Slashdot Mirror

The responses illustrate how easily most people, especially the educated ones, fall for scams if they are wrapped into scientific language. That's why there are so many of them, especially from sickness industry since that's where people are the most ready to part with their money.

One little clue to help you recognize a pseudo-scientific scam is when you hear a pronouncement from high up "debate is over" or "science is settled" -- that's a scam. Another clue, especially regarding health pronouncements, is silence about experiments and exclusive focus on parroting statistical correlations on non-randomized samples, or throwing around scary numbers spewed by computer models based on such correlations. One more clue is when someone overdoes it on how solid their "science" is by comparing their scientifically sounding pronouncements to law of gravity.

Randi,

Do you believe the Surgeon General's 1986 (and subsequent 2006 updated) claims about the dangers of second hand smoke, in spite of the lack of evidence supporting the claims*? If so, how can you criticize others for believing unscientific bunk, when you yourself do?



*Most people don't think about it (probably because they don't smoke, and thus see no issue with the demonization of smokers), but if you actually read the reports, you'll notice a distinct lack of defining words like "definitely causes" or "is a factor;" instead, they use 'weasel words' such as "may cause" and "estimated" or "could be a factor" to create an illusion of fact, when in reality it's all pure speculation.

• American Cancer Society
• CDC
• Surgeon General's Office
• Zhu et al. "Secondhandsmoke stimulates tumor angiogenesis and growth" Cancer Cell (2003)

Results: Adolescents with AUD [Alcohol Use Disorder] showed greater brain response to the spatial working memory task in bilateral parietal cortices, and diminished response in other regions including the left precentral gyrus and bilateral cerebellar areas (clusters >= 943 ul, p < .05), although groups did not differ on behavioral measures of task performance. The degree of abnormality was greater for teens who reported experiencing more withdrawl or hangover symptoms, and who consumed more alcohol.

As you can see, the single human study can be used to conclude...basically nothing. There may be a permanent link between alcohol use and brain structure...but that link might very well be causal in the other direction. This study won't give you much reason to lean in either direction. They didn't even find testable behavioral effects to go along with their fMRI statistical voodoo; it isn't really convincing evidence that a link exists in either direction. In the previous section of the report ("Personality Traits, Mental Disorders, and Adolescent Alcohol Use"), however, a much greater profusion of studies suggest that alcohol abuse is caused by mental disorders.

In that vein, other studies have shown that people with unmedicated ADHD are more likely to abuse alcohol and other drugs. Alcohol and other drugs, conversely, have not been shown to give people ADD.

If you're a neo-prohibitionist, though, you don't really give a shit about the science. You already have the solution, and just need to find a problem.

Oh, what the heck. "The Health Consequences of Involuntary Exposure to Tobacco Smoke: A Report of the Surgeon General was prepared by the Office on Smoking and Health, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). The Report was written by 22 national experts who were selected as primary authors. The Report chapters were reviewed by 40 peer reviewers, and the entire Report was reviewed by 30 independent scientists and by lead scientists within the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Department of Health and Human Services. Throughout the review process, the Report was revised to address reviewersâ(TM) comments." http://www.surgeongeneral.gov/library/secondhandsmoke/factsheets/factsheet6.html

As much as I take anything government-issued with a grain of salt, I've had enough personal experience with cigarettes and the deaths therefrom to give smokers a wide berth even if the surgeon general had instead said smoking gives you immortality.

In the days before smoking was banned in hospitals I made the transition from the vistor in the waiting room to the patient in the ER - acute asthmatic attack.

Secondhand Smoke Fact Sheet
The Health Consequences of Involuntary Exposure to Tobacco Smoke: A Report of the Surgeon General [July 2006]

For the second problem, powering your computer for 30 minutes daily should be enough for most people...

Why is he speaking out? Because the Surgeon General's job is to warn me of things that are dangerous to my health.

No it isn't. his job is:
1) "To fulfill statutory and customary Departmental representational functions on a wide variety of Federal boards and governing bodies of non-Federal health organizations, including the Board of Regents of the Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences, the National Library of Medicine, the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology, the Association of Military Surgeons of the United States, and the American Medical Association."
and
2)"To administer the U.S. Public Health Service (PHS) Commissioned Corps"
Everything is is added on by people wanting to use the political post as more of a political post than it is. While the above stated responsibilities seem reasonable, they are actually done in the majority by minions ^w underlings. Which leaves the SG with little official and legal duties. Polticial appointees with idle hands are the statists work.

