Page 3 of 4 [ 58 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next

Yupa
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 May 2005
Age: 30
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,520
Location: Florida

03 May 2008, 7:55 pm

Joeker wrote:
xyzyxx wrote:


Whoa, that's a lot of front groups. And look at what they do! One of those groups claims that Interpol is made up of Nazis. Nazis? Haven't they ever heard of Godwin's Law?

Anemone, I'm diagnosed with Aspergers, and while I was in school, they referred to it as a learning disorder. I wonder if they do mention Autism... I know they said ADD and learning disabilities...
I hope that my letter to the CBC does raise a stink. I wasn't made AS, I never took any drugs to become AS, and I haven't seen any psychologists or psychiatrists since I was like, twelve. And I'm nineteen.

Zwerfbeerjte, those are businesses, corporations. Religions aren't corporate entities, are they?

nightbender, those are an awful lot of generalizations, accusations, and assumptions about the human mind.

Nomadic28, I agree with that comparison. I don't believe that the way I am is because I was made this way by some grand conspiracy to make me into a consumer of the mental health practice. As it stands, this is offensive, and it's being run through a cover group like the mafia launders money; Making religious beliefs look like they were founded in an unbiased enviroment, while bias is clear and obvious. Dishonest, and falsely representative. If they want to voice their beliefs, they are allowed to do it. But to voice their beliefs through a front to hide their involvement? Ridiculous!

LeKiwi, that does sound kind of similar... The CCHR is a group that is actively trying to influence public opinion about psychology that's being mirrored by the actual beliefs of Scientology. By making people believe, without actually using the church itself to spread these beliefs but fronts, they are making their religious beliefs look more like fate that they agree with the Church, rather than determining the same thing without being exposed to material from "independent" sources that makes them believe more than they would otherwise.
It's tailoring people into believing, and that they're subverting free will by making people want to choose based on thoughts and beliefs that the church inspired seperately from themselves...

faiuwle, if you were homosexual, would you spend your time looking for groups of people that think you're a sinner going straight to hell? I'd rather do something else than look for groups that mock me, but if I happen to stumble upon them... Boy, they're in for some hell.

2ukenkerl, watch out, their legal team is huge, and they've got other methods for dealing with SPs, like R2-45, and what they did to their other critics. Dead agenting, black PR, and some people who were considered SPs showed up dead under suspicious circumstances.

Yupa, overdiagnosing a disorder, that's one thing. Claiming that it was invented, that "evil psychologists" created it to line their pockets, and that it's writing off bad parenting as fact that it's created... That's entirely another. But the fact remains, ADD is NOT invented, it is REAL, and those with it need REAL help. I don't say it doesn't happen, but you need some perspective on what it would feel like to have ADD.

Batman1992, I wonder about that as well as many other people. I do believe there needs to be some more clear guidelines, so that children that don't have ADD aren't given drugs for which they have no need.

Wow, I should have kept on top of things, this post is pretty long...


I had a psychiatrist who prescribed me with loads upon loads of ADD and OCD meds despite the fact that I'd never been diagnosed with either (every time I mentioned even one very minor unusual habit of mine, the psychiatrist in question would prescribe me with some new medicine I didn't need). I do have some ADD habits and I've occasionally gotten people asking if I'm ADD, so I might have it, but the meds I was on messed up my life pretty severely for a good two or three years so I have some reason to distrust psychiatrists and their prescriptions, if not the pharmaceutical companies themselves.



Odin
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Oct 2006
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,475
Location: Moorhead, Minnesota, USA

03 May 2008, 8:16 pm

Zwerfbeertje wrote:
The question was what these rays outside the head were, not what the images were. If they are noise, it is extremely amplified, and differently from the other image, suggesting that at least part of the difference is artificially created. Then again, the direction of these 'rays' suggests there's more then random noise in them.


You are just making paranoid assumptions. If you think the data was manipulated as part of some vast conspiracy it's no use arguing with you because you are beyond reason.

Zwerfbeertje wrote:
Your response further implies that the difference shown is not structural, but due to a stronger increased activity, a passing, transient difference. The context in which the images were given, by twoshots, implied they showed a structural (permanent) difference.


My response didn't imply anything of the sort. It IS structural, people with ADD have to put more effort into trying to concentrate, and thus there is increased blood flow to the brain to bring more oxygen and glucose to the hard-working neurons, that's not a "transient difference," that an essential difference in the functioning of the brain with regard to attention.


