If I were to express my feelings, the language use would be offensive even to my fucking standards. Thankfully, there are others who are able to express their feelings about this better than I would. And here is just one of the many people denied health insurance for preexisting conditions. Here is one of those "irresponsible" people who many would have you believe just doesn't deserve access to health care.
(Stephanie has an especial lot of posts and links)
As Greg puts it, makes me want to go out and slug the first motherfucker who goes on a tare about universal health care.
Showing posts with label denialism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label denialism. Show all posts
Wednesday, September 2, 2009
Wednesday, June 24, 2009
Cannabis is Magical!!1!11!!!!
Context. And more context.
Or at least seems to induce a fair amount of magical thinking. And that would be magical thinking not a hell of a lot different than claims of magical gods, psychic phenomena or the belief that vaccines, cancer drugs and many other medicines are actually poisons being peddled to unwitting consumers by the evile of Big Pharma. People who rightly mock conspiracy theories about 9/11 and new world order, secret governments, turn around and make the base assumption that none of the evidence showing that cannabis has more than negligible deleterious effects can be true, because there's a government conspiracy to hide the truth and scare the masses.
There is fairly exhaustive evidence that indicates the legal status of cannabis is absolutely absurd and that the scare tactics engaged by most public agencies is vastly overblown. That is not to say that there isn't risk and evidence for harm stemming from cannabis use, on many different levels.
There is no question that smoking anything causes respiratory damage and damages cilia in the upper throat. Anyone who has ever cleaned a pot pipe knows that the tar left behind is impossible to clean off with water alone, unless it's boiling - this same tar mattes the cilia in the esophagus and like tobacco, coats the lungs. While the average cannabis smoker, smokes less than the average tobacco smoker, thus lessening the overall damage of smoking it, the tar that is formed is actually worse weight to weight, than the tar from tobacco. There is a great deal of evidence indicating that cannabis smokers who do not smoke tobacco have a higher incidence of bronchitis and chronic bronchitis, than non-smoking populations.
No links have been found between cannabis smoking and lung cancer or emphysema - though there is evidence of proteins that are thought to be precursors to cancer in cannabis smokers, there is also evidence that cannabis use may inhibit the development of those proteins into cancer. It is important to note however, that there is no evidence that it impacts the incidence of cancer in concurrent tobacco smokers.
Reproduced studies have indicated that the incidence of cannabis addiction in cannabis smoking populations is around fifteen percent. Addiction being defined by the DSM IV criteria, a conjunction of pervasive use, in spite of significant personal harm. Cut that by a third to be certain you've weeded out biased diagnosis - cannabis is magical you know - and you still have one out of every twenty cannabis smokers addicted at some point in their life. When we look at populations that use cannabis and also have concurrent neurological issues, the percentage skyrockets. And it is very common for people with neurological issues such as ADHD, bipolar, schizophrenia and other psychotic disorders to use tobacco, use cannabis and other illicit drugs.
I could go on and on, but here are some articles that do a much better job than I. I am way too busy at the moment and will get to more evidence - recent studies and the like, when I can. These peer reviewed journal articles and reports are not protected by pay walls and easier to throw out there, because you can read them and I don't have to summarize anything. I don't have the time to summarize material that is paywall protected, I'll get to it asap, but I am trying to get through a lot of credits this summer and it's more than a little stressful.
A Lancet Seminar.
The 2001 Australian study on the health effects of cannabis use. I suggest looking at the summaries of each section and then looking at the body of each section, if you have questions.
The British Journal of Anesthesia.
The British Journal of Psychiatry.
This wasn't hard to find folks. And this is just what I looked for to throw something up that isn't paywalled. Are we to believe that there is some conspiracy that is trying to toe the usual line of most public agencies in the U.S. Oh shit, I'm sorry but are we to believe that there is some government conspiracy to contradict the usual line of said public agencies?
Of course there is, because I just keep forgetting that cannabis is fucking magical. Sorry, I'll try better to keep that in mind from now on.
Or at least seems to induce a fair amount of magical thinking. And that would be magical thinking not a hell of a lot different than claims of magical gods, psychic phenomena or the belief that vaccines, cancer drugs and many other medicines are actually poisons being peddled to unwitting consumers by the evile of Big Pharma. People who rightly mock conspiracy theories about 9/11 and new world order, secret governments, turn around and make the base assumption that none of the evidence showing that cannabis has more than negligible deleterious effects can be true, because there's a government conspiracy to hide the truth and scare the masses.
There is fairly exhaustive evidence that indicates the legal status of cannabis is absolutely absurd and that the scare tactics engaged by most public agencies is vastly overblown. That is not to say that there isn't risk and evidence for harm stemming from cannabis use, on many different levels.
There is no question that smoking anything causes respiratory damage and damages cilia in the upper throat. Anyone who has ever cleaned a pot pipe knows that the tar left behind is impossible to clean off with water alone, unless it's boiling - this same tar mattes the cilia in the esophagus and like tobacco, coats the lungs. While the average cannabis smoker, smokes less than the average tobacco smoker, thus lessening the overall damage of smoking it, the tar that is formed is actually worse weight to weight, than the tar from tobacco. There is a great deal of evidence indicating that cannabis smokers who do not smoke tobacco have a higher incidence of bronchitis and chronic bronchitis, than non-smoking populations.
No links have been found between cannabis smoking and lung cancer or emphysema - though there is evidence of proteins that are thought to be precursors to cancer in cannabis smokers, there is also evidence that cannabis use may inhibit the development of those proteins into cancer. It is important to note however, that there is no evidence that it impacts the incidence of cancer in concurrent tobacco smokers.
Reproduced studies have indicated that the incidence of cannabis addiction in cannabis smoking populations is around fifteen percent. Addiction being defined by the DSM IV criteria, a conjunction of pervasive use, in spite of significant personal harm. Cut that by a third to be certain you've weeded out biased diagnosis - cannabis is magical you know - and you still have one out of every twenty cannabis smokers addicted at some point in their life. When we look at populations that use cannabis and also have concurrent neurological issues, the percentage skyrockets. And it is very common for people with neurological issues such as ADHD, bipolar, schizophrenia and other psychotic disorders to use tobacco, use cannabis and other illicit drugs.
I could go on and on, but here are some articles that do a much better job than I. I am way too busy at the moment and will get to more evidence - recent studies and the like, when I can. These peer reviewed journal articles and reports are not protected by pay walls and easier to throw out there, because you can read them and I don't have to summarize anything. I don't have the time to summarize material that is paywall protected, I'll get to it asap, but I am trying to get through a lot of credits this summer and it's more than a little stressful.
A Lancet Seminar.
The 2001 Australian study on the health effects of cannabis use. I suggest looking at the summaries of each section and then looking at the body of each section, if you have questions.
The British Journal of Anesthesia.
The British Journal of Psychiatry.
This wasn't hard to find folks. And this is just what I looked for to throw something up that isn't paywalled. Are we to believe that there is some conspiracy that is trying to toe the usual line of most public agencies in the U.S. Oh shit, I'm sorry but are we to believe that there is some government conspiracy to contradict the usual line of said public agencies?
Of course there is, because I just keep forgetting that cannabis is fucking magical. Sorry, I'll try better to keep that in mind from now on.
Wednesday, May 27, 2009
If you gotta Godwin: A rule for Anti-vax loons and other Denialists
Orac is getting rather bored with the damned Hitler references already. Now I can't say that my new rule - more a suggestion really, will get you much further than calling anyone Hitler will. But lets try to get creative about it, 'k? In the spirit of turning over new leaves, of entering exciting new realms of hyperbole, I thought I would help you folks out. Lets stop being so generic. Hitler is so very early millennium - socialism is the new fascism.
Keep in mind though, many of these will easily apply to those of us loons who are rather more keen on evidence than hysteria. And they needn't be restricted to vaccine denialists either. These work just as well for cancer denialists, HIV/AIDS denialists, even psychiatry denialists. I am pretty sure the more creative among you - and there is a lot of creativity amongst the denialists - can even work it for 9/11 denialism and other non-medical woo.
1) Chairman Orac and his merry band of Maoist poison peddlers!!1!11!! (or Chairman Tara and her...)
2) Pal Pot, the anti-smoking mass murderer and pharma shill!!!11! (sorry, but I don't think that one really works for anyone else)
3) McCarthy Hoofnagle thought crime investigator!!!11!!
4) Mike the murdering Bolshevic!!1!11!!!
5) PZ Stalin - Christian baby eating Cthulu worshiper!!1!!!1!
6) Ed Satan and his dispatches from hell!!1!11!!
7) Osama Greg Laden - Islamosocialist terrorist!!1!!111
8) DrugCaligula evile cloner of human/lab animal hybrids!!1!!11!!
9) Bad Ass Cylon destroying the human race!!!1!!1!11!! (stolen from the Science Pundit)
10) Jason Chavez, totalitarian commie gun thief!!!11!!1!!!
11) Imelda Podblack, laughing in her million dollar wardrobe, while poor babies are injected with toxic sludge!!!11!!!!1! (Mike Haubrich, FCD)
12) Dave and Greta Mussolini, with their propaganda rag, the Communist Daily!!1!!11!!! (Lousy Damned Canuck)
13) Jamestiltskin on his Island of the Damned, dragging down teh human race one royal firstborn at a time!!1!11!!!1 (Stolen from that Damned Canuck)
14) Stephanie Genghis Zkhan, barbarian warlord, murderer of peasants and pusher of wordiness!!1!!!!1!! (Osama)
15) Mike Jong-Il, repressive socialist sociopath, who probably hangs people who aren't "rational"!!!11!1!!!!!
16) Greta M Hari, flaunting evidence, sexuality and erototoxins - she's into that toxic sludge marinading too!!!1!!111!!!