"In 1987, the Office of the Surgeon General (OSG) was reestablished as a staff office within the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Health. Concomitant with this action, the Surgeon General again became responsible for management of the Commissioned Corps personnel system. (Note: The Surgeon General does not directly supervise all Commissioned Officers; most work in PHS or other agencies and report to line managers of those agencies who may or may not be in the Corps.) In carrying out all responsibilities, the Surgeon General reports to the Assistant Secretary for Health, who is the principal advisor to the Secretary on public health and scientific issues." -- http://www.surgeongeneral.gov/sghist.htm

So no, it isn't the SG's job to tell you what might be dangerous to your health (it's your responsibility to seek out your own health, but that's a separate issue), nor is it his/her job to tell the President what might be dangerous to your health, nor is it the SG's job to tell anyone these things. They may want to, but it isn't their job to. And if it isn't their job any of their superiors can inform them to stick to their job. That includes Bush, and it included Clinton. For what it's worth I think Clinton was right to do what he did wrt. Elders, even though I think Elders was right in what she said. Whether Carmona was right or wrong in what he said it would be right for Bush, or the Secretary of Health, to tell him to not say it "on company time" or using "the company" as a position of authority.

This is the same surgeon general who said that there is no safe level of exposure to secondhand smoke. Isn't the primary concern when measuring the toxicity of a chemical the dose at which adverse effects appear? If that's true, then he isn't very good at his job. Are we sure we want this guy speaking about important issues?

"The life expectancy these days is longer than it has ever been,"

Wanna bet? Nothing has changed in the 3 years since this, except that people have continued to get fatter ...

http://www.surgeongeneral.gov/news/testimony/child obesity03022004.htm

For Release on Delivery
Expected at 2:30 PM
on Tuesday, March 2, 2004

Good afternoon Mr. Chairman and distinguished members of the Subcommittee. My name is Dr. Richard Carmona, and I am the Surgeon General of the United States.

I want to take this opportunity to thank you for your service to our nation. I've had the honor of working with many of you, and I look forward to strengthening our partnerships to improve the health and well being of all Americans.

Mr. Chairman, thank you for your leadership in children's health and education. As the nation's doctor I thank you for taking steps to combat a growing epidemic in our country: childhood obesity. By calling this hearing you are telling Americans that there is a problem and that we need to work together to solve it.

I am joined by my colleague Dr. William Dietz, Director of the Division of Nutrition and Physical Activity at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Dr. Dietz and I will be available to answer any questions you may have.

President Bush, Secretary Thompson, and I have worked to raise public awareness of the need for a comprehensive recommitment to public health through prevention. The science is conclusive: by taking a few simple steps in our personal lives we can greatly improve our health and our nation's health, both today and in the future.

For example, the findings of the Department of Health and Human Services' Diabetes Prevention Program clinical trial showed that people with pre-diabetes can delay and even prevent Type 2 diabetes by losing just 5 to 7 percent of their body weight through moderate changes in diet and exercise. These lifestyle changes worked for people of every ethnic or racial group who participated in the study. The changes--such as walking for 30 minutes a day five days a week--are simple, and prove that small steps can bring big rewards.

We must increase our efforts to educate and encourage Americans to take responsibility for their own health. Over the past 20 years, the rates of overweight doubled in children and tripled in adolescents. Today nearly two out of every three American adults and 15 percent of American kids are overweight or obese. That's more than 9 million children--one in every seven kids--who are at increased risk of weight-related chronic diseases. These facts are astounding, but they are just the beginning of a chain reaction of dangerous health problems--many of which were once associated only with adults.

Today pediatricians are diagnosing an increasing number of children with Type 2 diabetes--which used to be known as adult-onset diabetes. Research indicates that one-third of all children born in 2000 will develop Type 2 diabetes during their lifetime. Tragically, people with Type 2 diabetes are at increased risk of developing heart disease, stroke, kidney disease, and blindness. These complications are likely to appear much earlier in life for those who develop Type 2 diabetes in childhood or adolescence.

