Somebody Is Paying The Medical Bill

ladajo · Post by **ladajo** » Sat Mar 03, 2012 6:28 am

Nope, I was talking about the drugs being taken at all. It matters not so much how they got them, more so what they do with them.

Saw a recent report where teens and 20 somethings are self reporting higher incidents of driving while high. Again, poor choice behavior associated with drug use causing increased involuntary risk for others.

So, lets say our two genius chemists, picked up down at the CVS drive- through instead of trying to burn down their car. Do you really think they would wait to get home?

MSimon · Post by **MSimon** » Sat Mar 03, 2012 6:32 am

ladajo wrote:
According to what I have read from the NIDA the drug problem is 50% genetic. Without the "right" genetics addiction is impossible. So right away these "highly addictive" drugs can only affect about 20% of the population. And of that 20% only about half have that mysterious experience (trauma in fact) that makes addiction possible. So these drugs are only "highly addictive" to about 10% of the population.
Prove your numbers. You have a bad habit of fudging numbers then glossing it over later when shown you were wrong.

I have never ever fudged a number. Sometimes my memory is faulty. And I often post corrections to my pronouncements before anyone else does.

I take it that "fudging" is a projection.

MSimon · Post by **MSimon** » Sat Mar 03, 2012 6:37 am

So, lets say our two genius chemists, picked up down at the CVS drive- through instead of trying to burn down their car. Do you really think they would wait to get home?

No more than a person who buys alcohol at CVS will wait until they get home to start drinking.

And if you look at the numbers it is alcohol that causes about 90% or 95% of our drug problems. We ought to ban the stuff.

OTOH countries that introduce alcohol to children at an early age seem to have fewer alcohol problems.

In fact in Holland where pot is freely available to consumers drug use rates among the youth are about 1/2 ours. Wait a minute. Are you telling me that prohibition does not keep drugs from kids? I'm shocked.

MSimon · Post by **MSimon** » Sat Mar 03, 2012 6:46 am

So, lets say our two genius chemists, picked up down at the CVS drive- through instead of trying to burn down their car. Do you really think they would wait to get home?

OK. I'm getting it now.

Drug Fiends.

The Drug Demon has captured their will and now controls their every action. Demonic possession in a powder. The Devil has incarnated as white powder.

The stuff didn't seem to have that power when it was sold over the counter. I wonder why?

The belief in Demons and Devils is superstition (well except maybe in church). Interesting to see otherwise rational people succumb to that kind of thinking.

Does this remind you of the Demon Rum campaigns of ages gone past?

MSimon · Post by **MSimon** » Sat Mar 03, 2012 7:21 am

ladajo wrote:
According to what I have read from the NIDA the drug problem is 50% genetic. Without the "right" genetics addiction is impossible. So right away these "highly addictive" drugs can only affect about 20% of the population. And of that 20% only about half have that mysterious experience (trauma in fact) that makes addiction possible. So these drugs are only "highly addictive" to about 10% of the population.
Prove your numbers. You have a bad habit of fudging numbers then glossing it over later when shown you were wrong.

There is considerable enthusiasm for the potential of genetics research for prevention and treatment of addiction and other mental disorders. As a result, clinicians are increasingly exposed to issues of genetics that are fairly complex, and for which they may not have been adequately prepared by their training. Studies suggest that the heritability of substance use disorders is approximately 0.5. Others report that family members of affected individuals experience a 4- to 8-fold increased risk of disorder themselves. Statements that addiction is "50% genetic" in origin may be taken by some to imply one's chances of developing the disorder, or that a lack of a positive family history confers immunity. In fact, such conclusions are inaccurate, their implications unwarranted given the true meaning of heritability. Through a review of basic concepts in genetic epidemiology, we attempt to demystify these estimates of risk and situate them within the broader context of addiction. Methods of inferring population genetic variance and individual familial risk are examined, with a focus on their practical application and limitations. An accurate conceptualization of addiction necessitates an approach that transcends specific disciplines, making a basic awareness of the perspectives of disparate specialties key to furthering progress in the field.

