Category: personal science

One Doctor’s View of Personal Science: “You Won’t Learn Anything”

Seth Roberts9 Comments

Bryan Castañeda, who lives in Southern California, told me this:

The law firm I work at specializes in toxic torts. We represent people who have been occupationally exposed to chemicals and are now sick, dying, or dead. Most of our clients have been exposed to benzene and developed some kind of leukemia. We sponsor various leukemia charities, walks, and other events. [On January 21, 2012] in Woodland Hills, CA, the Leukemia & Lymphoma Society held its first annual Blood Cancer Conference. Although the speakers were mainly doctors, it was a conference meant for laymen. The chair was an oncologist from UCLA Medical Center.

After introductory remarks and the keynote speaker, there were several breakout sessions. I attended a session on acute lymphoblastic leukemia and acute myeloid leukemia. The speaker was [Dr. Ravi Bhatia,] a doctor specializing in leukemia from City of Hope in Duarte, CA. His talk was almost exclusively about new drugs and clinical trials. Very dry and dull. Things got more interesting during the question period. At one point, [Dr. Bhatia] told an attendee not to experiment on his own because “you won’t learn anything and others won’t learn from it, either.”

I would have liked to ask Dr. Bhatia three questions:

1. What’s the basis for this extreme claim (“you won’t learn anything and others won’t learn from it”)? Ben Williams, a psychology professor at UC San Diego, wrote a whole book (Surviving “Terminal” Cancer, 2002) about taking an active approach when faced with a very serious disease (in his case, brain cancer). Likewise, the website Patients Like Me is devoted to (among other things) learning from the experimentation of its members. Lots of forums related to various illnesses spread what one person learns to others. MedHelp has many forums devoted to sharing knowledge.

2. What’s so bad about “learning nothing”? Why should that outcome stop one from trying to learn? It doesn’t seem like a good enough reason.

3. Do you have a bias here? In other words, what do you want? Do you prefer that your patients not self= experiment? Doctors may prefer that their patients not experiment for their (the doctors’) own selfish reasons. When a patient self-experiments, it makes their doctor’s job more complicated and makes the doctor less important. If Dr. Bhatia is biased (he wants a certain outcome), it may bias his assessment of the evidence.

Vitamin D3 and Sleep: More Good News From Primal Girl

Seth Roberts9 Comments

Late last year, Tara Grant (aka Primal Girl) considered the possibility that taking Vitamin D3 has the same effect as sunlight exposure. For example, taking Vitamin D3 at 7 pm is like getting sunlight at 7 pm. This idea — with my advice about how to sleep well (get an hour of sunlight first thing in the morning) ringing in her ears – led her to try to improve her sleep by taking Vitamin D3 first thing in the morning. It worked:

I usually took my supplements mid-afternoon. I vowed to take them first thing every morning. If I forgot, I would not take the Vitamin D at all that day. I tried it the next day and that night I slept like a rock. And the next night. And the next. Days I forgot and skipped the D3, I still slept great. That was the only change I made to my lifestyle and my sleep issues completely resolved.

I called this “ a stunning discovery” and have blogged about it several times. I recently asked Tara for details and an update. She replied:

I am so happy to hear that 1) other people didn’t make the connection easily so I’m not a little slow and that 2) there seems to be something to my discovery. :) I’ve had a few comments from people who have said it has worked for them too. So let me answer your questions:

[What type of Vitamin D3 do you take?]
I take Trader Joe’s brand of Vitamin D3, which is a 1000 IU gelcap, in olive oil. 180 capsules for $4.99. Best deal I’ve found. I tried the tablets years ago and they had no affect on me (even on 8000 units a day plus tanning twice a week my blood levels were only at 58.)

[Has your sleep remained solid?]
My sleep HAS remained solid. I have not had ONE night of bad sleep since I started paying attention to when I was taking my Vitamin D.

