Monda

you're welcome bajenagh naghi

i wish you many sunny days where you are.

yes anon fish

pharm influence on healthcare is a very real concern, at different levels.

mobb jan, as parents...

we must go to any length and trial to find the most effective way to help our kids. Efficacy of treatment of course is not a simple matter, as you clearly pointed. Professional recommendations, doctors' and clinicians' assessments, along with our values regarding treatment, are all crucial decisive factors.

Research

Dear Mina, I was on the Seasonal Affective Disorder topic when I wrote that combination of therapy, exercise and light works the best, in the long run. 

I would not doubt for a moment, that there are many mood or cognitive disorders that require meds.

monda jan

this was a very interesting video. i know personally that i feel so much better and in a better mood when it is sunny. thank you for posting this and sharing it with us. 

thank you all...

please understand that my intent is not to argue with you specifically but to curb somewhat overstated comments.  as i said before, i am fully aware of the health-care crisis and corruption.  i simply do not believe in making such broadly interpreted statements. 

according to forbes, most pharmacutical companies outsource their research to CRO's as a more cost effective measure.  and recently, the NCI (national cancer institute) turned down pharma funding because they were uncomfortable with the funding coming from a pharmacutical company... can't remember which one now.

however, the concern is very real.  there is the case of the nobel prize winner whose research at stanford involved dna.  apparently he found out that a fellow scientist at a pharmacutical company had been researching the same thing but had been prevent from pursuing past a certain point.  so i'm not denying that it happens.  i'm just trying to settle a little dust being kicked up.

and as i pointed out before, my original concern was the "absolute" statement made by no-status regarding all policies and the comment that our president could be removed by drug companies.  please!

elsewhere, an entirely different approach is being taken.  "In South Africa, with the dwindling size of government coffers for fundamental research, there has been an increasing trend to encourage academic research to form tighter bonds with industry and to commercialise research."

just sayin'... let's make it real and not so subjective.  :-)

Of course it's complicated

Thanks Monda jan for the links and tips. I think just becoming aware of how crucial light is to our health and happiness will make a difference. Search (light) and thou shall find!

Mina khanom as for drugs, you are of course right. Two of my son's classmates who are lovely boys have been put on ADD medicine and even though I detest drugs I have to say they are doing much better. They are not so frustrated any more. They can concentrate and are enjoying the benefits of concentrating and just being calm. Their family lives have improved, their friendships have improved, the teachers like them more, etc.

Still, there must be other ways. We have to keep looking for them. And God knows we absolutely must not let the pharmaceuticals off the hook. I did not get the impression that Monda was dogmatic about any one particular approach to treatment.

Research

Dear Monda, aside from having a brother with bi-polar disorder, I have been in the mental health field for the past 30 years.  Not all psychological disorders can be treated by exercise/psychotherapy.  There are many People who absolutely need medication.  With all due respect your comment is inaccurate and misleading. 

Dear MPD

I thought you may find this study interesting. It's done at Univ. of Berlin with nice sample size and validity factors, on natural elements and mental disorders:

//www.medicinenet.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=93481

mobb

15 minutes of natural/unsunscreened exposure, 3 times weekly provides sufficient supply of vitamin D.  

//www.diagnose-me.com/treat/T175911.html

this one is the comparison findings of 700 products, 1) it goes back to 2007,  2) FDA is still sitting on it! (too much money in bad products and info) //www.ewg.org/node/21719

“The SPF rating on the product is helpful, but it is only part of what a consumer needs to know,” said Houlihan. “Our rating system includes critical information on UVA protection, how stable the product is in the sun, and potential health hazards of the product’s ingredients.”

“EWG has conducted this research because the FDA has failed to do so. With over one million cases of skin cancer reported each year people should have the most reliable information available about which sunscreens will provide the best protection for themselves and their families,” Houlihan added.

The report and website rank products for combined safety and effectiveness, help consumers recognize bogus claims on sunscreen products, and provide tips for safety in the sun.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has not finalized comprehensive sunscreen standards that have been in development for 29 years. When complete, these rules will standardize a rating system for UVA protection, and prohibit misleading and inaccurate claims such as “waterproof” and “lasts all day” that are commonly found on sunscreen products.