Because of the increasing rates of obesity, unhealthy eating habits, and physical inactivity, we may see the first generation that will be less healthy and have a shorter life expectancy than their parents.

And the economic costs of obesity are staggering--second only to the cost of tobacco use. The annual cost of obesity is now estimated at up to $117 billion in direct and indirect costs.

The good news is that there is still time to reverse this dangerous trend in our children's lives. Today I will discuss two key factors to reduce and eliminate obesity in America: inc

• http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/secondhandsmoke .html
• http://www.surgeongeneral.gov/library/secondhandsm oke/factsheets/factsheet6.html

Well, I don't suppose you would trust the U.S. Surgeon General that secondhand smoke causes asthma in children.

And I suppose the International Journal of Epidemiology is in on the Vast Conspiracy about secondhand smoke: Non-smoker lung cancer deaths attributable to exposure to spouse's environmental tobacco smoke

Not to mention the American Lung Association. "Secondhand smoke causes approximately 3,400 lung cancer deaths and 22,700-69,600 heart disease deaths in adult nonsmokers in the United States each year." (Source)

Or any of the other 74 citations on Wikipedia.

Seriously, arguing about the negative effects of secondhand smoke is like arguing about evolution. The fact there is even an argument is solely due to misinformation spread by huge enterprises that have a lot to lose.

>the "secondhand-smoke" hysteria genuinely was shoddy pseudoscience

Reading carefully, it looks like this might have been speaking hypothetically. If not:

Are you referring to the peer-reviewed EPA report EPA/600/6-90/006F, or to the Surgeon General's report on second-hand smoke, or to the National Cancer Institute, or to the articles in this bibliography, or to the Journal of the American Medical Association, or to the American Heart Association, or to another article in the Journal of the American Medical Association, or to the British Medical Journal?

That'll be illegal soon:

http://www.fda.gov/loseweight/
http://www.surgeongeneral.gov/news/speeches/califo besity.htm

The last one sticks a terrorism angle into the obesity debate.

Anything argument can be "strengthened" by a "connection" to terrorism.

Now if I could only make a case that problems with my cell service causing dropped calls helps terrorism, maybe I can get that problem fixed once and for all. :)

I don't read it your way; it seems to me that he's saying "all of the research shows small-to-moderate correlation between media violence and aggressive behavior and lesser correlation between media violence and violent behavior."

That's not inconclusive or indeterminate -- it's a small-to-moderate effect in a multiply-caused behavior. Throughout the report, you read statements like "the effect was significant" or "statistically significant effect." It's an abuse of statistics to confuse a small effect with inconclusiveness.

I have no opinion about the JAMA article. It was subscription-only, and my wife is asleep, so I'll ask her in the morning (she's a pediatrician).

Don't get me wrong; I'm not advocating censorship or even supporting a rating system (worse than useless idea!). In fact, I enjoy Warcraft along with the rest of them, and I'm relatively decent at it. It's just important to be honest about the research, which seems to be clear about the effect, if not the magnitude of the effect, that video violence has on real aggression and violence.

One final thought: is it really reasonable to suppose that we can "train" our reactions and emotions using simulators, which is what video games are, and then expect those reactions and emotions to disappear entirely in real life?

I don't read it your way; it seems to me that he's saying "all of the research shows small-to-moderate correlation between media violence and aggressive behavior and lesser correlation between media violence and violent behavior."

That's not inconclusive or indeterminate -- it's a small-to-moderate effect in a multiply-caused behavior. Throughout the report, you read statements like "the effect was significant" or "statistically significant effect." It's an abuse of statistics to confuse a small effect with inconclusiveness.

I have no opinion about the JAMA article. It was subscription-only, and my wife is asleep, so I'll ask her in the morning (she's a pediatrician).

Don't get me wrong; I'm not advocating censorship or even supporting a rating system (worse than useless idea!). In fact, I enjoy Warcraft along with the rest of them, and I'm relatively decent at it. It's just important to be honest about the research, which seems to be clear about the effect, if not the magnitude of the effect, that video violence has on real aggression and violence.

One final thought: is it really reasonable to suppose that we can "train" our reactions and emotions using simulators, which is what video games are, and then expect those reactions and emotions to disappear entirely in real life?

See this link and notice that the statement is jointly signed by officials of the AAP, APA, AMA, AACAP, and AAFP. These links state clearly that the Surgeon General considers video violence an encouragement to violent behavior.

