July 1, 2005

DUBIOUSER AND DUBIOUSER:

Girls' autism 'under-diagnosed' (BBC, 6/28/05)

Girls with autism may not be identified because they do not show traditional signs of the disorder, an expert warns.

There are literally thousands of diseases we all don't have symptoms of--it's an omnidemic.

Posted by Orrin Judd at July 1, 2005 10:11 PM
Comments

Tom Cruise would agree.

Posted by: ghostcat at July 2, 2005 1:22 AM

Orrin:
ghostcat does bring up something I've been wondering about lately. Tom Cruise's recent spittle-flecked rants against the psychology profession sound eerily like your own spittle-flecked rants against the psychology profession. The hatred of brain drugs, the fervent belief that there's no mental illness that can't be cured with fresh air and exercise, and so on. I am given to understand that Mr. Cruise is a member of Scientology and this is where he gets these notions. Since Mr. Cruise is a liberal whackjob, how is that his beliefs line up almost perfectly with a conservative whackjob like yourself?

Posted by: Governor Breck at July 2, 2005 7:46 AM

Slippery-slopers. A grain of truth must presage an avalanche.

Posted by: ghostcat at July 2, 2005 11:37 AM

tom is fighting a losing battle against something. most likely his slipping appeal combined with a subjigated (sp?) sexuality.

Posted by: cjm at July 2, 2005 11:46 AM

The grain of truth is that our therapeutic culture is inclined to treat any deviation from the normal (average) medical profile. With specific reference to psychiatry, we cannot seem to accept that very few individuals conform perfectly to the norm on all of the many dimensions of mental health. And as we learn more about the brain/mind, we identify additional dimensions and imperfections every year.

I would argue that broad variation around the norm is a good thing, and that treatment (often medication) outside of this broad range is also a good thing. But those pushing their skills and pills, and those seeking perfection in their loved ones and themselves, have obvious incentives to intervene in the most minor deviations from the norm.

Scientology has its own interventions, of course. I suspect they have positive effects in some cases. Faith, however formed, can do that. Even faith in exorcising the souls of mass-murdered ancient aliens.

Posted by: ghostcat at July 2, 2005 2:32 PM

Good post Ghostcat. There is 'the norm' and there is 'good as norm'. Being different doesn't equate to having a disability.

Cruise is a whackjob, though I'm not so sure how liberal he is. I think that he came out in support of Bush and the war on Iraq. But as promoters of full service religions that compete with psychiatry for patients/converts, Cruise and OJ have the same motivation to disparage it.

I have a dog in this fight, as I take antidepressants. They either work or are the most successful placebos yet invented. They sure work a hell of a lot better than the course of prayers I was prescribed as a young lad. If the problem is chemical, then the solution is chemical.

Posted by: Robert Duquette at July 2, 2005 3:16 PM

Robert:

Yes, Scientology and Psychiatry are just heresies. Chemistry can treat the chemical symptom, not the problem.

Posted by: oj at July 2, 2005 3:21 PM

Praytell, OJ, what is the problem? Are you as good at diagnosis from a distance as Sen Frist?

Posted by: Robert Duquette at July 2, 2005 3:57 PM

Depression.

Posted by: oj at July 2, 2005 4:04 PM

OJ's getting at the question of whether the chemical abnormality is the problem, per se, or merely the physical manifestation of an underlying problem ... presumably spiritual.

I'd be most interested in The Wife's perspective.

Posted by: ghostcat at July 2, 2005 4:42 PM

My wife the psychiatrist agrees that autismesque disorders, mostly Aspergers, are underdiagnosed among women, who tend to get obsessed about something (cats, for example) and keep to themselves, but that this article is nuts.

Posted by: David Cohen at July 2, 2005 7:59 PM

What's been her reaction to Tom's Crusade?

Posted by: ghostcat at July 2, 2005 8:23 PM

We haven't talked about it and I doubt she knows about it.

Posted by: David Cohen at July 2, 2005 9:59 PM

tom cruise said he was afraid to raise his children in america, when the war first started, or there abouts. depression is a function of metabolism; raise the metabolism as a whole, and the depression will dissipate. anti-depressants are mui malo, if i had a serious depression i would go for electro shock -- disclaimer, i kind of want to try it anyway.

