ADD: A New Paradigm

I keep talking of a better way to view and understand ADD, but what exactly do I mean by that?  I'm going to discuss the idea here that classifying ADD as a "disorder" in need of treatment is erroneous.  I propose that by looking at the brain state currently labeled ADD in a different light, one of uniqueness and not dysfunction at all, we should be better able to help people who express this trait to find inspiration in their lives and thrive, academically and functionally.

I discussed in last post the numerous theories that have attempted to explain the cause of ADD, but so far they have all come up short.  From genetics to environment to evolutionary theories, no explanation has been sufficient to account for what they have found (or not found) regarding ADD.  I have also explained how the parameters for the disorder have grown throughout history--the wider they become, the more people that get the diagnosis.  Although this practice has identified many different similarities among people suspected of having an attention disorder, it has also increased the number of similar differences; in other words, too many symptoms blur the already fuzzy lines.

Further, I have pointed out that there are no clear-cut markers to be found in people diagnosed with ADD, unlike those found in other diseases like AIDS (HIV+), hepatitis (elevated liver enzymes), and prostate cancer (elevated PSA) to name a few.  Brain changes have been noted in some studies, but they are complicated by the fact that they have never been able to be reproduced in further studies.  One study did find that the brains of 50% of subjects labeled ADHD have slower maturation of their frontal cortices relative to "normal" controls, but I contend that it presupposes ADD to be an actual disorder, which I emphatically reject (aside from the possibility of the brain changes resulting from stimulant drug treatments).

I am certain that the neurological irregularity we currently classify as ADD is a normal variant to the mental attentive function we all exhibit.  Everybody, including those labeled ADD, has the ability to focus their attention at various moments in their consciousness.  The person labeled ADD, however, has difficulty focusing attention at preset moments defined by current cultural norms, most notably during classroom time.  Because we are all expected to learn which moment requires which behavior, this inability to focus is naturally considered a malfunction.  But is it?

It is my opinion that people exhibiting this normal variation of attention, this inability to concentrate at will, is more a reflection of an uninspired mind toward the subject matter--conventional academics primarily.  This is not news to anybody keeping up with these posts: I've made it abundantly clear that I believe the problem lies with teachers having an inability to inspire these normal variant minds.  But let me focus even more: People labeled ADD--we'll say children primarily, because adults have usually learned to adapt to circumstances (as any successful organism does)--do lose their attention more quickly than the so-called "normals".  I will not dispute this fact, but it doesn't mean they are somehow dysfunctional; they are simply unique in their needs.

OK, so far I haven't said anything that goes against today's conventional wisdom on ADD.*  But here is the difference: By perceiving this unique variation in attention span as a disorder, it opens the door for a particular kind of fix--primarily stimulant drugs.  This has not only had a minimal effectiveness, but it is likely causing more harm than good both to individuals and to the society at large.

By seeing the unique challenges faced by some children (3-5% worldwide according to the latest figures) as a normal variation of a ubiquitous brain state allows the possibility to help these children wide open.  Seeing how the brain state labeled ADD is merely a different similarity to what we all experience when uninspired allows parents and educators to find out exactly what these children are inspired by.  When accomplished, the task will be to then relate all other subject matter back to the areas of inspiration.  Whew.

I know it sounds simple, but that's because it is.  It's universal.  Trying to find the fragmented parts that separate some human beings from others in order to account for a perceived abnormality is futile--we all operate under specific laws.  It's not that I think the entire historical course of this non-disorder was unnecessary.  It served a sort of ruling out process.  But the evidence has been piling up--there is no there there.  Isn't it wiser to see how people labeled ADD are similar to us and nurture that?

I do not for a second believe that the hunt for a fragmented cause of ADD, and its subsequent pharmacological solution, will end anytime soon.  But if you are a parent with a child that has trouble conforming to the social norms of focusing in the classroom on subjects that are maddeningly uninspiring, then think twice before attaching the label ADD to that child.  I am certain that the drug solution associated with that life-label will never provide anything more than reliance on drugs; at worst it might even harm your child, physically and/or mentally.