If you have evidence to the contrary, I would be interested in seeing it.

Why can't I protect my kid from your kid? Your kid is playing a harmful game that desensitizes him to killing. He pulls the trigger in the videogame (unlike a movie). Thus he is desensitized faster. Why does my kid have to be murdered by your child?

Remember, playing violent video games == murderous child. That's why youth violence is so out of hand. Oh wait, youth violence is at a 25 year low, despite the fact that more children play videogames now than ever in history. If you're more worried about video games than drugs, crime, and gangs, then it's likely that you are the mediocre parent. While videogames are more interactive than television, movies, books, and music, it's only a difference of degree, not kind. If your child is murdered, it will almost certainly be by someone of low intelligence, who is below the poverty line, likely gang-involved, who has probably seen more real violence in their life than any game could provide, no matter what the TV tells you.

Just because you want to sit on your hands and treat him like a knowledgable adult, doesn't mean that you have the right to make other people suffer at your ignorance. Ever hear the saying, "If only I knew then what I know now." That's what it's about. Giving all kids (Even the ones with bad parents) the right to learn then so that they have a chance in not making harmful descisions.

This, of course, has nothing to do with the bill in question. It won't stop parents from buying games for their kids. I imagine you'd like to make that a crime as well.

Look at smoking for example. Most smokers start when they are underage. They don't know any better and they are still disillusioned to the consequence. You don't hear of a 35 year old adult deciding that he wants to be "cool" and smoke. Let's think about it.

Oh yes, fantastic argument. Smoking and homicide are perfectly analagous. You don't hear of 35 year old adults deciding he wants to be "cool" and blow away the Human Resources department. Airtight logic, that.

Finally, it takes a villiage to raise a child.

My child will be fine if I can keep you goddamn superstitious villagers away from her.

If you remember your first year physics class, electric field strength from a point source is q/(4pi*epsilon0*r^2). The charge q inside a cell phone is pretty high, somewhere around 12 volts and the distance to your head is obviously pretty small, call it less than 1 cm. This means the polarizing effect of cell power on the electrically active neurons in your brain is more pronounced than that of the Sun. No one doubts that the sun affects our brains and it is 93 billion kilometers away, why all this skepticism over cell phones?

• Bio of Rupert Blue, Former Surgeon General of the US
• Bubinic Plague Epidemic in Uganda

It is, of course, a temporary solution. The big problem is that the total eradication of urban rat populations just isn't feasible right now, so they eventually come back. DDT can do a real number on the fleas, but it has other problems and isn't used anymore. The fleas do not seem to breed on humans to the extent that they do on rats (there are other species of fleas that thrive on humans, but they aren't plague vectors.) Of course as soon as one case of Bubonic move to Pneumonic, you've got an entirely different problem since it is directly contagious. This is what apparently happened in Surat, India in 1994. Pnemonic plague is just plain nasty, although modern antibiotics have a chance, if diagnosed early enough.

If you don't live in Georgia let me give you a quick rundown of our political scene. Our Govonor is Roy Barnes who is ultra liberal. He changed our flag (which has been my flag since I was born it represented home to me, nothing else)without letting it go to popular vote ,and he passed an education reform bill which has done nothing to reform education except add in more buracracy and remove tenure from new teachers. Our Assembly recently went through a redistricting session where the Democrat majority destroyed ALL of the Republican's seats in the house and the Senate.

Ok you are officialy "caught up". What I want to do is write the Legislators from my county and who are sponsoring this bill, I would like USEFUL critism and counterpoints for this bill. Also I am making a trip to the Capitol on Monday and maybe I can get a word in with my Legislator (very easy to do if you are a page and 18). Anyway, thanks for helping, if you want some reading to do, here is the surgeon general's report on youth violence.
Summers

I'm not too convinced that action toys alone will lead to violent behavior. A friend of mine grew up Amish, where there is no tech or 'dangerous toys'. The Amish are strict pacifists. However, without being taught or influenced to do so, give an Amish boy a stick and he will turn it into a weapon (then get switched for doing so). Cops and robbers, cowboys and indians are normal for little boys, which I wouldn't classify as violent. A chainsaw to the head - now that is violent. What I think is 'dirty' about these toys is the marketing: "Hey kids - here's the action figure, now go plan that 'M' rated game!" I have worked in marketing and this is diliberate (see also movie marketing).