National Center for Biotechnology Information, U.S. National Library of Medicine 8600 Rockville Pike, Bethesda MD, 20894 USA

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22155620

Good enough for you?

Here is some stuff on PTSD:

Polymorphisms in a gene that regulates serotonin may predispose individuals to the development of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) if they experience or witness trauma, a longitudinal study suggested.

After a mass shooting on a college campus, young women carrying the 5-HTTLPR multimarker and rs25531 genotypes of the serotonin transporter gene exhibited significant PTSD symptom scores (P=0.03 and P=0.1, respectively), according to Kerry J. Ressler, MD, PhD, of Emory University in Atlanta, and colleagues.

In contrast, the STin2 polymorphism of the serotonin transporter gene, which has been linked with psychosis and suicidality, was not associated with PTSD symptoms (P=0.81), the researchers reported online in the Archives of General Psychiatry.

"One of the critical questions surrounding PTSD is why some individuals are at risk for developing the disorder following an index trauma while others appear to be relatively resilient," the researchers observed.

The role of genetics in PTSD was first demonstrated by twin studies among Vietnam War veterans, but molecular genetic data have not been fully explored.
http://www.medpagetoday.com/Psychiatry/ ... ress/28382

Genetics of Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder: Review and Recommendations for Genome-Wide Association Studies

Post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) occurs following exposure to a traumatic event and is defined by distinct symptom clusters of re-experiencing, avoidance and numbing, and arousal persisting for more than 1 month after trauma [1]. At least 1 in 9 American women and 1 in 20 American men will meet criteria for the diagnosis in their lifetime [2]. Individuals who develop PTSD have an increased risk of major depression, substance dependence, and other health conditions, as well as impaired role functioning and reduced life course opportunities [3, 4]. Among the 50% to 85% of Americans who are exposed to a traumatic event, the risk of PTSD ranges from 2% to 50%, depending on the type of trauma exposure [5, 6].
Why some individuals develop PTSD following trauma exposure while others are resilient remains a key question in trauma research. The importance of genetic influences on PTSD risk have been recognized for half a century [7]; however, little progress has been made in identifying true or causal risk genetic variants for PTSD. The genetic epidemiology of PTSD has been primarily limited to twin and candidate gene association studies, and there have been no linkage studies of PTSD. Twin studies have all shown monozygotic twins to have significantly higher concordance for PTSD than dizygotic twins, resulting in heritability estimates in the range of 30% to 40% [8, 9]. Despite evidence supporting a genetic predisposition to PTSD, an insufficient amount of research has focused on identifying the precise genetic loci that account for the moderate heritability estimate. This article reviews the current state and limitations of genetic research on PTSD. We then discuss how these limitations could be addressed through genome-wide association studies (GWAS), which, combined with well-powered replication samples, offer the best opportunity to identify novel “true” risk variants for the disorder.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3108177/

Up to 50% of people with panic disorder and 40% of patients with generalized anxiety (GAD) have close relatives with the disorder. (About half of GAD patients also have family members with panic disorder, and about 30% have relatives with simple phobias.)

http://health.nytimes.com/health/guides ... auses.html

After a single traumatic event, as many as one-fourth of people exposed will develop post-traumatic stress disorder, a psychiatric disorder characterized by anxiety, hyperarousal and persistent unwanted memories.

Scientists are looking for genes or gene pathways that can help better predict PTSD. A new study in the journal Nature suggests one such route in women: through a protein called pituitary adenylate cyclase-activating polypeptide, which is known to regulate the cellular stress response. Women are more likely to have PTSD in general; 10% of women and 5% of men develop the condition sometime in their lives.

Participants, of which there were more than 1,200, came from an impoverished area around Atlanta, Georgia, and did not have military-related trauma. Interpersonal violence, gunshot violence, sexual assaults and other abuse were some of the triggers of PTSD reported.

Study results suggest that a particular gene variant for PACAP may be sensitive to both estrogen and stress, because it is associated with women who have PTSD.

