the prehistory of adhd: additives for an untenable diagnosis

Clicks: 130
ID: 153098
2017
Article Quality & Performance Metrics
Overall Quality
Not rated
Combines reader engagement with the AI quality analysis. This article has not been analysed, so there is no overall score — reader engagement is measured and shown alongside.
AI Quality Assessment
Not analyzed
Readership in this journal
Steady

Ranked #31 of 33 articles by views in journal of epidemiology and community health

Most read Least read

Bar heights use a square-root scale.

Mint this article as an NFT
Not yet minted

Create a permanent, verifiable on-chain record of this article on the Scimatic Network. The NFT is held in your Journament account, and you can withdraw it to your own wallet at any time.

5 SUSD one-off · no wallet required
Abstract
In order to defend the diagnostic validity of ADHD, the specialized literature tends to use a historical argument, according to which its validity is unquestionable due to the fact that a number of medical sources have referred to ADHD for several hundred years. This proves that ADHD is not a contemporary creation. However, when investigating those same historical sources, it is possible to prove that these arguments are unfounded, which contributes even more to undermine this highly controversial psychiatric construct. This paper analyzes the three classic “milestones” of the so-called history or prehistory of ADHD: Alexander Crichton, Heinrich Hoffmann and George F. Still. Contrary to the claims of the dominant literature, ADHD is a modern invention and the use of these historical arguments reveals its mythical theoretical basis and lack of supporting arguments, which should be a cause for serious concern, due to the number of children being diagnosed and medicated for ADHD.
Reference Key
fernndez2017papelesthe Use this key to autocite in the manuscript while using SciMatic Manuscript Manager or Thesis Manager
Authors ;Fernando García de Vinuesa Fernández
Journal journal of epidemiology and community health
Year 2017
DOI
10.23923/pap.psicol2017.2829
URL
Keywords

Citations

No citations found. To add a citation, contact the admin at info@scimatic.org

No comments yet. Be the first to comment on this article.