CSS pop

Thursday, October 8, 2020

The brain & psychology for profit against ethics

 We know that the basic function of human brains and or most animals is something along the lines of read sensory data look for patterns and or compare to memory


That look for patterns part is probably crucial here. 

What goes on in the brain is a complex interaction between chemical and electrical signals. 

We know that when children learn to speak what's going on is monkeys see monkey do and pattern recognition. Eventually it creates an association in memory between the stimulus that I heard and that concept. That sensory data and that concept of the bottle I want or the food I like.

We also know that as far as linguistics and speeches concerned somewhat concept acquisition children learning have a a tendency to overgeneralize I forget there's a term somewhat obscure that describes that better but it's not coming to mind

In other words if the first concept of moving pictures on a screen was associated with "DVD" one might find the child is referring to a movie file on a computer as a DVD.

This never goes away entirely. perhaps if factors of neuroplasticity are ignored it will return as age progresses if not get worse than it was during childhood. In other words learning or an old dog and new tricks. I kick myself but quite frequently will say something along the lines of I got it on film or I got it on tape when I mean recorded. And in fact it's sitting inside a 2 to 3 bit per cell and flash memory chip as digitally encoded video data. Not that that level of precision would be required but tape is pretty far from accurate. I digress.

What I'm getting at is if we ignore basics that we know about brain and seek profit. Nothing's more profitable than here's this drug come see me monthly. Unless perhaps it's court ordered. The system actually allows doctors to get a third party pharmaceutical bonus for in theory diagnosing the condition and then picking the specific drug to treat it but no one's watching that. Who's to say how many diagnoses are made to be able to prescribe on label for a financial bonus?


Schizophrenia it's been known for a long time involves complex interaction and has chemical roots. something like nitonic acid if I recall correctly off the top of my head. It's also been theorized many schizophrenic smoke because of the chemical similarity between nicotine and a chemical needed to inhibit what with some electronics and computer background I would refer to as false positive in pattern recognition.

You can still say it's a disease because why is their brain depleted or not having enough of this needed inhibitor? Except especially in Minnesota we should know better. The Minnesota starvation experiment raised many questions one of which was should we be prescribing psychological medication at all without first addressing people's nutritional needs?

But even my layman ass can see

Not enough intake of the required nutrients

Genetic or otherwise deformity where they aren't as effective therefore more than the general population is required for the same result leading to depletion

Diets totally devoid

Another process known or otherwise depleting it in the body possibly externally triggered like chemical exposure either work place or recreational chemicals or chemicals we kid ourselves to think anything else also neuro transmitters and hormones are chemicals so things like severe stress... Might lead to depletion of things needed to inhibit other things

Oh but he's grasping at straws right

Well maybe except PSTD also known to cause auditory hallucinations.

What I haven't looked for or seen Is any study that attempts to link external stimuli with frequency or severity of such a hallucination. What I would theorize is what happens isn't spontaneous generation it's false pattern recognition. What I have seen is some indication that sounds like fans that are wide frequency heterodonic and repetitive on a period are known under the right conditions including heavy stress to cause auditory hallucinations. That's not the same as a study that in general well what I just said. But that does further the idea that jumping to a label associated with crazy is not only a disservice to that person but frequently likely medically at the speaking abhorrent

It took us how long to realize flies don't spontaneously generate from rotting meat? I'll be doing achievement was energy is neither created or destroyed it changes form?

Totally meta. But as far as what I've seen and can recall to make comparisons with little would suggest That's in cases of conditions like schizophrenia the brain just random arbitrary pops out of nowhere an auditory or visual hallucination. it would also fly in the face of how the f*** do you expect any given chemical especially in pill form to change that? Further limited by g you can't understand exactly how it works or tell us that but it sure is a miracle that this not fully causal mechanism understood chemical also happens to pass the blood brain barrier and through some unknown method also cure this unknown affliction. Sure is handy that that specific brand also gives you a bonus for having prescribed it huh?

Which is kind of sad because I'm not out to disprove originality creativity or spontaneity in the human experience. There is a little bit of hope in quantum physics for that to exist as far as I can see. But to apply that to anything in the realm of schizophrenia would be ah schizophrenic? Delusional?

It would however appear to be great for reoccurring revenue streams and financial bonus for the practitioner without strong ethical bonds. 

I don't know just some thoughts from the top of the mind of a layman. A layman who is told he's human property. police seem to have no interest in enforcing laws so who's to say otherwise? 

But on that note and to tie one last portion back in. Pattern recognition and over generalization... Especially in the context of another party intentionally attempting to upset and/or deny actions that would be third party or video evidence or audio evidence objectively confirmable. As in things that could be externally verified happened but are denied by the party doing them. if this goes on answered a few times regardless of the legality of the action I see this potential nastiness because especially if that it starts to affect one's ability to eat...

Well if someone's out to pick on you or to try to make you feel unsettled. If that involves theft and/or other malicious actions then denied

Well stuff missing becomes associated with actions of that party and the person's mind.

It's easy to overgeneralize and begin to attribute things not done by that party.

What I really wonder is how many schizophrenics are actually victims of narcissist and sociopaths? Where's the incentive for the doctor to try to get someone who probably has no interest in to see them where then with no court order they can tell that person how f***** up they are and hope they come back? I don't see that working given the current constraints. What I see working but absolutely disgusting is to gloss over causal reason and/or known methods of causation or continuation..

In the interest of revenue and profit.


And this isn't just my opinion. While it might be opinion and it'd be hard to prove in any or every given case when it is and when it isn't... The DSM has a lot of critics that are saying along the same lines. I haven't seen one detail it as I just attempted to. That's not to say it doesn't exist either. 