Another key to understanding why violent games for kids is bad is this: whatever we spend time doing influences us. Spend a week playing Doom, then contemplate on the nature of life. Spend a different week in Paris with your loved one, then see what your outlook on life is like. Read slashdot all week and your brain turns to ... We can influence ourselves and others just by what we choose to do. This influence feeds us to do more of the same, and even think about things differently. For kids, this is 10x as true. But they don't 'feed' themselves - their parents do. Or the TV or computer or ... Most parents don't think this way, but that is a parent's job: feed the kids and clean up their s--t. That's how it all starts, and that's how it should continue - with ideas, activities, and morals.

As for the reasearch, you can try this:
1) Play Quake, Diablo, (_____) for 6 hours.
2) Stop immediately when 6 hours is done.
3) Get up and write a love poem to your amore.
4) Post it here, because he/she certainly won't want to see it and we could use a good laugh.

You may also want to look at the Surgeon General's Report on Youth Violence. Plenty of references and research if you really want to dig.

This reminds me of that official that said masturbation should be taught in the schools. I believe she exceeded the red line on the stupidity gauge and got fired.

Why is that idea so stupid?

It was a suggestion by the Surgeon General [whom no one ever listens to] because of AIDS [etc] and teenage pregnancy. I still believe that it was a great idea, but no one really knew why she had suggested it.

She didn't want to teach techniques [we all figured it out on our own] she wanted to remove stigma and simply give the idea up for an alternative to fucking the person who sat in front of you when you were board.

This type of law would keep boys from beating it [or girls from swirling it] and leave them no other choice but to either go for the [family pet here] or their friends.

And dammit people read the entire ruling before commenting on the summary posted on /.

Personally, I'm all for a little more diversity, new thinking, and imagination out there...but there should always be a place for cartoony violent fun.

Violent conflict is the easiest form of gameplay to represent. It's immediate, doesn't require a rule book to understand, and is damn fun. Shoot blocks, shoot aliens, shoot zombies, throw dodgeball at face. Kids know this. Take, for example, X-Entertainment's funny breakdown of games we used to play. I mean, just because a kid makes a gun out of paper doesn't mean he's the next Charles Starkweather.

If you are of the unbelievably silly belief that a ban of this sort would in any way reduce the number of violent acts...well I don't know what to say to you...It seems pretty obvious that if people are given more reasons to live and let live through attentive/positive parenting, access to education, as well freedom from poverty and a host of persistent social ills we'll see a dramatic increase in the quality of life.

Remember school violence has actually gone down since 1990. Remember that politicians and media ideologues despise confronting the real issues of society...mainly because the solutions require folks to give up some of their self-serving attitudes and resources (time, money).

This Judge is the first to actually present a reasonable mainstream argument against the ignorant, do-nothing, "I'm not responsible for anything" crowd who likes their solutions quick and stupid. Although describing Mortal Kombat as a feminist game is a tad hilarious, it at least shows someone willing to waste several cycles thinking about as many aspects of the big picture as they are paid to.

Now I have to play some Counterstrike to prepare myself for the reckoning that is to come.

An aside - whenever this topic comes up, 99% of the posters seem to agree that no connection exists, and that censorship is bad. I agree that we have to be careful with censorship, but I wanted to ask, what do you think causes the greater amount of violence in America? If it isn't the culture, what is it? If you say, "parents", what made American parents fail where parents from other countries succeed? If it isn't culture, what? Something in the water?

I'm not trolling. I really want to know your opinion on this.

************************************************ ** *

good point, good link.

Here's the relevane page from the study about media and games. The result? There's quite possibly a real association, but it's *small*, and likely just an indicator of tendancies already there.

http://www.surgeongeneral.gov/library/youthviolenc e/sgreport/Chapter4/appendix4bsec2.htm#TelevisionF ilm

Remember? The study that all the reactionary freaks demanded then claimed would validate their position? Fancy that, it didn't. Now no one wants to talk about it.