_________________
My Blog: My Autistic Life


Pithlet
Velociraptor
Velociraptor

User avatar

Joined: 19 Jan 2008
Age: 37
Gender: Female
Posts: 436

03 May 2008, 10:29 pm

Yupa wrote:

I had a psychiatrist who prescribed me with loads upon loads of ADD and OCD meds despite the fact that I'd never been diagnosed with either (every time I mentioned even one very minor unusual habit of mine, the psychiatrist in question would prescribe me with some new medicine I didn't need). I do have some ADD habits and I've occasionally gotten people asking if I'm ADD, so I might have it, but the meds I was on messed up my life pretty severely for a good two or three years so I have some reason to distrust psychiatrists and their prescriptions, if not the pharmaceutical companies themselves.


This I can relate to, and I distrust both doctors and pharmaceutical companies for close to the same reason. I was put on Paxil for anxiety, and while I do have problems with anxiety, the drug did alot more damage to me than mere anxiety did. But while things like ADD, depression, bi-polar, anxiety are often carelessly diagnosed, and even more carelessly medicated, it's still not fair to assume these conditions don't exist and that every person with this label are just choosing to be this way based on some character flaw or lousy parenting. It does happen occasionally, but assuming it's true in every case is an unfair predjudice.



Zwerfbeertje
Deinonychus
Deinonychus

User avatar

Joined: 6 Sep 2007
Age: 119
Gender: Male
Posts: 362

04 May 2008, 1:00 am

Odin wrote:
You are just making paranoid assumptions. If you think the data was manipulated as part of some vast conspiracy it's no use arguing with you because you are beyond reason.


There's nothing paranoid about it, nor does it involve conspiracies, the images are created from data and that involves data manipulation, without it, there wouldn't be anything worthwhile to see, for the human eye.

There's just no talking people like if behind every remark you sense a paranoid believe in conspiracies. But I suppose it was just a cheap shot at trying to discredit me. Understandable because you don't have any real arguments.

Quote:
Zwerfbeertje wrote:
Your response further implies that the difference shown is not structural, but due to a stronger increased activity, a passing, transient difference. The context in which the images were given, by twoshots, implied they showed a structural (permanent) difference.


My response didn't imply anything of the sort. It IS structural, people with ADD have to put more effort into trying to concentrate, and thus there is increased blood flow to the brain to bring more oxygen and glucose to the hard-working neurons, that's not a "transient difference," that an essential difference in the functioning of the brain with regard to attention.
[/quote]

The point was that the difference shown in the images does show a transient situation, and not a structural one, even if the increased activity it's likely to occur more frequently in peple with AD. The increased activity may (or may not) be the result of a structural difference, but that structural difference is not show in the images.

But the difference is probably to difficult for you to understand, so don't bother trying and just shoot off another one of your cheap attacks.

Pithlet wrote:
... I really did believe that you read all of the previous posts and were defending Yupa's opinion that Twoshots was clearly referring to. ...


Ok, then, I can understand the misunderstanding. I was in no way defending Yupa's opinion, I find it and similar opinions encountered elsewhere, offensive too. But it was not clear to me that Twoshots responded to his post specifically.



Odin
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Oct 2006
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,475
Location: Moorhead, Minnesota, USA

04 May 2008, 3:01 pm

Zwerfbeertje wrote:

The point was that the difference shown in the images does show a transient situation, and not a structural one, even if the increased activity it's likely to occur more frequently in peple with AD. The increased activity may (or may not) be the result of a structural difference, but that structural difference is not show in the images.


Now you're just engaging in sophistry.


_________________
My Blog: My Autistic Life


LeKiwi
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Nov 2007
Age: 34
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,444
Location: The murky waters of my mind...

04 May 2008, 6:03 pm

equinn wrote:
After a psych evaluation, school's idea, I knew pharmacology was going to be introduced--it was. He introduced ADHD as part of the inattention problem and how it could be treated quite well with a stimulant and how this could also help with friends too. Whatever he's selling, I'm not buying it.

ADHD might exist, but you can keep your stimulant meds. I like my son just the way he is thank you. I'm not about to drug him up so he can be too zoned out to know what hit him.

So, you're telling me he can make friends if he takes a drug? Come on! It seems too simplified. How will he ever learn strategies for social situations or attending to the task at hand? I don't want a robot. My son has grown tremendously in leaps and bounds since he was small. I'm mortified how parents drug their kids so they can be A students or more compliant. It seems almost surreal to me--like some sci fi movie--louis lowry's The Giver sums it up pretty well--anyone read?

When I told this particular doctor how I explained to my son all about aspergers because he inssited on knowing what was what and wouldn't accept anything but the truth, he said "Well, you want to be careful and make sure that he knows he's so much more than that."

What a boob.

