Dilemma - Misinformation - Infuriated

I have been doing a course for work about the neuroscience of trauma. It had for the most part seemed very interesting. But I got to the module that I was most looking forward to which is the difference between trauma and neurodiversity.

I found it absolutely shocking. So much misinformation and outdated research in it. It was very much pushing the narrative that it is mostly trauma and many people are misdiagnosed. Not helpful with the current pushing of this narrative going on in the world. It continually referred to it as being a label and the tone seemed to suggest they thought this was negative thing.

It said that ADHD being genetic is a myth and there's no evidence. What I've read says otherwise. I couldn't bring myself to watch all of the autism part but I'd assume they'd have the same opinion about that. 

The beginning of the autism part split people into two categories. Those with very obvious needs such as those that are non verbal are autistic and those in the second category should be looked at to find a different answer. The suggestion was that if you are remotely capable of managing a two way conversation then you cannot be autistic. It completely ignored all the recent evidence about masking etc.

I was so angry and upset I had to stop watching. I can't believe this is being rolled out as a training video for professionals working with children.

I now have no idea what to do. I don't want to finish the course. I do not want to support something that is spreading such misinformation. There is going to be some sort of test at the end and if they ask questions about that part, I can't in good conscience write down the things they have said. It also makes me question the validity of the rest of the course's content. The course has been paid for by work though already so I don't know whether I can just stop doing it.

  • Thank you. This is the kind of thing I'm after. 

  • It may be grey in scientific terms. But to blunt state that there is no genetic link and that it's a myth with no evidence is entirely different to acknowledging there is no definite answer but a lot of evidence to suggest a genetic link.

    If it was one statement that I disagreed with I could probably ignore it. This is training being rolled out in schools across the country. It's concerning.

    Work themselves aren't providing the training. They just paid for it. I don't think I'll have any issues raising the issue in work. I'm holding off raising it with the company themselves until I've spoken to work.

  • It said that ADHD being genetic is a myth and there's no evidence

    I can understand your anger. We have things tough enough without misinformation like that making things worse. 

    Evidence from sound research shows that ADHD is genetic, so maybe consider showing your employer the relevant research?

    EDIT

    www.nature.com/.../s41380-018-0070-0

  • The course has been paid for by work though already so I don't know whether I can just stop doing it.

    This is a bit of a tricky one - while autism is widely considered to be genetic, there remains no positive identification of which genes cause it and hence no way to test genetically for it, so it is all a bit grey in scientific terms.

    Personally I believe it to be genetic as do NAS ( see https://www.autism.org.uk/what-we-do/news/autism-is-genetic ) but stating our beliefs is not the same as concrete medical proof as yet.

    As such it will be hard to make a case to support your viewpoint that the training is categorically wrong. 

    Research is just not at the point where it needs to be to confirm or deny our suspicions with sufficient scientific rigour.

    You could send the NAS link to those organising this course at work and point out the misalignment of current understanding and ask for an updated version of the course that reflects this (if it exists), but my suspicions are that they will want you to learn and regurgitate the duff information just in order to pass the course. In essence I expect they will treat it as a box ticking exercise.

    I'm with you on the views but consider the damage it could do to your role before getting into a fight over this principle - you still need to pay the bills.

  • If this is something that is rolled out to many organisations or school, perhaps the NAS might be interested as it's full of misinformation. Here's their contact page.

  • I am going to raise it with work when I return. I am off this week. My difficulty is I don't think I can bare to watch the rest of the content to be fully informed but by not doing so I am going to somewhat invalidate my own argument.

    My biggest difficulty is the company that runs the course is a company the school has been working with and I am concerned about the backlash.

    I intend to email the company with my concerns and request research and scientific evidence that backs up their content. I am also wondering about emailing ADHD UK and NAS and see if they have any thoughts on the subject. I could look into also contacting someone like Gina Rippon. I don't know how likely I'd be to get a reply.

    I'm not sure I trust something like the BBC. One of the things quoted in the training was the ridiculous panorama program they ran where a man pretended he had ADHD and then shouted from the rooftops that the services were just handing out diagnoses when he got one. If you are going to act like someone with ADHD and answer questions like someone with ADHD then yes a diagnostic service is probably going to diagnose you with ADHD. That is surely common sense. 

    I think I need to wait a bit though. I'm so upset and angry about it. I don't think I'd deal with it very well right now.

  • I wonder how you can challenge this? Is there a sort of education ombudsman?

    Maybe write to someone like GIna Rippon and ask her for support?

    Go to your HR and Professional development people and tell them this course is factually wrong, take a written refutation with you, going point by point through its errors and give the correct information?

    Take it to, The Guardian, BBC Your Voice or Newsnight, or all of them?

    Its no wonder autism services are so crap if this is whats being taught!