That report can be found here:

Youth Violence: A Report of the Surgeon General

To sumamrize another summary of the report:

• Violent media plays no role at all in late onset violence (where a record of violent behavior begins in adolescence).
• In violent behavior that begins before age eleven(11) media ranks as the 10th most significant factor behind violent parents, bad parenting, poverty, substance use, and natural agressive tendencies.

Look up the following (if you need more just reply and I will give you a ton): Frontline:busted..how effective is D.A.R.E
War on Drugs Clock
Interesting Fact Sheet from canadian sources That should get you started on how and why D.A.R.E. does not work. The US prohibition against drugs in an incredible failure. In the first 12 years of the War on Drugs (begining with Reagan's presidency) the US Gov. spent a record 3 Trillion dollars. If you worked out the numbers that is about $12,000 for every man, woman and child in the US. I don't know about you but my feeling is that this is an incredible waste of money. I could think of agencies like NASA who I would rather see me $1,000 a year spent on rather than the bullshit we call a war on drugs. I can't find an exact figure for the model but last year the 6th largest growth industry in the US was Prisons according to a Frontline report I saw not too long ago. The War on Drugs as it is being waged is the most blatant racist violation of US citizens rights. The statistic of 3 out of 4 black males (between ages 17-34)in inner cities being incarcerated at one point or another for a drug offense should point that out. The distribution of drug use is not vastly different between any particular ethnic, racial or financial demographic yet we relentlessly persecute blacks for it. This is an utter disgrace. Caucasians do drugs too. I don't see 3 out of 4 of us in jail for it.If this were really a WAR then we would handle it completely different but we won't. It is always election fodder and makes the righteous candidates look foolish for saying truthfully that the war is dumb. Jocelyn Elders was ridiculed out of her position as Surgeon General for saying that the drug problem is a health problem not a criminal problem. The CIA was busted selling and marketing cocaine in 'Contragate' to help fund subversive actions during the Iran/Iraq war. The list goes on there I could continue to add to ad infinitum.People for the most part are opposed to legalization/decriminalization for all the wrong reasons based upon the disinformation you are presented with in the educational system. Could we please stop brainwashing the next generation and teach them the facts? How many of us were forced to watch Reefer Madness? How much of the 'facts' presented therein is totally bullshit? Will crime go UP if decriminaliztion occurs? No because a) you will kill the black market that feeds off of it b) drugs will be much cheaper c)the quality will be better d)street gangs who finance themselves on drug sales will be out of business e)we would stop letting violent offenders out of jail to house mandatory sentencing guidlined drug offenders and the rediculous 3 time offender laws that require people to be jailed the rest of thier lives for the sale or use f)the relentless seizure of properites would end. Drug use for the most part is a victimless crime.We have to stop this madness and soon. Cops needlessly are being killed. FBI agents bodies are turning up in graves in Mexico. Our Presidential candidates have used drugs: Gore and Bush links. I am totally for decriminalization and when I say that I mean clean across the board, not just pot or coke I mean EVERYTHING. What a person does in thier own home on thier own time is thier business. You do what you want. I care not. If you do drugs and get behind the wheel of a car we take away you liscense forever(something I totally advocate for DUI offenders to) end of story. The basic tenet of freedom is the right to be left alone and not be unduly harrassed. Why isn't it that way now?Please, Uncle Sam, stop blowing my hard earned tax dollars on the bullshit and stop trying to brainwash our children.

I enjoyed your little dig about being anonymous. It was a nice shot at rhetorical skill. Without regard to the issue, attack the credibility of the opponent. It matters not that you are enough of a woman. I don't care whether you're completely woman or not woman at all. Then you inform me about your problems to bolster your credibility. I am sorry that you have had to walk against the wind. Although I suspect that your "dear" is disingenuous, I wish only the best to you with your struggles. Fortunately, I'm not just another dumbass who can't see what you're trying to do. What's the significance of a name? You don't know me personally. Chances are that you never will. I have an argument to make. I don't see how my name would affect my argument. It might put me at risk.

You have such direct experience, yet you are willing to write, "Don't people have enough problems getting along in the world without being given yet ANOTHER reason or excuse to not function properly in society?" Your cynicism makes me sad.

Read more closely. I did not write "cured." I did write "treated" and "well." As for "well," some people who seek treatment do feel good enough to discontinue their treatment. Some do not, but even they often get a little alleviation out of treatment. Obviously, it varies by condition and by person. Have you ever seen the results some OCD people achieve through medication? It is absolutely wonderful to see. I feel happy seeing people given new potentials for their lives.

