I came across Dr Daniel Amen’s work yesterday via a youtube video of one of his lectures, and basically he focuses on exploring the *different types of ADD *people can suffer, by coupling diagnosis with brain imaging.
This adds massively to the credibility of the condition, for any naysayers. It made me wonder why we don’t get brain scans in our own diagnoses (or maybe you guys did? idk).
I guess I’m just linking it here in case anyone else enjoys reading psychology websites; i like the way they list clusters of symptoms/behaviour in 7 types, and i like the way they talk about it here in the article too. Well-written ADHD content deserves to be celebrated, right?
Feels a bit like I’m being picky now but I feel like my psychiatrist should have taken the time to explore what “type” of add i am, as well. might be helpful to understand that - to understand it objectively, because i could always guess at it myself.
Dr. Amen is a known grifter. Check out this interview by Dr. Mike: https://youtu.be/J-SHgZ1XPXs
Or you could read this article: https://archive.is/Z0Wne
Not that convinced by the article but I will listen to the dr mike interview at some point
gotta rememebr that ADHD as a whole is seen as a grift and a psuedoscience by many people, and was originally dealt with in unscientific and unhelpful ways, so i hold back on trusting people who say “we have it right because we’re mainstream science and this guy who wants to do something slightly different to how we’ve been doing it, he’s a fraud, he’s going to ruin everything.”
I don’t really see why his work is considered a threat to mainstream medicine or anything.
Who is saying he’s a threat to mainstream medicine or is going to ruin everything? Either he’s right and will produce evidence to change the mainstream thinking or he is a grifter. And a grifter is a threat to their patients, not medicine in general.
A therapist recommended him to me. It sounded validating that a simple brain scan could diagnose you with something you suspected you had, but other physicians refused to diagnose. However, his clinic gave off red flags by prioritizing expensive, imaging tech that is in its infancy – while still offering traditional treatment like medication and therapy.
IIRC, ADHD medication has the best track record for improving symptoms and outcomes in the long term. A standard psychiatrist can work there. Pushing medical imaging (out of pocket) seems like a distraction at best, and a money making scheme at worst.
If it works for you (and your budget), then I’m happy for you.
If it works for you (and your budget), then I’m happy for you.
i have universal healthcare where i live. So i’m just wondering why it isn’t standard procedure.
However, his clinic gave off red flags by prioritizing expensive, imaging tech that is in its infancy – while still offering traditional treatment like medication and therapy.
I don’t see why that should be a red flag - brain imaging exists, any expensive new one is just going to be built on the same principle but (hopefully) be more precise, hence why he would want it
I don’t think “while still offering traditional treatment” means anything here, because Dr Amen is not proposing that the scan cures people of adhd. The scan is the dagnostic tool, the traditional methods to treat it are what works to alleviate symptoms.
Based on his talk it sounds like the brain scan allowed him to identify the precise symptoms each ADHD sufferer had (i.e their “type” of ADHD) and that allows more informed selection of medication. Some medicine works for some, who need stimulation, some medicine works for others, who need the opposite.
Would this not save time for psychiatrists who instead just follow the same order when cycling through titrations? They could immediately say “methylphenidate is less likely to work for this person, so we try another drug” for instance.
Amen’s claim to fame is using SPECT imaging for diagnosis. Has any other scientist/clinician reproduced Amen’s claims that certain imaging results correspond with precise ADHD symptoms? I’m not aware that has happened. If it’s not reproducible, it’s not science or medicine. Also, just because he has publications doesn’t legitimize his claims for use in clinic.
I mentioned his clinic using traditional ADHD treatments because those actually do the work to help patients. Afterward, those patients might associate the benefits of the treatment with the imaging, even if they could have had the same outcome with treatment alone.
It’s not standard procedure because the scans are expensive and there’s no proof they are actually useful for the diagnosis. All of your points assume he is correct, but he has yet to produce evidence of this.
i don’t remember exactly where, but I’ve heard that brain imaging based diagnosis for ADHD or Neurodivergence doesn’t yet have enough research around it to be accepted in the scientific community. some are hopeful, but it seems it’s just too early to use the tech for making consequential decisions.
(reddit front end) https://redlib.nadeko.net/r/askpsychology/comments/1e2cbd4/why_isnt_brain_imaging_used_for_adhd_diagnosis/
Almost anything to do with brain scans for developmental disorders like autism and ADHD is an immediate bullshit label. (Actually for most things brain scans are wildly not helpful)
There was a famous study where researchers were able to replicate the MRI results of studies on emotions with dead fish, actual dead fish.
The paragraph in that screenshot mixes facts commonly accepted by psychiatrists with things that are “likely related” in the same tone. Maybe he’s referencing something I’m unaware of, but it sounds like this guy’s unverified ideas are being given the same weight as information backed with a peer-reviewed study. A bit of a red flag.
If he can really consistently diagnose based on these scans, he should have no problem making a repeatable study. On the flip side, too long without an actual study would be very suspicious.
If what he writes helps you understand and manage your symptoms, that’s great. But any “Dr. Somebody” confidently making bold claims against accepted science should be treated with skepticism. Too many people trying to make a quick buck by promising some miracle
He left out porn/erotic fiction/sexualised pop music (“erototoxins”, as the religious types call it)
?
