article on chemical causes for ADD? | ADHD Information

Yeah - but for me the one reliable thing I have seen in my own treatment and history is that the medication has had an effect on me in a positive way.  So I have a hard time with any argument either way and don't know that it matters what the cause is, just that the outcome and treating my symptoms is an extreme bonus for me personally. 

People would have to live in my brain to experience what I have and I guarantee they would be in hell if they had to live in it untreated for 24 hours a day. 

I think there is a link genetically cause of the family history of behaviors I have exhibited in my own mother throughout my life and the fact that another of my siblings has this same thing and won't get treatment and their life is still hell.  I am glad I know about adhd and LD's so I am cognizant of what happens with my own kids!!!

 

I've said this before on this forum in a probably disorganized rant, but I'll mention it again.

Any attempt to find a chemical/genetic basis for ADHD is going to be difficult at best and perhaps frugal at worst. ADHD is a completely subjective diagnosis, because all the "symptoms" of ADHD are normal behaviors, ergo it is only advisable to go on medication if you are found to cross some (again, highly subjective) line between being so debilitated that it affects your life and being human. Brain scans detect trends in those with ADHD versus those without the diagnosis, but trends do not result in fool-proof diagnostic methods. So if someone wants to study ADHD patients, who's to say whether they really have ADHD or not? I guess that's the first problem that makes me pretty skeptical of any study involving ADHD.

Regarding environmental factors, I think the issue also needs to be considered of whether ADHD symptoms are unique enough to be separated from generalized brain damage (i.e., the article refers to chemicals that are "toxic to human neurodevelopment"). If someone experiences some generalized degradation of brain function or inhibition of development, they would most likely benefit from ADHD stimulant medication. Does that mean they have ADHD? I don't know. Maybe I'm just a pessimest but I'm almost skeptical of any attempt to study ADHD just because of that subjectivity. If someone has a heart attack, for example, you can look at their heart and determine, well yeah, there's a lot of crap in you arteries - more so than normal people, ergo, you have X condition of hardened arteries. But if I fail out of college, who's to say that's because I can't focus? Surely I will argue, quite genuinely, that it's not because of any other number of factors like laziness, stupidity, apathy, etc., but that's completely subjective, and now there's the problem of the patient making the diagnosis. I just think there's too many outside variables to make studying ADHD easy and therefore reliable.

I think that may be the key thing to remember LC - that there is far more evidence of a genetic link than an environmental one.  Perhaps it exacerbates the issue but I simply don't see the full connection by the study.  They have some evidence of autism link but there are clear scan results of the brain that show autism and not for ADHD.

My father and his siblings all have had ADHD and they grew up on a farm where their mother wasn't exposed to anything chemical - they were literally dirt poor and lived a frugal life free of modern chemistry.  People with ADHD come from all areas and exposure levels and until they can show some chemical that all involved in ADHD could have ingested there can't be a really reliable link.

It is interesting that there is reference to the developing fetal brain.  I read an article somewhere that it is also imortant to protect the adolescent brain as recent studeis have said that this is a critical time that the brain is rewiring itself and some of the pathways and conecctions can also be affected at this time!!!  I wish I could remember the reference for that article also. 

So I guess it is a double whammy if you have the genetic adhd passed on and had this exposure also!!!

not sure where to post this - probably the alternative section but thought it might be of interest to ALL so have put it here instead.  i think you can read their full research in the Lancet but you need to have a password (have registered) to access this so here is CBSnews' abridged version.

here's the link for those interested:  http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/11/07 /health/webmd/main2161153.shtml

(WebMD) Exposure to industrial chemicals may be responsible for a "silent pandemic" of brain development disorders affecting millions of children worldwide, and not enough is being done to identify the risks.

That is the contention of two researchers who have studied the effects of chemical exposures on brain development for many decades.

In an essay published online in the journal The Lancet, the researchers identified 202 potentially harmful industrial chemicals that may be contributing to dramatic increases in autism, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), and other brain disorders among children.

Roughly half of the chemicals are in common use, but very few have been tested to determine their impact on brain development.

"The bottom line is you only get one chance to develop a brain," Philippe Grandjean, M.D., of the Harvard School of Public Health, tells WebMD. "We have to protect children against chemical pollution because damage to a developing brain is irreversible."