17) Lucretia Sci Borgia, the treacherous temptress of science, injecting the poison directly into your BRAIN!!!11!1!!
18) Ben Goldtorquemada, turning the tables on the inquisition!!!11!111!! (David D.G.)
Come on, lets make this list longer, so we can provide an exhaustive reference for those times when irrational arguments are wearing thin and only a Godwin will do!!! Help a loon out - or if you are a loon - get creative!!!
And if someone calls you Hitler, you can send them this way!!!11!!!1!!
Keep in mind though, many of these will easily apply to those of us loons who are rather more keen on evidence than hysteria. And they needn't be restricted to vaccine denialists either. These work just as well for cancer denialists, HIV/AIDS denialists, even psychiatry denialists. I am pretty sure the more creative among you - and there is a lot of creativity amongst the denialists - can even work it for 9/11 denialism and other non-medical woo.
1) Chairman Orac and his merry band of Maoist poison peddlers!!1!11!! (or Chairman Tara and her...)
2) Pal Pot, the anti-smoking mass murderer and pharma shill!!!11! (sorry, but I don't think that one really works for anyone else)
3) McCarthy Hoofnagle thought crime investigator!!!11!!
4) Mike the murdering Bolshevic!!1!11!!!
5) PZ Stalin - Christian baby eating Cthulu worshiper!!1!!!1!
6) Ed Satan and his dispatches from hell!!1!11!!
7) Osama Greg Laden - Islamosocialist terrorist!!1!!111
8) DrugCaligula evile cloner of human/lab animal hybrids!!1!!11!!
9) Bad Ass Cylon destroying the human race!!!1!!1!11!! (stolen from the Science Pundit)
10) Jason Chavez, totalitarian commie gun thief!!!11!!1!!!
11) Imelda Podblack, laughing in her million dollar wardrobe, while poor babies are injected with toxic sludge!!!11!!!!1! (Mike Haubrich, FCD)
12) Dave and Greta Mussolini, with their propaganda rag, the Communist Daily!!1!!11!!! (Lousy Damned Canuck)
13) Jamestiltskin on his Island of the Damned, dragging down teh human race one royal firstborn at a time!!1!11!!!1 (Stolen from that Damned Canuck)
14) Stephanie Genghis Zkhan, barbarian warlord, murderer of peasants and pusher of wordiness!!1!!!!1!! (Osama)
15) Mike Jong-Il, repressive socialist sociopath, who probably hangs people who aren't "rational"!!!11!1!!!!!
16) Greta M Hari, flaunting evidence, sexuality and erototoxins - she's into that toxic sludge marinading too!!!1!!111!!!
17) Lucretia Sci Borgia, the treacherous temptress of science, injecting the poison directly into your BRAIN!!!11!1!!
18) Ben Goldtorquemada, turning the tables on the inquisition!!!11!111!! (David D.G.)
Come on, lets make this list longer, so we can provide an exhaustive reference for those times when irrational arguments are wearing thin and only a Godwin will do!!! Help a loon out - or if you are a loon - get creative!!!
And if someone calls you Hitler, you can send them this way!!!11!!!1!!
Monday, May 4, 2009
CAM, Anti-Vax loons and the Morons at Merck
I am more than a little pissed after reading this post, which I found through Greg Laden. I am pissed because I have become increasingly involved with fighting non-evidence based medicine, mostly with people around me. I don't really write about it much, though I have begun thinking that I should. I haven't really felt the need to, because there are a lot of great medical bloggers out there who do such a fantastic job of it - several of whom are linked in my sidebar. In particular, Orac, PalMD, Mark Hoofnagle and the great people at Science Based Medicine do one hell of a job tearing down the veneer of crap and exposing it for what it is.
Here's the issue I have. I'm a reasonably intelligent person, a bit above average even. Yet I am also what I like to call, pathologically credulous. I have fallen into remarkable amounts of magical thinking over the years and not because I'm dumb. In fact part of it is because I tend not to assume that something is true, just because everyone else says it is. And my relationship with non-evidence based "medicine" was largely grounded in the idea that evidence based medicine is largely profit based and therefore largely corrupt. What wasn't so apparent to me at the time, was that a lot of the bullshit that I was falling into was just as profit based and much of it was even more corrupt - though much of the corruption was a very different sort. I also fell into a lot of the bullshit because many of the claims were made by people who also made claims that were easily verifiable - they fostered my trust and I believed what they had to say about things that weren't so easily verifiable.
And that is the key to sucking people into so called alternative medicine. Efficacy by association. Throwing plant medicines that actually have some degree of efficacy (largely because many pharmaceuticals are derived from plant sources) into the mix, even though this can actually be quite dangerous in some cases (a whole post of its own sometime). Throwing legitimate medical treatments in, but using them for things they simply aren't called for - such as chelation therapy. It makes it easier to sell people on flat out bullshit. Things like osteopathy, homeopathy and energy medicine - things that are not only not supported by evidence, but which are flat out absurd on their face. Things that are based on nothing more than magical thinking.
It's bad enough that some of these "medicines" can be dangerous in and of themselves - either because the actual treatment is harmful, or more often, because the treatment is used in place of evidence based medicine. But it doesn't stop there. There is a very dark side to this, with insane and deadly notions like HIV/AIDS denialism, denial of the germ theory of disease, the anti-vaccine movement and anti-chemotherapy proponents. People actually die because of this complete and utter bullshit.
Another reason it is easy for some people to fall into magical thinking in regards to medicine, is because of the perception that evidence based medicine is mostly based on therapies developed by corrupt pharmaceutical companies. Most people don't start out believing that, but I think that most people do recognize that pharmaceutical companies and for that matter, medical science in general, is not immune to corruption. And I think that most people recognize that sometimes that corruption includes maliciously covering evidence that companies wish to avoid becoming public. This makes it rather easy for some people to buy the CAM line that critics of CAM and even fringe CAM ideas, are simply shills for Big Pharma - an evil bogyman that's out to addict people to their medicines and cast them aside when they've been poisoned by them. From there it isn't much of a trek to believing that all evidence based medicine is evile and that doctors are merely merchants of death, the death manufactured by Big Pharma.
This is why I am so very angry at Merck and the doctors that contributed to their advertising rag, disguised as a legitimate science journal*. The doctor involved should should face sanctions. And Merck should be fined heavily by the FDA. Things that would happen, if we lived in a reasonable world, in a reasonable country with reasonable oversight. There is something very wrong with a system where this can happen and the people involved don't even understand that they did something wrong. This is absolutely and categorically disgusting and unconscionable.
But the idea that this somehow validates the proponents of woo, the peddlers of magical thinking in the guise of medicine, is a logical fallacy and a rather obvious one - if not also one that is easy to accept. Just because another pharmaceutical company and some doctors were really damned stupid and highly unethical, does not mean that all of science based medicine is. And there are several doctors and scientists out there who would like to make sure you know that this is not the mainstream of science based medicine. Some of them have even written about this....
Respectful Insolence
Adventures in Ethics and Science
Dr. Isis
Stranger Fruit
Greg Laden
*I would also note that I am more disappointed in Elsevier for publishing this bullshit, than I am with Merck and the people involved from their end. That they would choose to put out this kind of garbage reflects poorly on them and while it may be a while yet before I am publishing papers, this will certainly reflect on my decisions about where to publish.
Here's the issue I have. I'm a reasonably intelligent person, a bit above average even. Yet I am also what I like to call, pathologically credulous. I have fallen into remarkable amounts of magical thinking over the years and not because I'm dumb. In fact part of it is because I tend not to assume that something is true, just because everyone else says it is. And my relationship with non-evidence based "medicine" was largely grounded in the idea that evidence based medicine is largely profit based and therefore largely corrupt. What wasn't so apparent to me at the time, was that a lot of the bullshit that I was falling into was just as profit based and much of it was even more corrupt - though much of the corruption was a very different sort. I also fell into a lot of the bullshit because many of the claims were made by people who also made claims that were easily verifiable - they fostered my trust and I believed what they had to say about things that weren't so easily verifiable.
And that is the key to sucking people into so called alternative medicine. Efficacy by association. Throwing plant medicines that actually have some degree of efficacy (largely because many pharmaceuticals are derived from plant sources) into the mix, even though this can actually be quite dangerous in some cases (a whole post of its own sometime). Throwing legitimate medical treatments in, but using them for things they simply aren't called for - such as chelation therapy. It makes it easier to sell people on flat out bullshit. Things like osteopathy, homeopathy and energy medicine - things that are not only not supported by evidence, but which are flat out absurd on their face. Things that are based on nothing more than magical thinking.
It's bad enough that some of these "medicines" can be dangerous in and of themselves - either because the actual treatment is harmful, or more often, because the treatment is used in place of evidence based medicine. But it doesn't stop there. There is a very dark side to this, with insane and deadly notions like HIV/AIDS denialism, denial of the germ theory of disease, the anti-vaccine movement and anti-chemotherapy proponents. People actually die because of this complete and utter bullshit.
Another reason it is easy for some people to fall into magical thinking in regards to medicine, is because of the perception that evidence based medicine is mostly based on therapies developed by corrupt pharmaceutical companies. Most people don't start out believing that, but I think that most people do recognize that pharmaceutical companies and for that matter, medical science in general, is not immune to corruption. And I think that most people recognize that sometimes that corruption includes maliciously covering evidence that companies wish to avoid becoming public. This makes it rather easy for some people to buy the CAM line that critics of CAM and even fringe CAM ideas, are simply shills for Big Pharma - an evil bogyman that's out to addict people to their medicines and cast them aside when they've been poisoned by them. From there it isn't much of a trek to believing that all evidence based medicine is evile and that doctors are merely merchants of death, the death manufactured by Big Pharma.
This is why I am so very angry at Merck and the doctors that contributed to their advertising rag, disguised as a legitimate science journal*. The doctor involved should should face sanctions. And Merck should be fined heavily by the FDA. Things that would happen, if we lived in a reasonable world, in a reasonable country with reasonable oversight. There is something very wrong with a system where this can happen and the people involved don't even understand that they did something wrong. This is absolutely and categorically disgusting and unconscionable.
But the idea that this somehow validates the proponents of woo, the peddlers of magical thinking in the guise of medicine, is a logical fallacy and a rather obvious one - if not also one that is easy to accept. Just because another pharmaceutical company and some doctors were really damned stupid and highly unethical, does not mean that all of science based medicine is. And there are several doctors and scientists out there who would like to make sure you know that this is not the mainstream of science based medicine. Some of them have even written about this....
Respectful Insolence
Adventures in Ethics and Science
Dr. Isis
Stranger Fruit
Greg Laden
*I would also note that I am more disappointed in Elsevier for publishing this bullshit, than I am with Merck and the people involved from their end. That they would choose to put out this kind of garbage reflects poorly on them and while it may be a while yet before I am publishing papers, this will certainly reflect on my decisions about where to publish.
Friday, February 1, 2008
Sorry about the silence
Complete and utter chaos, would be an understatement. Life is absolutely insane these days. But I do have several issues that have been grinding at me, that I hope to hit on soonish. Not sure what the priorities will come out as, but here are the topics;
The abolition of marriage as a civil institution, beyond marriage equality for GLTs. More and more, I am finding that I am far from alone on this. I have a lot to say on this issue, but in short, even allowing gay marriage, would still restrict marriage rights to those who are in, or are willing to claim to be in a romantic relationship. I for one, find this ridiculous.
The absurdity of simplistic dichotomies (to steal a phrase from my brother). As the primaries are getting into full steam, the stench of partisan politics is enough to make the strongest of iron stomachs retch. From republicrats, to the conservative/liberal dichotomy, where do I fit in? Where do you? When you really think about it, do the labels we are pegged with really fit, even if they are self imposed? I am prochoice, progayrights, for ending the drug war and believe in a comprehensive, if a not so comfy welfare state. I am also progun, fiscally conservative and dead against affirmative action.
Private security contractors in America. Another topic my bro has written a lot about lately, I would like to hit on it from a different angle. Though this article does a particularly great job of expressing what the America with PSC's might look like, I think it's important to look at where they already are. Do you have PSC's operating in your towns business district? Portland does and it is a problem.
The War on Vice. Because gods know, the guy down the street smoking a joint is causing irreparable damage to your lifestyle. Especially if he has a hooker once in a while. And that friendly poker game in his basement once a week, how dare he skirt the state and native monopoly on gambling. So lets spend billions upon billions annually, persecuting these folks. Lets continue to incarcerate a larger percentage of our population than any other country* in the world. Yeah! We're number one!
*Keeping in mind that China tends to execute, rather than incarcerate. And they're not alone.
There are these and more. Including more on ADHD, bipolar and neurodiversity. More discussions of rights in the abstract. More thoughts on euthanasia. More about denialism. And a discussion about about CAM "medicine" and a (hopefully) soon to be published print article, by your's truly. Indeed, if all goes well, I will have a print article out, about the HIV/AIDS denial (and denialism in general) as well as the CAM article.
So what do you think I should focus on first?
By and by, my baby has discovered the things that flop around him are hands and he controls them. He has also started smiling and giggling, though the giggles are rather a disturbing sound. Unfortunately, he seems to have some distaste for the camera, so the smiles are yet unrecorded.
Homeschooling is definitely starting to come together, though it is slow and unweildy as of yet. But we have found even more resources and are starting to get a stride.
Tuesday, October 16, 2007
Want To Silence Your Critics, Go After Their Kids
Addendum, the technorati search now turns up nothing, but it was there earlier, when I clicked over to it.
Another one from Orac. For those who don't click over, in short, a scum called John Best, managed to get a great voice for neurodiversity, Kev of Left Brain, Right Brain, to close up shop. Not through lawsuits, not through direct threats of physical violence, but by attacking Kev's daughter. Real class act, our Mr. Best. I will not link to Mr. Best, or his anti-neurodiversity screeds. But here is a quote that was found via technorati, by two of Orac's commenters;
Calming down now. I have autistic friends. My five year old has autistic friends. This makes me very angry. Beyond the pale kind of pissed. If you have read me for long, you might have noticed my discussion of ADHD and bipolar, which touched briefly on neurodiversity. I will discuss it again soon, as it is obviously needed. But this post is meant to illustrate yet another tactic that is quite handy for stifling criticism, a theme lately.
This is probably the most common tactic used to stifle dissenting views. The use of personal and familial mocking and abuse. It is huge in the blogosphere. Not mere taunting or parody, but harsh, hard attacks on one's family. Sometimes it is taken too far and reaches the level of threats, that go a little past insinuation. But usually, the practitioners of this vile practice stay just this side of legal. Making it no less repugnant.
As I am way behind on all sorts of posting, I have to apologiuse, but those posts will probably be a while in coming. I am working on a few important pieces that are taking precedence. One is a longer post on methods of silencing critics and chilling free expression. Another is a long overdue discussion of neurodiversity that will probably encompass the end of my story about my life with ADHD and finally, I am working on a article about "alternative" medicine, that is intended for publication in one of the Portland weekly papers, here in the heart of CAM country. All that and I am still working a big job. I will try to get more short posts, referencing other bloggers and articles, but for the heavy writing, I am busy.
This would also be a good time to reiterate that I welcome guest and crosspostings. Just email me if you are interested. And as always, don't hesitate because you're afraid that I'll disagree with you. Unless you want to perpetrate denialism on my blog, dissenting views are welcome here, as long as they are civil (on the front page at least, try to keep it reasonable in comments, but there is a lot moree leeway there)
Another one from Orac. For those who don't click over, in short, a scum called John Best, managed to get a great voice for neurodiversity, Kev of Left Brain, Right Brain, to close up shop. Not through lawsuits, not through direct threats of physical violence, but by attacking Kev's daughter. Real class act, our Mr. Best. I will not link to Mr. Best, or his anti-neurodiversity screeds. But here is a quote that was found via technorati, by two of Orac's commenters;
1. Hey Dad, if you stop treating me like a monkey to teach me how to perform some simple tasks, you might find out that I'm very ill mentally. I can't learn those things you want me to learn because my brain just won't work right. You're a real horse's ass Dad, for defending the drug companies who scrambled my brain. Any decent father...celebrating, Dad. Being autistic sucks. Not being able to talk sucks. Not having friends sucks
2. Hey Dad, Weren't you listening to me? I didn't ask you to attack that nice Mr Best who wants me to enjoy my life. I asked you to help me. How does attacking a parent who helps his son help me, Dad? I don't care about this neurodiversity crap, Dad. I just want to be like normal kids. Please Dad, I hope you won't be mean
Calming down now. I have autistic friends. My five year old has autistic friends. This makes me very angry. Beyond the pale kind of pissed. If you have read me for long, you might have noticed my discussion of ADHD and bipolar, which touched briefly on neurodiversity. I will discuss it again soon, as it is obviously needed. But this post is meant to illustrate yet another tactic that is quite handy for stifling criticism, a theme lately.
This is probably the most common tactic used to stifle dissenting views. The use of personal and familial mocking and abuse. It is huge in the blogosphere. Not mere taunting or parody, but harsh, hard attacks on one's family. Sometimes it is taken too far and reaches the level of threats, that go a little past insinuation. But usually, the practitioners of this vile practice stay just this side of legal. Making it no less repugnant.
As I am way behind on all sorts of posting, I have to apologiuse, but those posts will probably be a while in coming. I am working on a few important pieces that are taking precedence. One is a longer post on methods of silencing critics and chilling free expression. Another is a long overdue discussion of neurodiversity that will probably encompass the end of my story about my life with ADHD and finally, I am working on a article about "alternative" medicine, that is intended for publication in one of the Portland weekly papers, here in the heart of CAM country. All that and I am still working a big job. I will try to get more short posts, referencing other bloggers and articles, but for the heavy writing, I am busy.
This would also be a good time to reiterate that I welcome guest and crosspostings. Just email me if you are interested. And as always, don't hesitate because you're afraid that I'll disagree with you. Unless you want to perpetrate denialism on my blog, dissenting views are welcome here, as long as they are civil (on the front page at least, try to keep it reasonable in comments, but there is a lot moree leeway there)
Thursday, August 30, 2007
Denialism Redux; Who Should Fight It and Why
SciBlogger Abel Pharmboy, of Terra Sig Illata, has written a very interesting post about the paper I posted about yesterday. Abel makes a very good point that I would very much like to expand upon.
I would add to this, that I hope this is a call to arms for scientists to function as a support mechanism for the non-scientists who give a damn and want to fight denialism. Not exclusively of HIV/AIDS, but denialism of many stripes. This is something that I really appreciate about Seed's SciBlogs collective. Many sciblogers there have been a great source of great information about a variety of subjects. Not just accessible through the posts they put up, many of them are also accessible through comment threads and via email.
The thing is, in the fight against denialism and it's real consequences, real evidence is absolutely essential. Scientists who help accumulate that evidence, interpret it, explain it, in laymen's terms, are essential. At the same time, people who are not scientists, are the critical link to reaching the general public. It is important for those of us who are not science professionals, to say "hey, wait a minute," when we here someone spouting off inane bullcrap. If it goes against what you know to be true, jump on it. If it goes against what you believe to be true, find out about it, research a little, see if it's true or not. If it's not, jump on it.
Why you or me? Why is it our responsibility, why should we even care? Because a lot of brands of denialism, carry real world consequences. For denialism such as neurological disorder denialism or evidence based medicine denial, the consequences can be profoundly damaging, even deadly. For HIV/AIDS denialism, the results are quite often deadly, especially when it affects public policy. Even for less dangerous denialism, such as holocaust denial or evolution denial, the consequences are anything but benign. Both promote ignorance and are often indicative of other, sometimes far more insidious forms of denialism.
Like I have said before, people rarely stop with one. Credulity is pervasive, often pathological. Ignorance can be and too often is, very nasty business indeed. Far too often, far too many people are happy to speak with assumed authority, from a position of ignorance. Unfortunately, many who speak such, manage to sound really good, to sound like they're right, when they do so. Thus we have a responsibility as members of our society to educate ourselves and at the least, not to speak from ignorance, if we're afraid to speak truth to ignorance.
Before I started reading science blogs, much less starting my own, I had no idea how widespread the misconception was on the web denying that HIV was the cause of AIDS. I have to assume that many working scientists like me would also be surprised at the prevalence of this faulty logic.
But another great contribution of the article is the call to arms it makes to all scientists that we be more engaged in public sentiments about science and medicine
I would add to this, that I hope this is a call to arms for scientists to function as a support mechanism for the non-scientists who give a damn and want to fight denialism. Not exclusively of HIV/AIDS, but denialism of many stripes. This is something that I really appreciate about Seed's SciBlogs collective. Many sciblogers there have been a great source of great information about a variety of subjects. Not just accessible through the posts they put up, many of them are also accessible through comment threads and via email.
The thing is, in the fight against denialism and it's real consequences, real evidence is absolutely essential. Scientists who help accumulate that evidence, interpret it, explain it, in laymen's terms, are essential. At the same time, people who are not scientists, are the critical link to reaching the general public. It is important for those of us who are not science professionals, to say "hey, wait a minute," when we here someone spouting off inane bullcrap. If it goes against what you know to be true, jump on it. If it goes against what you believe to be true, find out about it, research a little, see if it's true or not. If it's not, jump on it.
Why you or me? Why is it our responsibility, why should we even care? Because a lot of brands of denialism, carry real world consequences. For denialism such as neurological disorder denialism or evidence based medicine denial, the consequences can be profoundly damaging, even deadly. For HIV/AIDS denialism, the results are quite often deadly, especially when it affects public policy. Even for less dangerous denialism, such as holocaust denial or evolution denial, the consequences are anything but benign. Both promote ignorance and are often indicative of other, sometimes far more insidious forms of denialism.
Like I have said before, people rarely stop with one. Credulity is pervasive, often pathological. Ignorance can be and too often is, very nasty business indeed. Far too often, far too many people are happy to speak with assumed authority, from a position of ignorance. Unfortunately, many who speak such, manage to sound really good, to sound like they're right, when they do so. Thus we have a responsibility as members of our society to educate ourselves and at the least, not to speak from ignorance, if we're afraid to speak truth to ignorance.
Thursday, August 23, 2007
Great Article About HIV/AIDS Denialism
Thanks to Orac, I found this great article by SciBlogger, Tara Smith and academic neurologist, Steve Novella. I am also very excited to discover another great neuroscience blog.
I highly reccommend the reading. As Orac writes, it is essential reading on HIV/AIDS denialism. I have very personal reasons for my extreme objections to this brand of denial. It is nothing short of deadly. Watching loved ones waste away slowly, is horrible. I've lost an uncle and a couple of friends to it. I will not go into great detail, but I volunteer some of my time providing in home help to those with HIV/AIDS.
I have no tolerance for people who spread this kind of bile. Anyone who wishes to spread this kind of bile, will not be tolerated here. I don't have the patience for it.
Update;
I seem to be getting a lot of traffic to this post, which I did not expect. So I feel that I should expand a bit on this, I would have done so initially, but I wrote it just before I went to bed and posted a different time stamp so it would go up this morning - kind of an experiment with that idea.
I am learning more and more, that denialism is rather like those old commercials for Jay's potato chips, denialists just can't stop with one. Since I have been tackling the issue of neurological disorder denial, I have gotten a few cranks emailing me, one of them nearly every day. Not a one of them has stopped with their pet theories about neurological issues, more than one has referenced HIV/AIDS denial, cancer denial and evidence based medicine denial, along with several different varieties of denial.
To anyone who has read this blog with any regularity, it is well understood that I have a very personal connection to neurological disorder denial. Here, I have explained something of my personal experience with HIV/AIDS, which explains my anger at this particular brand of denialism. But this is a problem that runs much deeper than any one brand of denialist woo. For many denialists, as I mention above, it is a pervasive mode of thinking. I term it pathological credulity.
Folks that have read this blog fairly regularly, probably understand something else about me, I am not afraid to talk about my faults. I like to think that I'm a pretty decent person, but I also think it's important to take ownership of my faults. In that vein, I will admit that I am those, i.e. I am pathologically credulous. This is, in large part, why I think that it is all important to fight denialism, to respond to it with as much evidence as possible. Aware of my problem, I do my best to compensate for it, through education. Unfortunately, many others who fall into this category, do not wish to do this. They will buy into the most insane, obvious crankery and accept it as gospel.
The problem is that too often, they are very adept at sounding sciency, as it were. A whole lot of damage is done, because normal, sane people listen to what they say and because it sounds like they know what they're talking about, accept it. This is especially dangerous when it comes to HIV/AIDS denial. African nations have set public policy in accordance with this brand of woo. I have a friend who is dying because she listened to this bull and refused to take medicines that could have extended her life indefinitely, until disease had ravaged her body beyond repair. There are some anecdotes in Tara and Steve's article that talk about others who have been and are being victimized by this pervasive, deadly denialism.
It would be wonderful to just be able to dismiss the cranks. Unfortunately, there are real world consequences, sometimes dire, to denialism. It is important that we fight it. It is important to be aware of it, to not accept something on it's face, just because someone saying it sounds like they know what they're talking about. Mark and Chris Hoofnagle, at Denialism Blog are an excellent resource, in this fight. Chris has written an excellent piece on recognizing crankery for what it is, across the board.
I highly reccommend the reading. As Orac writes, it is essential reading on HIV/AIDS denialism. I have very personal reasons for my extreme objections to this brand of denial. It is nothing short of deadly. Watching loved ones waste away slowly, is horrible. I've lost an uncle and a couple of friends to it. I will not go into great detail, but I volunteer some of my time providing in home help to those with HIV/AIDS.
I have no tolerance for people who spread this kind of bile. Anyone who wishes to spread this kind of bile, will not be tolerated here. I don't have the patience for it.
Update;
I seem to be getting a lot of traffic to this post, which I did not expect. So I feel that I should expand a bit on this, I would have done so initially, but I wrote it just before I went to bed and posted a different time stamp so it would go up this morning - kind of an experiment with that idea.
I am learning more and more, that denialism is rather like those old commercials for Jay's potato chips, denialists just can't stop with one. Since I have been tackling the issue of neurological disorder denial, I have gotten a few cranks emailing me, one of them nearly every day. Not a one of them has stopped with their pet theories about neurological issues, more than one has referenced HIV/AIDS denial, cancer denial and evidence based medicine denial, along with several different varieties of denial.
To anyone who has read this blog with any regularity, it is well understood that I have a very personal connection to neurological disorder denial. Here, I have explained something of my personal experience with HIV/AIDS, which explains my anger at this particular brand of denialism. But this is a problem that runs much deeper than any one brand of denialist woo. For many denialists, as I mention above, it is a pervasive mode of thinking. I term it pathological credulity.
Folks that have read this blog fairly regularly, probably understand something else about me, I am not afraid to talk about my faults. I like to think that I'm a pretty decent person, but I also think it's important to take ownership of my faults. In that vein, I will admit that I am those, i.e. I am pathologically credulous. This is, in large part, why I think that it is all important to fight denialism, to respond to it with as much evidence as possible. Aware of my problem, I do my best to compensate for it, through education. Unfortunately, many others who fall into this category, do not wish to do this. They will buy into the most insane, obvious crankery and accept it as gospel.
The problem is that too often, they are very adept at sounding sciency, as it were. A whole lot of damage is done, because normal, sane people listen to what they say and because it sounds like they know what they're talking about, accept it. This is especially dangerous when it comes to HIV/AIDS denial. African nations have set public policy in accordance with this brand of woo. I have a friend who is dying because she listened to this bull and refused to take medicines that could have extended her life indefinitely, until disease had ravaged her body beyond repair. There are some anecdotes in Tara and Steve's article that talk about others who have been and are being victimized by this pervasive, deadly denialism.
It would be wonderful to just be able to dismiss the cranks. Unfortunately, there are real world consequences, sometimes dire, to denialism. It is important that we fight it. It is important to be aware of it, to not accept something on it's face, just because someone saying it sounds like they know what they're talking about. Mark and Chris Hoofnagle, at Denialism Blog are an excellent resource, in this fight. Chris has written an excellent piece on recognizing crankery for what it is, across the board.
Sunday, August 12, 2007
What's happening. . .
I would like to apologize for the dearth of posts lately, especially those pertaining to human rights. Things have just been very chaotic for me lately. Actually, they usually are, it's just been worse than usual lately, what with almost ending up homeless. On top of that, the youth minister at my church recently fell off a ladder and broke his back. It wasn't a bad break and it will heal with minimal permanent damage, but it does mean that he is unable to finish getting his house ready for painting and the paint on. I have been helping him build his house over the last year and a half. As such, I know better than anyone, exactly what needs to be done, so I am coordinating the final steps to make sure it's painted before winter. As I am unable to climb ladders, this is a rather complicated, inefficient process.
I would also like to thank those who emailed and commented on my situation. I would especially like to thank those who offered to help us keep a roof over our heads. It was really appreciated. I meant to move the post about it below the denialism posts, but accidentally backdated it by several months instead of several days.
I am almost finished with my own posts on ADHD and neurological disorder denialism. I am still hoping to get more posts up by others and will undoubtedly have more of my own thoughts on the subject, but after I get the last two parts of my story up, I will definitely be taking a break from writing on this topic.
I am also almost done with my reading list for the post on morality, torture and the neurology of violence. It will probably take a bit for me to finish writing that post though, I may even split it up into multiple posts. There is a lot of information that I want to get out there. I would like to take this opportunity, to direct you to a short post at Nuerophilosophy, about torture. Actually, Mo's got several really cool posts up that are worth checking out.
Having gotten through a lot of the reading, my opinion about morality has not really changed. I am realizing though, that this is very much a semantic discussion, more than anything else. This is not to imply that framing it thus makes it any less important, language in many ways defines social interaction. However, I think it's important to realize most people have very different ideas about what defines morality. Indeed, many people use more than one definition of morality, depending on the context or axioms being discussed.
At first, I was trepidatious about getting into the discussion of morality. I didn't really think it was particularly relevant to the discussion of human rights. But after receiving a couple emails admonishing me to consider it's relevance more, I realized that not only is it topical to the discussion of human rights, it's fundamental. A large part of my desire to start this blog (aside from whim) was to explore the foundations of human rights, to get to the fundamentals. So not only do I feel more comfortable with bringing morality onto the table, it is my intention to focus on morality quite a bit in the near future.
This brought me to consider the relevance of my recent foray into neurological disorder denialism, and neurological disorders in general. On several different levels, this is also relevant to the discussion of human rights.
First, I think it's important to recognize that neurodiversity is a very good thing. For every negative aspect of most neurological disorders, there are positives that need protection and fostering. The main reason I am so excited about all the advances we are achieving in neuroscience, is that I believe this will lead to a greater understanding of how to preserve the richness of neurodiversity, while compensating for the negatives that accompany it. The status quo is focused on elimination of the symptoms, rather than compensating for them. The problem with that is that we lose something on the process, something of immeasurable value. The goal should be finding ways for us to fit into the structure of society. The goal should most assuredly not be to turn us all into neurotypicals.
Second, this touches on a discussion that was discussed very briefly here. That is, the rights of children, versus the rights of their parents. There are very few contexts for this discussion more important and more ambiguous than the context of mental health. Having suffered as a direct result of my parent's denial of my neurological disorders, this is a topic that hits close to home, obviously.
Finally, this touches on the very real problem of persons with neurological disorders that seriously compromise their ability to reasonably function in the framework of society. Where is the line drawn, where should it be drawn? What restrictions are appropriate and where are they appropriate?
As always, I welcome cross-posts and guest posts. If you have something to add to the discussion, I would be happy to check it out and probably put it up. Even, maybe especially, if you disagree with me on something. I would appreciate dissenting points of view. I would also welcome some relief from the pressure of trying to keep posts flowing. In any case, thank you very much for stopping by. I hope to hear from you, as I really appreciate feedback.
I would also like to thank those who emailed and commented on my situation. I would especially like to thank those who offered to help us keep a roof over our heads. It was really appreciated. I meant to move the post about it below the denialism posts, but accidentally backdated it by several months instead of several days.
I am almost finished with my own posts on ADHD and neurological disorder denialism. I am still hoping to get more posts up by others and will undoubtedly have more of my own thoughts on the subject, but after I get the last two parts of my story up, I will definitely be taking a break from writing on this topic.
I am also almost done with my reading list for the post on morality, torture and the neurology of violence. It will probably take a bit for me to finish writing that post though, I may even split it up into multiple posts. There is a lot of information that I want to get out there. I would like to take this opportunity, to direct you to a short post at Nuerophilosophy, about torture. Actually, Mo's got several really cool posts up that are worth checking out.
Having gotten through a lot of the reading, my opinion about morality has not really changed. I am realizing though, that this is very much a semantic discussion, more than anything else. This is not to imply that framing it thus makes it any less important, language in many ways defines social interaction. However, I think it's important to realize most people have very different ideas about what defines morality. Indeed, many people use more than one definition of morality, depending on the context or axioms being discussed.
At first, I was trepidatious about getting into the discussion of morality. I didn't really think it was particularly relevant to the discussion of human rights. But after receiving a couple emails admonishing me to consider it's relevance more, I realized that not only is it topical to the discussion of human rights, it's fundamental. A large part of my desire to start this blog (aside from whim) was to explore the foundations of human rights, to get to the fundamentals. So not only do I feel more comfortable with bringing morality onto the table, it is my intention to focus on morality quite a bit in the near future.
This brought me to consider the relevance of my recent foray into neurological disorder denialism, and neurological disorders in general. On several different levels, this is also relevant to the discussion of human rights.
First, I think it's important to recognize that neurodiversity is a very good thing. For every negative aspect of most neurological disorders, there are positives that need protection and fostering. The main reason I am so excited about all the advances we are achieving in neuroscience, is that I believe this will lead to a greater understanding of how to preserve the richness of neurodiversity, while compensating for the negatives that accompany it. The status quo is focused on elimination of the symptoms, rather than compensating for them. The problem with that is that we lose something on the process, something of immeasurable value. The goal should be finding ways for us to fit into the structure of society. The goal should most assuredly not be to turn us all into neurotypicals.
Second, this touches on a discussion that was discussed very briefly here. That is, the rights of children, versus the rights of their parents. There are very few contexts for this discussion more important and more ambiguous than the context of mental health. Having suffered as a direct result of my parent's denial of my neurological disorders, this is a topic that hits close to home, obviously.
Finally, this touches on the very real problem of persons with neurological disorders that seriously compromise their ability to reasonably function in the framework of society. Where is the line drawn, where should it be drawn? What restrictions are appropriate and where are they appropriate?
As always, I welcome cross-posts and guest posts. If you have something to add to the discussion, I would be happy to check it out and probably put it up. Even, maybe especially, if you disagree with me on something. I would appreciate dissenting points of view. I would also welcome some relief from the pressure of trying to keep posts flowing. In any case, thank you very much for stopping by. I hope to hear from you, as I really appreciate feedback.
The Neuroscience of ADHD - Dopamine Abnormality in ADHD
I can't begin to describe my appreciation for both Shelley Batts, of Retrospectale and now, Joseph, of The Corpus Callosum. Indeed, I should also express my appreciation to the denialists that I tangled with in comments, attached to Shelley's post about The Neuroscience of ADHD, for motivating me to do this. I would ask that you please follow the link and read Shelley's post, it is fairly quick reading and well worthwhile. As she doesn't offer explicit permission to repost her writing, I will not do so here.
Joseph, on the other hand, offers a similar license to the one on my blog, so I will reproduce his post on Dopamine Abnormality in ADHD, here, with comments. To be clear, he has not offered specific permission for me to reproduce it and probably does not know that I have. He is however, kind enough to license his writing under a CC license, the details of which can be found here.
From Joseph's site;
Corpus Callosum is written by a psychiatrist at a small community hospital somewhere in midwestern USA.
A while back, Shelly wrote a nice introduction to ADHD at Retrospectacle: The Neuroscience of ADHD. Read that first, for background, then consider this to be a minor addendum. There are still people who believe that ADHD is not real. This is a good example of the scientific findings to the contrary. It is an open-access article (there is one every month) at Archives of General Psychiatry.
One of the key points in this study is that they did the brain scans on ADHD patients who had not been treated with drugs. One of the problems in studies like this is sometimes that it is hard to know if the abnormality was caused by the treatment, or by the condition. In order to get around that, you have to find patients who have not been treated. Then, you run the chance of biasing the results by selecting a nonrandom sample, but there is no easy way to avoid both problems simultaneously.
The study indicates that persons with ADHD have lower levels of dopamine in the emotional center of the brain (the limbic system).
I notice the last sentence in the abstract: "This suggests that dopamine dysfunction is involved with symptoms of inattention but may also contribute to substance abuse comorbidity in ADHD." I am not sure why the reference to substance abuse belongs there. It is true that there is an association between substance abuse and ADHD, but that is not the point of the study.
So there really isn't much for a laymen to add. While having ADHD certainly offers a decent perspective on the discussion, I am not a neuroscientist, nor am I anything more than a reasonably educated laymen, when it comes to psychology.
That said, Joseph's comment about the appropriateness of the comment correlating dopamine dysfunction and substance abuse, really jumped out at me. This seems like a no brainer to me, but then, I'm not a scientist. It may just be, that as this was not the stated intent of the study, it seemed an odd thing to comment on.
The thing is, that I don't think the dopamine hypothesis is a new idea. Nor is the notion that the tendency for persons with ADHD towards substance abuse being due to lower levels of dopamine very new. I mean it makes sense. The stimulant medications for ADD/ADHD stimulate the production of dopamine. Studies also seem to indicate that persons with ADHD who are medicated for it as a child, have far less a tendency for the substance abuse problems that plague many, if not most people with ADHD.
Still, it is very exciting to see more research and more studies that bring us closer and closer to understanding the physiological aspects of neurological disorders. As I have mentioned before, I see my neurological disorders as much more blessing than curse. The more we understand where they come from, how they work, the better we'll be able to deal with the harshest aspects of them, while maintaining the most positive aspects of neurodiversity.
Joseph, on the other hand, offers a similar license to the one on my blog, so I will reproduce his post on Dopamine Abnormality in ADHD, here, with comments. To be clear, he has not offered specific permission for me to reproduce it and probably does not know that I have. He is however, kind enough to license his writing under a CC license, the details of which can be found here.
From Joseph's site;
Corpus Callosum is written by a psychiatrist at a small community hospital somewhere in midwestern USA.
A while back, Shelly wrote a nice introduction to ADHD at Retrospectacle: The Neuroscience of ADHD. Read that first, for background, then consider this to be a minor addendum. There are still people who believe that ADHD is not real. This is a good example of the scientific findings to the contrary. It is an open-access article (there is one every month) at Archives of General Psychiatry.
Depressed Dopamine Activity in Caudate and Preliminary Evidence of Limbic Involvement in Adults With Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder
Nora D. Volkow, MD; Gene-Jack Wang, MD; Jeffrey Newcorn, MD; Frank Telang, MD; Mary V. Solanto, PhD; Joanna S. Fowler, PhD; Jean Logan, PhD; Yeming Ma, PhD; Kurt Schulz, PhD; Kith Pradhan, MS; Christopher Wong, MS; James M. Swanson, PhD
Arch Gen Psychiatry. 2007;64:932-940.
Context Attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) is the most prevalent psychiatric disorder of childhood. There is considerable evidence that brain dopamine is involved in ADHD, but it is unclear whether dopamine activity is enhanced or depressed.
Objective To test the hypotheses that striatal dopamine activity is depressed in ADHD and that this contributes to symptoms of inattention.
Design Clinical (ADHD adult) and comparison (healthy control) subjects were scanned with positron emission tomography and raclopride labeled with carbon 11 (D2/D3 receptor radioligand sensitive to competition with endogenous dopamine) after placebo and after intravenous methylphenidate hydrochloride (stimulant that increases extracellular dopamine by blocking dopamine transporters). The difference in [11C]raclopride's specific binding between placebo and methylphenidate was used as marker of dopamine release. Symptoms were quantified using the Conners Adult ADHD Rating Scales.
Setting Outpatient setting.
Participants Nineteen adults with ADHD who had never received medication and 24 healthy controls.
Results With the placebo, D2/D3 receptor availability in left caudate was lower (P < .05) in subjects with ADHD than in controls. Methylphenidate induced smaller decrements in [11C]raclopride binding in left and right caudate (blunted DA increases) (P < .05) and higher scores on self-reports of "drug liking" in ADHD than in control subjects. The blunted response to methylphenidate in caudate was associated with symptoms of inattention (P < .05) and with higher self-reports of drug liking (P < .01). Exploratory analysis using statistical parametric mapping revealed that methylphenidate also decreased [11C]raclopride binding in hippocampus and amygdala and that these decrements were smaller in subjects with ADHD (P < .001). Conclusions This study reveals depressed dopamine activity in caudate and preliminary evidence in limbic regions in adults with ADHD that was associated with inattention and with enhanced reinforcing responses to intravenous methylphenidate. This suggests that dopamine dysfunction is involved with symptoms of inattention but may also contribute to substance abuse comorbidity in ADHD.
One of the key points in this study is that they did the brain scans on ADHD patients who had not been treated with drugs. One of the problems in studies like this is sometimes that it is hard to know if the abnormality was caused by the treatment, or by the condition. In order to get around that, you have to find patients who have not been treated. Then, you run the chance of biasing the results by selecting a nonrandom sample, but there is no easy way to avoid both problems simultaneously.
The study indicates that persons with ADHD have lower levels of dopamine in the emotional center of the brain (the limbic system).
I notice the last sentence in the abstract: "This suggests that dopamine dysfunction is involved with symptoms of inattention but may also contribute to substance abuse comorbidity in ADHD." I am not sure why the reference to substance abuse belongs there. It is true that there is an association between substance abuse and ADHD, but that is not the point of the study.
So there really isn't much for a laymen to add. While having ADHD certainly offers a decent perspective on the discussion, I am not a neuroscientist, nor am I anything more than a reasonably educated laymen, when it comes to psychology.
That said, Joseph's comment about the appropriateness of the comment correlating dopamine dysfunction and substance abuse, really jumped out at me. This seems like a no brainer to me, but then, I'm not a scientist. It may just be, that as this was not the stated intent of the study, it seemed an odd thing to comment on.
The thing is, that I don't think the dopamine hypothesis is a new idea. Nor is the notion that the tendency for persons with ADHD towards substance abuse being due to lower levels of dopamine very new. I mean it makes sense. The stimulant medications for ADD/ADHD stimulate the production of dopamine. Studies also seem to indicate that persons with ADHD who are medicated for it as a child, have far less a tendency for the substance abuse problems that plague many, if not most people with ADHD.
Still, it is very exciting to see more research and more studies that bring us closer and closer to understanding the physiological aspects of neurological disorders. As I have mentioned before, I see my neurological disorders as much more blessing than curse. The more we understand where they come from, how they work, the better we'll be able to deal with the harshest aspects of them, while maintaining the most positive aspects of neurodiversity.
Monday, August 6, 2007
Living With Bipolar
I would like to thank Tyler Pietro, of PowerUp, for contributing some of his personal experience with Bipolar disorder, to the discussion of neurological disorder denialism. It is especially hard to deal with this brand of denialism, when it's one's own parent or parents in denial. In large part, this is why I this discussion is so very important to me.
Again, if anyone would like to contribute their story to this effort, please let me know. I would be happy to hear from you.
From Tyler's blog;
I'm an ubernerdly atheist liberal with an interest in mathematics and computer science, as well as side interests in traditional forms of geekery (video games, electronic gadgets, anime, etc.).
There are multiple reasons people get involved in combating crankery and denialism. Some people do it simply because they find stupidity irritating. Some people do it because their profession in particular is attacked regularly by denialists and cranks. However, I'd venture to guess that the greatest class of people (in terms of cardinality, for you math geeks out there :-] ) is composed of those who do it because they know of it's consequences. HIV denial kills people, creationism condemns children to ignorance and superstition, global warming denial sidelines efforts to curb potentially catastrophic environmental impacts, etc.
In terms of mental illness denial, I'm actually familiar in a very intimate way with what denialist rhetoric can do. My immediate family was dead against it when school administrators became increasingly suspicious about my mental health. I suffer from bipolar disorder, and it was around high school that my outbreaks started occurring. I started to experience severe mood swings, spells of depression and intense anger, and even suicidal timulations on an increasingly frequent basis. It was in particular when one of my freshmen year teachers discovered some "disturbing" writing in my notebooks that I was admitted to the social workers office.
When that social worker suggested that I see a psychiatrist, my family went into uproar. That was when I became familiar with all the standard mental illness denialist canards: "everyone has 'mental illness', no one's the same", "it's just an excuse for personal laziness, quit being so narcissistic", "they're just pulling disorders out of their hats to sell pharmaceutical drugs", etc. I pretty severely affected my family life for a good while, eventually climaxing in a hospitalization that finally forced my family to recognize the reality.
Personally, I suspect it is people who have problems who are the most vulnerable to this sort of rhetoric. Especially in cases of psychotic depression, people are far more prone to blaming themselves for their problems. Taking drugs and receiving regular therapy is a moral failing and makes you a weak individual in the eyes of many, and often times it's not too hard for people to convince themselves of the worthiness of such an idea. But in cool-headed moments you can realize several things that denialist mind-readers can't: flying in and out of depressive and manic episodes isn't some sort of "lifestyle choice", I didn't need a psychiatrist to brainwash me into thinking I had a problem, and refraining from treatment causes severe problems.
Again, if anyone would like to contribute their story to this effort, please let me know. I would be happy to hear from you.
From Tyler's blog;
I'm an ubernerdly atheist liberal with an interest in mathematics and computer science, as well as side interests in traditional forms of geekery (video games, electronic gadgets, anime, etc.).
There are multiple reasons people get involved in combating crankery and denialism. Some people do it simply because they find stupidity irritating. Some people do it because their profession in particular is attacked regularly by denialists and cranks. However, I'd venture to guess that the greatest class of people (in terms of cardinality, for you math geeks out there :-] ) is composed of those who do it because they know of it's consequences. HIV denial kills people, creationism condemns children to ignorance and superstition, global warming denial sidelines efforts to curb potentially catastrophic environmental impacts, etc.
In terms of mental illness denial, I'm actually familiar in a very intimate way with what denialist rhetoric can do. My immediate family was dead against it when school administrators became increasingly suspicious about my mental health. I suffer from bipolar disorder, and it was around high school that my outbreaks started occurring. I started to experience severe mood swings, spells of depression and intense anger, and even suicidal timulations on an increasingly frequent basis. It was in particular when one of my freshmen year teachers discovered some "disturbing" writing in my notebooks that I was admitted to the social workers office.
When that social worker suggested that I see a psychiatrist, my family went into uproar. That was when I became familiar with all the standard mental illness denialist canards: "everyone has 'mental illness', no one's the same", "it's just an excuse for personal laziness, quit being so narcissistic", "they're just pulling disorders out of their hats to sell pharmaceutical drugs", etc. I pretty severely affected my family life for a good while, eventually climaxing in a hospitalization that finally forced my family to recognize the reality.
Personally, I suspect it is people who have problems who are the most vulnerable to this sort of rhetoric. Especially in cases of psychotic depression, people are far more prone to blaming themselves for their problems. Taking drugs and receiving regular therapy is a moral failing and makes you a weak individual in the eyes of many, and often times it's not too hard for people to convince themselves of the worthiness of such an idea. But in cool-headed moments you can realize several things that denialist mind-readers can't: flying in and out of depressive and manic episodes isn't some sort of "lifestyle choice", I didn't need a psychiatrist to brainwash me into thinking I had a problem, and refraining from treatment causes severe problems.
Welcome to My World - Living With ADHD Part II; School
School
Kindergarten
While I had a lot of behavioral issues, the first experience that comes to mind, when I think about how ADHD effected my education, is from kindergarten. Indeed, this is about the only thing that I remember about kindergarten. My class was supposed to be writing out the alphabet. I knew the alphabet, quite well at this point. One of my brothers managed to teach me to read, when I was only two years old and taught me to write, when I was three. I had even written the alphabet out, several times the night before, to get practice making my letters as perfect as I could, in anticipation of doing it the following day. But when the time came to actually do it in class, I simply couldn't do it. It was a rather hot day and all that I could think about, was getting out of school to climb the tree in my back yard. It didn't help that at the time, we lived right in front of the school, the windows in my classroom looked right out on my back yard, right out on the tree that I so desperately wanted to climb. Too, many of the kids got finished very quickly and were playing just a few feet away, so I was thinking how nice it would be to join them, how nice it would be to climb the tree. Then I got to thinking how much fun it would be to take the book I was reading up into the tree with me and laze around in the shade, with the book about Duncan, the alpine rescue dog - perfect antidote to the hot weather. Did I mention that I was also getting hungry? By the time lunch rolled around, I wasn't even to L yet. The teacher told me, through my tears, that I would not be joining my class for lunch, until I finished the alphabet. I got into a world of trouble, when I decided to put it away, half finished, to join my class for lunch. Twenty-six years have gone by and I can still remember that experience with a clarity that I have trouble focusing on my memories of last week.
Ritalin
When I was seven, I was put on ritalin. This was when I was first diagnosed with a form of ADD, which would later be labeled ADHD. Unfortunately, it was a multi-dose pill. On occasion, a dose would be missed. When this happened I would get severe migraines, very shaky and feel quite nauseous. When it happened at school, I would have to go home for the day. Even when I was on my regular doses, I would often times focus on the wrong things. I don't really remember much of this time, except as a feeling of general dreariness and discomfort. After a few months, it became quite apparent that ritalin, in that particular form, was not appropriate for me. There are two reasons why the ritalin experience was an important aspect of my life. First, it made me very skeptical of medicating children. I am still very reticent to use medication to deal with ADHD. To me, it can only be an absolute last resort. The other reason had a very profound impact on the rest of my education. I believe that this was when my dad really became something of an ADHD denier, at least as it related to me. He was firmly convinced that it would be possible to punish the problems away. It is easy to see why. Not to be arrogant, but I am a very bright person. This was shown when I learned to read at two and in the prolific testing that was done over the years. I had unbelievable potential but consistently failed to measure up. While I was in elementary school, this was mostly expressed through behavioral problems, rather than academic failures.
Math
When I got into middle school, I was tested by the school and they suggested that I might respond well to special education classes. Not for everything, indeed while I was in middle school, it consisted only of taking a study hall that provided special helps, where I was having trouble at any given moment - which was pretty much with everything. The thing that really stands out in middle school, was the introduction of the Math & Science Center, advanced classes for kids who were especially talented in those areas. To make this understood, I was an abysmal failure at math. Not because I couldn't do math - I could. I could even do rather complex problems in my head, which I still can. The failure was in my inability to do math problems the way that the teachers wanted me to. I could do the problems, get the answers right, I could even write down the steps I took to get the answer. The problem was, that they weren't even close to the steps I was supposed to be using. So I failed at pre-algebra, never made it past. When I asked if I could take the test, to get into the MSC, my math teacher actually got annoyed with me, thinking I was just trying to get out of class. I found out later, based in some assessment tests I took as a part of the special ed program, I would likely have passed it. At the same time, it is also probable, that without medication, it would have been impossible for me to handle the curriculum.
Homework
I was entirely incapable of doing homework. The biggest problem was, that it was infinitely easy for me to get distracted. Trying to do the banal, pointless worksheets, always led to getting distracted by something in the work and going off on a tangent. I.e. reading up on the answers, might send me off on a reading frenzy, starting with the topic I was looking up and ending God knows where. It was very easy for me to spend several hours on one question - and never actually get the question answered, because by the time I was winding down the tangent, I was so far off I had forgotten where I started. This was made much more difficult by the fact that I had very little problem with quiz's and tests. I knew the material after reading the text (usually within a few weeks of the beginning of the semester) and half heartedly listening in class.
Writing papers was even worse in some ways. Worse, because I actually wrote decent papers, I just rarely managed to keep them on the topic I was assigned. My best example of this, was an assignment to write a three page paper on Thomas Jefferson. In the process of researching it, I went off on a Ben Franklin tangent and ended up turning in a fifteen page paper about him. I actually would have gotten a reasonable grade, had I talked to the teacher about changing the topic and had kept it close to the page limit. Because I did neither of those things, I got a C-. He didn't want to fail me, because it was a decent paper.
There is so much that could be said about school, I may add more another time. However this is getting fairly long for a blog post and I still have adulthood to cover.
Kindergarten
While I had a lot of behavioral issues, the first experience that comes to mind, when I think about how ADHD effected my education, is from kindergarten. Indeed, this is about the only thing that I remember about kindergarten. My class was supposed to be writing out the alphabet. I knew the alphabet, quite well at this point. One of my brothers managed to teach me to read, when I was only two years old and taught me to write, when I was three. I had even written the alphabet out, several times the night before, to get practice making my letters as perfect as I could, in anticipation of doing it the following day. But when the time came to actually do it in class, I simply couldn't do it. It was a rather hot day and all that I could think about, was getting out of school to climb the tree in my back yard. It didn't help that at the time, we lived right in front of the school, the windows in my classroom looked right out on my back yard, right out on the tree that I so desperately wanted to climb. Too, many of the kids got finished very quickly and were playing just a few feet away, so I was thinking how nice it would be to join them, how nice it would be to climb the tree. Then I got to thinking how much fun it would be to take the book I was reading up into the tree with me and laze around in the shade, with the book about Duncan, the alpine rescue dog - perfect antidote to the hot weather. Did I mention that I was also getting hungry? By the time lunch rolled around, I wasn't even to L yet. The teacher told me, through my tears, that I would not be joining my class for lunch, until I finished the alphabet. I got into a world of trouble, when I decided to put it away, half finished, to join my class for lunch. Twenty-six years have gone by and I can still remember that experience with a clarity that I have trouble focusing on my memories of last week.
Ritalin
When I was seven, I was put on ritalin. This was when I was first diagnosed with a form of ADD, which would later be labeled ADHD. Unfortunately, it was a multi-dose pill. On occasion, a dose would be missed. When this happened I would get severe migraines, very shaky and feel quite nauseous. When it happened at school, I would have to go home for the day. Even when I was on my regular doses, I would often times focus on the wrong things. I don't really remember much of this time, except as a feeling of general dreariness and discomfort. After a few months, it became quite apparent that ritalin, in that particular form, was not appropriate for me. There are two reasons why the ritalin experience was an important aspect of my life. First, it made me very skeptical of medicating children. I am still very reticent to use medication to deal with ADHD. To me, it can only be an absolute last resort. The other reason had a very profound impact on the rest of my education. I believe that this was when my dad really became something of an ADHD denier, at least as it related to me. He was firmly convinced that it would be possible to punish the problems away. It is easy to see why. Not to be arrogant, but I am a very bright person. This was shown when I learned to read at two and in the prolific testing that was done over the years. I had unbelievable potential but consistently failed to measure up. While I was in elementary school, this was mostly expressed through behavioral problems, rather than academic failures.
Math
When I got into middle school, I was tested by the school and they suggested that I might respond well to special education classes. Not for everything, indeed while I was in middle school, it consisted only of taking a study hall that provided special helps, where I was having trouble at any given moment - which was pretty much with everything. The thing that really stands out in middle school, was the introduction of the Math & Science Center, advanced classes for kids who were especially talented in those areas. To make this understood, I was an abysmal failure at math. Not because I couldn't do math - I could. I could even do rather complex problems in my head, which I still can. The failure was in my inability to do math problems the way that the teachers wanted me to. I could do the problems, get the answers right, I could even write down the steps I took to get the answer. The problem was, that they weren't even close to the steps I was supposed to be using. So I failed at pre-algebra, never made it past. When I asked if I could take the test, to get into the MSC, my math teacher actually got annoyed with me, thinking I was just trying to get out of class. I found out later, based in some assessment tests I took as a part of the special ed program, I would likely have passed it. At the same time, it is also probable, that without medication, it would have been impossible for me to handle the curriculum.
Homework
I was entirely incapable of doing homework. The biggest problem was, that it was infinitely easy for me to get distracted. Trying to do the banal, pointless worksheets, always led to getting distracted by something in the work and going off on a tangent. I.e. reading up on the answers, might send me off on a reading frenzy, starting with the topic I was looking up and ending God knows where. It was very easy for me to spend several hours on one question - and never actually get the question answered, because by the time I was winding down the tangent, I was so far off I had forgotten where I started. This was made much more difficult by the fact that I had very little problem with quiz's and tests. I knew the material after reading the text (usually within a few weeks of the beginning of the semester) and half heartedly listening in class.
Writing papers was even worse in some ways. Worse, because I actually wrote decent papers, I just rarely managed to keep them on the topic I was assigned. My best example of this, was an assignment to write a three page paper on Thomas Jefferson. In the process of researching it, I went off on a Ben Franklin tangent and ended up turning in a fifteen page paper about him. I actually would have gotten a reasonable grade, had I talked to the teacher about changing the topic and had kept it close to the page limit. Because I did neither of those things, I got a C-. He didn't want to fail me, because it was a decent paper.
There is so much that could be said about school, I may add more another time. However this is getting fairly long for a blog post and I still have adulthood to cover.
Friday, August 3, 2007
Welcome to My World - Living With ADHD Part 1; Introduction
This has turned out to be a lot harder discussion to get started, than I though it would be. I have never been one to hold anything close to my chest. As a songwriter, I have often written very personal, very harsh self assessments into my songs. I have never been afraid to discuss my feelings, good or bad, never been afraid to talk about the very worse aspects of who I am. I have hurt people, used people and even, though not purposefully or with malicious intent, abused people. I have been 'heroic" in my abuse of various substances, mostly hallucinogens. I spent the early years of my adult life, having sex, doing drugs and playing music, the epitome of irresponsibility. In short, I am not afraid of talking about myself, good or bad. But talking about my life with ADHD, has not been coming out so easy. Which is funny, because ADHD has been such a large part of my life. Not just ADHD, but insomnia and, so I'm told, bipolar disorder as well. I suspect that the symptoms of bipolar are actually the result of a lifetime of sleep deprivation. So my life with ADHD, is more than simply ADHD, but a couple of neurological disorders, as they are commonly called.
So I think the first thing that I must do, is clarify my take on neurological disorders. The word disorder can be a bit misleading, as it has rather negative connotations. To be very clear, I do not regret who I am, or in any way wish that I was neurotypical. Yes, there are problems, yes, it is very, very hard sometimes, as the following post will make clear. But everything hard about it, every silly mistake, is balanced by the rich tapestry that is my mind, who I am. Every minute, of every day, I am constantly inundated by five to eight lines of thought at the same time. All right there in my conscious mind. It's hard sometimes, trying to focus on any one thing, even something as simple as day by day interactions with others. At the same time, it means that my mind is always at work, mulling through this and that - going off on tangents brought about by combining separate lines of thought. Some of the best writing I have produced, the best ideas that I have had, are a direct result of becoming distracted. It is not nearly so simple, as black and white, good and bad. Even as they are a curse, ADHD, bipolar and insomnia are, excepting my family, my life's greatest blessing. It is my greatest hope that for my son, it will never be a curse.
I have decided to split this up into sections, as it is getting quite lengthy. The next post will be my educational experience. I am also changing the date on it, so it remains at the top for a while. I will try to ensure that this series stays in order, from beginning to end. When it is all up, or other posts on neurological disorders go up, I will let other posts get ahead of it. So ignore the date it claims to be posted.
Posted 8/3/07
So I think the first thing that I must do, is clarify my take on neurological disorders. The word disorder can be a bit misleading, as it has rather negative connotations. To be very clear, I do not regret who I am, or in any way wish that I was neurotypical. Yes, there are problems, yes, it is very, very hard sometimes, as the following post will make clear. But everything hard about it, every silly mistake, is balanced by the rich tapestry that is my mind, who I am. Every minute, of every day, I am constantly inundated by five to eight lines of thought at the same time. All right there in my conscious mind. It's hard sometimes, trying to focus on any one thing, even something as simple as day by day interactions with others. At the same time, it means that my mind is always at work, mulling through this and that - going off on tangents brought about by combining separate lines of thought. Some of the best writing I have produced, the best ideas that I have had, are a direct result of becoming distracted. It is not nearly so simple, as black and white, good and bad. Even as they are a curse, ADHD, bipolar and insomnia are, excepting my family, my life's greatest blessing. It is my greatest hope that for my son, it will never be a curse.
I have decided to split this up into sections, as it is getting quite lengthy. The next post will be my educational experience. I am also changing the date on it, so it remains at the top for a while. I will try to ensure that this series stays in order, from beginning to end. When it is all up, or other posts on neurological disorders go up, I will let other posts get ahead of it. So ignore the date it claims to be posted.
Posted 8/3/07
Tuesday, July 31, 2007
ADD/ADHD Denialism - Childhood with (or without) ADHD is Hard Enough
Update - At the end, I am asking for people to guest post, preferably about human rights issues. I should have added, that I am also very interested in hearing from folks with neurological disorders. The next post up, will be about my experience with ADHD. I am hoping to put up similar posts about the experiences of others, with their own neurological disorders.
I promise, this is not going to be all ADHD, all the time - except insofar as my posting often reflects my expression of symptoms. But I'm rather irritated at the moment, arguing with ADD/ADHD denialists at Retrospectacle. The last post was to post some evidence, that ADHD is more than a figment of the imagination.
Denialism is something that really tends to annoy me. HIV/AIDS denialists really make me blow my top. The woo they peddle, is among the most dangerous denialism out there. When HIV/AIDS denialism manages to affect public policy (as it has in some African countries) the results can be deadly. By far, that brand of woo makes me the angriest, which is why I don't get involved in that discussion. People far more educated in the pathology of HIV/AIDS, are out there to fight it, far more coherently than my anger would allow. I have a lot of friends, many of them made while helping them out at home. On the off chance that anyone of that breed comes by, HIV/AIDS denialist comments, will be deleted out of hand.
So the denialism that runs a close second, in really pissing me off, is ADD/ADHD denialism. Especially, when (as it commonly is) coupled with neurological disorder denialism. I take it quite personally, because I have confirmed diagnosis of ADHD and a mild form of bipolar disorder. I actually question the legitimacy of the bipolar diagnosis, because I also have congenital insomnia, that is rather severe. On an average of less than four hours of sleep a night, since I was twelve years old, I imagine that the symptoms could be the result of lifelong sleep deprivation. Of course, the insomnia, is result of my neurochemistry. At least, there have been attempts to figure it out and the best assumptions of the doctors that have treated me, is that it's neurochemical in nature.
In short, though I will try to update this after our trip to the park, this sort of denialism is directly responsible for a lot of stigma. Stigma that makes growing up with neurological disorders very difficult. These are not issues that are easy to work with, not a weakness or desire for special attention. It is especially poignant for me, because I grew up with a dad who bought into a lot of the denialist propaganda. I also went to school, with a lot of teachers who did as well, because ADHD was not very well understood at the time. While things have improved a great deal in the last fifteen years, the stigmas still persist. Growing up is hard. Growing up with a neurological disorder is harder still. Growing up with the stigmas attached to neurological disorders is much, much worse, and unnecessary to boot.
So I am going to write more about this. I am going to try to get the stories of those who are dealing with other neurological disorders. I am going to fight this with everything that I can. I am angry right now, really need to calm down some, before I go on. When I continue, I will be inviting you into my world. What I dealt with growing up, in school and into adulthood. I hope that you will bear with me on this. I will try to get more human rights posts up, but this is something that I really need to do.
I am also working on a post about torture, morality and the neurology of violence - I haven't dropped the ball, but there is a lot of reading I need to get through for that one. I would really love to get some guest posts, to help fill the spaces here, preferably on the topic of human rights. If you are interested in contributing, please email me an outline of what you want to write, or even a post - or link to a post that I could cross post. I prefer that they be between 600 and 3,000 words, but leeway can be made. Thank you very much for visiting, please come back again. Also, please feel very free to comment, I am very interested in hearing what you think or just getting feedback.
I promise, this is not going to be all ADHD, all the time - except insofar as my posting often reflects my expression of symptoms. But I'm rather irritated at the moment, arguing with ADD/ADHD denialists at Retrospectacle. The last post was to post some evidence, that ADHD is more than a figment of the imagination.
Denialism is something that really tends to annoy me. HIV/AIDS denialists really make me blow my top. The woo they peddle, is among the most dangerous denialism out there. When HIV/AIDS denialism manages to affect public policy (as it has in some African countries) the results can be deadly. By far, that brand of woo makes me the angriest, which is why I don't get involved in that discussion. People far more educated in the pathology of HIV/AIDS, are out there to fight it, far more coherently than my anger would allow. I have a lot of friends, many of them made while helping them out at home. On the off chance that anyone of that breed comes by, HIV/AIDS denialist comments, will be deleted out of hand.
So the denialism that runs a close second, in really pissing me off, is ADD/ADHD denialism. Especially, when (as it commonly is) coupled with neurological disorder denialism. I take it quite personally, because I have confirmed diagnosis of ADHD and a mild form of bipolar disorder. I actually question the legitimacy of the bipolar diagnosis, because I also have congenital insomnia, that is rather severe. On an average of less than four hours of sleep a night, since I was twelve years old, I imagine that the symptoms could be the result of lifelong sleep deprivation. Of course, the insomnia, is result of my neurochemistry. At least, there have been attempts to figure it out and the best assumptions of the doctors that have treated me, is that it's neurochemical in nature.
In short, though I will try to update this after our trip to the park, this sort of denialism is directly responsible for a lot of stigma. Stigma that makes growing up with neurological disorders very difficult. These are not issues that are easy to work with, not a weakness or desire for special attention. It is especially poignant for me, because I grew up with a dad who bought into a lot of the denialist propaganda. I also went to school, with a lot of teachers who did as well, because ADHD was not very well understood at the time. While things have improved a great deal in the last fifteen years, the stigmas still persist. Growing up is hard. Growing up with a neurological disorder is harder still. Growing up with the stigmas attached to neurological disorders is much, much worse, and unnecessary to boot.
So I am going to write more about this. I am going to try to get the stories of those who are dealing with other neurological disorders. I am going to fight this with everything that I can. I am angry right now, really need to calm down some, before I go on. When I continue, I will be inviting you into my world. What I dealt with growing up, in school and into adulthood. I hope that you will bear with me on this. I will try to get more human rights posts up, but this is something that I really need to do.
I am also working on a post about torture, morality and the neurology of violence - I haven't dropped the ball, but there is a lot of reading I need to get through for that one. I would really love to get some guest posts, to help fill the spaces here, preferably on the topic of human rights. If you are interested in contributing, please email me an outline of what you want to write, or even a post - or link to a post that I could cross post. I prefer that they be between 600 and 3,000 words, but leeway can be made. Thank you very much for visiting, please come back again. Also, please feel very free to comment, I am very interested in hearing what you think or just getting feedback.
Monday, July 30, 2007
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)