Link between mental health and ….bad health

The types of “health” are related, really? Shook over here.

If only there were a physical connection we could see like some kind of fleshy vehicle of testable units, a body of some description. No, we’re floating blobs of consciousness in a cloud of feels, aren’t we?

Mutation (genetic) load is true, at least somewhat but who dares to directly study it? Instead we are left with related variables.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3048500/

The lifespan of people with severe mental illness (SMI) is shorter compared to the general population. This excess mortality is mainly due to physical illness. We report prevalence rates of different physical illnesses as well as important individual lifestyle choices, side effects of psychotropic treatment and disparities in health care access, utilization and provision that contribute to these poor physical health outcomes.”

Detailed.

“Nutritional and metabolic diseases, cardiovascular diseases, viral diseases, respiratory tract diseases, musculoskeletal diseases, sexual dysfunction, pregnancy complications, stomatognathic diseases, and possibly obesity-related cancers are, compared to the general population, more prevalent among people with SMI.”

People with mental problems can’t take care of themselves, really?

Not to be harsh but, is this news?
I searched, not one mention of fitness.

Ability to reproduce (here it would be impotence for age in the male) and carry (childbearing without issue for age, the female) is a significant component of it (organism fitness, for the nerds at home).

https://www.age-of-the-sage.org/quotations/darwin_survival_fittest.html

“struggle for existence”, he repeated in description
the vindicated theme for this post

“Besides modifiable lifestyle factors and side effects of psychotropic medications, access to and quality of health care remains to be improved for individuals with SMI.”

#sigh

Enough of that for now.

And they’re exponentially more expensive.
https://www.healthcatalyst.com/understanding-risk-stratification-comorbidities/
I dislike this fact but…. the information is out there. We can’t help by lying.

There isn’t just one thing causing the “mental” disease and another separate thing causing the “bodily” disease.
It’s all genetic! At least, moderately genetic.
And remember I said exponential risk of suck?

“Charlson Comorbidity Measure: The Charlson model predicts the risk of one-year mortality for patients with a range of comorbid illnesses. Based on administrative data, the model uses the presence/absence of 17 comorbidity definitions and assigns patients a score from one to 20, with 20 being the more complex patients with multiple comorbid conditions. It is effective for predicting future poor outcomes. This method is explained in further detail below”

You cannot fight math. You will lose.

#struggle4life

poor outcomes = death, more or less

This is tough to read like the IQ link. I wouldn’t blame you skipping all this. You cannot unsee it.

“One thing all of these models have in common is that they are based, in some degree, on comorbidity. Understanding comorbid conditions is a critical aspect of population health management because comorbidities are known to significantly increase risk and cost. In fact, a study from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality reports that care for patients with comorbid chronic conditions costs up to seven times as much as care for those with only one chronic condition.”

Twice the condition can be seven times the cost. I’ll leave you to think about that.
Is this systemic injustice?
No!
The body is complex, various conditions interact with one another. Not killing the patient by accident due to Condition B to treat Condition A needs time and more research and more money!

https://www.rwjf.org/en/library/research/2011/02/mental-disorders-and-medical-comorbidity.html

“Expenditures and gaps in health care delivery are not evenly distributed across the population, however. To improve health care quality and reduce costs, policy-makers must focus on particular subgroups who are at greatest risk. Persons with mental health and medical comorbidities represent just such a population.”
“The pathways causing comorbidity of mental and medical disorders are complex and bidirectional.

What I said.

Medical disorders may lead to mental disorders, mental conditions may place a person at risk for certain medical disorders, and mental and medical disorders may share risk factors

Yup.

It’s all healthcare, people!

ALL OF IT.

For instance, low IQ can also ’cause’ someone to more likely get heart disease.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-heart-intelligence/low-intelligence-among-top-heart-health-risks-study-idUSTRE61903L20100210

Here’s a clunker of a line.

“When mental and medical conditions co-occur, the combination is associated with elevated symptom burden, functional impairment, decreased length and quality of life, and increased health care costs.”

This upsets me. Just world is a fallacy.

Bear in mind the IQ/depression link in the last post:

“At the same time, major depression is a risk factor for developing chronic conditions, such as cardiovascular disease.”

If the economy is making people of a certain IQ band effectively useless, they’re going to be depressed.
Especially if “their” jobs owed by their home country are outsourced to visa people.

“Exposure to adverse childhood experiences such as trauma, abuse, and chronic stress are all associated with both mental and medical disorders, and responsible for much of the high rates of comorbidity, burden of illness, and premature death associated with chronic illness.”

It’s sad. It’s sad to read about. That is a harrowing existence.

