A spike in diagnoses of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD)
and other mental disorders has fueled an unprecedented reliance on
pharmaceutical medications to treat children, with long-term effects
that remain unknown. We speak with Canadian physician and bestselling
author, Dr. Gabor Maté. He argues that these responses are treating
surface symptoms as causes while ignoring deeper roots. Dr. Maté says
children are in fact reacting to the broader collapse of the nurturing
conditions needed for their healthy development.
Dr. Gabor Maté on ADHD, Bullying and the Destruction of American Childhood
Showing posts with label talc. Show all posts
Showing posts with label talc. Show all posts
Tuesday, December 28, 2010
Sunday, April 26, 2009
Ending Collective Drug Dependency
Three Steps to Really Getting Off Drugs
By John Taylor; 2009 April 26, Jalal 17, 166 BE
You may think that you are clean and sober, but you are not. Neither am I. Nor are we on one drug, but many, so many we cannot count or estimate them.
The reason is that ever larger traces of drugs, prescribed and over-the-counter, substances both legal and controlled, are turning up in the streams and rivers that keep plants, animals and us humans alive. You would think that when this was discovered that we would start rethinking how we medicate ourselves. You would think that Plan A, ending business as usual, would be our first order of business. But drugs spell big money. And scientists follow the money, while doctors have devolved over the past century into nothing better than pushers, or, more charitably, applied pharmacists. Why change a good thing? The same centralized system that offloads packaging and pollutants onto nature's back is dumping a pharmacopeia of untested medications and other chemicals, none of which we have any idea of how they will affect the environment, either singly or in combination.
I am proposing on this blog a locally based "mound" architecture that would design everything according to laws, standards and codes arrived at by the consultative "open systems" methodology and run under the moral authority of a world government. All drugs, save a tiny number known to be environmentally benign, would be kept out of a mound community. This regulation would not be enforced from afar, it would in the direct interest of everybody in the neighborhood. Think about it. If you are eating food composted and recycled directly from your own waste, or the waste of any guests you have, you definitely do not want to introduce poisons, or suspected poisons, or even untested and unknown chemicals.
It may seem harsh not to allow even prescription medications into a housing development. What about heavily medicated groups, such as the infirm and the old? But that is to ask the wrong question. A sustainable neighborhood would only force us to face up to a responsibility that the present centralized, nationalistic, capitalist system shirks, marginalizes and ignores. Unfortunately, the chemicals we are churning out are not going away and we must do something radical to keep our planet pure.
Actually, I think that a little investigation will turn up many now-ignored, environmentally friendly alternatives to drugs, such as herbs, diet and exercise, that will result in far better health than our druggie culture can imagine. Today there is so much money to be made from drugs that it drives politics, advertising and the entire scientific research industry. Whenever you pick up a science magazine with a new discovery about the body, even when the knowledge can be applied without alteration to improve health and lifestyle, it is always followed by the proviso, "It is hoped that a means will soon be found to turn this into a pill." So powerful is Big Pharma that anything that is not in pill form must be steadfastly ignored.
A sustainable mound architecture neighborhood would also have to keep out the piles of packaging and plastic, the shrink-wrapped armor that "protects" every product on store shelves. However, as a planet-wide purchaser on the scale of a Walmart, mound neighborhoods, acting together and backed by a world government, would have enough influence to end this atrocious practice forever. Already Amazon has added on a service where they remove the packaging of some products they ship before the customer sees it. This is a good first step, but it is not nearly big enough to count as "Plan A."
Mound neighborhoods are "Plan A" (ending business as usual) and "Plan B" (radical change based on new presuppositions) combined. In every locality there would be a publicly accessible "war room" -- or, better, a "peace room" -- designed to map out statistics on the health of that area, and contrast it with commensurate neighborhoods around the world. It would illustrate everything that is otherwise invisible and ignored, such as the drug and chemical content of compost and sewage, such as how much food waste there is and whether products are properly reused or recycled.
The peace room would also track the physical health and psychological well-being of its plant, animal and human inhabitants. It would show how these are being improved elsewhere, and why and how that is being done. It would show the viewer how changes in his or her choices can influence these broader results, and it would offer feedback on how their work, service and hobbies are impacting the broader picture. In this way the peace room would make everybody into an activist for change.
I was delighted to come across John Comenius's Panorthosia because his plan offers a comprehensive way of accessing the data of a peace room without missing anything of major importance. In a real way, Comenius is the founding father of the peace room. I imagine three buttons for viewing each information display according to his tripartite division of knowledge, action and meaning, that is, teaching, politics and religion. As for the purpose of the first, science or philosophy, Comenius wrote:
"Philosophy deals with books and knowledge and the reasons for things for the purpose of enlightening mankind." (Panorthosia, Ch. 13, para 12, p. 205)
Information projected in a peace room is designed first and foremost for edification and enlightenment, not obfuscation or separation. When a display has informed adequately of the philosophical background of a given problem or issue, the second button will explore its implications for action.