[How much do you take?]
I was initially taking 10,000 units a day. After about 2 months, I cut that back to 5000 units to see if there was a difference. I did not wake up quite as rested, but I still slept soundly through the night. On days that I increase my dosage, I sleep better, deeper and feel more rested the following morning. I’ve tried this several times, even when I’ve been spending the night away from home, and it has made a difference. I have also tried eating sugar shortly before bedtime and caffeine in the afternoon (both things that would always make my sleep restless in the past) and I still sleep well!! I’ve also thrown exercising into the mix to see if it makes a difference but it doesn’t change the quality of my sleep – it just makes me tired earlier in the evening. I continue to change my dosage randomly and monitor the results.

More about Tonsillectomy Confidential

Seth Roberts66 Comments

The blog Science-Based Medicine ran a long critical comment about my recent Boing Boing piece (“Tonsillectomy Confidential: doctors ignore polio epidemics and high school biology”) followed by a back-and-forth (my reply, their reply to my reply, on and on) in the comments.

The exchange had three curious features.

1. In Tonsillectomy Confidential, I described how Rachael critically evaluated what a naturopath told her:

Rachael and her son went to see a naturopath that a neighbor had recommended. The naturopath was especially knowledgeable about nutrition and supplements. After an hour interview, she suggested Vitamin D3 (5000 IU/day), a multivitamin, Vitamin C (500 mg/day), and powdered larch bark. Rachael searched for research about these recommendations. She found many studies that suggested Vitamin D might help. Her son is a pale redhead and used sunblock a lot. It was easy to believe he wasn’t getting enough Vitamin D. Because Vitamin D won’t work properly without other vitamins (called co-factors), a multivitamin was a good idea [Rachael discovered during her research]. Rachael found studies that implied that a multivitamin was very unlikely to be very harmful. She found few relevant studies about Vitamin C. Maybe extreme claims about its benefits had scared off researchers — “Linus Pauling burned that bridge,” said Rachael. But she took the Vitamin C recommendation seriously because the naturopath had made other reasonable recommendations, the recommended dose was not large, Vitamin C is easily excreted in urine (in contrast to building up in the body), and Rachael had never heard of anyone having trouble at that dose. The naturopath had said that larch bark had reduced ear infections in children with chronic ear infections. A little bit of theory supported this, Rachael found, but overall the larch-bark research was “dodgy,” she said.

This was described by the Science-Based Medicine critic (Steven Novella) as “blatantly not evidence-based”.

2. In my first reply to the criticism, I wrote:

In other words, there is some evidence supporting the value of larch bark (“early laboratory evidence”) and some evidence (“a more recent study in mice”) not supporting the value of larch bark. Given this, to say “available scientific evidence does not support claims . . .” is false. An accurate statement is that some evidence does and some evidence doesn’t.

This got the following reply from a second critic (David Gorski):

No, Seth. Note two words Steve used, “in humans.” Steve was quite correct. If there is only a preliminary animal study, even if positive, that does not support the efficacy of larch bark in humans.

Apparently Gorski thinks animals (e.g., rats) and humans share no DNA. A few sentences later, contradicting himself, he notes that animal studies are used as screening tests.

3. Finally there was this, from Steven Novella:

It is fine to search for information yourself, and no one here is advocating “blind trust” in anyone. We are all activist skeptics. But it is folly to substitute one’s own opinion for that of experts who have spent years mastering a subject.

What a lovely motto for this blog: “It is folly to substitute one’s own opinion for that of experts who have spent years mastering the subject.” And, after all that study, think animals and humans share no DNA.