I will touch even further on the current treatment solutions for people labeled ADD in upcoming posts.  Until then, rethink conventional wisdom.

*It has recently come to my attention that my thoughts on this subject are similar to those put forth by the Church of Scientology.  I am NOT a Scientologist.  While I have nothing against Scientology, per se, as I know next to nothing of its philosophical teachings, I merely wish to separate my thoughts from that of any organized group or religion.  I respect all peoples' choices to believe and worship as they choose fit.

Love and Honor in Death

Ready for some controversy?  Here goes: Our illusion that death is "bad" is costing us oodles in unnecessary health care, prolonging pain and suffering, and preventing people from finding beauty in their inevitable transformation.  According to a recent report, more and more Americans are being treated to death--that is, receiving costly and often ineffective care, instead of choosing to die in dignity and comfort.

More than 80% of all deaths in the U.S. are due to chronic and progressive illnesses such as cancer and heart failure.  Of these, more than 80% say they would like to avoid hospitalization and intensive care at the end of their lives; yet in actuality, Americans are being treated aggressively until their last dying breath.  Here are the numbers:

• The average time spent in hospice and palliative care (focused on comfort without curing) is decreasing.  In 2008, one third of people receiving hospice care had it for one week or less.
• Hospitalizations during the last six months of life are rising: from 1,302 per 1,000 Medicare recipients in 1996 to 1,441 in 2005, Dartmouth reports.
• 12% of cancer patients who died in 1999 received chemo in the last two weeks of life, up from nearly 10 percent in 1993. 
• Almost 20% of patients with colorectal cancer that has spread are on at least their fourth chemotherapy drug. The same goes for roughly 12% of patients with metastatic breast cancer, and for 12% of those with lung cancer. The analysis is based on more than 60,000 cancer patients. 

These numbers are particularly concerning since treating chronic illness in the last two years of life eats up nearly one-third of all Medicare dollars.

This controversy lies in that some people believe we should try to extend life under all circumstances.  As long as an inkling of hope remains, some say, people should fight on.  And the controversy is as much political as it is moral.  During the debates over universal health coverage (Obamacare), opponents stressed that health care rationing would take place, and that "death panels" would be responsible for determining who received further care and who was left to die.

Although I find this notion and fear of death panels ridiculous, I do think that our obsession with life at all costs dishonors the magnificence of the human life cycle.  We are born, we live, we die.  It has been said that the only thing certain in life is death, and in that we are all the same.  Not one person walking the planet today will be alive in 150 years.  In fact, neither will our planet live forever, nor our sun--all things move on to the next transformation. 

Does this mean people should not fight for their lives?  Well, it depends.  To a 92-year-old, I'd say, "For what?"  However, to a 22-year-old diagnosed with lung cancer, I'd say yes...with a catch.  If you have an inspired purpose, something driving you to live, I believe you can beat the odds.  But the purpose must be a part of your essence, a drive so strong that not even the sands of time can keep you from completing it.  It cannot be some fabricated deal you try to cut with your maker in an attempt to hold on; it must be in your heart, truly a part of you.  Even then you won't escape death for long.  Death is inevitable for all of us--something for the young and healthy to think about regarding their own life's purpose, and acting on your dreams...now!

No, I don't know for sure if having deep inspirational purpose will extend your life, but my intuition tells me it is so.  I think about some of the lives we have had the honor of observing, like Michael Jackson's or Tupac Shakur's, believing that some people know when they are not long for this earth.  When we observe how some people work long and hard at the ends of their lives to complete "unfinished business," it humbles you to the magnificence of living on purpose.

As far as dying is concerned, it is true that we all have opinions on how we will handle the inevitable, until it is our time to go.  Our survival instinct--the one hard-wired into all living things--makes it very challenging to accept death as we imagine within our philosophical belief system, but we can all ultimately appreciate that transformation is all there is; and one day everyone of us will move on to the next experience.  We can fear it, or we can see the beauty in the transition and be grateful.  Death is the completion of one cycle, and the beginning of a new one.

