6 ms·

No. And some would say that elements of the "medical profession" have spent a lot of money soliciting hit pieces that try to weaken the link between trauma and

No. And some would say that elements of the "medical profession" have spent a lot of money soliciting hit pieces that try to weaken the link between trauma and physiological effects. But that would be a pointless 'argument' to get into since there is mountains of dishonest rubbish on both sides. Instead I think this rather reputable Psychology Today summary on the causal links of trauma and consequent disorders is worth a read [0]; [0] https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-addiction-connection/202103/how-trauma-affects-the-body https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-addiction-connec...

feoren 3y ago
Can you give a single example of the oddly scare-quoted "medical profession" soliciting a hit piece on anything, ever?
- mistrial9 3y ago
  this question seems naive, despite the hyperbole from the parent-post. Western accredited medicine has made huge advances in things like antibiotics or germ-theory, yet have struggled with common definitions of mental health and its complement, mental illness. It was not very long ago, but perhaps two generations ago, that very, very different ideas of diagnosis and prescription for mental health conditions were published as fact with the force of law. There are literally hundreds of modern books written responsibly, but with varying levels of rigor and accredation, on these topics. Since every thinking person also has moods, aging parents, and sometimes ill relatives or personal episodes, the source pool for writing is endless. Last IMHO - yes, the American Medical Association and its accredited members do in fact draw lines, that change over time, but are defended at the time, sometimes aggressively. It is not exactly a "hit piece" but it is in fact, a disagreement with one side trying to settle the matter as an authority. Yet the decisions change over time. etc...
  - feoren 3y ago
    > It is not exactly a "hit piece" but it is in fact, a disagreement with one side trying to settle the matter as an authority. Those are different worlds. The latter is someone arguing in good faith, albeit wrongly and stubbornly, for something they believe is true. The former is spending money intentionally trying to discredit something because you're worried it's true (or people will find out it's true). One is honest and the other is not. That matters. The original comment accused the medical profession of spending "a lot of money" soliciting "hit pieces". Not some bad actors, but ("elements of", whatever that means) the medical profession as a whole. Not occasionally, not in a few notorious instances, but spending "a lot of money". Not being stubborn, not appealing to authority instead of evidence, but "hit pieces". That is bullshit disinformation and I called the poster on it. Nothing you said about our understanding of medicine changing over time, slower than it should have, involving more fights and stubbornness than it should, gets anywhere near the profession spending a lot of money on hit pieces.
    - nonrandomstring 3y ago
      The error that you've made, and then run a mile with is right there in your first response when you say "oddly scare-quoted". You took that to be disparaging of medical professionals whereas in fact the work those quotes are doing in that sentence is precisely the opposite; to throw scorn on the idea that it was "medical professionals" who said that. I can see how you made that mistake. And maybe I should have been more forthright in saying that - hey maybe Gabor Mate (being the "some" who might say) has a bit of a chip on his shoulder. Sadly, it shows rather clearly how we all impose beliefs we already have (especially about other people) on the words we read. Maybe where you could have jumped off that mistake train was where I said without stubbornness, that no, I have no evidence of such a thing and even if I did, I would not deem it credible. Nonetheless it has been said, whether you or I believe it or not, and if you want more details then you'll have to read Mate's book.
- nonrandomstring 3y ago
  No. And I would not even attempt to because I feel sure that anything I found (especially from a casual search on the internet) would not be credible. As I said there is mud-slinging on both sides. Six of one and half a dozen of the other. But I am confident that the original claim of "crackpot" theories that have been "debunked" is just more of the same opinionated, unscientific bunkum.
ants_everywhere 3y ago
I'm not sure what medical conspiracy theory you're on about, but it's trivially true that emotions have corresponding physiological signals. Electrical signals in the brain, hormonal signals to the rest of the body. The understanding of the physiological response to stress goes back at least to the 30s and 40s with the work of endocrinologist Hans Selye, before van der Kolk was even born. Unless I'm missing something, the article you linked seems to give an unproblematic summary of the basic science of the physiological response to trauma. What your link doesn't address are the points brought up by the links I posted, such as van der Kolk’s attempt to revive the disastrous repressed memory theory, his misunderstanding of fMRI studies, his misrepresentation of the research on mirror neurons, his use of the discredited lizard brain idea, etc.
- nonrandomstring 3y ago
  It seems we agree on all the important facts. You have an issue with van der Kolk, but I cannot comment on that, having never read "The Body Keeps the Score". Gabor Mate, who I have read, does mention numerous occurrences in his career as MD where people had told him that making links between trauma and, for example auto-immune diseases, was "career suicide". Not sure what you make of that.
  - ants_everywhere 3y ago
    Oh gotcha, sounds good. I am not familiar with Gabor Mate, but it depends on what his theory was. Wikipedia tells me he considers ADHD to be a coping mechanism. So for example if he had a theory that trauma can cause things like ADHD, then I'd say I don't think that particular theory seems to be supported by the evidence. But it doesn't seem out of the realm of possibility to me that two seemingly unrelated complicated things can be linked. It's possible that he got that advice because he felt he was onto a grand theory and the evidence wasn't there for it. Or whatever, who knows. It's possible there is something to say about anxiety/cortisol/stress, neurodivergence, gut micro-biomes, and some autoimmune diseases like type 1 diabetes. There are studies on all of this stuff, but it's all in early stages, we don't know if the statistical effects are even real. And we certainly have no reason to conclude that one set of effects would cause the other.

