Whereas blatantly asserting that "at least 30% of the population have a specific neurodevelopmental disorder" doesn't merit any sourcing or facts. Just pull ideas out of your head and slap them down, that's how it works right?

A meta-analysis would be called for, you say? Did you even open the link, let alone the PDF

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41562-023-01530-y.pdf

And they don't need to research ADHD. Let's say you clean the local MickeyD every night, every stall and shit until it's spick and span. If someone stopped you right before you stepped out and locked the doors and told you "animal control, there's an elephant in here", you'd probably be pretty certain there was no elephant as despite not having thought about elephants or tried actively looking for any, you'd be sure it's not in the see through little McD where it wouldn't even fit.

Thus when you hear "there's an elephant on the loose" in that context you laugh.

I'm not defining a narrative. I'm calling bullshit on his figures.

People do tend to get mad over the next part; I believe that a lot of people who more or less require or at least work well on those meds to, well, require them, but not necessarily because of some mythical poorly reasoned latebloooming ad hoc NDD, but our world just has gotten a whole faster.

Stimulants, if used responsibly — instead of taking them on the weekends and drinking two days straight — can be compared to a strong energy drinks. And in many cases a bump of speed would actually be healthier than a huge can of coke or a mocha latte.

Anyway, the point people get mad about is that they think I'm gonna question their diagnosis or advocate they shouldn't get their meds, nah, that's not what I'm about.

I'm just hoping this won't follow the same pattern as Oxy. Completely different beasts when it comes to dangers, both physical and forming dependency.

Still, it's pretty clear if you want to browse good sources. Just look at how often NDDs were diagnosed, how fast the recognition grew as our information grew and so did the prevalence of all neurodevelopmental disorders.

But then out of the group ADHD is an outlier and nothing explains why it's diagnosis have grown so much — except legalised speed basically.

Also, quoting a single study and framing your world view based on one study is absolutely not science, but have at it…

I believe you shouldn't hit kids hard (even rhetorically) or they'll just get cranky and abandon the whole business.

So these actual studies aren't studies, but the invisible yet to be named ones which show 30% having ADHD, now that is science. Yeah?