But stress shouldn’t be lumped in with trauma and abuse.

“Many of the most common treatments for diseases may actually worsen the comorbid condition.”

You tell me where the solution is because I don’t see it.

A society of hospital patients (don’t forget aging demographics).

Over to Oz.
http://www.health.gov.au/internet/publications/publishing.nsf/Content/mental-pubs-m-mhaust2-toc~mental-pubs-m-mhaust2-hig~mental-pubs-m-mhaust2-hig-men
Mental disorders were more common among people with chronic physical conditions (28.0%) when compared to people who did not have a chronic physical condition (17.6%).
The data is usually out there. Tough to find but present.

Another!
https://pubs.niaaa.nih.gov/publications/arh40/109-117.pdf

This article briefly reviews the associations
among alcohol dependence, major depressive disorder, and
posttraumatic stress disorder. Dysregulation of the brain’s and
body’s stress system (i.e., the limbic–hypothalamic–
pituitary–adrenal axis) might serve as a common mechanistic
link to explain some of the relationships among these
frequently comorbid conditions. Finally, the article examines
the role of sex differences in stress circuitry. These differences
may explain why men and women differ in their risk for
developing comorbid alcoholism and stress ­related disorders.”

Addictions play into it too, because of course they do.

And you can’t really blame sexism for an individual’s brain circuitry.

Let’s look at one more substance and how it alters development (i.e. when children/teens/young adults use it).

An interaction of marijuana and low IQ they won’t study so here’s something odd.
https://www.gwern.net/docs/genetics/correlation/2017-aas.pdf
“Psychotic patients who used cannabis frequently before illness onset have higher genetic predisposition to schizophrenia than those who did not”
“Our study supports an association between high SZ-PGRS and frequent cannabis use before illness onset
in psychosis continuum disorders.”

Before someone points to this classic arse-covering exercise,
https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2016/01/twins-study-finds-no-evidence-marijuana-lowers-iq-teens
I linked because you wanted info on school shooters and pot use is a major factor.
Naturally the drug use wouldn’t change IQ because the IQ is the causative factor in having a childhood addiction problem.
However the study compares ongoing users to abstaining, not ongoing addicts to a twin who never did the stuff, there is no control group, making this link pointless so don’t try to send me it. I’ve seen it.

When the brain is developing, there is a permanent loss of functioning.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/travisbradberry/2015/02/10/new-study-shows-smoking-pot-permanently-lowers-iq/

And abnormal function. Like with any drug to any developing organ.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/10/161005160733.htm

For the ‘self-medication’ lie:
“The use of marijuana did not correct the brain function deficits of depression, and in some regions made them worse.”

“Of additional interest, those participants who used marijuana from a young age had highly abnormal brain function in areas related to visuo-spatial processing, memory, self-referential activity and reward processing.”
No, they cannot perceive themselves accurately.

This whole drug study in children (<25) thing is like breaking someone’s kneecaps with a baseball bat and wondering why they can’t sprint. You wouldn’t give them alcohol and tobacco, why give them anything else that’s an addictive drug and think it’s fine? Why not nice and “natural” opioids next?

[ I googled this as a joke and fuck you, America.
nytimes.com/2018/05/09/magazine/children-of-the-opioid-epidemic.html
axialhealthcare.com/opioid-use-safety-children/
druggy parent trash pushing it on the kids? That’s low. ]

Why not the ankles too? Why not?

I firmly believe some of these kids have the misfortune that their parents are their worst enemy in life.

Anyway.

“The study found that early marijuana use was also associated with lower IQ scores.”

Associated. Which first? The lower IQ or child drug abuse?

“With past research suggesting a genetic role between marijuana use and depression, Dr. Osuch and her collaborators at Western University’s Robarts Research Institute also conducted genetic testing on participants. They discovered that a certain genetic variation of the gene that produces Brain Derived Neurotropic Factor (BDNF) was found in greater proportion in youth who used marijuana from an early age. BDNF is involved in brain development and memory, among other processes.

Could be a race-based finding, unclear.

“This is a novel finding that suggests this genetic variation may predispose youth to early marijuana use,” said Dr. Osuch.”

So how many of you heard about it in the MSM?

Funny how they trust none of the political news but all the scientism rationalizing living like a CA Democrat member.

It doesn’t have to be good universally for you to do it, like smoking tobacco, just admit it can be bad for society and move on. Denial of biology makes it more annoying and a full ban more likely. Shaming normal people for being “squares” is what all druggies do including alcoholics.

Why link that here?