"Politics deals with rule and authority for the purpose of keeping mankind in order." (Idem.)
In this society everybody will have a job, a career, and a member of a family or household. In that sense, each will be a politician, involved in practical action with the ultimate goal of peace. This is democracy of universal participation, but tempered by deference for the knowledge and creative genius of individuals and respect for experts and tradespersons. Finally, the display will attempt to fit knowledge and action into the overall meaning of life.
"Religion deals with God and conscience for the purpose of kindling in mankind the flame of faith, charity and hope (or keeping it alight)." (Id.)
This third button might blank the screen so that viewers can meditate undistracted on these three "flames," faith, charity and hope. Unlike steps one and two, this step can be taken immediately by each and all, no matter what they think or believe. Faith fits the information of step one and the action of step two into the meaning of existence under the aspect of eternity. Charity renews the resolve of the individual to sacrifice for the group and the group for the individual. Hope we derive from piety and religious devotions; it is what keeps us going in the face of difficulty.
When a viewer has had enough of praying before a blank screen, further "button three" displays might pinpoint natural areas, statues, outlooks, panoramas, gardens and other beauty spots in a neighborhood where one might go to reflect and meditate. It might highlight the locations of shrines and places of worship that are open to the public, or of other institutions inspired by faith, hope and charity.
To conclude, let us narrow this broad scheme down to our original question, how to get our society off pills and drugs, both medical and recreational. Button one on our display shows a simulation of the broader social effects of a drug-ridden neighborhood, and of one that is pure and free of the pollution of artificial chemical. Step two would lay out the things that can be done in our area of expertise, our home and job, to reduce drug use. Step three, taken as a whole, suggests effective spiritual alternatives to drugs. For example, one study showed that a walk in a tranquil woods had the same effect as a dose of antidepressants. We can expect that just as we presently fear not only trace drugs in our water but possible effects of exposure to combined, mixed chemicals, so we can expect a combined benefit from regular contact in our day with many spiritual goods, such as visiting holy places, praying in holy buildings, and so forth.
::
Monday, February 23, 2009
Friday, October 10, 2008
Shams-i-Imrika'i
SHAM Addiction and Marriage
By John Taylor; 2008 Oct 10, 13 Mashiyyat 165 BE
Our clunker, which the kids name "Anzuf," had to get its Clean Air test yesterday. Anzuf getting almost old enough to be exempt from the emissions test as an antique. Anyway, I heard that beaters like Anzuf are more likely to pass if you run the engine for at least a half hour before the test, so I made an excuse to go to Port Colborne and get an electric bicycle repaired just before the examination. After leaving the bike shop, I dropped into the Port Colborne library and became embroiled in a book called SHAM. Thanks to SHAM, I was ten minutes late for Anzuf's test. Fortunately, Anzuf did pass, with flying colors. Anyway, the full reference for SHAM is:
"SHAM, How the self help movement made America helpless," Steve Salerno, Crown Publishers, New York, 2005
The book is dedicated "To mom and dad and the other members of their generation who, thank God, were co-dependent enough to put their kids first." Clearly, this is a conservative voice. The acronym SHAM, by the way, stands for "Self Help and Actualization Movement." This author sets out to prove that SHAM really is a sham, a scam, a clever way of skimming money from gullible people who long to better themselves. Instead of offering real advice based on science, complete with footnotes to substantive studies, as the old self help books of the 20th Century did, this new generation of self help gurus set themselves up as authorities. They spout nonsense, eschew science and do incalculable harm to their listeners and society at large.
"To a disconcerting degree, (SHAM) is an 8.56 billion dollar social crusade about nothing. Is a religion whose clerics get very, very rich by stating the obvious in a laughably pontifical fashion. (One guru said:) "Life is a process. We are a process. The Universe is a process." To which a cynic might add: "Making airy, asinine statements meant to impress or hoodwink gullible people is also a process." (16)
One of the worst of the lot, according to Salerno, is Alcoholics Anonymous, and the hundreds of 12 step programs that it has spawned. He points out one thing that had bothered me, that in order to perpetuate itself it must label alcoholism as a disease, a lifetime condition that can only be alleviated, never cured. This puts its adherents into the position of being helpless victims, infantilizing them forever. The leaders are what Christ called the blind leading the blind; they have to be permanent patients, or they do not qualify to be members, much less leaders. This turns the normal order of knowledge on its head.