*This post is dedicated to my role model and inspiration, Nate Pressman, a lover of life and God.  You are dignified and beautiful in all your forms, Grandpa; and you will be with us, around us, always.  We love you.

Mozart Does NOT Make Kids Smarter

Well, parents--Mozart won't make your kids smarter--sorry. I know, I know what you've heard: classical music improves brainpower. Well, it's wrong. So says a recent Austrian study that looked over 3,000 subjects.

According to psychologists at the University of Vienna, who looked at over 40 studies and unpublished research, there is no evidence that listening to Mozart will do anything for anyone's cognitive powers.

Researchers report that they could find no psychological or cognitive benefit to listening to Mozart music, despite a famous 1993 study claiming it does. The study, published in Nature, showed a link between listening to Mozart and improved spatial task performance (judging distances, depth, direction, motion and mental rotation).

Following the '93 study, parents, day-care centers and schools rushed to purchase Mozart and music by other composers to start exposing children to classical music. But these recent findings show that this notion is a myth.

Aw well, it was worth a try folks. But, you know, think about it--were Europeans in general, and Austrians more specifically, spatially advanced relative to people from other cultures? Wouldn't the myth of classical music enhanced brain power suggest just that? Uh...DUH!

No doubt music is nourishment for the soul. And it might even have cognitive and psychological benefits, but how one type of music is more beneficial than another is just silliness to me. Music, like all art, is subjective. The vast variation of the world's music, throughout all of history, should attest to that. Musical tastes differ among people and cultures; yet we are all moved by music, and that has to have some effect.

Music probably has more of an effect on spirit and soul than on brain development, but good luck in proving that one. By my estimate, music inspires all of us in one form or another. I personally don't need it to improve my children's spatial cognition. If it inspires their hearts, then that's good enough for me.

♥ Overcomes All Obstacles

What do you need to succeed in wrestling and in life?
A. Money
B. Resources
C. Arms and legs
D. Heart

If you answered D, you get it. Succeeding in life, like in wrestling, requires heart...inspiration. It does not require money, although money certainly can help pay the rent. It does not require resources, as those with heart create their own resources and make it work with whatever they've got. As the following story will illustrate, it doesn't even requires arms or legs.

Meet Dayton Webber, an 11-year-old boy from Charles County, Maryland. No arms, no legs, but a huge heart--a real inspiration to me. Dayton wrestles for his local wrestling club, Rampage Wrestling; and he plays football, too--on the defensive line--for a youth football league. Despite the fact that he has been without arms or legs since he was 11-months old, he partakes in all childhood activities that interest him. These include ice skating, go-cart racing and skateboarding, which he routinely performs tricks on, like doing handstands on his arm stumps. Pretty incredible if you ask me.

Does Dayton cry about his predicament, playing the victim when things don't go his way? Does he blame presidential administrations or institutions for the obstacles he faces in his daily life? Does he refrain from doing the things he loves because he lacks resources (arms and legs)? Nope. He goes into his heart and follows his inspiration. Now that's someone to learn from.

I really do find people like Dayton Webber inspirational. My first exposure to the greatness that lies within the heart of "disabled" people* was when I caught a piece on HBO's Real Sports about Kyle Maynard, another quad amputee that wrestled and played football in high school, got straight A's in school, and was living his dreams of going to college, writing a book, public speaking, and enjoying his girlfriend. My friends will attest that I saved that piece for two years, making any and every unsuspecting guest watch it.

The take home lesson in both Dayton Webber's and Kyle Maynard's stories is NOT that we should be grateful for how much more we have than them (which seemed to be the common sentiment of my guests and people interviewed in the Dayton Webber article), but instead that the circumstances in your life matter far less than how your mind perceives those circumstances. And following your inspired heart will lead you to the life of your dreams, circumstances aside.

Sometimes it takes exceptional people like Dayton Webber and Kyle Maynard to remind us of this truth.

*I don't really care for the common use of this word, as I find that people who live by the victim mentality are far more disabled than people who "just do it".