"It helps us to understand that PTSD is complex," said Dr. Kerry Ressler of Emory University School of Medicine, lead study author. "There are many individual ways that people come to PTSD, in the same way that there are probably 100 different ways to come down with heart failure."

This is probably one of many biological pathways that lead to PTSD, he said. Understanding it will help get a better picture of the biology and the neural circuitry of PTSD, and could have implications for future diagnosis and treatment of the condition.

Ressler's group found that this gene variant is highly associated with all three subcategories of PTSD: hyperarousal, intrusive memories and avoidant behavior. It could be broadly linked to all of them, or perhaps the definition of PTSD is not specific enough to what's going on biologically, Ressler said.

http://thechart.blogs.cnn.com/2011/02/2 ... etic-link/

A survey of the literature from 2002:

http://eprints.qut.edu.au/650/1/obrien_ken.pdf

Specific causes for the onset of PTSD following a trauma aren't clearly defined, although experts suspect it may be influenced both by the severity of the event, by the person's personality and genetic make-up, and by whether or not the trauma was expected. First response emergency personnel and individuals directly involved in the event or those children and families who have lost loved ones are more likely to experience PTSD. Natural disasters account for about a 5% rate of PTSD, while there is a 50% rate of PTSD among rape and Holocaust survivors.

http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictio ... s+disorder

Why only 50%? Sounds genetic to me.

And my understanding of all this back in 2005: http://powerandcontrol.blogspot.com/200 ... -real.html

MSimon · Post by **MSimon** » Sat Mar 03, 2012 7:30 am

OK. Genetics and trauma.

Why you want to make war on the traumatized? Where I used to come from (America 1950) that would be considered unChristian behavior.

And breaking down doors at 3AM was considered particularly Nazi. Now a days it is ALL AMERICAN. And those who object to the policy are enemies of the state and civilization.

Well count me as uncivilized.

MSimon · Post by **MSimon** » Sat Mar 03, 2012 7:43 am

Twin studies have demonstrated that genetic influences common to major depression, generalized anxiety disorder, panic disorder, or substance dependence account for up to 60% of the genetic variance in PTSD [64, 68, 69].

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3108177/

ladajo · Post by **ladajo** » Sat Mar 03, 2012 1:50 pm

In fact, such conclusions are inaccurate, their implications unwarranted given the true meaning of heritability.

Nature v Nurture. The right answer is "probably a bit of each".

I fully agree that folks with disorders sometimes seek escapism. But is letting them practice escapism the right answer?

BTW, the point about PTSD realted to Natural events v other people. I would think that you would clearly see the potential difference in perception by the 'victim'. It can be harder to accept what we do to each other over what nature does to us.

MSimon · Post by **MSimon** » Sat Mar 03, 2012 2:27 pm

But is letting them practice escapism the right answer?

About 70% of female heroin users were sexually abused in childhood.

The PTSD is debilitating.

What would you do? Let them suffer?

Look up the results Dr. Marks got in England by making available regular supplies of pure drugs to addicts. Something like 30% to 50% became functional.

And the rest? Well people with severe PTSD tend to be non-functional in any case. i.e. it may not be the drugs.

In any case denying these folks medication will do nothing more than it does now - support a large gang of criminals from the dealers, to the cartels, to the police, lawyers, judges, and all those profiting from punishing the traumatized.

The difficulty here is similar to what we have in climate "science". "Everybody" knows the answer and if you look at the data differently you are either "in denial" or a mindless legalizer.

The truth is our understanding of "addiction" has changed radically in the last ten years but public understanding has not caught up. And our government has done zero to get the word out. Too many iron rice bowls in jeopardy.

Drug Prohibition is the perfect Government Program. It can never work (the premise is wrong) and thus requires ever increasing armies of functionaries to prosecute. Socialism at its very finest.

And it encourages other infringements on our liberties. If drugs can be outlawed why not "bad" food? Or any thing else that might be bad for you? Sharia comes to America. For your own good.