"At meetings of alcoholics anonymous and other support groups, the leaders' sole credential may consist of his being in recovery from whatever the specific addiction is. Society, again, seems to think that this makes good sense. I would ask two questions: is it not possible that fellow sufferers are a bit too close to the problem to lead effectively and impartially? And if your problem was, say, that the electrical fixtures in your house were getting funky, would you really want a workshop taught by some other homeowner who could not get his lights to work right (and who, by his own admission, still had the problem?) Or would you want a trained electrician?" (SHAM, p. 15)
Personally, I found this argument pretty devastating. Worse, SHAM holds, AA has actively suppressed studies that found their program ineffective compared to other, expertise based addiction therapies. That is dishonest, corrupt and really unforgivable. If there are better ways of dealing with addictions it is in everybody's interest that they be better known.
My brother is heavily involved in AA and gobbles up self help books by the dozen, and I was involved in Al-anon for a couple of years, before the lifelong prescription began to weigh on me. Never is there even a mention of the virtue of temperance in their meetings. Instead of virtue crowding out vice, we have unending victimhood coping with a permanent condition.
But still, I regarded 12 step programs as a good thing for some people. Mostly, my problem with the movement was its wimpy stand on alcohol. Instead of trying to extirpate from society a harmful substance, they passively take all fault and guilt upon themselves, more perhaps than makes sense. They never denounce the liquid; the problem is in themselves, the percentage of drinkers who cannot handle it. Self-labelled alcoholics are diseased, not a world where 95 percent of the population imbibes. Permanent enslavement makes the worst victims of alcoholism willing collaborators, tolerating a boozy society without a peep of protest.
Another startling point made in SHAM is about marriage. The self help movement is a contributor to rising divorce rates because it has turned husbands and wives away from the purpose of marriage. "Nowadays young marrieds of both genders may be a tad too focused on their own fulfillment, with catastrophic effects for domestic tranquility." SHAM, citing an interview with David Blankenhorn in 1988, continues,
"`I think people today are less forgiving and relationships and more inclined to walk at the drop of a hat.' He made an interesting point about the famous JFK quote ask not what your country can do for you... and its relevance to a wholesale change in society’s perspective on the institution of marriage. `In years past, getting married was more of a selfless act. You do that in order to build something bigger than you -- a family -- and to be able to give what you could to the children of that union. That is all changed... People go into a marriage expecting to a far greater extent to have their own needs met. Instead of giving to the marriage, they want much more from the marriage. And often what they want is unrealistic.' It is hard to see such mental turnabouts as anything other than a consequence of SHAM-bred insights." (SHAM, p. 36)
Having just attended a weekend-long session about the Baha'i position on marriage and homosexuality, I can say that this point is one that we need to make much more forcefully. I think even the Writings tend to assume that people enter marriage out of altruism rather than ego fulfilment; but that is no longer an assumption that can stand up twenty years after Blankenhorn said that. Today selfishness, or if you prefer, self-actualization, is the default position, assumed by virtually everybody who gets married. Whether that is the fault of the self help movement or of materialism generally, is moot.
The following excellent points about the difference between Baha'i and materialist approaches to sex and marriage were made by our speaker at the sexual identity conference, Mary Kay Radpour,
"Contemporary American values undermine social order and the idea of service as a purpose of life. The Baha'i writings propose that one of the "patent evils" which has been engendered in the American nation is a distortion of our understanding of a chaste and holy life. A materialistic view holds that the purpose of life is pleasure and happiness. A spiritual view holds that the purpose of life is service to humanity and the development of virtues."
By John Taylor; 2008 Oct 10, 13 Mashiyyat 165 BE
Our clunker, which the kids name "Anzuf," had to get its Clean Air test yesterday. Anzuf getting almost old enough to be exempt from the emissions test as an antique. Anyway, I heard that beaters like Anzuf are more likely to pass if you run the engine for at least a half hour before the test, so I made an excuse to go to Port Colborne and get an electric bicycle repaired just before the examination. After leaving the bike shop, I dropped into the Port Colborne library and became embroiled in a book called SHAM. Thanks to SHAM, I was ten minutes late for Anzuf's test. Fortunately, Anzuf did pass, with flying colors. Anyway, the full reference for SHAM is:
"SHAM, How the self help movement made America helpless," Steve Salerno, Crown Publishers, New York, 2005
The book is dedicated "To mom and dad and the other members of their generation who, thank God, were co-dependent enough to put their kids first." Clearly, this is a conservative voice. The acronym SHAM, by the way, stands for "Self Help and Actualization Movement." This author sets out to prove that SHAM really is a sham, a scam, a clever way of skimming money from gullible people who long to better themselves. Instead of offering real advice based on science, complete with footnotes to substantive studies, as the old self help books of the 20th Century did, this new generation of self help gurus set themselves up as authorities. They spout nonsense, eschew science and do incalculable harm to their listeners and society at large.