feoren 3y ago

Can you give a single example of the oddly scare-quoted "medical profession" soliciting a hit piece on anything, ever?

mistrial9 3y ago
this question seems naive, despite the hyperbole from the parent-post. Western accredited medicine has made huge advances in things like antibiotics or germ-theory, yet have struggled with common definitions of mental health and its complement, mental illness. It was not very long ago, but perhaps two generations ago, that very, very different ideas of diagnosis and prescription for mental health conditions were published as fact with the force of law. There are literally hundreds of modern books written responsibly, but with varying levels of rigor and accredation, on these topics. Since every thinking person also has moods, aging parents, and sometimes ill relatives or personal episodes, the source pool for writing is endless. Last IMHO - yes, the American Medical Association and its accredited members do in fact draw lines, that change over time, but are defended at the time, sometimes aggressively. It is not exactly a "hit piece" but it is in fact, a disagreement with one side trying to settle the matter as an authority. Yet the decisions change over time. etc...
- feoren 3y ago
  > It is not exactly a "hit piece" but it is in fact, a disagreement with one side trying to settle the matter as an authority. Those are different worlds. The latter is someone arguing in good faith, albeit wrongly and stubbornly, for something they believe is true. The former is spending money intentionally trying to discredit something because you're worried it's true (or people will find out it's true). One is honest and the other is not. That matters. The original comment accused the medical profession of spending "a lot of money" soliciting "hit pieces". Not some bad actors, but ("elements of", whatever that means) the medical profession as a whole. Not occasionally, not in a few notorious instances, but spending "a lot of money". Not being stubborn, not appealing to authority instead of evidence, but "hit pieces". That is bullshit disinformation and I called the poster on it. Nothing you said about our understanding of medicine changing over time, slower than it should have, involving more fights and stubbornness than it should, gets anywhere near the profession spending a lot of money on hit pieces.
  - nonrandomstring 3y ago
    The error that you've made, and then run a mile with is right there in your first response when you say "oddly scare-quoted". You took that to be disparaging of medical professionals whereas in fact the work those quotes are doing in that sentence is precisely the opposite; to throw scorn on the idea that it was "medical professionals" who said that. I can see how you made that mistake. And maybe I should have been more forthright in saying that - hey maybe Gabor Mate (being the "some" who might say) has a bit of a chip on his shoulder. Sadly, it shows rather clearly how we all impose beliefs we already have (especially about other people) on the words we read. Maybe where you could have jumped off that mistake train was where I said without stubbornness, that no, I have no evidence of such a thing and even if I did, I would not deem it credible. Nonetheless it has been said, whether you or I believe it or not, and if you want more details then you'll have to read Mate's book.
nonrandomstring 3y ago
No. And I would not even attempt to because I feel sure that anything I found (especially from a casual search on the internet) would not be credible. As I said there is mud-slinging on both sides. Six of one and half a dozen of the other. But I am confident that the original claim of "crackpot" theories that have been "debunked" is just more of the same opinionated, unscientific bunkum.

ants_everywhere 3y ago

I'm not sure what medical conspiracy theory you're on about, but it's trivially true that emotions have corresponding physiological signals. Electrical signals in the brain, hormonal signals to the rest of the body. The understanding of the physiological response to stress goes back at least to the 30s and 40s with the work of endocrinologist Hans Selye, before van der Kolk was even born. Unless I'm missing something, the article you linked seems to give an unproblematic summary of the basic science of the physiological response to trauma. What your link doesn't address are the points brought up by the links I posted, such as van der Kolk’s attempt to revive the disastrous repressed memory theory, his misunderstanding of fMRI studies, his misrepresentation of the research on mirror neurons, his use of the discredited lizard brain idea, etc.

nonrandomstring 3y ago
It seems we agree on all the important facts. You have an issue with van der Kolk, but I cannot comment on that, having never read "The Body Keeps the Score". Gabor Mate, who I have read, does mention numerous occurrences in his career as MD where people had told him that making links between trauma and, for example auto-immune diseases, was "career suicide". Not sure what you make of that.
- ants_everywhere 3y ago
  Oh gotcha, sounds good. I am not familiar with Gabor Mate, but it depends on what his theory was. Wikipedia tells me he considers ADHD to be a coping mechanism. So for example if he had a theory that trauma can cause things like ADHD, then I'd say I don't think that particular theory seems to be supported by the evidence. But it doesn't seem out of the realm of possibility to me that two seemingly unrelated complicated things can be linked. It's possible that he got that advice because he felt he was onto a grand theory and the evidence wasn't there for it. Or whatever, who knows. It's possible there is something to say about anxiety/cortisol/stress, neurodivergence, gut micro-biomes, and some autoimmune diseases like type 1 diabetes. There are studies on all of this stuff, but it's all in early stages, we don't know if the statistical effects are even real. And we certainly have no reason to conclude that one set of effects would cause the other.