I talked about it all with my son, even the meds. I am very open with him and feel dishonest if I were doing something, or even speaking about him, behind his back. If some day he has to take meds because he truly can't function (depression or suicidal), then he will agree to it and understand all about it. In other words, he will have a say as to what goes into his body.

equinn



If only all parents could be like you... :)


_________________
We are a fever, we are a fever, we ain't born typical...


twoshots
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Nov 2007
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,731
Location: Boötes void

04 May 2008, 7:50 pm

Zwerfbeertje wrote:
Quote:
Armchair dipshits ... do us all the favor of removing themselves from the gene pool.


If there's someone in need of definitive removal it's you. You've disqualified yourself from any form of understanding or sympathy. All you can do is become mesmerized by pretty pictures and insult anyone who shows a healthy dose of skepticism and critical thinking.


Duuude. You're probably right on the first sentence. Nonetheless, if you aren't qualified to analyze something, you don't deserve an opinion on it. And that goes for a lot of people I run into on this subject. What most people do on ADD doesn't count as critical thinking. To do critical thinking you'd actually need to understand the science behind it. I can't speak for you, but I can definitely insult the people I've met who think they are qualified to evaluate the validity of neurological disorders when they don't know a PET from PETA.

PS: I'd love debate the picture I posted, but my university as always only carries back issues of journals on microfiche and hell if I'm going through that during finals to win an internet argument.

PPS: Odin, I think you read the PET wrong. The left brain was the normal one. The study I believe was examining glucose metabolism the brains of adults with ADD who had not been treated with stimulants while engaging in activities involving concentration. I'd love to go into more detail, but alas...


_________________
* here for the nachos.


Zwerfbeertje
Deinonychus
Deinonychus

User avatar

Joined: 6 Sep 2007
Age: 119
Gender: Male
Posts: 362

04 May 2008, 11:30 pm

twoshots wrote:
Zwerfbeertje wrote:
Quote:
Armchair dipshits ... do us all the favor of removing themselves from the gene pool.


If there's someone in need of definitive removal it's you. You've disqualified yourself from any form of understanding or sympathy. All you can do is become mesmerized by pretty pictures and insult anyone who shows a healthy dose of skepticism and critical thinking.


Duuude. You're probably right on the first sentence. Nonetheless, if you aren't qualified to analyze something, you don't deserve an opinion on it.


Stop being an idiot, you've no place to make any claims on who's qualified to have an opinion or not. If anyone is not qualified for anything around here, it is you. Now, please go away and don't come back until you've stopped being a jerk.



twoshots
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Nov 2007
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,731
Location: Boötes void

04 May 2008, 11:36 pm

Abstract:

Quote:
BACKGROUND AND METHODS. The cause of childhood hyperactivity (attention deficit-hyperactivity disorder) is unknown. We investigated the hypothesis that cerebral glucose metabolism might differ between normal adults (controls) and adults with histories of hyperactivity in childhood who continued to have symptoms. Each patient was also the biologic parent of a hyperactive child. None of the adults had ever been treated with stimulant medication. To measure cerebral glucose metabolism, we administered 148 to 185 MBq (4 to 5 mCi) of [18F]fluoro-2-deoxy-D-glucose intravenously to 50 normal adults and 25 hyperactive adults while they performed an auditory-attention task. Images were obtained for 30 minutes with a Scanditronix positron-emission tomograph with a resolution of 5 to 6 mm. Whole-brain and regional rates of glucose metabolism were measured with computer assistance by two trained research assistants, working independently, who were blinded to the subjects' status (control or hyperactive). RESULTS. Global cerebral glucose metabolism was 8.1 percent lower in the adults with hyperactivity than in the normal controls (mean +/- SD, 9.05 +/- 1.20 mg per minute per 100 g vs. 9.85 +/- 1.68 mg per minute per 100 g; P = 0.034). In the adults with hyperactivity, glucose metabolism was significantly reduced, as compared with the values for the controls, in 30 of 60 specific regions of the brain (P less than 0.05). Among the regions of the brain with the greatest reductions in glucose metabolism were the premotor cortex and the superior prefrontal cortex. When the seven women with hyperactivity or the six patients with learning disabilities were omitted from the analysis, the results were similar. CONCLUSIONS. Glucose metabolism, both global and regional, was reduced in adults who had been hyperactive since childhood. The largest reductions were in the premotor cortex and the superior prefrontal cortex--areas earlier shown to be involved in the control of attention and motor activity.