Peter Lawrence on the Ills of Modern Science

Seth Roberts13 Comments

Peter A. Lawrence is a British biologist who has written several papers about problems with the way biology and other areas of science are now done. In this interview a year ago he summarizes his complaints:

  • Scientific publication “has become a system of collecting counters for particular purposes – to get grants, to get tenure, etc. – rather than to communicate and illuminate findings to other people. The literature is, by and large, unreadable.” There is far too much counting of papers.
  • “There’s a reward system for building up a large group, if you can, and it doesn’t really matter how many of your group fail, as long as one or two succeed. You can build your career on their success.” If you do something on your own it is viewed with suspicion.
  • There is too much emphasis on counting citations. “If you work in a big crowded field, you’ll get many more citations. . . . This is independent of the quality of the work or whether you’ve contributed anything. [There is] enormous pressure on the journals to accept papers that will be cited a lot. And this is also having a corrupting effect. Journals will tend to take papers in medically-related disciplines, for example, that mention or relate to common genetic diseases. Journals from, say, the Cell group, will favor such papers when they’re submitted.”
  • Grant writing takes too much time — e.g., 30-40% of your time. “There is an enormous increase in bureaucracy – form
    filling, targeting, assessment, evaluations. This has gone right through society, like the Black Death!”
  • “Science is not like some kind of an army, with a large number of people who make the main steps forward together. You need to have individually creative people who are making breakthroughs – who make things different. But how do you find those people? I don’t think you want to have a situation in which only those who are competitive and tough can
    get to the top, and those who are reflective and retiring would be cast aside.” I’ve said something similar: Science is like single ants wandering around looking for food, not like a trail of ants to and from a food source. The trail of ants is engineering.

I agree. I would add that I think modern biology is far too invested in the idea that genes cause disease and that studying genes will help reduce human suffering. I think the historical record (the last 30 years) shows that this is not a promising line of work — but modern biologists cannot switch course.

What explains the depressing facts Lawrence points out? I think it is something deep and impossible to change: Science and job don’t mix well. The demands of any job and the demands of science are not very compatible. Jobs are about repetition. Science is the opposite. Jobs demand regular output. Science is unpredictable. However, jobs and science overlap in terms of training: Both benefit from specialized knowledge. They also overlap in terms of resources: More resources (e.g., better tools) will usually help you do your job better, likewise with science. So we have two groups (insiders — professional scientists — and outsiders — everyone else). Both groups have big advantages and big disadvantages relative to the other. In the last 50 years, the insiders have been “winning” in the sense of doing better work. Their advantages of training and resources far outweighed the problems caused by the need for repetition and predictability. But now — as I try to show on this blog — outsiders are catching up and going ahead because the necessary training and tools have become much more widely available (e.g., tools have become much cheaper). And, as Lawrence emphasizes, professional science has gotten worse.

 

Ten Interesting Things I Learned From Adventures in Nutritional Therapy

Seth Roberts13 Comments

A blog called Adventures in Nutritional Therapy (started March 2011) is about what the author learned while trying to solve her health problems via nutrition and a few other things. She usually assumed her health problems were due to too much or too little of some nutrient. She puts it like this: “using mostly non-prescription, over-the-counter (OTC) supplements and treatments to address depression, brain fog, insomnia, migraines, hypothyroidism, restless legs, carpal tunnel syndrome, and a bunch of other annoyances.” In contrast to what “the American medical establishment” advises. Mostly it is nutritional self-experimentation about a wide range of health problems.

Interesting things I learned from the archives:

1. Question: Did Lance Armstrong take performance-enhancing drugs? I learned that LiveStrong (Armstrong’s site) is a content farm. Now answer that question again.

2. “If you return repeatedly to a conventional doctor with a problem they can’t solve, they will eventually suggest you need antidepressants.”

3. “When I mentioned [to Dr. CFS] the mild success I’d had with zinc, he said it was in my mind: I wanted it to work and it did. When I pointed out that 70% of the things I tried didn’t work, he changed the subject. Dr. CFS’ lack of basic reasoning skills did nothing to rebuild my confidence in the health care system.” Quite right. I have had the same experience. Most things I tried failed. When something finally worked, it could hardly be a placebo effect. This line of reasoning has been difficult for some supposedly smart people to grasp.

4. A list of things that helped her with depression. “Quit gluten” is number one.

5. Pepsi caused her to get acne. Same here.

6. 100 mg/day of iron caused terrible acne that persisted for weeks after she stopped taking the iron.

