chemist

^lots of people with that gene will not be alcoholics.

You are misinterpreting what is meant by defining. Alcoholism cannot be defined by a gene or characteristic. No matter what gene or characteristic you define to mean alcoholic there will always be those who do not meet the criteria who will be deemed alcoholics and there will always be those who do meet the criteria but are not deemed to be alcoholics. Whereas it's very easy to define a peanut butter and jelly sandwich. There will never be an instance where a ham sandwich is deemed a PB&J, because a PB&J can be defined.

There is no gene that codes for alcoholism.

Of course. What plenty of people think is "crazy" is actually sociopathy. It's not a medical condition that can be medically treated. Some people are just assholes. Too many of them find their ways into state hospitals. Too many actually sick people find their way into prisons. Take an ADHD kid and give her an EEG. Sleeping and waking. And tell me what you find. Why do stimulants help calm an ADHD kid but wire a non-ADHD kid? I've heard the suggestion that ADHD can be ruled in by giving a kid a stimulant and see what happens. Thus, it's an indication that there is a biochemical reason for it. Ask anyone who has ever spent time with someone who is ADHD and ask whether that person can observe it. In the words of Austin Milbarge from Spies Like Us, "We mock what we do not understand." There was a time if you believed the earth was round you were deemed crazy. The physician who discovered germs was also deemed crazy and actually was put into a mental institution. Of course we know now the earth isn't flat and germs exist. As for your claim that "non-ADD kids react differently to ADD kids to stimulants" is actually a commonly held myth. Firstly, there is no way to differentiate an ADD vs. an ADD kid because there is no operational definition for ADD. So you're going to have major flaws in your subject vs control groups. Second of all, a 'reaction' to a mind altering substance is very difficult to measure because it is a subjective experience. So even if you could have a good control group, which you can't due to definition issues, you still are going to have issues measuring what you're looking for. So don't be fooled by that simple statement, it's more complex than that.

I could be mistaken, but I think all he or she said was that ADHD being over-diagnosed and over-medicated was more of a detriment to those who were put on drugs and shouldn't have been than it is to those who do have ADHD, get the drugs to help them, but then have to face a bit more of a stigma because their disease has been delegitimized. and telling someone that "your child is sick and has to take mind altering capsules or they will be taken out of your custody" is not stigmatizing? I mean if the child is sick you have to be able to prove they are sick, which you cannot because there is no test to do so, that is what stigmatization is: diagnosing a child out of faith that it is true rather than any scientific evidence that proves it is true.

of course it's real. So is being 'heart broken' when you get dumped. Or being 'home sick' when you're away from home. Just because we have experience does not mean that experience is caused by physical disease. A physical disease can be defined and observed. I cannot define or observe a 'broken heart'. But I can define and observe heart disease.

I consider forced medication to be a detriment. If you become a practicing clinician, you'll find yourself guided more by the needs of the individual patient, and less by one-size-fits-all sound bytes. It's child neglect if you refuse to give your kids ritalin so the force is real even though nobody is clenching open their jaws. Forced ADD meds are surprising to me, there are psychiatrists who've stuck up for pilots who need ritalin to focus (though they lost in court) and those psychiatrists have to be worried about being fooled by a drug addict pilots!! You have to be the biggest pussy in my book to worry so much about what would happen to a kid at school without ritalin that you think it's child neglect/warrants taking the kids away.

I consider forced medication to be a detriment. Especially since ADD medications are listed as controlled substances and are the most widely abused recreational drugs among students on college campuses.

This I would argue the over-diagnosed issue is mainly to the detriment of the misdiagnosed.

I never said we shouldn't treat alcoholic livers, or lung cancer in smokers, or heart disease in over eaters.

And... I'm neither a lawyer or doctor, so can someone explain the difference between an addiction and a disease? A disease is a malfunction like cirrhosis of the liver that has an observable pathology. I can't ask a pathologist in autopsy to tell me if this patient here had 'socialized conduct disorder' because socialized conduct disorder is not a disease. If you smoke marijuana once in Qatar you are considered addicted immediately. In America you have to smoke a bit of it before people start saying you are addicted. It's not that person A has a disease in Qatar but not in US, this is where the disease theory becomes hogwash. It's a cultural judgement, NOT a pathological observation. Addiction is a dimensional, psychological problem that can be influenced by environment and other social factors. Human beings are all different with so many different life experiences, motivations, social status, physical health, occupations, family support. There is so much to a person's life to consider than just molecules.

why do you need to have immediate access to a cold steel knife? Are people trying to kill you?

But this thread should really be about ADD. ADD is not a disease either.

Getting paid is certainly of concern. But OB/GYN's get paid and we don't consider being pregnant a disease. Mental problems will always exist, it's possible to treat a person as an individual, take into account environment and other factors and still get paid a salary.

Of course. Many doctors believe that homosexuality should have not been taken out of the DSM. But alcohol has section F.10 in the ICD-10. This tells me that theer is a difference in opinion (as medicine has). And the WHO has a bit of say in it. Not sure what you are trying to say here.

Whoops, what I described is confirmation bias. However, selection bias sounds like the same thing. You are 'selecting out' the data that doesn't fit with your agenda.

Many doctors do not believe it is a disease, and I am a medical student soon to be a doctor.

You are incorrect. Diagnoses' that go into the DSM are voted into existence without peer review. You misunderstood the comment. It's the phenomenon of having a bias that selects against contradictory information that has ironically been studied, peer reviewed, etc. /edited to add: unless you're focusing on the "as well." Yes what you are talking about is called selection bias. There is lots of evidence that moderate drinking works, and that most problem drinkers quit on their own without treatment. This pesky data is often left out by those who regard alcoholism to be a disease.

I think what he meant by that example is you should have ordered it with the chinstrap cutaway, so if a line snags on your gopro you can cutaway your helmet and pull your reserve.

You are incorrect. Diagnoses' that go into the DSM are voted into existence without peer review.

how many jumps do you need to wear the G3? EDIT: NEVERMIND, I meant to ask about the Cookie FUEL, not G3.

ya consistent openings are a great feature for a parachute

I'm a newb too. Wondering what's so hard about falling off a balloon? If someone could fill me in that would be great

Can a guy skydiver date a girl who has more jump numbers than him?

Following a coach's instructions during free fall is a basic task and it should not be too difficult. You find this difficult yet you claim to have mad skilz to film?!?! What are you going to do when you film 4 ways with regular fun jumpers if you can't even hang around with a coach in a controlled setting?