Shrunk wrote:

kyrani99 wrote:

Shrunk wrote:

kyrani99 wrote:I am not going to give my math.

Oh, dear. kyrani99 was fibbing again.

This comment (re- won't give us her unfinished, unpublished work equals fibbing )...

That's right. There's nothing stopping you from giving us some of the mathematics to support your "theory". If it exists. If it doesn't exist, of course, then it is obvious why you won't give it to us. And it also means you were lying when you said it does exist.

My work is unfinished and unpublished. I have every right to keep it private for now.
Your conclusions are baseless, but then why would that be surprising. ALL psychiatric reasoning is based on fancy.

kyrani99 wrote: Dr Allen Frances says a Canadian study of a very large number of children, found the strongest predictors of whether a child had [been diagnosed as having*] Attention Defecit Disorder (ADD) or not, was their birthday!

They considered attention spans but never took into account the fact that children, who were younger and thus less mature, would naturally have a lower attention span. I couldn't understand that until this post! These kids were labelled as ADD and most drugged, rather than being recognized as less mature. This constituted a tripling of ADD in just 10 years! A case of X = Y and never mind the detail. Not only are psychiatrists pseudo-scientific, they lack objectivity altogether.

(*)FIFY

You should be more specific about who 'they' are.

One would think that the people most likely to be looking at a child in the context of their classmates would be teachers.
When if comes to ADD diagnoses, are they made purely on the basis of an appropriately-qualified medic assessing an individual child, or does assessment include reports from educators?

kyrani99 wrote:

DarthHelmet86 wrote:

a Canadian study of a very large number of children, found the strongest predictors of whether a child had Attention Defecit Disorder (ADD) or not, was their birthday!

This part in no way supports this part

They considered attention spans but never took into account the fact that children, who were younger and thus less mature, would naturally have a lower attention span.

Any evidence they didn't account for age? Or are you just assuming they mustn't have because you don't understand how they could have? Have you seen the study at all? Not just people talking about it but the actual thing itself?

You'll have to ask Allen Frances. He is the one saying so. I looked extensively for the study but couldn't find it. Maybe it is one of the 50% that they don't publish to make their coin have two heads.

You brought it up as evidence and you don't even have it. Right.

Someone here is spreading fancy that is for sure.

kyrani99 wrote:
My work is unfinished and unpublished. I have every right to keep it private for now.

And until you share it, no one has any reason to believe a word you say. And the more you refuse to provide evidence, the more it looks like you are lying.

If you were to retract all your comments and apologise saying "I'm sorry, I cannot remotely back up what I am saying here for now" that would be a far more mature and rational way of commenting.

kyrani99 wrote:Your conclusions are baseless,

No they are not. They are based on your singular inability to provide any evidence. An honest, rational, interlocutor would be happy to provide whatever evidence they have or if they were unwilling to share evidence, not actually engage in making the sort of claims that you do.

Fenrir wrote:Bah. It's only imaginary till it's observed. Then it's only relatively imaginary.

For you and all the others it is at present only imaginary. I am not stupid to put my work on the net for anyone to see. There are plenty of times I have seen work stolen by other scientists.
It could be worth a Nobel Prize, after all it allows for scientists to have their "physical world out there, even when they are not looking at it". It would make Einstein smile.

kyrani99 wrote:My work is unfinished and unpublished. I have every right to keep it private for now.

Of course you do. You also have the right to come here and lie about the existence of this alleged work. As I have the right to come to my conclusions on that matter, based on the extensive evidence provide by your posting behavior on this board.

If it's such a deep dark secret that you need to keep private, though, then why are you writing about it here?

tolman wrote:

kyrani99 wrote: Dr Allen Frances says a Canadian study of a very large number of children, found the strongest predictors of whether a child had [been diagnosed as having*] Attention Defecit Disorder (ADD) or not, was their birthday!

They considered attention spans but never took into account the fact that children, who were younger and thus less mature, would naturally have a lower attention span. I couldn't understand that until this post! These kids were labelled as ADD and most drugged, rather than being recognized as less mature. This constituted a tripling of ADD in just 10 years! A case of X = Y and never mind the detail. Not only are psychiatrists pseudo-scientific, they lack objectivity altogether.

(*)FIFY

You should be more specific about who 'they' are.