7. “ In September 2008 I started a journey that serves as a good example of the limits of the American health care system, where you can go through three months, 15 doctor visits, $7,000 in medical tests, three prescriptions and five over-the-counter medications trying to treat your abdominal pain, and after you lose ten pounds due to said pain, you are asked by the “specialists” if you have an eating disorder.” I agree. Also an example of the inability of people within the American health care system to see those limits. If they recognized that people outside their belief system might have something valuable to contribute, apparently something awful would happen.

8. Acupuncture relieved her sciatica, but not for long. “By the time I left [the acupuncturist’s office] the pain was gone, but it crept back during my 30-minute drive home.”

9. Pointing out many wrongs does not equal a right. She praises a talk by Robert Lustig about evil fructose. I am quite sure that fructose (by itself) did not cause the obesity epidemic. For one thing, I lost a lot of weight by drinking it. (Here is an advanced discussion.) In other words, being a good critic of other people’s work (as Lustig may be) doesn’t get you very far. I think it is hard for non-scientists (and even some scientists) to understand that all scientific work has dozens of “flaws”. Pointing out the flaws in this or that is little help, unless those flaws haven’t been noticed. What usually helps isn’t seeing flaws, it is seeing what can be learned.

10. A list of what caused headaches and migraines. One was MSG. Another was Vitamin D3, because it made her Vitamin B1 level too low.

She is a good writer. Mostly I found support for my beliefs: 1. Of the two aspects of self-experimentation (measure, change), change is more powerful. She does little or no self-tracking (= keeping records) as far as I could tell, yet has made a lot of progress. She has done a huge amount of trying different things. 2. Nutritional deficiencies cause a lot of problems. 3. Fermented food is overlooked. She never tries it, in spite of major digestive problems. She does try probiotics. 4. American health care is exceedingly messed-up. As she puts it, “the American medical establishment has no interest in this approach [which often helped her] and, when they do deign to discuss it, don’t know what the #%@! they’re talking about.” 5. “Over the years I’ve found accounts of personal experiences to be very helpful.” I agree. Her blog and mine are full of them.

Thanks to Alexandra Carmichael.

More Her latest post mentions me (“The fella after my own heart is Seth Roberts, who after ten years of experimenting . . . “). I was unaware of that when I wrote the above.

Acne Cured By Self-Experimentation

Seth Roberts13 Comments

In November, at Quantified Self Europe, Martha Rotter, who lives in Ireland, gave a talk about how she cured her acne by self-experimentation. She summarizes her talk like this (slides here):

When I moved to Ire­land [from Seattle] in 2007, I began to have skin prob­lems. It began gradu­ally and I attrib­uted it to the move, to stress, to late nights drink­ing with developers and cli­ents, to travel, to whatever excuses I could think of. The stress was mul­ti­plied by the anxi­ety of being embar­rassed about how my face looked, but also because my new job in Ire­land involved me being on stage in front of large audi­ences con­stantly, often sev­eral times a week. A year later my skin was per­petu­ally inflamed, red, full of sores and very pain­ful. When one spot would go away, two more would spring up in its place. It was a tough time. I cried a lot.

Frus­trated, I went to see my homet­own der­ma­to­lo­gist while I was home for hol­i­days. He told me that a) this was com­pletely nor­mal and b) there was noth­ing I could do but go on anti­bi­ot­ics for a year (in addi­tion to spend­ing a for­tune on creams and pills). I didn’t believe either of those things.

I was not inter­ested in being on an anti­bi­otic for a year, nor was I inter­ested in Accu­tane (my best friend has had it mul­tiple times and it hasn’t had long term res­ults, plus it can be risky). What I was inter­ested in was fig­ur­ing out why this was hap­pen­ing and chan­ging my life to make it stop. I refused to accept my dermatologist’s insist­ence that what you put in your body has no effect on how you look and feel.