Posted by: cjm at July 2, 2005 11:13 PM

There are spiritual maladies, and then there are physical ones. If your eyesight is poor, you get eyeglasses, you don't examine your soul. If your brain chemicals are imbalanced, you balance them.

Or maybe I'm wrong, and I just need priests to beat me to death like that girl in Romania.

Posted by: Robert Duquette at July 3, 2005 12:58 AM

If you have hysterical blindness glasses won't help.

Posted by: oj at July 3, 2005 1:03 AM

Poor eyesight has precisely what to do with hysterical blindness?

I had a step brother who was schizophrenic. Medication aimed at balancing his brain chemicals helped immensely.

Without even threatening crucifixion.

Posted by: Jeff Guinn at July 3, 2005 8:05 AM

Jeff:

Exactly.

Posted by: oj at July 3, 2005 8:14 AM

And how does depression relate to hysterical blindness?

Posted by: Robert Duquette at July 3, 2005 12:45 PM

Chemicals won't treat the cause of your depression, just the resulting chemical imbalance.

Posted by: oj at July 3, 2005 3:47 PM

OJ, you have to be the reincarnation of Bojangles Robinson.

Posted by: ghostcat at July 3, 2005 6:50 PM

I've danced a lick.

Posted by: oj at July 3, 2005 6:55 PM

Unless, of course, chemical imbalance is the cause of the depression.

It certainly was the cause of my step-brother's schizophrenia.

Posted by: Jeff Guinn at July 3, 2005 7:22 PM

Ditto Jeff.

If you have a tendency for low levels of serotonin, then normal levels of daily stress, which someone with a normal balance would handle without undue problems, can lead to depression. In this instance, the cause of the depression is normal daily stress.

Its like a near-sighted driver who is prone to auto accidents. Are his driving abilities the cause of the accidents, or his poor eyesight? Is the prognosis that he should take driving lessons, or get glasses? Well, if you know he is nearsighted, you start with the glasses. If that clears up his driving problem, then it was probably all you needed to do.

Likewise with depression. If the depression was not brought on by an extroadinary stressor, but was something long-lived and persistent, then try antidepressants. It doesn't mean that there is no need for self examination or soul searching, its not an either/or situation. But apply medical cures for medical conditions, and spiritual cures for spiritual conditions.

Posted by: Robert Duquette at July 3, 2005 8:15 PM

Jeff:

The uniformly disordered nature of the children in your family suggests otherwise.

Posted by: oj at July 3, 2005 8:28 PM

I repeat myself from a much earlier post, but ...

There is definitely a spiritual/willpower variable in the mental health equation. Faith and determination can (and often do) make a difference between sanity and psychosis.

An old college friend of mine has a strong family history of depression ... including suicide .. and is himself prone. His faith in Jesus has kept him sane. Barely sane, I hasten to add: he is clearly a desperate man. But at 62 he remains undiagnosed, untreated, and sane enough to get by.

In short, oj has a point. True to form, he takes it too far. That just makes him lovable.

Posted by: ghostcat at July 3, 2005 8:46 PM

religous people have a statistically signifigant lower incidence of depressions.

Posted by: cjm at July 3, 2005 8:51 PM

Maybe so, but it doesn't change my formula. Treat medical depression with medicine.

I was religious once, and just as prone to depression back then. Prayer just didn't do it for me.

Posted by: Robert Duquette at July 3, 2005 10:38 PM

OJ:

The uniformly disordered nature of the children in your family suggests otherwise.

Simultaneously offensive and hilariously wrong. And whatever else may be suggested, it is certain the children in my family possess far better manners than you.

He was my step brother. Straight-A student in High School, with a thoroughgoing religious upbringing.

In the space of a year he descended into severe paranoid schizophrenia.

No amount of religion seemed up to the problem, but a drug in the (IIRC) lithium family called Allar (IIRC) did a pretty credible job of restoring his ability to live a normal life.

Until a pharmicist mistakenly substituted Attar--an anti-malarial--for Allar. Unfortunately, using the former at the dosage of the latter is quickly fatal.

Posted by: Jeff Guinn at July 4, 2005 7:40 AM

Just one year as your brother did that? It's worse than we've been led to believe...

Posted by: oj at July 4, 2005 8:25 AM

OJ, your Dark Side is screaming to go out and play.

Posted by: ghostcat at July 4, 2005 2:09 PM

rd: do you find the intense physical exercise alleviates the symptoms of depression ?

Posted by: cjm at July 4, 2005 3:05 PM

OJ:

In as much as he bore no blood relationship with me, nor ever lived in the same house, and became schizophrenic before becoming related by marriage, your insult, already ill-mannered, is also pointless.


Posted by: Jeff Guinn at July 4, 2005 5:12 PM

So people just thought he'd fit in as your brother?

Posted by: oj at July 4, 2005 7:46 PM

That will do, orrin.

Posted by: joe shropshire at July 4, 2005 10:47 PM

OJ:

Most people possess sufficient self control to avoid voicing meaningless insults, especially when they are self-defeating.

Most of the rest apologize for their behavior.

I can already see you don't belong in the first group.

The question is, can you manage to attain the second?

Posted by: Jeff Guinn at July 5, 2005 4:29 AM

What insult? It's a simple question of nature and nurture. Thestories you've foisted on us have told of the nurture problems in your family.

Posted by: oj at July 5, 2005 6:21 AM

cjm - it helps, but isn't as effective as meds. Since I've been on Effexor for the last 2 years, I've found that I have an ability to resist anxiety that I've never had before. It is like a cloud has been lifted.

Posted by: Robert Duquette at July 5, 2005 12:13 PM

for me, anxiety is related to two factors:
1. blood sugar levels
2. caffeine intake

it took me a long time to figure out i was prone to hypoglucemia, but its very easy to keep under control.

Posted by: cjm at July 5, 2005 5:28 PM

OJ:

Your empty ad hominem invectives above accused my family of being responsible for someone else's schizophrenia.

That is an insult.

Further, unless you can cite even one story regarding nurture problems in my family, you have compounded your insult with a lie.

Which means you are trolling your own blog.

You are pretty brave when hiding behind pixels.

Posted by: Jeff Guinn at July 7, 2005 7:10 AM

Jeff:

You said he became schizophrenic within a year of moving in with you. The ad hominem was you against yourself, suggesting some personality integration issues of your own.

Posted by: oj at July 7, 2005 7:56 AM

OJ:

The heck I did.

In as much as he bore no blood relationship with me, nor ever lived in the same house, and became schizophrenic before becoming related by marriage, your insult, already ill-mannered, is also pointless.

That amplified a previous comment.

Perhaps you should read more carefully before mouthing off.

Posted by: Jeff Guinn at July 7, 2005 5:05 PM

He was my step brother. Straight-A student in High School, with a thoroughgoing religious upbringing.

In the space of a year he descended into severe paranoid schizophrenia.

He sounds like he was fine til you lot got ahold of him. Of course, if you meant that was before you got him we'd at least understand why it was thought your family was a good fit.

Posted by: oj at July 7, 2005 5:40 PM

OJ:

Stop being a jerk.

You jumped to a completely uninformed conclusion, bearing no relationship whatsoever to what I wrote.

Further, you assert stories of nurture problems in my family, yet are completely unable to provide any details.

Why? Because you made it all up.

You could have recovered a shred of honor with an honest apology. Instead, you lay out another gratuitous insult.

That makes you a liar, a jerk, and the inventor of the self-trolling blog.

Congratulations.

Posted by: Jeff Guinn at July 7, 2005 8:18 PM

Jeff:

You share these details ad nauseum and they add up to a simple and even classic picture: missing father, one son atheist in response, one gay...a schizophrenic would be a natural follow on.

Posted by: oj at July 7, 2005 9:37 PM

OJ:

Perhaps you should tell your wife divorce causes schizophrenia (or homosexuality, for that matter). Then grab a calendar to see how long it takes for her to stop laughing.

Additionally, you cited "stories of nurturing problems," not a statement of marital status. Since you can't, then that statement is similarly a work of fiction.

You should show this entire thread to your wife, and children, if they are old enough.

I doubt very much they would be proud of you.

So what is the classic picture for habitual lying and an inability to take responsibility for your actions?

Posted by: Jeff Guinn at July 8, 2005 6:10 AM

Being fatherless is nurture status.

Posted by: oj at July 8, 2005 6:36 AM

OJ:

Did you ask your wife about divorce as a cause of schizophrenia?

Did you show her this thread?

Additionally, you cited "stories of nurturing problems," not a statement of marital status. Since you can't, then that statement is similarly a work of fiction.

Posted by: Jeff Guinn at July 8, 2005 4:55 PM

The absence of a father is a nurturing problem.

Just google schizophrenia nurture and you'll find all you could ever want.

Posted by: oj at July 8, 2005 4:59 PM

OJ:

I did. And it was just as I had thought. Some unknown component other than genotype contributes to schizophrenia.

Nothing in there about divorce.

So your ad hominem, in addition to being entirely beside the point, is also untrue. And compounded by a couple of lies.

Actually, there is a classic picture. You got beat up a lot in school, causing you to become a petit bully--attacking from the safety of anonymity.

Pathetic really.

And I'm sure, easily cured.

Posted by: Jeff Guinn at July 9, 2005 4:25 AM

nurture.

Posted by: oj at July 9, 2005 6:19 AM

OJ:

You made a widly erronious assertion, followed up by a personal attack intended to cause offense, compounded by lies.

Now you have iced the cake by either collossal ignorance, or another lie--your choice.

The word "nurture" is more than just spelling. Read Matt Ridley's "Nature via Nurture" to find out just how nonsensical your use of the term is. Or, for that matter, anything the Google search returns.

Invoking it as you have here is pure dissembling.

BTW--what does your wife think of your theory divorce causes schizophrenia?

What does she think of your conduct here?

Or are you too embarrassed to ask?

If your goal here has been to cause considerable personal offense, you succeeded.

If your goal has also been to portray yourself as a petty, vindictive, twit, you have succeeded there, as well.

One can only wonder at your point, though.

Posted by: Jeff Guinn at July 10, 2005 8:15 AM

Jeff:

Whipping pout your family to try to support your quack genetic theories is a cheap trick. It relies on the assumption that no one will contradict you because you can then pitch a hissy.

If you don't want your family discussed don't bring them up. If you choose to try and use them as shields then don't whine when it doesn't work.

If you try reading about schizophrenbia a little you'll see that it is not inherited and that so little is known that they have no firm ideas about how much is nature and how much nurture, though it is assumed both play roles. In a family such as yours, where you and your brother share classic psychological disorders associated with the absent father it would not be surprising to find a schizophrenic brother.

Posted by: oj at July 10, 2005 8:38 AM

OJ:

Here is what I said:

I had a step brother who was schizophrenic. Medication aimed at balancing his brain chemicals helped immensely.

and, subsequently,

[Chemical imbalance] certainly was the cause of my step-brother's schizophrenia.

There are two things to note here:
1. There is absolutely no assertion as to the fundamental cause of the imbalance.
2. I was completely agreeing with what you said prior to my subsequent statement; i.e. Chemicals won't treat the cause of your depression, just the resulting chemical imbalance.

I think if you substitute schizophrenia for depression, it is abundantly clear.

So, in the complete absence of any mention of ultimate cause, you decide I have whipped out my family to substantiate my quack genetic theories.

There are at least several problems with that. First, as my step brother, he bears no meaningful genetic relationship with my family. Second, if your gripe is with my quack genetic theories (never mind their irrelevance here), then an ad hominem attack is going to bury that point. Finally, I have utterly no idea to which genetic theories, quack or otherwise, you are referring.

In other words, "Whipping out ... pitch a hissy." is a thoroughgoing non sequitor.

Now I happen to think that, on occasion, first hand information can contribute to the conversation at hand, as above. Your reading into far more than the words contained was wholly, absolutely, wrong. Wrong on the facts, and wrong on the implications. Unless, of course, you can quote any sequence of my words suggesting any cause at all for schizophrenia, never mind genetic.

I have in fact read a fair amount on schizophrenia--your statement that unknown elements of nature and nurture are required is completely correct.

The same must be said of homosexuality, although perhaps to a lesser extent. There may be a genetic (nature) component; it is somewhat more likely that hormonal perturbations during gestation prevent the brain that starts out female from completely transitioning to a male brain.

What is certain, though, is that attributing homosexuality to absent fathers is quackery nearly beyond comprehension.

My brother is a homosexual for the same reason all other gays are: Your God made him that way, and while that might jar your thoughtless theological bigotry, there it is. Further, that should suggest to you that you have mistaken your religion for God.

As for atheism, your assertion is equally barking mad, and confuses correlation with causation. (see http://www.stthomas.edu/gaudium/papers/Coulter.pdf for what the Catholic Church thinks on the issue.) What's more, you don't even have that right. I am an agnostic who finds organized religion to be an empty exercises.

So, to recap:

You made an utter hash of my comments, completely failing to note absolute agreement with your assertion.

In the complete absence of information, you lept to a wholly erroneous conclusion.

You charge me with unamed quack genetic theories, despite the complete irrelevance of genetics to the discussion. What's more, I'll bet you can't even cite what they are, quack or otherwise.

Finally, your continued assertions that homosexuality or atheism are due wholly, or even in the tiniest part, to divorce, are beneath contempt, and collapse quickly in the face of reality. Unless, of course, you ignore the vast majority who come from intact families.

You could not have possibly gotten this more wrong, or made yourself appear more of a jerk in the process.

Posted by: Jeff Guinn at July 10, 2005 11:15 PM

Jeff:

So we're back at point A. Your fractured family produced several disordered children. A schizophrenic would be no suprise. I regret your tragedy.

Posted by: oj at July 10, 2005 11:23 PM

OJ:

So, you get it entirely wrong from start to stop, and that is all you have to say for yourself?

Point A is where you introduced, then compounded, an irrelevant ad hominem into the discussion.

As demonstrated above, your insults were ill mannered, pointless, based on a complete misreading, and compounded by several lies.

A normal man, one with sufficient honor to accept responsibility for his actions, would acknowledge his mistakes and apologize.

Your serial inability to do so is the real tragedy here.

BTW--you never told me what my "crackpot genetic theories" are. Or did you make that up, too?

Posted by: Jeff Guinn at July 11, 2005 6:30 AM

Jeff:

You introduced the brother into the conversation, no? Just as you have your gay brother, your willingness to kill your wife if she's ill, your sons if they were disabled, etc. Please do feel free to stop hiding behind your family and we can stop discussing them.

Posted by: oj at July 11, 2005 7:07 AM

OJ:

Your reading comprehension is unimaginably bad. The subject of the post was drugs alleviating chemical imbalances, the source was my first hand experience with my step brother, both on and off medication.

Assertion, substantiation--really not too tough a concept.

So, please do feel free to discuss the content of my posts, rather than whatever your fevered imagination concocts.

In the realm of concoction, we have already established "willingness to kill my wife ..." is a out and out lie.

Given the amazing track record of distortion, incomprehension and lies in this thread, combined with your fraud of two and a half weeks ago, this is obvious:

You hold your God, and your God's commandments in complete disdain.

And your claims to possessing objective morality are rank hypocrisy.

So, please feel free to stop hiding behind your lies, and we can stop discussing them.

Posted by: Jeff Guinn at July 11, 2005 4:30 PM

so you're not going to kill your wife if she gets sick, now?

Posted by: oj at July 11, 2005 5:36 PM

OJ:

I'll tell you what. You post the words I actually used on this subject, then we can talk.

Until then, debating ethics with someone as dishonest as you is a fool's errand.

Posted by: Jeff Guinn at July 11, 2005 9:09 PM

Bingo!

Posted by: oj at July 11, 2005 10:42 PM
« HOW ABOUT A WEIRD RELIGIOUS ONE?: | Main | THE RISK IS EASILY CUT TO 0%: »