Sure, I absolutely think there is a ADHD link and I think there is a likely (which is not the same as definitely) common cause of hypermobile Ehlers Danlos Syndrome (hEDS), understand that this is not the medical establishment view but I think my models are more accurate and more predictive.
If you scroll through my previous message history I cover this topic quite a bit, you can also email me. In general terms, I think hEDS is far more common than doctors do, and is likely caused by TNXB SNPs. TNXB SPNs are overlooked because these are too common to cause the 'rare' condition - but if you drop the prior assumption of rarity then a very different picture is painted. It appears to me that the only difference between hEDS and far more common Generalized Joint Hypermobility (GJH) is severity and the stochastic diagnosis that this difference causes. The prior assumption of rarity has informed the diagnostic test so the diagnostic tests reproduce this assumption and in my view have an extremely high false negative rate. If using other proxy stats like the rate of hypermobility in Long Covid from the work of Dr Jessica Eccles it's pretty clear that that prior assumption of rarity is wildly inaccurate. I was able to figure this out because I have experience as an applied researcher and machine learning, having spent half a lifetime reading papers I've developed a bit of a nose for the sorts of mistakes that academic researchers tend to make.
If you scroll through my previous message history I cover this topic quite a bit, you can also email me. In general terms, I think hEDS is far more common than doctors do, and is likely caused by TNXB SNPs. TNXB SPNs are overlooked because these are too common to cause the 'rare' condition - but if you drop the prior assumption of rarity then a very different picture is painted. It appears to me that the only difference between hEDS and far more common Generalized Joint Hypermobility (GJH) is severity and the stochastic diagnosis that this difference causes. The prior assumption of rarity has informed the diagnostic test so the diagnostic tests reproduce this assumption and in my view have an extremely high false negative rate. If using other proxy stats like the rate of hypermobility in Long Covid from the work of Dr Jessica Eccles it's pretty clear that that prior assumption of rarity is wildly inaccurate. I was able to figure this out because I have experience as an applied researcher and machine learning, having spent half a lifetime reading papers I've developed a bit of a nose for the sorts of mistakes that academic researchers tend to make.