What would drug use increase, in the organism? Mutation rate. The genetic load (whatever it was) becomes heavier. So to do that before reproducing, knowing the adverse effects, the child/ren will be worse off as well. So much for “doing no harm” and “victimless crime”. Eventually parents will be sued by their children for bad lifestyle habits that damaged their personal genome (and their children’s genome etc). It’s coming.

https://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2014/10/15/lawyers_unaware_children_can_sue_parents_for_support.html

https://abcnews.go.com/US/adult-children-sue-mom-bad-parent/story?id=14407409

https://worldnewsdailyreport.com/red-haired-teen-sues-his-parents-for-2m-for-being-born-ginger/

I warned you, cannot unsee it.

Low IQ a mental health risk

https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/press-releases/lower-childhood-iq-associated-with-higher-risk-of-adult-mental-disorders/

Read it and fucking weep.

If you understand it, you’ll want to.

Researchers have hypothesized that people with lower IQs may have a higher risk of adult mental disorders,

less ability to thrive in the world leads to depression, really?

but few studies have looked at the relationship between low childhood IQ and psychiatric disorders later in life. In a new, long-term study covering more than three decades, researchers at Harvard School of Public Health (HSPH)

sorry is three decades by Harvard not good enough for some of you?

while you’re playing the Devil’s fiddle of appeal to authority?

“Well, this wasn’t in the Guardian” YEAH.

No prizes for guessing why.

found that children with lower IQs showed an increased risk of developing psychiatric disorders as adults, including schizophrenia, depression and generalized anxiety disorder.

but not limited to

Lower IQ was also associated with psychiatric disorders that were more persistent and an increased risk of having two or more diagnoses at age 32.

Wow the asylum special? Next post about that, regular hospitals are fast becoming the new asylum.

Because “stigma” is a great excuse to endanger regular populations.

The study will be published online December 1, 2008 and in the January print issue of The American Journal of Psychiatry.

The study participants were members of the Dunedin Multidisciplinary Health and Development Study, a cohort of children born in 1972-1973 in Dunedin, New Zealand. At the initial assessment at age 3, the study had 1,037 children. The participants were also interviewed and tested on their overall health and behavior at ages 5, 7, 9, 11, 13, 15, 18, 21, 26 and at age 32, when 96% of the original cohort participated. IQs were assessed at ages 7, 9 and 11. Psychiatric disorders were assessed at ages 18 through 32 in interviews by clinicians who had no knowledge of the subjects’ IQ or psychiatric history.

blind

The authors used IQ as a marker of a concept called cognitive reserve, which refers to variation between people in their brain’s resilience to neuropathological damage.

Darwin just called it fitness but okay. Ignore evolution.

Or it could be the inverse genetic measure genetic load, where less is best.

The results showed that lower childhood IQ predicted an increased risk of a variety of adult mental disorders.

Imagine my shock.

“Lower childhood IQ predicted increased risk of schizophrenia, depression, and generalized anxiety disorder. Individuals with lower childhood IQ also had more persistent depression and anxiety and were more likely to be diagnosed with two or more disorders in adulthood,” said lead author Karestan Koenen, assistant professor of society, human development, and health at HSPH.

Next post will focus on comorbids.

It’s ironically depressing reading.

No association was found between lower childhood IQ and substance dependence disorders, simple phobia, panic disorder or obsessive-compulsive disorder.

Sounds dodgy but okay.

The mechanism through which lower childhood IQ might lead to increased risk of adult anxiety disorders is not known,

that is a lie

the world doesn’t need low IQ labor anymore, especially in the First World

but the authors suggest some possible explanations.

Step 1. give them more money?

They write that lower childhood IQ might reveal a difference in brain health that makes an individual more vulnerable to certain mental disorders. Another possible mechanism is stress–individuals with lower childhood IQs are less equipped to deal with complex challenges of modern daily life, which may make them more vulnerable to developing mental disorders.

I won’t even.

The findings may be helpful in treating individuals with mental health disorders.

Hang on, if it’s implicitly caused by low IQ, it cannot be fixed.

Ever.

It’s their parents’ fault (median IQ of the genetic parents, all else equal).

Why blame the kid?

“Lower childhood IQ was associated with greater severity of mental disorders including persistence over time and having two or more diagnoses at age 32,” said Koenen.

32 is young, they haven’t even hit middle-age yet when conditions skyrocket.

Deep breath.

“Since individuals with persistent and multiple mental disorders are more likely to seek services, cognitive ability may be an important factor for clinicians to consider in treatment planning.

REALLY.

This is why IQ denialism is toxic. It isn’t everything but hey, it’s something!

When you’re planning about people, plural, it’s important!