I fear of the fact that it would seem a large percent of today's adult population couldn't tell you the difference between objective and subjective. I also fear the fact that there's no oversight or if there is it's long lines of the fox ruling the hen house. We know better as a people and these lessons were often learned in blood. And what I mean by that is lacking negative consequences is bad enough, incentive for violating ethics or harming another or let's go with drugging...

A lot of people won't harm others even without decent risk s of being discovered. When the board is run by doctors who could just as easily end up on the street for biting the hand as the doctor they review one could pretty easily conclude that the oversight isn't really there or little risk of negative consequence.

Two things I'd argue that make this worse with psychology..  if you start out with the voluntary patient and realize that you're probably doing something unneeded by prescribing this whether or not it financially benefits you by a bonus you should probably be asking yourself about ethics but with the reality of state governments and courts if potentially not needed treatment makes it worse you might end up with a court ordered revenue or a reoccurring patient. Furthermore a lot to maybe most of psychological pharmaceuticals the method of action isn't fully understood but with the ones prescribed today or most commonly prescribed like SSRI SNRI and some of the antipsychotics most of the time the risk of death directly from the pill is low. So you can boil it down to well this might get me a nice little check for writing the script and I'm probably not going to kill them but if it doesn't work I'll probably see them more often. This system is a disaster unless no one thinks of it that way.

Whether or not Einstein was correct I don't think he was totally incorrect God doesn't play dice and a tree in forest well let's cut to the chase what the f*** is an observer? How far is Field of observation and are we talking perception conscious subconscious border Where's the threshhold?

In other words whether it's seen that way or not it's still unethical and makes you potentially more wealthy but not much better than a drug dealer if at all better.

Along the lines of perception having anything to do with it or ideological control justifying it there's a rather crude joke some people use either seriously or as a coping mechanism or whatever but I find it akin to

It wasn't rape it was surprise sex. I suppose you could argue with from birth you taught someone that that was a difference...

You wouldnt catch me supporting or doing that but I don't control everyone nor should I I'm still entitled to my opinion


It's also worth noting if we're going to give people labels that things are in their head. There are things that can grow in one's head. It's also known depending on the source that actual mistakes on medical records take 100k to 250,000 American lives a year. Unless you're going to argue that most things that could kill you speaking pathogen-wise have no dependency on time with survival rate

It also saved short-sighted to convince yourself in the age of electronic medical records sharing that your diagnosis would be harmless. It might be most of the time but much profit do you personally need to make to justify the person that died from it?

If you're the type that wants more evidence this might be happening you probably need to broaden your scope a little bit but relevant to the moment it might be worth looking up mn senator Scott Jensen.

As I've stated here and elsewhere I'm a layman. I'm not the expert here. That said end of elementary school start of junior high somewhere in there my certified nurse practitioner mother who was teaching nursing at St Catherine's was being hounded to convert her curriculum from overhead projector to PowerPoint. I learned quite a bit as I was going to do most of that for her. Also for quite a while I didn't understand really what was going on or what was up the probably both of my parents. So I did respect them and to an extent I still do as humans but I've realized one they're probably not capable of that in the normal sense in return. two they will literally violate laws to endanger my life. But the point I wanted to make was I paid a lot of attention growing up and had above most layman's exposure to the medical world so my opinion isn't entirely uneducated. What's Scott Jensen is saying right now isn't far from if not dead on some things I have heard. It also happens to be in line with something anyone can derive if you follow basic rules like incentive and negative consequence well thinking for oneself. it also usually helps to think along lines of probability not in absolutes.

I know the last part might be foreign it's certainly not encouraged anywhere anymore. Which is why even growing up Democrat Scott Jensen immediately caught my attention when about a week ago I came across what's the media has been labeling controversial statements.


https://m.startribune.com/sen-scott-jensen-says-complaints-about-covid-19-comments-may-be-political/571650782/


As to my suggestion that the current oversight in the form of a board might be the fox guarding the hen house...

Senator Jensen suggested hospitals might over count or over a tribute death to covid19 for the purposes of financial gain

He's now under review by the medical board for violation of medical ethics

In other news Orwell's corpse has been converted to the highest speed tunnel boring machine the world has ever seen. Should I say it twice or have I made my point?


The other ironic would be funny if it weren't likely the truth tie in bit... When we start considering government ordered patients for psychiatric services from a court that has abandoned hard-learned lessons injustice and created burden on the defense with low to no standard of evidence for the accusing party...


We start to describe the Salem witch trials. Which it's highly likely had a chemical origin. As in ergot poisoning. Which is far more toxic than but similar to the effects of LSD 25. It happens when fungus contaminates a grain and top of my head as most things here mainly rye. I've got to wonder are the lawmakers diets primarily consisting of past prime Reubens ? I guess that's the benefit of the doubt but next question is or what's going on here?

More general to the list of what might get you in front of a court that might do this and applied back to the concepts above: are we somehow saying in 2020 that one citizens will never lie, two are we saying there's clearly no known non-purposely caused or chosen environmental influences that might lead someone to feel scared and/or threatened without actions of another party but a tribute them and by the same line of reason we'd also be concluding there's nothing that would lead a person to appear for that name when really intoxicated but not by choice? It would seem to me that a long time ago we learned things like lead poisoning equals angry and stupid and well you know the phrase matter is a hatter right? It's not Ford Lincoln Mercury but one of the above is involved plus the whole .. Salem...ergot..thing..


How long until court is so divorced from well-based scientific discovery that Orwell's bones have cleared the other side of the planet entered orbit and court is ordering cyanide not as hey capital punishment but as a curative treatment for whatever is making you whatever.

No son that's not poison or lethal we don't use those words for that anymore because we said so.

No comments:

Post a Comment

 It just dawned on me. If you want to see evidence that black people are no more inherently violent than white people Martin Luther King and...