Adhd is not an illness and ritalin is not a cure: A comprehensive rebuttal of the (alleged) scientific consensus

Research output: Book/ReportBookpeer-review

Abstract

Is Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD), the most prevalent neuropsychiatric label in childhood, a valid medical condition? Should we really refer to the millions of children diagnosed with ADHD as children who suffer from the "diabetes of psychiatry" - a chronic and harmful biological condition that must be treated regularly with powerful psychoactive substances? Building on previous critiques, this thorough, elegant, and mainly courageous book answers these questions through a step-by-step rebuttal of the scientific consensus about ADHD and its first-line treatment with stimulant medications. While maintaining scientific rigor, this book is written in a clear, creative, and flowing way, using colorful examples - some funny, some tragic - which sweep the reader and inspire social change. The book integrates key critiques into one consolidated source, uncovers massive evidence against the efficacy and safety of stimulant medications, and offers principal solutions to this burning socio-educational problem. But most importantly, this book reviews dozens of reliability and validity gaps in the overriding biomedical consensus. It exposes multiple biases and non-parsimonious bandages (unjustified rationalizations) aimed at hiding the scientific holes of the consensus and it redefines ADHD as a non-pathological quality/mode-of-thought that has both weaknesses and strengths. In this way, the book serves as the missing needle required to pierce the over-blown theoretical balloon commonly known as ADHD.

Original languageEnglish
PublisherWorld Scientific Publishing Co.
Number of pages340
ISBN (Electronic)9789811253232
ISBN (Print)9789811253225
DOIs
StatePublished - 26 Jul 2022
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Adhd is not an illness and ritalin is not a cure: A comprehensive rebuttal of the (alleged) scientific consensus'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this