I began sys­tem­at­ic­ally cut­ting things out of my diet to see how I reacted. First chicken and soy, based on a recom­mend­a­tion from a food aller­gist. Over the course of a year I cut out sugar, glu­ten, carbs, starches, caf­feine, meat, fish until finally the magical month of Decem­ber 2010 when I cut out dairy. My skin was my own again by New Year’s day this year.

It took a year to fig­ure it out. It was com­pletely worth it. There’s noth­ing wrong with Irish dairy, it just doesn’t work for me. I drink Amer­icanos instead of lattes now, I don’t eat cer­eal; none of that is a huge deal. For what it’s worth, I can drink goat’s milk.

A great example of the power of self-experimentation compared to trusting doctors. One quibble: I’ll be more sure “there’s nothing wrong with Irish dairy” if she finds that American dairy also causes skin problems. The evidence so far (she didn’t have skin problems until she moved to Ireland) suggests that at least for her American dairy (i.e., dairy where she lived in America) is better than Irish dairy. I have heard Irish dairy praised. They sell Irish butter at Beijing stores near me. I won’t be buying it.

At the end of her post she makes a very important point:

Quan­ti­fied Self isn’t for every­one, but every­one should feel they have the power to change things in their body and their life for the better.

I agree. By learning about examples of people who have done just that — such as Martha — we will come closer to having that power. Right now, as far as I can tell, most people feel helpless. They do what doctors or other experts tell them to do, even if it doesn’t work very well.

Long ago, hardly anyone could read. This left them in the grip of those who could. But eventually came mass literacy, when the benefits of reading finally exceeded the costs (e.g., because more books were available at lower prices). Reading is primitive science: if you read about things that happened, it is information gathering. It resembles doing a survey. Nowadays, almost everyone (in rich countries) reads, but almost no one does experimental science. This leaves them in the grip of those who can do experimental science (e.g., drug companies). I think my work and Martha’s work suggest we are close to another turning point, where, for nonscientists, the benefits of doing experiments exceed the costs.

Thanks to Gary Wolf.

Carl Willat on the Democratization of Magic

Seth Roberts3 Comments

My friend Carl Willat (of the Willat Effect) is an amateur magician. I sent him this link (“Is the Internet Destroying — or Transforming — the Magic of Magic?”). He replied:

I hadn’t seen that article, but I follow this debate and read both sides of it almost daily. He raises some good points and others I disagree with, but in the end it doesn’t matter because the trend of revealing magic secrets is unstoppable, regardless of what I think. But calling it a good thing doesn’t really make sense. Steinmeyer says people overestimate the value of secrets in magic by a factor of ten, and this is true in the sense that the secret is not the effect. I can enjoy magic performances even if I know the secret, but if I’m fooled I enjoy it more by a factor of ten, let’s say. The engine isn’t the only important thing in my car but it won’t go without it.