"To a disconcerting degree, (SHAM) is an 8.56 billion dollar social crusade about nothing. Is a religion whose clerics get very, very rich by stating the obvious in a laughably pontifical fashion. (One guru said:) "Life is a process. We are a process. The Universe is a process." To which a cynic might add: "Making airy, asinine statements meant to impress or hoodwink gullible people is also a process." (16)
One of the worst of the lot, according to Salerno, is Alcoholics Anonymous, and the hundreds of 12 step programs that it has spawned. He points out one thing that had bothered me, that in order to perpetuate itself it must label alcoholism as a disease, a lifetime condition that can only be alleviated, never cured. This puts its adherents into the position of being helpless victims, infantilizing them forever. The leaders are what Christ called the blind leading the blind; they have to be permanent patients, or they do not qualify to be members, much less leaders. This turns the normal order of knowledge on its head.
"At meetings of alcoholics anonymous and other support groups, the leaders' sole credential may consist of his being in recovery from whatever the specific addiction is. Society, again, seems to think that this makes good sense. I would ask two questions: is it not possible that fellow sufferers are a bit too close to the problem to lead effectively and impartially? And if your problem was, say, that the electrical fixtures in your house were getting funky, would you really want a workshop taught by some other homeowner who could not get his lights to work right (and who, by his own admission, still had the problem?) Or would you want a trained electrician?" (SHAM, p. 15)
Personally, I found this argument pretty devastating. Worse, SHAM holds, AA has actively suppressed studies that found their program ineffective compared to other, expertise based addiction therapies. That is dishonest, corrupt and really unforgivable. If there are better ways of dealing with addictions it is in everybody's interest that they be better known.
My brother is heavily involved in AA and gobbles up self help books by the dozen, and I was involved in Al-anon for a couple of years, before the lifelong prescription began to weigh on me. Never is there even a mention of the virtue of temperance in their meetings. Instead of virtue crowding out vice, we have unending victimhood coping with a permanent condition.
But still, I regarded 12 step programs as a good thing for some people. Mostly, my problem with the movement was its wimpy stand on alcohol. Instead of trying to extirpate from society a harmful substance, they passively take all fault and guilt upon themselves, more perhaps than makes sense. They never denounce the liquid; the problem is in themselves, the percentage of drinkers who cannot handle it. Self-labelled alcoholics are diseased, not a world where 95 percent of the population imbibes. Permanent enslavement makes the worst victims of alcoholism willing collaborators, tolerating a boozy society without a peep of protest.
Another startling point made in SHAM is about marriage. The self help movement is a contributor to rising divorce rates because it has turned husbands and wives away from the purpose of marriage. "Nowadays young marrieds of both genders may be a tad too focused on their own fulfillment, with catastrophic effects for domestic tranquility." SHAM, citing an interview with David Blankenhorn in 1988, continues,
"`I think people today are less forgiving and relationships and more inclined to walk at the drop of a hat.' He made an interesting point about the famous JFK quote ask not what your country can do for you... and its relevance to a wholesale change in society’s perspective on the institution of marriage. `In years past, getting married was more of a selfless act. You do that in order to build something bigger than you -- a family -- and to be able to give what you could to the children of that union. That is all changed... People go into a marriage expecting to a far greater extent to have their own needs met. Instead of giving to the marriage, they want much more from the marriage. And often what they want is unrealistic.' It is hard to see such mental turnabouts as anything other than a consequence of SHAM-bred insights." (SHAM, p. 36)
Having just attended a weekend-long session about the Baha'i position on marriage and homosexuality, I can say that this point is one that we need to make much more forcefully. I think even the Writings tend to assume that people enter marriage out of altruism rather than ego fulfilment; but that is no longer an assumption that can stand up twenty years after Blankenhorn said that. Today selfishness, or if you prefer, self-actualization, is the default position, assumed by virtually everybody who gets married. Whether that is the fault of the self help movement or of materialism generally, is moot.
The following excellent points about the difference between Baha'i and materialist approaches to sex and marriage were made by our speaker at the sexual identity conference, Mary Kay Radpour,
"Contemporary American values undermine social order and the idea of service as a purpose of life. The Baha'i writings propose that one of the "patent evils" which has been engendered in the American nation is a distortion of our understanding of a chaste and holy life. A materialistic view holds that the purpose of life is pleasure and happiness. A spiritual view holds that the purpose of life is service to humanity and the development of virtues."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)