Your argument about overmedication has its merits. I do not understand your cynicism. Why do you automatically assume that this report is part of that problem? The stigma is still there. Now we have a new target for expressing that stigma, improper medication. I can imagine hearing, "Sure, medication helps some, but that guy isn't sick. He's just resorting to those pills. As for her, she's just too weak to cope." Maybe so, maybe not. As for these hypothetically weak people, I don't know the skin they're living in. We do seem to know a great deal about the circumstances and weaknesses of others, don't we? From this side of their skins, we can separate the weak and cowardly from the truly needy. It seems to be easy enough for you. Did I miss your study that found that "for the most part, a lot of us are just looking for excuses and scapegoats?" I have the feeling that you are using your anecdotal, disorganized experiences instead of broad observation to form your conclusions. You aren't arguing effectively by presenting groundless, unsupported opinions. To steal some wisdom from my ancestors, opinions are like assholes. Everybody has one. Yours stinks. ;->

I made up the quotes, but the same definitely goes for real people. People die due to mental illness. People spend years of their lives unproductive and miserable. Have you read any of the study? Let me summarize a bit of it. Intervention helps the mentally ill. The mentally ill often live without any treatment at all. Suffering is bad, especially when it can be lessened or even alleviated. You seem to know and agree with me on that much. Look here. In particular, try here and here.

Where do you get your ideas about "our history?" How do you know that "there were much fewer psychological disorders?" Do you have evidence or did you just use your imagination alone to figure out what must have been? I concede without hesitation that there were "fewer people diagnosed WITH disorders." You didn't stop there, though. You informed me about work and responsibility. In general, I have had direct access to about two previous generations. Have the past generations seemed much more mentally healthy than mine? They have not to me. Do you remember the ancient Greeks? Their writing topics included sexism, moral decadence and unruly youth. The same topics appear in the Bible. Do you know the story of Siddhartha Gautama, Buddha? You aren't discussing history. You're writing about your -- although they are hardly unique to you -- delusions of an idyllic, golden past. The problem is that you think it's real.

I enjoyed your little dig about being anonymous. It was a nice shot at rhetorical skill. Without regard to the issue, attack the credibility of the opponent. It matters not that you are enough of a woman. I don't care whether you're completely woman or not woman at all. Then you inform me about your problems to bolster your credibility. I am sorry that you have had to walk against the wind. Although I suspect that your "dear" is disingenuous, I wish only the best to you with your struggles. Fortunately, I'm not just another dumbass who can't see what you're trying to do. What's the significance of a name? You don't know me personally. Chances are that you never will. I have an argument to make. I don't see how my name would affect my argument. It might put me at risk.

You have such direct experience, yet you are willing to write, "Don't people have enough problems getting along in the world without being given yet ANOTHER reason or excuse to not function properly in society?" Your cynicism makes me sad.

Read more closely. I did not write "cured." I did write "treated" and "well." As for "well," some people who seek treatment do feel good enough to discontinue their treatment. Some do not, but even they often get a little alleviation out of treatment. Obviously, it varies by condition and by person. Have you ever seen the results some OCD people achieve through medication? It is absolutely wonderful to see. I feel happy seeing people given new potentials for their lives.

Your argument about overmedication has its merits. I do not understand your cynicism. Why do you automatically assume that this report is part of that problem? The stigma is still there. Now we have a new target for expressing that stigma, improper medication. I can imagine hearing, "Sure, medication helps some, but that guy isn't sick. He's just resorting to those pills. As for her, she's just too weak to cope." Maybe so, maybe not. As for these hypothetically weak people, I don't know the skin they're living in. We do seem to know a great deal about the circumstances and weaknesses of others, don't we? From this side of their skins, we can separate the weak and cowardly from the truly needy. It seems to be easy enough for you. Did I miss your study that found that "for the most part, a lot of us are just looking for excuses and scapegoats?" I have the feeling that you are using your anecdotal, disorganized experiences instead of broad observation to form your conclusions. You aren't arguing effectively by presenting groundless, unsupported opinions. To steal some wisdom from my ancestors, opinions are like assholes. Everybody has one. Yours stinks. ;->

I made up the quotes, but the same definitely goes for real people. People die due to mental illness. People spend years of their lives unproductive and miserable. Have you read any of the study? Let me summarize a bit of it. Intervention helps the mentally ill. The mentally ill often live without any treatment at all. Suffering is bad, especially when it can be lessened or even alleviated. You seem to know and agree with me on that much. Look here. In particular, try here and here.