Dear Mina

Research clearly shows that the most effective treatment, in the long run, is combination of psychotherapy, exercise and natural light. Of course your job with depressive clients must be immense, in working with their lack of energy or resistance to exercise.

//www.thecarlatreport.com/index.asppagewp3162007141657

//linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0924977X03002207

mother of bad boy jan

Now that I know you like these sort of links, I'd send you more of them. BTW I believe some years back I read that past 30 SPF, we're just wasting money...that 40, 45 or 50 are just scams! I'll try to find a good & valid read on the sunscreen research for you.

you're very welcome anonymous fish..

i think you'd appreciate the noble qualities of your relatives even more, once you discover the profits involved in pharm-related pursuits. My mind is going blank right now, it's been a long day... but I will find you some links to read.

you said it!: passer by and status

It is a sorry state... does anyone have the figures on the top researches? OK I'll look for them soon.

IRANdokht jan

there's so much out there that we're not completely aware of! I mean I had heard bits and pieces of the faulty findings linked to ADHD treatments but those are often swept under the carpet in no time, it's really disheartening. There was this report on the pharmaceutical profits which blew my mind! I'd blog it or email it to you when when I find it.

SAD-Lamps

Yes my son is also studying psychology.  I have never recommended this kind of lamps to my clients, because, I have not objectively researched the benefits of this type of lighting.  I definitely see a dramatic change in my cleints' mood, during fall/winter.    

You're most welcome Shazde jan

good to see your avatar in this neck of the woods.

nah baba MPD

but then again who am I to say for sure.

Mina

I'll see if I can dig out the debate on SAD-lamps for you, in which some scientists proved the placebo effect of those lamps (which sell like hot cakes). I'm glad both you and your son enjoyed this post. Is he interested in the human psyche as well?

Monda

Dear Monda:  My son came home few days ago.  We both watched  and enjoyed this video.  Thanks for posting it.  However, it is important to know that during winter some people might get very depressed, due to limited sun exposure.  It is called SAD (seasonal affective disorder).

Most of my personality disorders stem from bad lighting

...I'm sure of it now.

Thanks monda jaan for sharing this fascinating presentation

S.A.M (an official Khar Vazir)

Monda jan

That was a very interesting topic presented in such an entertaining way. I enjoyed watching it. Hopefully I will set some time aside to dig into this issue more and learn what I can.

Thanks for sharing this clip, I was shocked at the serious nature of some of the findings.

IRANdokht

Status is right

S/he is absolutely right in pointing out that most research in US universities is now funded by various businesses. AF khanom you need to research the "privatization" of science in this country, and "public-private partnerships" in US academia. This is not an attack on your family members. It is the sorry state of pursuit of knowledge in this country.

thanks for the link...

however, i have to point out that you did, in fact, make an absolute statement.  Two of them actually. "They are ONLY interested in drugs or "procedures" where money can be made from. They really have no interest in actual health of people."

"mainly"  is not the same thing as "only". 

and that was my objection.  my bro is an invasive cardiologist.  he works very closely with cardiac surgeons.  he has been expressly praised for his efforts to contain needless surgeries.  i recently had a conversation with him and we talked about many of the issues you are rightly concerned about, including health care, etc.  i wish i had paid better attention or even taped the damn thing...lol.  i hate to paraphrase but when all else fails...

either i don't understand what you mean by the education system being "designed" to make doctors blind, etc. etc. or i question your facts in making such a statement.  are you speaking from experience?  did you attend medical school yourself and have a bitter experience which caused you to leave?  because if you didn't, then i will come right back at you and state that you are wrong.  i don't think my brother is the exception to the rule by any means.  he's no saint and he's not perfect.  but i damn well know how seriously he takes his medical vows.  he, in this most recent conversation, so emotionally stated the inviolate words of the hippocratic oath...I will keep them from harm and injustice. 