For example, individuals with lower cognitive ability may find it harder to follow instructions and comply with treatment regimens.

How low are we talking?

By taking clients’ cognitive ability into account, clinicians may improve treatment outcome,” she said.

The results may also be helpful in prevention planning. “Educators and pediatricians should be aware that children with lower cognitive ability may be at greater risk of developing psychiatric disorders. Early detection and intervention aimed at ameliorating mental health problems in these children may prevent these problems from carrying over into adulthood,” said Koenen.

No no no, no no no and…. no.

I’m ragequitting this post and writing the next, I tried.

Drugs and homicide

All this hullabaloo about that Panorama documentary, I must throw my hat in the ring.

It’s an expensive hat, don’t touch it.

BRIEFLY

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4471985/

Quantitative data from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) adverse event reporting system (7) imply that some antidepressants may be associated with a disproportionately high number of violent events (8).

so it is an issue, just not with the entire class

Duh.

That’s a strawman.

Find me one recent spree killer who wasn’t on these meds at some point.
Now look up the fact that brain changes are permanent.

http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2001/08/04/serotonin-part-one.aspx

You’re not supposed to take them unless you’re actually depressed.

The overdiagnosis problem is not a matter of theory, it’s a question of brain-damaging people with the blues.

And they don’t actually prevent suicide if you look at outcomes.
By rigging the chemistry, they can actually make it likelier, since the brain tries to compensate for the drugs.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/10/12/rows-over-study-which-claims-antidepressants-double-suicide-risk/

Researchers behind the Danish review said the study demolished “potentially lethal misconceptions” about the safety of the drugs, which are taken by more than 4 million Britons a year.

The analysis examined 13 studies, to see what impact the drugs had on patients who did not suffer from depression.

Scientists said these patients were selected, because previous studies linking suicide and antidepressants had been dismissed by those who said the deaths must have been caused by the mental health condition, rather than the pills.

…Prof Peter Gotzsche, of the Nordic Cochrane Centre, said such feelings could be considered as “precursors to suicidality or violence”

I suggest there’s a difference in effect on men and women.
This would explain the male suicide rate and homicide risk.

https://www.cchrint.org/2014/04/24/ssri-antidepressants-the-gateway-drug-to-mass-murder/

drawing specific attention to a number of mass shootings that have occurred as a result of these drugs. Prozac, for instance, which is often prescribed for attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), was responsible for triggering multiple mass shootings at schools during the 1990s and 2000s, while other SSRIs have been linked to similar shootings.

http://www.naturalnews.com/039752_mass_shootings_psychiatric_drugs_antidepressants.html

Every mass shooting over last 20 years has one thing in common… and it’s not guns

https://ssristories.org/category/cause-of-death/murder-suicide/

From the homepage

There is a U.K. organization called Hundredfamilies  (http://www.hundredfamilies.org/ ).  It is concerned about homicides committed by people who are mentally ill, and wants the government to do more to prevent these deaths….

Naturally this gets covered up because ‘stigma’.

Ignore the people trying to abuse and rape and murder you! That sounds fine!

Prozac can lead to suicide and cause aggression, at least. This is well-known in the field.

Anti-psychotics are the worst though, the strongest meds.

http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(05)73526-1/abstract

It’s almost like the brain is a complex organ and you shouldn’t fuck with it.

The serotonin imbalance hypothesis of depression wasn’t even right. It’s been shown as completely wrong – and you can have excess serotonin problems too. There’s no evidence in humans for serotonin deficiency, and even then, most serotonin is produced in the gut so it’s really a microbiome issue. #biology101 Naturally, insurance doesn’t pay as much for that as psychiatric meds.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4165625/

In the studies where violence goes down?

Funding

The Wellcome Trust

http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/846302

Psychotropic medications, including antidepressants, benzodiazepines, and particularly opiate and nonopiate analgesics, are associated with a significantly increased risk for homicide, new research shows.

Jari Tiihonen, MD, PhD, professor, Department of Clinical Neuroscience, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden, and colleagues found that antidepressants increase the homicide risk by 31% and that benzodiazepines increase the risk by 45%.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26372359

CONCLUSIONS:

The association between SSRIs and violent crime convictions and violent crime arrests varied by age group. The increased risk we found in young people needs validation in other studies.

ageism!

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20004282

There is an association of homicide with mental disorder, most particularly with certain manifestations of schizophrenia, antisocial personality disorder and drug or alcohol abuse. However, it is not clear why some patients behave violently and others do not. Studies of people convicted of homicide have used different definitions of mental disorder…..

Mental disease is the original non-PC term for ‘mental illness’.
TBF NAKALT… wait….

