptoms, of which there is a broad range. Perhaps, and hopefully so. > you need here but you’re wrong in that there aren’t any tests for it. I've taken the CPT test, WAIS-IV, etc. and I am aware of the others to some degree. I never said there was no way to test for it. I said there was no definitive way to prove someone has ADHD beyond a reasonable doubt by means of any known biomarker. No blood test, fMRI, etc.. > I know this because I didn’t have any relief in symptoms until I took a few types of these and learned that my symptoms are far more of inattentative type than hyperactive and I had been completely mistreated for a long time. You have piqued my interest. What changed for you for I have seen no research about different subtypes being treated differently (I do not doubt its legitimacy though)? I am -C, but more likely on the -PH side of things. Stimulants have always been rather... less than effective to say the least.

JohnMakin 3y ago

> Like what? There are only three subtypes. ADHD-C, ADHD-PI, ADHD-PH (Combined, Primarily Inattentive, Primarily Hyperactive). There are no "intensive versions." They certainly meant more intense representation of symptoms, of which there is a broad range. > I won't gatekeep you or declare you do or do not have ADHD. I do not even think it matters at the end of the day. Hell, there is no definitive way to determine if someone has ADHD anyway. No blood biomarkers, no genes, fMRI scans, etc.. One has ADHD only if a medical professional says so. Nothing more and nothing less. One doctor says you have ADHD, and another doesn't. Which one is right? How can it be proven? I’m not going to nitpick on whatever standard of “proof” you need here but you’re wrong in that there aren’t any tests for it. There have been CPT’s around for over 20 years now such as the IVA-2 test that tests a broad swath of things like reaction times, fidgetiness, and attention span that can differentiate with very reasonable accuracy ADHD groups vs non ADHD groups, and differentiate between ADHD sub-types (which you mentioned). I know this because I didn’t have any relief in symptoms until I took a few types of these and learned that my symptoms are far more of inattentative type than hyperactive and I had been completely mistreated for a long time. We also targeted different therapies that have been far more effective for me now that I would not have even been able to try before I took them - so I know there is something to it. There are many types of these that have been around and used for a while, it isn’t necessarily a doctor just saying “yup you’re adhd” after a 7 question survey (although overdiagnosis in this way is for sure common). I suggest you brush up a little on the subject before speaking so condescendingly about it. We know way more about ADHD now than we did 15 years ago which sounds like where maybe your opinions are sort of coming from. These tests and studies are extraordinarily expensive and not covered by insurance typically which is why I think people think they just don’t exist.

hirvi74 3y ago
> They certainly meant more intense representation of symptoms, of which there is a broad range. Perhaps, and hopefully so. > you need here but you’re wrong in that there aren’t any tests for it. I've taken the CPT test, WAIS-IV, etc. and I am aware of the others to some degree. I never said there was no way to test for it. I said there was no definitive way to prove someone has ADHD beyond a reasonable doubt by means of any known biomarker. No blood test, fMRI, etc.. > I know this because I didn’t have any relief in symptoms until I took a few types of these and learned that my symptoms are far more of inattentative type than hyperactive and I had been completely mistreated for a long time. You have piqued my interest. What changed for you for I have seen no research about different subtypes being treated differently (I do not doubt its legitimacy though)? I am -C, but more likely on the -PH side of things. Stimulants have always been rather... less than effective to say the least.