Where do you get your ideas about "our history?" How do you know that "there were much fewer psychological disorders?" Do you have evidence or did you just use your imagination alone to figure out what must have been? I concede without hesitation that there were "fewer people diagnosed WITH disorders." You didn't stop there, though. You informed me about work and responsibility. In general, I have had direct access to about two previous generations. Have the past generations seemed much more mentally healthy than mine? They have not to me. Do you remember the ancient Greeks? Their writing topics included sexism, moral decadence and unruly youth. The same topics appear in the Bible. Do you know the story of Siddhartha Gautama, Buddha? You aren't discussing history. You're writing about your -- although they are hardly unique to you -- delusions of an idyllic, golden past. The problem is that you think it's real.

I enjoyed your little dig about being anonymous. It was a nice shot at rhetorical skill. Without regard to the issue, attack the credibility of the opponent. It matters not that you are enough of a woman. I don't care whether you're completely woman or not woman at all. Then you inform me about your problems to bolster your credibility. I am sorry that you have had to walk against the wind. Although I suspect that your "dear" is disingenuous, I wish only the best to you with your struggles. Fortunately, I'm not just another dumbass who can't see what you're trying to do. What's the significance of a name? You don't know me personally. Chances are that you never will. I have an argument to make. I don't see how my name would affect my argument. It might put me at risk.

You have such direct experience, yet you are willing to write, "Don't people have enough problems getting along in the world without being given yet ANOTHER reason or excuse to not function properly in society?" Your cynicism makes me sad.

Read more closely. I did not write "cured." I did write "treated" and "well." As for "well," some people who seek treatment do feel good enough to discontinue their treatment. Some do not, but even they often get a little alleviation out of treatment. Obviously, it varies by condition and by person. Have you ever seen the results some OCD people achieve through medication? It is absolutely wonderful to see. I feel happy seeing people given new potentials for their lives.

Your argument about overmedication has its merits. I do not understand your cynicism. Why do you automatically assume that this report is part of that problem? The stigma is still there. Now we have a new target for expressing that stigma, improper medication. I can imagine hearing, "Sure, medication helps some, but that guy isn't sick. He's just resorting to those pills. As for her, she's just too weak to cope." Maybe so, maybe not. As for these hypothetically weak people, I don't know the skin they're living in. We do seem to know a great deal about the circumstances and weaknesses of others, don't we? From this side of their skins, we can separate the weak and cowardly from the truly needy. It seems to be easy enough for you. Did I miss your study that found that "for the most part, a lot of us are just looking for excuses and scapegoats?" I have the feeling that you are using your anecdotal, disorganized experiences instead of broad observation to form your conclusions. You aren't arguing effectively by presenting groundless, unsupported opinions. To steal some wisdom from my ancestors, opinions are like assholes. Everybody has one. Yours stinks. ;->

I made up the quotes, but the same definitely goes for real people. People die due to mental illness. People spend years of their lives unproductive and miserable. Have you read any of the study? Let me summarize a bit of it. Intervention helps the mentally ill. The mentally ill often live without any treatment at all. Suffering is bad, especially when it can be lessened or even alleviated. You seem to know and agree with me on that much. Look here. In particular, try here and here.

Where do you get your ideas about "our history?" How do you know that "there were much fewer psychological disorders?" Do you have evidence or did you just use your imagination alone to figure out what must have been? I concede without hesitation that there were "fewer people diagnosed WITH disorders." You didn't stop there, though. You informed me about work and responsibility. In general, I have had direct access to about two previous generations. Have the past generations seemed much more mentally healthy than mine? They have not to me. Do you remember the ancient Greeks? Their writing topics included sexism, moral decadence and unruly youth. The same topics appear in the Bible. Do you know the story of Siddhartha Gautama, Buddha? You aren't discussing history. You're writing about your -- although they are hardly unique to you -- delusions of an idyllic, golden past. The problem is that you think it's real.