According to the definition of Hodgins, only 15% of murderers have a major mental disorder (schizophrenia, paranoia, melancholia).

Mental disorder increases the risk of homicidal violence by two-fold in men and six-fold in women.

Schizophrenia increases the risk of violence by six to 10-fold in men and eight to 10-fold in women.

http://psychrights.org/research/Digest/SSRIs/kauffman2009.pdf

WHEN IN DOUBT, RESEARCH.

THERE IS DOUBT.

nobody has any reason to say You Shouldn’t Research That

those people are anti-science

SSRIs reportedly interact with 40 other drugs to cause
“serotonin syndrome.” This presents as twitching, tremors, rigidity,
fever, confusion, or agitation. Serotonin/norepinephrine reuptake
inhibitors (SNRIs) also may cause serotonin syndrome by
interactions

Excess serotonin.
Like I said the other day, a lot of these ‘depressed’ SJWs are causing their own ‘anxiety’ symptoms by dosing on the SSRIs instead of changing their life.

Just a year after fluoxetine was introduced, Bill Forsyth of
Maui, Hawaii, had taken it for only 12 days when he committed one
of the first murder/suicides attributed to any SSRI. In the same year
Joseph Wesbecker killed eight others and himself in a Louisville,
Ky., printing plant where he worked, after 4 weeks on fluoxetine.
Yet as early as 1986, clinical trials showed a rate of 12.5 suicides per
1,000 subjects on fluoxetine vs. 3.8 on older non-SSRIs vs. 2.5 on
placebo!An internal 1985 Lilly document found even worse results
and said that benefits were less than risks. Such documents were
released into the public domain by Lilly as part of the settlement in
the Wesbecker case. Fifteen more “anecdotes” of murder/suicide,
three with sertraline, were listed by DeGrandpre

This link has been known since the 80s

and we’re only discussing it now.

But trust Big Pharma.

Vaccinated versus Unvaccinated study, straight up science

http://oatext.com/pdf/JTS-3-186.pdf

“This study aimed 1) to compare vaccinated and unvaccinated children on a broad range of health outcomes, and 2) to determine whether an association found between vaccination and neurodevelopmental disorders (NDD), if any, remained significant after adjustment for other measured factors.”

Okay.

So far, good science.

“In conclusion, vaccinated homeschool children were found to have a higher rate of allergies and NDD than unvaccinated homeschool children. While vaccination remained significantly associated with NDD after controlling for other factors…”
Oh, that’s why they refuse to study it.
Honestly, at least.

“There are very few randomized trials on any existing vaccine recommended for children in terms of morbidity and mortality,” they note, “in part because of ethical concerns involving withholding vaccines from children assigned to a control group.”

And the ethics of not conducting real science to legally allow something?
There is gonna be a huge lawsuit once this finally breaks. Humongous.

“In a final adjusted model designed to test for this possibility, controlling for the interaction of preterm birth and
vaccination, the following factors remained significantly associated with NDD: vaccination (OR 2.5, 95% CI: 1.1, 5.6),
nonwhite race (OR 2.4, 95% CI: 1.1, 5.4), and male gender (OR 2.3, 95% CI: 1.2, 4.4).”

Vaccines are racist?

Well, the races are biologically different. Men go in for more medical studies, so maybe vaccines have been designed for the typical race involved in these studies: white.

“With regard to acute and chronic conditions, vaccinated children were significantly less likely than the unvaccinated to have had chickenpox and pertussis but, contrary to expectation, were significantly more likely to have been diagnosed with otitis media, pneumonia, allergic rhinitis, eczema, and NDD. The vaccinated were
also more likely to have used antibiotics, allergy and fever medications; to have been fitted with ventilation ear tubes; visited a doctor for a health issue in the previous year, and been hospitalized. The reason for hospitalization and the age of the child at the time were not determined, but the latter finding appears consistent with a study of 38,801 reports to the VAERS of infants who were hospitalized or had died after receiving vaccinations. The study reported a linear relationship between the number of vaccine doses administered at one time and the rate of hospitalization and death; moreover, the younger the infant at the time of vaccination, the higher was the rate of hospitalization and death [55].

The hospitalization rate increased from 11% for 2 vaccine doses to 23.5% for 8 doses (r2 = 0.91), while the case fatality rate increased significantly from 3.6% for those receiving from 1-4 doses to 5.4 % for those receiving from 5-8 doses.”