I have reported that pot smokers tend to live longer (IIRC it adds 4 years to your life on average). By the criteria of forcing people to do what is "good" what prevents the government from making pot smoking mandatory? Or at least encouraging it with a suitable bureaucracy, PSAs, conferences, etc.

If government would just leave people alone we would all be much safer.

MSimon · Post by **MSimon** » Sat Mar 03, 2012 2:37 pm

It can be harder to accept what we do to each other over what nature does to us.

Quite true. And yet here we are fomenting war in the inner cities. Which will create PTSD and thus demand for drugs. Legal and illegal. Funny. More than a few people favor this obviously self defeating policy.

And Mexico? They have a war on. Demand for drugs is rising quite rapidly. A clever way to increase demand for the product the war is supposed to fight.

You got to hand it to the guys making this policy. They have been rather clever in putting one over on most of the population for nearly 100 years. The internet is going to kill them.

TDPerk · Post by **TDPerk** » Sat Mar 03, 2012 2:52 pm

"And of that 20% only about half have that mysterious experience (trauma in fact) that makes addiction possible."

The notion trauma makes addiction possible--that it is a required prerequisite--is an assertion far from proven.

Did you mean to imply it is a required precondition?

TDPerk · Post by **TDPerk** » Sat Mar 03, 2012 3:00 pm

"But is letting them practice escapism the right answer?"

Until or unless it causes you a cost, where do you get the idea you can presume to attempt prevent them? And where do you get the idea that a policy of prohibition which maximizes cost--as our current policies clearly do here--is a good idea even if you have the power to prevent them?

MSimon · Post by **MSimon** » Sun Mar 04, 2012 7:30 am

TDPerk wrote:"And of that 20% only about half have that mysterious experience (trauma in fact) that makes addiction possible."

The notion trauma makes addiction possible--that it is a required prerequisite--is an assertion far from proven.

Did you mean to imply it is a required precondition?

Let me see. We know that war can produce PTSD. We know that it is a problem for EMTs. We know sexual abuse will do it. And on top of that you can read the literature links I have provided.

All I'm discussing (maybe I wasn't clear) is the link between trauma/PTSD and "addiction".

Now is trauma a precondition for addiction? Well we have no clue - AFAIK no studies have been done. Mostly because it is inconvenient for those running the war to do the research should it come out against them (it probably will).

What do we know:

1. Trauma is a trigger for PTSD
2. Significant numbers of those with PTSD self medicate with black market drugs and/or alcohol.

If even 30% of drug use is triggered by PTSD/trauma then that will call the whole drug war into question. If the numbers are higher than that....

Why aren't the studies being done? Another reason may be that "everyone knows" drugs cause addiction. End of story.

choff · Post by **choff** » Sun Mar 04, 2012 8:25 am

If crazy stuff like MK Monarch is half real, then sometimes child abuse/trauma are deliberately used with drugs, as opposed to causing drug usage.

Even if it's bogus, plenty of the child trauma victims are going to have suffered at the hands of parents who also abused drugs, so they could have picked up on drug abuse from the parents irregardless of the physical abuse.

Then there's people who will use drugs for reasons totally unrelated to any abuse suffered in the past. Also, there exists the problem of people who never suffered any abuse at all but still use drugs, or people who suffered all manner of abuse but never abused drugs.

How your stats help you decide policy depends entirely on how you frame the questions.

MSimon · Post by **MSimon** » Sun Mar 04, 2012 8:36 am

people who suffered all manner of abuse but never abused drugs.

Got that one covered. Genetics.

On the rest we know practically nothing except that drug use is one of the possible symptoms of PTSD. We have no idea of he actual prevalence.

We do have a clue: about 70% of female heroin addicts were sexually assaulted in childhood according to a study done by Dr. Lonnie Shavelson. In the intervening 10+ years no follow up studies have been done AFAIK. Why? Isn't that interesting that no further studies have been done? Wouldn't it be good to have more data?

If it shows anything like those numbers such studies would end the war on the traumatized. ASAP.