yes, there are clearly huge faults in the medical system as it exists today.  yes, clearly the parmacutical companies wield great power.  but you are wrong in asserting that they determine health care policies.  and to make a statement that they could "remove" our president?  well, no comment to that.

i have done some research on the subject of unnecessary surgeries.  not because of your suggestion but rather my own need to determine my and my son's surgical needs.  i had a c-section, clearly one of the most over-done surgeries for women.  in my case, it was absolutely necessary and to have NOT done one could have cost me my life.  and in my son's case, another typically over-prescribed remedy, yet in his case, he could have had permanent damage.  i'm just trying to point out that i have done my homework.

and i just believe you are being too inclusive of blame.

peace out.

ps.  The National Institute of Health (NIH) is the federal agency that pays for the majority of the country's biomedical research. The agency's budget doubled between 1998 and 2003, but has experienced subsequent yearly reductions. According to Larry Shapiro, executive chancellor of medical affairs at the School of Medicine, 90 percent of the University's research money comes from the NIH.

anonymous fish: That's not what I said

I am sure there are a lot of people in the field of medicine who are sincerely trying to do something for the world and their goal is more than just making money. But what I said is that the pharmaceutical companies have taken over the field and they are mainly concerned about money making to a point where true knowledge and true science is being suppressed today in favor of a quick buck. For some background info check out this link:

//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flexner_Report

The process of commercialization of the field of medicine started long ago and the whole educational system is designed to make the "doctors" blind to any other alternative than drugs and similar procedures.

If you do a quick search you will personally find out that almost NO university today does ANY research unless it is paid for and directed by drug companies and unless it leads to money making schemes. They have so much power that they decide all the policies regarding health-care. They can easily remove the president of US if he dares stand in their way and not flow most of tax money to them.

You need to REALLY get past the current "system" in order to really understand what I am saying here. But maybe this will get you started to mention that according to their own "experts," at least a full 70% of ALL surgeries in the US is unnecessary! If you can show me a waste in the US larger than that or even coming anywhere near its size, I will withdraw my claim!

no status

while i might agree with you in principal,  i cannot emphasize enough that not all pharmacutical companies don't care about health care.  i have a brother who's a doctor and a sister who is a registered nurse who now works for a pharmacutical company.  yeah, she gets paid big bucks for selling drugs, mostly to retirement homes.  but no... you are wrong when you say that money is all they are interested in.  she works her ass off attending seminars and discussions regarding the best drug for a particular patient.  she works very closely with doctors AND nurses trying to determine an affordable approach.  it's easy to sit back and point fingers but it's simply not fair to make such a blanket statement. 

Field of medicine today only interested in drugs

The pharmaceutical giants run our "health-care system" today. They are ONLY interested in drugs or "procedures" where money can be made from. They really have no interest in actual health of people. Most of the reason for healthier people today is actually other sciences and not medical sciences (such as machines making food more available or detergents, etc allowing for cleaner environment, etc). There is almost No research done to understand human body and true health issues. God knows what would be discovered if some real research was actually done.

interesting read

mother... SPF's block UVB rays which are the ones that burn you.  UVA rays are actually the ones more responsible for skin aging.  there is no responsible evidence that SPFs are harmful to people.  children are extremely vulnerable to the harmful effects of the sun, more so now than the 70's.  please do not be misled.  the study by ott in the 70's has been invaluable but you must put it into perspective.  please do more reading if you're interested in how it's been utilized today.  you'd be amazed!

i'm not sure what you meant by the forced classroom comment... or drugging the male students.  would you elaborate some more?

peace out.

fantastic

Very interesting. I saved the link for my website!

You know, I've always been a little suspicious of sunscreen. Of course as Iranians we don't worry about burning to a crips in the sun as very white-skinned people do, but all this super duper 50 SFP stuff can't be good for kids. Doesn't it block some of the good properties of sunlight?

And I'm definitely convinced, the age of forced classroom teaching is coming to an end. Either that must end or we must drug half the children of the world, mostly males.