…. Vaccination with PCV-7 has a marked effect on the complete microbiota composition of the upper respiratory tract in children, going beyond shifts in the distribution of pneumococcal serotypes and known potential pathogens and resulting in increased anaerobes, gram-positive bacteria and gramnegative bacterial species”

Autism: 4.2 times higher risk
ADHD: 4.2 times higher risk
Learning disabilities: 5.2 times greater risk
Eczema: 2.9 times higher risk
Allergic rhinitis: a 30 times higher risk, yes thirty.

It’s tempting to point to babies who did die and pretend like there’s something medical science could have done. Some people will always die, some of those will be infants, the death rate will never be zero, but if you compared deaths without excluding illnesses caused by vaccines, those results would be interesting too.

‘Racism’ the reason mixed race are crazy

http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0138511

If there’s about as much proof for your theory as demonic possession, how can you call it a science?

I would love proof for that, btw.

This meta-analysis is the first to focus specifically on racism and health across a range of populations, national contexts and health outcomes.

There’s a reason they don’t usually collect this data. Or keep it behind a paywall in Figure 4b.

this is awkward

This meta-analysis indicates that racism is significantly related to poorer health, with the relationship being stronger for poor mental health and weaker for poor physical health. After adjusting for publication bias, the correlation with poor mental health remained twice as large as the correlation for poor physical health, with results for general health (unspecified as mental or physical health/mental and physical health combined) falling in-between.

The stronger association between racism and mental health outcomes, compared with physical health, raises questions about the mechanisms by which racism affects health.

omg why no facepalm god ugh wut

These fucking people. Wood for the trees, I tell ya.

Well, you compare the blacks in America (foreign) to the blacks in Africa (native) and see if it’s cultural.

If not, biology. But they never consider that possibility. Biological outcome, must be evil Whitey!

Despite how black schoolchildren perform better in a class of majority whites. So much so, whites are bussed into heavily-black areas to boost the black’s test scores but also depress the white to close the gap.

They don’t actually mention racial profile in this, which is curious, don’t you think?
They certainly had the data but it’s buried. They mention geography instead.

Nothing to hide, nothing to fear…

Maybe they just counted them as the non-white population, as one big chocolate blob, that would make sense.

physical outcomes such as CVD and obesity.

wait, is the racism ghost responsible for their gluttony now?
the spectre of brown obesity! because you don’t ever see Indians fat on ghee in their own country, do you?

dysregulation of cognitive-affective regions such as the prefrontal cortex, anterior cingulate cortex, amygdala and thalamus share similarities with pathways leading to anxiety, depression and psychosis

NOTHING BIOLOGICAL HERE
NO SIR-EE

NOTHING TO SEE

MOVE ALONG-

MOVE ALONG-

Born this way. All culture. K.

It is not immediately clear why associations between racism and some negative mental health outcomes were stronger in studies published more recently (from 2006) or in non-U.S. studies.

There are more mixed children. It’s a sample point. There are more to study, more disease to find.

Most of the Millennial mental health trends going down the toilet are non-white.

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/feb/23/mixed-race-children-mental-health

Far in excess of what you’d expect for their numbers. It’s almost like mashing together two genomes that evolved separately is like a psychiatric powderkeg, but no…

Race is so unreal they can physically study it.

No such thing, but depression overdiagnosis is totally real, ignore the HBD.

Facts are racist unless you blame racism.

Correlation is not causation.

http://www.tylervigen.com/spurious-correlations

You can get self-report attitude surveys to match up to anything. People are easy to bias on those. It’s called priming effects.

Our findings corroborate previous research findings as to the magnitude of associations between racism and mental health

either whitey leaves and takes their tax money with him
or the people with the problem leave and liberate themselves
pick one

the law of unintended consequences in racial studies
segregation is proven or at least suggested by findings

This study is the most comprehensive meta-analysis on racism and health to date, providing information on the state of play in this rapidly growing field.

I can’t wait.

drinking tea judging you glaring staring really now come on arnold broadwalk empire

The push to accept pedophilia

Predators all operate in the same way.

It starts like a certain religion, with children.

Step One of Infiltration: “We’re harmless!”

Like the Big Bad Wolf in nana’s dress. The Trojan (sorry) Horse. They say they want to live in peace, while constantly stirring up trouble. Peace is code for ‘Leave me alone whatever I do’.

Then comes the request.

Step Two: “Pity me.”

Rhetorical, appeal to emotion. “Real” victim, by existing. And probably money. They get you to trust them, make their deviance socially acceptable. This way, they can get close to authorities e.g. the classic single mother, the social workers whoring off helpless orphans as having ‘boyfriends’, prevent teachers from reporting them or just freely search for victims to target.

Then finally, what they’ve been working up to…..

“Let me in.”

