• Well to be honest, I’m not totally sure if he had creative control over the title. But yes, the title is quite misleading. Any qualified professional worth his or her salt wouldn’t make a diagnosis without all the information available. It seems like his book is full of those stories and Saul’s the knight in shining armor.

  1. In the world we live in, perception and sound bites win the day. Regardless of Dr. Saul’s intentions, the title of the book–at very least, a marketing coup–offers a potentially damaging indictment of a diagnosis that has been safely established by every major mental health organization in the United States. By the way, anecdotal information does not a good scientific rebuttal make. I, too, have met many people in my practice who were misdiagnosed–but they are usually misdiagnosed with everything BUT their correct diagnosis: ADHD (usually Inattentive Type).

    • I appreciate your feelings on this topic. And you’re certainly very correct in your response. Mental health concerns in this country still isn’t as recognized as it needs to be. Saul’s intentions were very self-serving here, but it doesn’t mean that he’s completely wrong. The title, on the other hand, is completely misleading.

  2. Gina Pera

    I’m sorry, Jonathan, but there is absolutely NO “solid information” in this book. It is the blathering of an old MD who hasn’t kept up with the literature and continues to placate patients with old bromides and platitudes, while they continue to suffer.

    Please don’t recommend this crap to anyone. ADHD has enough problems being taken seriously.

    • Gina, I appreciate your feedback And I don’t disagree with your assessment. I always give everyone the benefit of the doubt. Quite frankly, I thought the book helped me understand the naysayers and “haters” better. But like the Godfather said, “I keep my friends close and my enemies closer.”

      I don’t particularly like Dr. Saul, but I believe in hearing what a person has to say.

  3. Coby Ingram

    My take-away from Dr. Saul’s book is that there are about 20 conditions which qualify a person for a diagnosis of ADHD under the DSM-V. Treating those conditions as if they are the only cause of the symptoms (instead of prescribing stimulants) seems to work better. He is also saying that these conditions do not mimic ADHD. They are the only causes of the symptoms in question, because ADHD as an underlying neurobiological condition does not exist. He is essentially daring the scientific community to prove him wrong. Is he a fuddy-duddy old doctor who doesn’t know his stuff? That’s kind of an ad hominem argument and not necessarily true. I think he leaves the door open as to whether there is real ADHD. If we find it, so much the better. But as a person who has seen families upset and even lives lost through the kind of misdiagnosis he points out, let’s be more sure of our science.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *