Government announces $2 million stroke awareness ad campaign - but not to heal the condition's cause
 
Stroke is the second biggest killer of Australians after heart disease. In mid-July the Health Minister, Tanya Plibersek, announced a $2 million stroke awareness ad campaign to inform the public of the characteristic warning signs of stroke. This is so that victims can be taken to hospital sooner in order to increase beneficial outcomes of treatment. But there is a better way to treat the stoke problem that escapes the Health Department.  
 
The government funds medical research to find the likely causes for many health and behavioural problems that bedevil human beings - including stroke. There are two types of stroke: haemorrhagic (burst blood vessel) and ischaemic (clogged blood vessel). The common contributing factors to stroke have been found to be as follows:
 
* obesity
* diabetes
* high blood pressure
* high cholesterol
* smoking (cigarettes and/or marijuana)
 
However, researchers have also found that strokes can be accompanied by headaches and/or migraines. And, in fact, that people who suffer from migraines (especially with aura) are at a slightly greater risk of having a stroke compared to those who do not suffer migraines. This finding is particularly relevant to the laws of pain. According to it, due to our evolution - that involves a lot of accumulated unresolved pain - the phoetal skull has become overly large compared to body size. This results in a lot of pressure and pain applied to the head during birth. If this pain goes unresolved it results in rebounding headaches and migraines throughout one's life. So in laws of pain terms, a stroke is just a case of unresolved birth pain rebounding as headaches/migraines for many years, then when the body ages to a certain degree one headache/migraine too many results in a stroke. Some young people can also suffer strokes - probably due to a more concentrated pressure to the head at birth. The other contributing factors - listed above - are due to various addictions: fatty foods, sugar, and drugs. Addictions, too, are a result of unresolved psychoemotional pain. So the solution to avoiding strokes is to resolve one's history of unresolved psychoemotional pain. This healing activity gradually resolves addictions, and eventually one gets back to birth and can resolve the intense pains to the head that occurred at that time. This is all hard work and takes time, but the end result is worth it - because if you no longer suffer from headaches, migraines, and addictions then you will be unlikely to get a stroke.  
 
In contrast to the above, the government relies on medicine and evidence-based science to treat health problems. The trouble with this approach is that medicine does not have a unified healing science - like the laws of pain. Its genetics-based theory of health and behavioural problems is too loose a concept to make any sense of the research results. For example, there are other risk factors identified as potentially leading to strokes, like oral contraceptives, sleep apnia, brain injury, hip replacement surgery, and heart disease. Overwhelmed by all this research, medicine then has to resort to its usual practice of waiting for people's bodies to break down, then trying to patch them back up.  
 
In this case, the key healing ingredient for strokes is not a science, technique, or a medicinal drug - it is the act of rushing a victim to hospital as quickly as possible - where they can get onto the operating table quicker, and there will be less brain damage, and so the outcome will be more favourable. But for recovery afterwards there will still be the added problem of pharmaceutical medicines and rehabilitation programs that cost many more millions of dollars to finance. (Meanwhile, the headaches, migraines, and various addictions will still not have been healed!)   
 
If you were to apply the medical profession's “wait-then-patch” methodology to other professions you would get outcomes that would be similar to the following:
 
* A national sports team that waits for the other country to score first before it tries to score any points.
* An oil industry that waits for cars, trucks, buses, and planes en masse to run out of fuel before it makes the next oil delivery.
* A police force that waits for car accidents to occur before alcohol-testing the drivers to find the drunk ones.
* Criminals who rob banks and then wait for the cops to arrive before they try to make their escape.  
 
So, if practised on a wider scale, the medical methodology would be considered backward, prohibitively expensive, out-of-date, and unacceptable. It would be compared to a pre-Industrial Revolution service. So why do we have to put up with this outdated approach when there is a more modern and more effective solution available?
 
Reference:
 
"Ad campaign calls for swift action to save stroke victims", Sydney Morning Herald, (online), Fairfax Media, July 15, 2013, (accessed 16 July 2013), 
http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/ad-campaign-calls-for-swift-action-to-save-stroke-victims-20130714-2py4d.html

Guns and Genomes: How Lobby Groups are preventing Governments from healing society of Killing Sprees and Psychoemotional Suffering

There is an old saying: "If it ain't broke, don't fix it". This is apt when things are running smoothly and there are few problems in an environment. In this case, you want things to stay the same - and even perpetuate tradition; you don't want to meddle and make big changes, and in-so-doing cause unnecessary problems to occur. But modern-day society is not like that - it is not smooth and untroubled. It has at least two major areas of social problems: mass killing sprees, and an epidemic of niggling health and behavioural problems that are psychoemotionally-related (like ADHD, obsessive compulsive disorder, post traumatic stress disorder, obesity, and drug, alcohol, and cigarette addictions). And contrary to medical belief, psychoemotional suffering has also been found to be a major underlying contributer to more serious physical health problems like Alzheimer's, cancer, stroke, and heart disease. These two problem areas could begin to be healed - with the introduction of the new laws of pain science - but are being prevented from being so by two traditionalist lobby groups: the gun and medical lobbies respectively. Government cannot stop shooting sprees largely due to the Gun Lobby (especially in the US); just as Government cannot heal Psychoemotional Suffering largely due to the Medical Lobby.
 