Cerebral glucose metabolism in adults with hyperactivity of childhood onset, AJ Zametkin, TE Nordahl, M Gross, AC King, WE Semple, J Rumsey, S Hamburger, and RM Cohen (1990) The New England Journal of Medicine

The great thing about arguing when you don't know what you're talking about is that the argument from authority is actually a valid argument form because you're not qualified to form your own opinion. This stuff is researched. If you want to believe that the research is faked to sell drugs frankly I don't take you seriously although I recognize the invalidity of my dismissal. But as a rule it is expedient to disregard conspiracy-theorist-esque positions.

Quote:
Stop being an idiot, you've no place to make any claims on who's qualified to have an opinion or not. If anyone is not qualified for anything around here, it is you. Now, please go away and don't come back until you've stopped being a jerk.

General 'you' :roll:. I'm bad with pronouns but I'm 90% certain I was using that right. I don't deny that I'm not qualified - but I'm not the one challenging those who are. If you have credentials on the subject then I am willing to yield to you as a potential participant in a meaningful intellectual dialog on the disorder; but then it was not necessarily you who my post was originally directed at in the first place.

By the way, lovely personal attack. Class act.


_________________
* here for the nachos.


Zwerfbeertje
Deinonychus
Deinonychus

User avatar

Joined: 6 Sep 2007
Age: 119
Gender: Male
Posts: 362

04 May 2008, 11:37 pm

Odin wrote:
Now you're just engaging in sophistry.


Again, no real argument but an attack. If you can't see the difference it's your failure, not mine.



twoshots
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Nov 2007
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,731
Location: Boötes void

05 May 2008, 12:10 am

Zwerfbeertje wrote:
Odin wrote:
Now you're just engaging in sophistry.


Again, no real argument but an attack. If you can't see the difference it's your failure, not mine.

Out of curiosity, do you have any real arguments?

Your critique of Odin's interpretation of the image was predicated on...erm... nothing, as far as I can tell, that actually related to the study. You've managed to ask some people if they know what they are talking about, but (unless we have anyone here better qualified in logic), I'm going to say that burden of proof is on you.


_________________
* here for the nachos.


Zwerfbeertje
Deinonychus
Deinonychus

User avatar

Joined: 6 Sep 2007
Age: 119
Gender: Male
Posts: 362

05 May 2008, 12:34 am

twoshots wrote:
Out of curiosity, do you have any real arguments?


Do you have any arguments besides insults? None that I've been able to see.

Quote:
Your critique of Odin's interpretation of the image was predicated on...erm... nothing, as far as I can tell, that actually related to the study.


As far as I can see Odin stated that the difference between the two images was from the right one indicating that the brain it was depicting was working harder.

Odin wrote:
... it's showing that the ADD brain (on the left) has abnormally high blood flow, indicating it is working much harder to focus and to ignore distractions then the normal brain. ...



That makes the difference shown in the image a transient one and not a structural one, as you impled. Yes or no?

Do you have any logic to respond with? Or just more bullshit about alleged qualifications?



twoshots
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Nov 2007
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,731
Location: Boötes void

05 May 2008, 1:04 am

Zwerfbeertje wrote:
twoshots wrote:
Out of curiosity, do you have any real arguments?


Do you have any arguments besides insults? None that I've been able to see.

Well, yes. I posed a simple problem: what arguments do you have. Burden of proof is on you. I am as yet unclear as to the particularities of your points. The majority of what you have said has not been propositions. Heck, I've dragged in peer reviewed journals and I've barely been in this thread.

Quote:
As far as I can see Odin stated that the difference between the two images was from the right one indicating that the brain it was depicting was working harder.


Yes, but that's really quite irrelevant. This has been your main thrust over the past couple of pages, but your pouncing on a guess that he made about what was going on; you actually had no idea what was being shown in the image which renders your only real argument (which I have noticed) irrelevant. That is, you weren't arguing the actual study and thus my statement holds.

Quote:
That makes the difference shown in the image a transient one and not a structural one, as you impled. Yes or no?

Transient states are indicative of underlying wiring because brains don't just do stuff out of nowhere. A signature pattern of activation tells us something about the way the brain is structured.
Anyway, I am not in a position to address this question because I am not familiar at all with glucose metabolism in the brain.

Quote:
Do you have any logic to respond with? Or just more bullshit about alleged qualifications?

Yes. Aside from the irrelevant diversion into an attempt at interpreting an image your primary dialectical technique has been asking other people what things mean in order to cast doubt on their capacity to from a judgment on the subject. However, as long as burden of proof is on you this is not a valid technique; you need to directly address something that actually has to do with ADD, and you're going to need more than non-researched arguments or else this is going to rapidly degenerate into a priori bullshit. Cite something for pete's sake.


_________________
* here for the nachos.