Tip of the Iceberg

Grandjean and co-author Philip Landrigan, M.D., of New York's Mount Sinai School of Medicine, noted that of the industrial chemicals known to be toxic to the human brain, only five — lead, mercury, arsenic, PCBs, and toluene — have been proven to cause damage to the developing brain.

These chemicals have been identified not because they are necessarily more dangerous than the others, but because they have been studied the most, Grandjean and Landrigan contend.

"The few substances proven to be toxic to human neurodevelopment should be viewed as the tip of a very large iceberg," they wrote.

Grandjean spent decades documenting the toxic effects of mercury exposure on the developing brain, and Landrigan spent decades studying the effects of lead exposure in children.

Lead and mercury are among the few chemicals that are now strictly regulated to protect children. But regulation came long after the dangers were first recognized.

Lead-based paint was first linked to sickness in children more than a century ago, but lead was not removed from paint and gasoline in the U.S. until the late 1970s and early 1980s.

"Despite those early pediatric warnings, the largely unchecked use of lead in petrol, paints, ceramic glazes, and many other products through much of the twentieth century caused continued risk of lead poisoning," the researchers write.

A Generation Exposed

Almost all children born in industrialized countries between 1960 and 1980 were exposed to substantial amounts of lead from gasoline. The researchers write that lead exposure in this population could be responsible for a substantial reduction in average IQ scores.

"A generation of American children was exposed to this very dangerous neurotoxin while we were doing traditional risk assessment," Grandjean tells WebMD. "We can't afford to make the same mistake again."

Annette Kirshner, Ph.D., of the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS) agrees that more expeditious ways of identifying chemical exposures that put children at risk are needed.

The prevailing thinking among researchers studying autism and ADHD is that both genetic and environmental factors play a role in the childhood brain disorders.

"There is still no good evidence linking any single environmental exposure to autism and ADHD," Kirshner tells WebMD. "It will probably require a global effort to understand the combination of factors that lead to these disorders."

But Grandjean and Landrigan argue that exposure to industrial chemicals appear to have created a "silent pandemic in modern society."

"Although these chemicals might have caused impaired brain development in millions of children worldwide, the profound effects of such a pandemic are not apparent from available health statistics," they wrote.


SOURCES: Grandjean, P. and Landrigan, P.J. The Lancet, Nov. 8, 2006; Vol. 368: online edition. Philippe Grandjean, M.D., department of environmental health, Harvard School of Public Health, Boston; Annette Kirshner, Ph.D., health science administrator, National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences. chjones39031.1504050926oh and for those who want the link to the lancet and its summary.  here ya go!!!!

http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140673 606696657/abstract?iseop=true The Lancet Early Online Publication, 8 November 2006 The Lancet DOI:10.1016/S0140-6736(06)69665-7 Developmental neurotoxicity of industrial chemicals Dr, Prof P Grandjean MD  a b    and   Prof PJ Landrigan MD c d   Summary Neurodevelopmental disorders such as autism, attention deficit disorder, mental retardation, and cerebral palsy are common, costly, and can cause lifelong disability. Their causes are mostly unknown. A few industrial chemicals (eg, lead, methylmercury, polychlorinated biphenyls [PCBs], arsenic, and toluene) are recognised causes of neurodevelopmental disorders and subclinical brain dysfunction. Exposure to these chemicals during early fetal development can cause brain injury at doses much lower than those affecting adult brain function. Recognition of these risks has led to evidence-based programmes of prevention, such as elimination of lead additives in petrol. Although these prevention campaigns are highly successful, most were initiated only after substantial delays. Another 200 chemicals are known to cause clinical neurotoxic effects in adults. Despite an absence of systematic testing, many additional chemicals have been shown to be neurotoxic in laboratory models. The toxic effects of such chemicals in the developing human brain are not known and they are not regulated to protect children. The two main impediments to prevention of neurodevelopmental deficits of chemical origin are the great gaps in testing chemicals for developmental neurotoxicity and the high level of proof required for regulation. New, precautionary approaches that recognise the unique vulnerability of the developing brain are needed for testing and control of chemicals.