One would think that the people most likely to be looking at a child in the context of their classmates would be teachers.
When if comes to ADD diagnoses, are they made purely on the basis of an appropriately-qualified medic assessing an individual child, or does assessment include reports from educators?

They is who ever did the survey I guess. I am only quoting Allen Frances, you know the DSM guy.

kyrani99 wrote:I am not stupid to put my work on the net for anyone to see. There are plenty of times I have seen work stolen by other scientists.

Actually, putting it out for anyone to see is the best way to make sure no one steals it. You'd then have a public record that you thought of it first.

kyrani99 wrote:
It could be worth a Nobel Prize, after all it allows for scientists to have their "physical world out there, even when they are not looking at it". It would make Einstein smile.

You'd be amazed at the number of people who come here with ideas that they consider to be Nobel worthy.

You'd be even more amazed* at how many go on to win such illustrious recognition from the scientific community.






*actual rational long time posters here will not be amazed

Shrunk wrote:

kyrani99 wrote:My work is unfinished and unpublished. I have every right to keep it private for now.

Of course you do. You also have the right to come here and lie about the existence of this alleged work. As I have the right to come to my conclusions on that matter, based on the extensive evidence provide by your posting behavior on this board.

If it's such a deep dark secret that you need to keep private, though, then why are you writing about it here?

Well if you could put two and two together you would have seen that the description I gave, gives good detail about my theory even without the math.

Sendraks wrote:

kyrani99 wrote:
It could be worth a Nobel Prize, after all it allows for scientists to have their "physical world out there, even when they are not looking at it". It would make Einstein smile.

You'd be amazed at the number of people who come here with ideas that they consider to be Nobel worthy.

You'd be even more amazed* at how many go on to win such illustrious recognition from the scientific community.






*actual rational long time posters here will not be amazed

But from my experience around these parts, the natives here are not friendly.

kyrani99 wrote:
But from my experience around these parts, the natives here are not friendly.

You are reaping what you have sown.

kyrani99 wrote:You'll have to ask Allen Frances. He is the one saying so. I looked extensively for the study but couldn't find it. Maybe it is one of the 50% that they don't publish to make their coin have two heads.

Where did you look for the study? Under your bed?

Just using key words from your bolded summary "Canadian study children predictor Attention Deficit Disorder age birthday", the first hit in Google was:
Influence of relative age on diagnosis and treatment of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder in children
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3328520/

Sendraks wrote:

kyrani99 wrote:
But from my experience around these parts, the natives here are not friendly.

You are reaping what you have sown.

Rubbish. I am disliked because I have had paranormal experiences and believe in the paranormal.
And because I challenge the medical model of cancer AND WILL PROVE THE TRUTH that cancer is stem-cell mediated immunity, erroneously ignited due to a nocebo effect, i.e., the reaction to negative ideas/beliefs.

tolman wrote:

kyrani99 wrote:You'll have to ask Allen Frances. He is the one saying so. I looked extensively for the study but couldn't find it. Maybe it is one of the 50% that they don't publish to make their coin have two heads.

Where did you look for the study? Under your bed?

Just using key words from your bolded summary "Canadian study children predictor Attention Deficit Disorder age birthday", the first hit in Google was:
Influence of relative age on diagnosis and treatment of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder in children
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3328520/

Well thank you for the link to this article. I hadn't used the right key words for google search.
In the conclusion they say:
"The potential harms of overdiagnosis and overprescribing and the lack of an objective test for ADHD strongly suggest caution be taken in assessing children for this disorder and providing treatment." It would be interesting to see if the psychiatrists in Canada would take any notice of this.

kyrani99 wrote:

tolman wrote:

kyrani99 wrote:You'll have to ask Allen Frances. He is the one saying so. I looked extensively for the study but couldn't find it. Maybe it is one of the 50% that they don't publish to make their coin have two heads.

Where did you look for the study? Under your bed?

Just using key words from your bolded summary "Canadian study children predictor Attention Deficit Disorder age birthday", the first hit in Google was:
Influence of relative age on diagnosis and treatment of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder in children
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3328520/

Well than you for the link to this article. I hadn't used the right key words for google search.
In the conclusion they say:
"The potential harms of overdiagnosis and overprescribing and the lack of an objective test for ADHD strongly suggest caution be taken in assessing children for this disorder and providing treatment." It would be interesting to see if the psychiatrists in Canada would take any notice of this.

