Alternatively, you could not use comparisons that are deliberately insulting, then throwing a hissy fit, including an additional insult, when you are asked to tone it down.
(It was clearly intended as a personal insult.)
Do not continue in this mode.
[ /Moderating ]
QUOTE=Trunk]by pointing out the absurdity of his post by using a more extreme example.
[/QUOTE]
btw, it’s her post, not his.
And I still don’t find my post absurd. I was coming up with the only thing I could think of as a reason and arguing in advance. 
Further, you still haven’t mentioned why medicating is qualitatively different from “wasting” other social resources, or corrected me if I’m wrong that you view it that way. I’d really like to understand this. I am not trying to bait you, Trunk. I’m trying to understand a viewpoint that is different from mine.
hmmmmphh!
And you call yourself a Doper!
Sorry to have brought down the standard. But every group has to have its less than average members…
Pink font aside, “harrowing electricity” is a great description of the sensation.
Google “infantilism”.
No, no, I think I’ll take your word for it.
So far in this thread I’ve seen no evidence that drug firms “invent” diseases. I’ve seen people making snide comments about diseases or disorders that they know nothing about, but that’s not new. For a place that purports to fight ignorance, there is an awful lot of it in this thread.
Just to chime in. I work on Inflammatory Bowel Disease (previously mentioned in this thread as IBS, which it is not called anymore, as an example of an invented disease). It is a very real disease.
I could show any person on the street a slide of a healthy bowel, and one of an IBD bowel, and with absolutely no pathological training, he would be able to pick out the diseased one.
And this, I suspect, is the true test of whether a disease is physical in nature or psycho-somatic (although the suffering can be just as great in the latter case). Unfortunately, it may take many years to be able to FIND the physical test that demonstrates the existence of a true physical malady.
Diagnosis on the basis of reported symptoms is always iffy, and it’s always a temptation to assume that any condition NOT supported by objective physical evidence is “not real,” especially in those cases where the symptom cluster could really be the result of depression and/or boredom - Chronic Fatigue Syndrome comes to mind. So I’m glad to see that a successful test as been developed for IBD.
You might want to rethink the idea the CFS is “just” depression or boredom.
Take a look at this article in Forbes magazine.
Here’s another quote from the CFIDS Association of America
Besides, for any disease, disorder or syndrome, just because no one has found a physiological basis yet, that doesn’t mean there isn’t one, or that it’s psychosomatic.
Please note that my post neither said that CFS WAS depression/boredom, or that lack of a physical test was conclusive evidence for non-disease. On the contrary, I pointed out that it may take years to identify a physical test. And I said that it would be easy to THINK that CFS might be depression/boredom, because the symptoms were similar and there were (to my knowledge) no physical markers. The fact that they have come up with some is strong evidence to the contrary, and I’m delighted to hear it.
Sorry, then, my misunderstanding.
I have a close friend who really suffers from CFIDS, among other things, and it is a hot button to me when people think she’s just “goofing off” because she’s on disability.
But to be fair, Pharma certainly is interested in expanding the sphere of what is called disease and in developing medications that need to be taken forever. And create they do. Examples:
A created disease: constitutional short stature. Someone is always going to be in the lowest 3%ile for height (uh, 3% of us to be precise). Define that lowest group as a disease state and an appropriate indication for daily Growth Hormone injections to avoid the social disability associated with short stature.
An expanded disease state: ADD. Very real and often worth treating, but the edges of who is being called abnormal and who needs to be on medication are fluid and Pharma is helping expand the sphere.
But to be fair, I don’t think the pharma companies are pushing for people who are 5’6" (like me!) to get this. This would be more the fault of pushy parents wanting their kids to be 6 feet tall, and irresponsible doctors for perscribing it.
I’m not saying that the pharma companies hate the idea of expanding the market, but this is not what the drug was developed for, and if it being over perscribed that isn’t the fault of the companies.
I’m sorry to hear about your friend. That being said, I suspect that CFI *has * been over-diagnosed because some people find it less embarassing to admit than depression, or because they don’t realize themselves that they are depressed. Similarly, I think ADD is over-diagnosed, and that many kids who, in the past, would have been considered perfectly within normal range, are now being treated for it. In that case, I think it’s probably the parents, who aren’t willing to believe that little Johnny is simply a normal boy who doesn’t feel like paying attention or working at his school work.
I would bet that sometimes happens, but I think it also happens that people blame others for laziness, “being bad,” etc., when they have a genuine treatable problem. I seem to recall that once dyslexia became understood as a real condition, for example, it was realized that a lot of so-called lazy or uncooperative children were simply unable to see what others did. I know a couple of people who did not really learn to read well until they were adults and got specialized teaching.
Similarly, I’ve read numerous places that childhood obesity is define don a percentile basis. Those at the 85th to 95th percentile of BMI are overweight, and those at or above the 95th percentile are obese.
What it’d like to know is, how on earth does this make any sense? If magically tomorrow all children were within a small range of healthy weights for their age and height, by definition 5% of them will be at or above the 95th percentile.
AND, if they’re almost *all * overweight, most of them will still not be considered to be! You’re right, it’s an absurd method!
I have NO IDEA why you think it’s relevant. I also haven’t stated why medicating is qualitatively different than the 4-3 defense, but I don’t see how it relates.
Are you just trying to say, “why are we talking about this? We should be talking about the environment?”
Do you think I’m concerned with “over medicating” because the strip mining for acetaminophen is destroying the environment?
I have no friggin’ idea why you’re talking about it.