They say ‘You can’t choose who you’re attracted to.’ As if you can rape anyone you’re attracted to in the street a la Roosh’s ‘satire’. As if people don’t have rights, and private bodies, and physical attraction cannot be ignored.

Actually, sexual tastes are mutable/fluid/changeable/trendy/fashionable, as porn users have proven in various studies. You seek what you feed. A man seeks out anal porn, they’ve turned themselves homosexual. They’re conditioning themselves, training their body’s sexual response cycle. A man seeks out goat porn, child porn, etc. They choose to orgasm to these deplorable things, out of personal weakness. You may hear them say they are shocked by those things, not sexually aroused. Okay, then why touch your junk while viewing it? Nowadays, it is common for men to consider that masturbation requires porn… a view pushed by degenerates, wishing for new recruits, knowing about the desensitization cycle because slippery slope does apply to physical stimulation. Like going to the gym and building muscle. You load on more until you buckle. The body is one big input and output machine. Sex is the biggest carrot (sorry) of incentive in behaviourism. It builds Empires and destroys them.

If you take up babysitting jobs while fantasizing about little girls, you don’t get to blame other people for being ‘bigoted’. Projection of guilt doesn’t work. He already lied to himself, to other people, stalked around his chosen demo, scoped a target, and engineered a situation where he could commit a crime. That is 100% him.

Hold adults responsible for their actions, victim culture is based on infantilization, babying people and holding them to lesser standards. Standards are not ‘unfair’, they are necessary if you want respect. Sometimes I get accusations of being sexist toward men. It isn’t my fault men commit the majority of sexual crimes. That is my exact point. They are 100% responsible for their actions, including the oven-worthy ones. As are women when they rarely make those evil choices  e.g. https://www.icetrend.com/morgue-worker-arrested-after-giving-birth-to-a-dead-mans-baby/

Evil isn’t a male/female/Christian/Muslim/Hindu/atheist/whatever thing. That is my exact point, exactly. It is a choice, which everyone has. If you cannot accept the responsibility of adult choices, you do not get the rights associated with adulthood either e.g. the ability to consent to sex, a choice. Such people are correct, they should be treated like children – but with no half measures. Hence, the asylum was made, to give these people the peace they needed.

Briefly, on stigma.

Every time I see a BS argument about ‘ending stigma’ like a mean rumour on the playground, in practice trying to blame other people for being the victim and reacting as such to unacceptable behaviour from the sick who inconsiderately refuse to get help or take their meds, I know I’m seeing a person that has never witnessed true mental disease. Psychiatry follows the Medical Model. Mental illness, is also mental disease. They are the same thing in synonym and in theoretical backing. Like client and patient refer to the same person. It’s like someone with Black Death who visits family, not caring if someone else gets hurt. At best, they’re terrible sociopaths lacking remorse and empathy in spreading it by choice (cough HIV cough). They should seek solitude and treatment until they are safe for society.
Depression isn’t someone posting crying emoji on social media. Psychosis isn’t limited to thinking you shit unicorn sprinkles. Mania isn’t painting pretty swirly pictures with cutesy hashtags. Depression is a mother drowning her baby because the father refused to co-parent and there aren’t enough hours in the day alone*. Psychosis is murdering your parents because they refused to make you Mac n Cheese so they were obviously demons. Mania is jumping off a building because they thought they were could fly on the power of good intentions. Enabling those sick people for your own ego is also sick. Sick people require treatment, this is common sense. If they don’t require treatment, they are not sick, and therefore, require no sympathy, as they are perfectly well and simply bad at coping with everyday stressors. As many people are without bellyaching about it and promptly seek mechanisms to forever fix their own issue, responsibly. Stigma is the sane reaction to the insane. Diseased people are dangerous, whether the illness is mental or physical. You cannot guilt people into placing themselves in harm’s way. That is wrong.

Abnormality isn’t any excuse for criminality. The law is not a guide on what is psychologically healthy.

Back to pedophiles.

Acceptance, it starts. Everybody accepts that degenerates exist. We have the internet. We know you’re there. What they mean is Accept me in your life.

Against freedom of association and its less-discussed flipside, the Right to Ostracize. 

Eventually they move onto celebration, but all the parades in the world won’t quiet that little voice inside called a Conscience. They don’t like the idea of God because God sees all, even the things that person is in denial of while it is convenient.

But if it’s something you can’t help, there’s nothing to celebrate. If it’s a medical condition, it needs to be kept private for treatment. Otherwise social pressure comes in. That’s why therapists must be confidential, because even their balanced account will bias the recovery. These people slander themselves, happily. They are quite stupid. Reputation has repercussions. You want to write about rape in a lascivious tone? People will think you’re a rapist. You want to write about abusing little girls? People will think you’re a pedophile. Nobody forced you dudes.