I don’t think it makes sense to compare a few people copying Vernon’s $20 manuscript with people giving away secrets on YouTube, because the distribution is so much bigger and it takes almost no effort or even serious interest to learn the secrets. The author also lost me by coming down on one side of the books vs. videos debate. They’re each good for different reasons. A book can’t always illustrate what something is supposed to look like in action. A video can never have all the detail you can get out of a good book. If all you want is to perform a trick exactly like someone else does, videos are particularly good. I actually think the main value of videos is to see a trick performed so you can see if you want to learn it or not. As time goes on I feel more and more reluctant to perform someone else’s material, and when I do I change it around and add my own variations. Otherwise I don’t feel like I’m contributing anything. One of the reasons Lennart Green’s stuff knocked me out was that his material is mostly fairly original and not obviously related to standard techniques, so his whole performance seems magical.
It would have been interesting in this article to have included information about Armando Lucero, a magician who not only doesn’t have any teaching books or videos, but tries to keep even his performances off the internet. I took a fairly expensive workshop from him, and we had to sign a non-disclosure agreement promising not to reveal any of his techniques. This seems to have worked, as his secrets haven’t really leaked out, and there is still a kind of mystique around him and his magic. In my opinion that’s what magic is supposed to be like. I’ve obviously benefited by the general availability of DVDs and books about magic, but I didn’t just want to learn secrets, I wanted to perform. I think as soon as you have to put out some kind of effort to learn you’re already separated from the merely curious, whether it be by getting a magic book out of the library or shelling out some money for a video at the magic store. It shows you want to perform, not just learn the secrets. But I think for most people looking at these internet videos it’s just a break from Facebook and pornography.
Is there a relationship between your interest in the democratization of magic and your philosophy of self-experimentation? Because I can see how you might feel we should get out from under the tyranny of Big Magic and its oppressive secrets. (this is where I would put in a smiling emoticon if I knew how to make them)
This trend in magic seems related to the diminishing “specialness” in everything. For example everyone has cameras on their cell phones now and takes pictures all the time, so to be a “photographer” is nothing. My film students at the Academy refuse to think of film as art. Everybody makes films, there are a billion of them on YouTube, so why should we put any special effort into them? Their films all feature their roommates in the dorms. On YouTube everyone can be a magician. Ironically, a recorded video is about the worst way to experience a magic performance.
I replied:

Yeah, I agree, the democratization of science and the democratization of magic (not to mention photography and film-making) are related. Perhaps I should have a blanket opinion about this stuff but you are the first person to raise the issue.

In the 16th century or thereabouts, mathematicians had contests about solving equations. It wasn’t known how to solve a 3rd degree equation (e.g., x^3 – x = 5). Finally one guy figured it out. It gave him a huge advantage. Of course he kept it a secret. When mathematical knowledge became better known, because of books, they stopped having those contests. Mathematicians could no longer make money and impress women by winning them. Math stopped being a kind of sideshow similar to magic and eventually became the foundation of engineering and science. This couldn’t have happened if it was still a bunch of secrets.

It is early in the democratization of magic, but I think a similar story is plausible — not likely, just plausible. One possibility is that democratization “cheapens” everything or at least makes it harder to make a living at magic. The whole enterprise withers and dies. Another possibility is that, as the Masked Magician said, the revelation of techniques pushes people to invent new ones. They can no longer keep doing the old ones. I think he is perfectly correct. I think the reason that fashion evolved (a feature of our brains) is to push artisans to keep inventing. You really do need to give people a push, otherwise they will stagnate. A third possibility is that the democratization of magic will push the ideas out into a much wider range of people and these people will see the ideas in a new way. They won’t merely invent new tricks; they will begin to grasp how the underlying ideas can be applied in other places.

As a professor of psychology I think I can say this: academic psychologists such as myself have almost no interest in using the ideas we discover and study to help people. (That I used them to lose weight is unprecedented.) It is all about publishing papers, getting tenure, getting promoted, perhaps even winning prizes. That’s neither bad nor good, it’s human nature. The magic you do, on the other hand, is applied psychology. It is entirely useful. So magicians have (a) figured out psychology that works and (b) use it all the time to get something they want (attention, money). That is no small achievement. But they have zero interest in systematizing it (asking: what are the general principles?) and applying those principles in other domains. Other people, however, could easily want to do this. The ideas have to reach those other people for the systematization and application to happen. Nowadays the ideas behind magic tricks are reaching a wider audience so this is becoming more likely to happen.

So I’m like someone in the 15th century who tells the mathematician who has discovered how to solve cubic equations: hey, tell other people your secrets, it will be great! It would sound crazy. But if you want my overall opinion, I think that magic has stagnated, like many other areas of life. I think the democratization has been a powerful force for innovation, just as the Masked Magician claimed, although you would know better than me. I also think, unlike anything the Masked Magician said, that the ideas behind magic are far more important than what present-day professional magicians are using them for. Professional magicians are too busy doing what they have done for the last 20 years and too busy trying to make a living to take advantage of this (which will have zero monetary payoff, at first). But other younger people are more flexible.

