> 4-5% is the base rate of the ADHD in population, the 11% is the false positive + true positive rate. It's always going to be a number like 11% you dolt, it's harder to get lower than that. Again you actually didn't get the bayes rule example! It's not possible to get the fundamental rate that much. Because of how the numbers multiply out.
I'm honestly taking that as a concession since you simply don't understand what I'm saying.
> I demand you concede verbally.
There isn't anything to concede since you keep tilting against a windmill and failing to understand my issue is medicating 4-9 year old children with such a large percentage of false positives.
The methodology and the difficulty doesn't matter, the end result does.
You're not even saying anything at this point. I already quoted you a quoted showing that medicating children is demonstrated to be safe. Stop pretending already! There's hundreds of studies.
You haven't made a point! I've quoted the reference literature, shown you that your little major point about diagnosis was false and now you just keep repeating your point. Your cdc point at 11% was your silver bullet and now you know its useless.
You also missed the point about asymmetry of harm for <not medicating diagnosed> vs <medicating misdiagnosed>. That quote from the 4th edition demonstrably refuted what you said. Sorry buddy, hate to tell you, you've lost. =)
I'm honestly taking that as a concession since you simply don't understand what I'm saying.
> I demand you concede verbally.
There isn't anything to concede since you keep tilting against a windmill and failing to understand my issue is medicating 4-9 year old children with such a large percentage of false positives.
The methodology and the difficulty doesn't matter, the end result does.