It’s like how the self-styled ‘pansexuals’ love orientation theory, although an All option is an impossible orientation (it’s like a sphere as a degree) but then they begin listing all the things they aren’t into. When Pan means all. So no, the meaning of the word implies you are a necrophile, and a pedophile, and into bestiality. That is the meaning of the word. If you use that choice of word, you are going to be considered among that lot. Personal definitions don’t apply to the public. You don’t get to play thought police.

Educate yourself = Brainwash yourself with my opinions for me.

FYI This is Pan.

At the very least, pansexuals are goat-fuckers. If you are not a would-be goat-fucker, don’t call yourself a pansexual, dipshits. Otherwise, when you use that term thinking you’re cool on tumblr, you’ll find yourself swiftly unemployed as the creepy guy. It is creepy. Creepy is the new edgy. If you get a face tattoo or stupid hair, you’ll be fired for that too. Welcome to social consequences for social ineptitude, brought to you by maths.

*Anyone who disputes that very common story, ask yourself ‘Where was the father?’ At literally any point beforehand.

Link: Why isn’t the mind like engineering? Why can’t we ‘fix’ the brain like a car?

http://aeon.co/magazine/psychology/why-cant-we-unite-neuroscience-and-psychiatry/

It sounds like a stupid question but it isn’t. Why can’t we just fix mental illness? Simply, our present paradigm is wrong.

We moved from the Medical Model (when did you last hear the accurate term ‘mental disease’?) to the psychiatric one (which isn’t one at all, really, since they patch up symptoms and call it a day). It was supposed to be the other way around but the lure of profit and the over-inflation of chemical solutions (and humiliatingly stupid, simple theories like ‘depression is caused by insufficient serotonin’) have conspired to create it. It should’ve been the opposite. Symptom to cause. Cause to cure. Cure to prevention.

We should have fewer and fewer disorders of the mind each year. Instead we have more in an ever-expanding lexicon where most people become mentally abnormal, a mathematical impossibility. It’s profiteering from the creation of suffering and it certainly isn’t science, which cuts the chaff.

The current paradigm is tainted and informed by politics. We no longer have a paradigm of the mind. The modern paradigm is informed by what is politically correct. Not that correctness, per se, but a more subtle one that dresses up in ethic’s clothing (human rights! respect my feelings! even when my feelings are insane!) while breaching larger ethical issues themselves (such as drugging and operating on children’s genitals). If enough people object, the psychiatrists cave to the public peer pressure of their clients, who have all the money and none of the sense. Their testimony is used in a court of law to justify common whim. It’s terrifying.

The brain is distinguished as the organ defined by its history. A blank brain is a broken brain. Arguably, our biological lifespan is defined by our growth and complexity of this organ. It isn’t car parts.

Taking the moral issue of Should We? fix it, which has dystopian applications given government control over these areas and past lobotomization of innocents (such as those rebelling or awaiting a large inheritance) and considering the Theseus Ship problem. Considering how much ‘wrong’ in the brain is structural, how much of the structure could or should we replace? [Bear in mind, these structures are destined by genetics.]

The postmodern evil is to consider all situations relative and become impractical and impotent.

Even better, give them a pitying look and smirk no matter what they say.

It’s afraid to be a science. Smoking doesn’t cause lung cancer, that’s a correlation! It weasels and worms into your personal life. It’s afraid of offending anyone, it’s afraid of stating the truth and it’s especially afraid of curing its repeat customers.

A better comparison would be genetics. Just because you can read them (Rosetta Stone Problem) doesn’t mean you understand them (like the author). If we start tampering and randomly throwing out what appears to be ‘junk’ (junk DNA is a myth) then like all the failures of social engineering (9/10 easily) we will make the problems unimaginably worse from hubris. They refuse to wait. They refuse to fully understand the thing they’re chopping away at. They are not scientists and they should not be allowed within 500 yards of any scientific establishment. If they were to be held criminally responsible for what they do that would be something. Nobody should be above the law.

This also pertains to the Qualia Problem, look it up. And the supposed Hard Problems like consciousness. We have all these stories, these myths of the mind that are unfalsifiable as Freud yet he is disregarded while the latest, trendiest theories are respectable. It’s madness.

There are no First Principles of the Brain and there should be.
Going back to the dumbarse explanation of depression. What is depression? Where’s the medical test? Why not? OK, assuming it is serotonin levels, why doesn’t supplementation work? What about diet? What about generative cell implants? No? Why does none of that work?

Psychiatry has no theories.

Psychiatry has pets.