All this post deserves in response is this emote.

We can all see what you are doing and you wonder why people might not be "friendly" towards you.

kyrani99 wrote:

tolman wrote:

kyrani99 wrote:They considered attention spans but never took into account the fact that children, who were younger and thus less mature, would naturally have a lower attention span. I couldn't understand that until this post! These kids were labelled as ADD and most drugged, rather than being recognized as less mature. This constituted a tripling of ADD in just 10 years! A case of X = Y and never mind the detail. Not only are psychiatrists pseudo-scientific, they lack objectivity altogether.

You should be more specific about who 'they' are.

They is who ever did the survey I guess. I am only quoting Allen Frances, you know the DSM guy.

No, 'they' isn't whoever did the survey, since the survey was of diagnoses which had been made by others, specifically looking at the influence of class-relative age on diagnosis, and wasn't a diagnosing effort in itself.

I was highly confident that would be the case even before I saw the survey, based solely on your ramblings about it.
Which would seem to suggest that you literally don't know what you're talking about.

Possibly if you had a less 'us and them' (or, rather 'me vs. 'them') attitude, you'd be less likely to get so badly muddled.

kyrani99 wrote:

Sendraks wrote:

kyrani99 wrote:
But from my experience around these parts, the natives here are not friendly.

You are reaping what you have sown.

Rubbish. I am disliked because I have had paranormal experiences and believe in the paranormal.
And because I challenge the medical model of cancer AND WILL PROVE THE TRUTH that cancer is stem-cell mediated immunity, erroneously ignited due to a nocebo effect, i.e., the reaction to negative ideas/beliefs.

No, it's because you're lying and spouting nasty insanities such as this.

tolman wrote:
No, 'they' isn't whoever did the survey, since the survey was of diagnoses which had been made by others, specifically looking at the influence of class-relative age on diagnosis, and wasn't a diagnosing effort in itself.

I was highly confident that would be the case even before I saw the survey, based solely on your ramblings about it.
Which would seem to suggest that you literally don't know what you're talking about.

Possibly if you had a less 'us and them' (or, rather 'me vs. 'them') attitude, you'd be less likely to get so badly muddled.

I hadn't seen the paper at the time I said that so your criticism is just about attacking me. All I had at the time was what Frances had said. According to Dr Frances many of the children had been medicated. So it was reasonable to believe that the survey involved the people diagnosing.

It is hard not to think in terms of "them and us" partly because I am being seriously hassled for what I am saying. But also because of what I see by people who are in a position to do good if they weren't so interested in money, at least as it appears to me from what I read on the net psychiatrists are in the pockets of big pharma. They do not do science to decide what constitutes a mental illness, IF there is even any truth in there being any mental illness at all.

I would say all of those who are considered seriously mentally ill, the 5% of the population, according to Dr Frances, are really seriously stressed individuals. The rest, the 15% of the population who are said to have mild to moderate mental illness are not even sick. They are definitely suffering from issues due to life events or bad relationships. And he makes no bones about saying that they are redefining normal as mentally ill. That in my opinion is criminal.

If you look at this video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9OhVshzYvn8
Greg Neimeyer, PhD, American Psychological Foundation, Education Directorate associate executive director for continuing education, reviews changes in the DSM-5 in this lecture. It is a 1hr video but where exactly it is said at approx. 11mins, this guy says the psychiatrists have removed from the DSM 5 the fact that some mental disorders are associated with some physical illness, eg he said people who are diagnosed with anxiety disorder may also have a heart problem or diabetes etc., on the grounds that they now consider all of mental disorders as the same as any physical illness.

I noticed one guy in the comments at the Allen Frances video on youtube says:
"Psychiatrists are the most dangerous criminals affecting our planet today. The true terrorists are psychiatrists and they have fooled everyone. Wake up people."

Based on what I see and hear and read I have to agree with this because I see psychiatrists defend the offenders and medicate the victims.

What an unmitigated pile of shit you've just spouted! I can't even think of where to begin responding to it. I recommend that you consider changing over to a Scientologist forum. They would probably get along very well with you.