Assorted Links

Seth Roberts2 Comments

Thanks to Robin Barooah and Mike Bowerman.

Sleep, Mood, Restless Legs and ADHD Improved By Internet Research

Seth Roberts7 Comments

At the SLD forums, Anima describes using several safe cheap treatments to improve his mood and sleep. First, he tried wearing blue blocker (amber) glasses in the evening. They made him fall asleep more easily and reduced or eliminated hypomania. However, he was still depressed. Second, he tried getting twenty minutes of sunlight early in the morning. His mood improved. But he still had trouble synchronizing his sleep/wake cycle with the sun — that is, being awake during the day and asleep at night. He would stay up an hour later every night and wake up an hour later every day, meaning that half the time he was asleep during the day and awake at night. Finally, he tried adjusting when he ate:

I recently found the missing key to this: meal timing. I saw a talk that Seth gave where he talked about curing his problem with waking too early by skipping breakfast. My problem was difficulty waking. I read an article that suggested that our circadian rhythms are not just tied to light, but to food times as well. I used to eat late at night and never eat breakfast. I started eating breakfast immediately upon waking (ick) and stopping all food at least 12 hours before I wanted to wake. Basically, I did what Seth did only opposite. It worked. . . . I was even able to adjust my cat’s circadian rhythm — he used to wake me up too early for his breakfast — by gradually moving his supper time.

In another post he describes using B vitamins to treat his restless legs syndrome and ADHD:

I have been taking a supplement with all the B vitamins in amounts much higher than typically recommended. I have also been taking Epsom salt baths for magnesium. I have not experienced restless legs AT ALL since starting. This is quite remarkable to me, because it was such a problem. My ADHD is also much improved.

The idea of treating restless legs syndrome with niacin (a B vitamin) came from Dennis Mangan. Anima had noticed that ADHD and restless legs syndrome often occur together.

He makes some reasonable comments about psychiatrists:

Why are psychiatrists still acting like neurological problems exist in isolation, when clearly they are all related? [In the sense that you can use what is known about how to cure Problem X to help you cure Problem Y, if X and Y often occur together.] I used to take Lamictal, Depakote, Adderall and Ambien every day. That doesn’t include all the meds I tried that didn’t work. I’m currently wearing amber glasses at night and taking a B complex, flax oil (SLD-style) and bathing in epsom salts three times a week. My mood is more stable than it was on medication, and my ADHD is controlled about the same. My sleep is much better. My psychiatrist told me that I would be on medication for the rest of my life. When I told him that I was using dark therapy and light therapy and had stopped taking my medication, he told me that I was “playing with fire,” and that I would end up in a mental institution or commit suicide if I didn’t resume my medication, despite the fact that I had stopped taking it for longer than it would be effective. I asked him if he had read the research on dark therapy. He hadn’t, but he assured me that it is pseudoscience. I guess the definition of “pseudoscience” is any treatment that doesn’t make him money. I puckishly asked him if I seemed manic or depressed, and he was forced to admit that I did not.

The ability of this psychiatrist to ignore contradictory evidence in front of him resembles what happened to Reid Kimball. He told a UCSF gastroenterologist that he was successfully managing his Crohn’s with diet. In my experience, Crohn’s can’t be managed with diet, the doctor said at the end of the appointment.

Assorted Links

Seth Roberts9 Comments
  • Tale of two workers. “Worker A is in the bottom quintile of income. . . .Worker B is in the upper quintile of income. . . .Worker A is a college drop-out. . . . .Worker B has a Bachelor of Arts, a Masters, and a doctorate.”
  • Citizen scientists. “More than a decade ago, in hopes of advancing research on the rare genetic disease that afflicts her children, Sharon Terry let two different researchers draw their blood for study. But when she asked for the results of the investigations, the scientists gave her a startling response. Information generated from her own children’s DNA, they said, didn’t belong to her.”
  • Ten academic frauds.

Thanks to Tucker Max, Dave Lull and Chuck Currie.