You might say that the gun and medical lobbies are unrelated entities. And in a sense you would be right - in that one kills while the other heals. (But, then, the gun lobby could say that killing animals puts meat on the table, and, so, facilitates health and survival.) Despite their different aims, there are interrelationships between the two in other respects. For example, both gun and medical enthusiasts have historically developed their skills on the battlefield - as a result of our species suffering from endemic warfare (which is a psychoemotional problem). Their technologies are also similar, involving blades, hammers, drills, bullets, and guns of various designs. And their terminology is similar: the former has "targets", ordinances delivering "payloads", machine gun "spray" to destroy cell enclaves, and night goggles to provide "enhanced vision" capabilities; while the latter has "targeted" drugs, drugs delivering "payloads", radiation "spray" to destroy cell growths, and bullet-like cameras that give "enhanced vision" of the body's internals. Gun enthusiasts are weapons technology buffs; while medical enthusiasts are medical technology buffs - with both now rushing to take advantage of new 3D printing technology. One could say that the former group is all about cutting, hammering, and shooting us from the outside, while the latter group is all about cutting, hammering, and shooting us on the inside.  
 
Hasn't the gun association been highlighted in the US news lately as a powerful and belligerent lobby group, capable of interfering with the government's gun laws? While in Australia in the early 2000s, didn't the health minister, Dr Michael Wooldridge, publicly complain about the incessant lobbying of the Australian Medical Association - and, in fact, its interference in one of the government's health recommendations (concerning the value of statin drugs)? The by-laws of these two lobby groups are also similar in their explicit intent of seeking significant government influence:
 
* The National Rifle Association's lobbying aims: http://www.nraila.org/about-nra-ila.aspx
* The American Medical Association's lobbying aims: http://www.ampaconline.org/about-us/
* The Shooters and Fishers Party's lobbying aims: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooters_and_Fishers
* The Australian Medical Association's lobbying aims:  https://ama.com.au/ama-mission-statement
 
When it comes to addressing killing sprees and health problems, instead of allowing governments to introduce significant changes to combat these two social problems, the lobby groups vigorously and stubbornly promote their own (similarly-themed) countermeasures:  
 
* To counter shooting and knifing sprees, the gun lobby recommends that the public should arm themselves with guns and bullets to shoot down the problem.  
* To counter health problems, the medical lobby recommends that the public should arm themselves with pharmaceutical (magic bullet) drugs to shoot down the problem.  
 
Unrelated they may be in some respects, but the gun and medical lobbies are more like the flip sides of the same coin - albeit, a battered and bruised coin, crudely minted from unresolved human violence and suffering.  
 
After the Scottish Dunblane school massacre of 1996 (involving 17 deaths) - perpetrated by a psychoemotionally-disturbed man who had a twisted interest in boys - the government, with public support, stood up to the gun lobby and introduced new gun control laws. Similarly, after the Australian Port Arthur mass killing spree of the same year (involving 35 deaths) - again, perpetrated by a psychoemotionally-disturbed person who had a history of being bullied - and who modeled his attack on the Dunblane one - the Australian Government stood up to the gun lobby via a gun buy-back scheme and gun control laws. But the lobby in this case has since clawed back its influence - to the point where they have convinced the NSW government to allow them to hunt in National Parks. This is despite some park visitors' claims of near misses from stray bullets, such bullets slamming into nearby farm houses, and at least one person shot and killed after being mistaken for a deer. [The NSW Government has since suspended the program, as a result of public concerns, such as those raised on the "Four Corners" TV program.] Add to this the fact that gun violence has increased in -particularly in Sydney - with weapon parts obtained on the Internet, home-manufacturing of guns, and theft of registered owners' firearms.  
 
Meanwhile in health care, Australia's two most recent health ministers have not had any relevant qualifications for the top job. Despite this, politicians can get by because their role is largely an administrative one. As the current health minister, Tanya Plibersek, shows, "...but when I've got decisions to make between new drugs to fund, palliative care services to fund, dementia to fund, extra funding for hospitals, extra doctors we want to employ, extra nurses we want to employ then I have to prioritise that spending".

But what happens when you are working in a field that you have little knowledge and experience in? You tend to get exploited by those who have that knowledge and experience - and power. So when asked about the health department's aims, she just parrots a medical lobbyist-type point of view, "I think we've got a lot to be proud of with our health system... Our five-year cancer survival rates are the best in the world. In the last few years since 2007 we've got an extra 7,000 doctors and 16,000 extra nurses in our hospital system...Between now and 2020 an extra $20 billion [is] going into our hospitals and personalised medicines that will cure more people with fewer side effects but we have to understand genomics and all the new technologies that go with them to really benefit from that."
 
In 2010, a Nature magazine survey on genomics found that most scientists agree that after ten years of the program it has proved a failure at its claims of being able to heal health problems - and provides no such expectations for doing so in the future. Nature is recognised by scientists and politicians alike as the world's most prestigious scientific journal. And, yet, here we have the Health Minister stating that we must be supportive of genomics. Clearly, she is not up-to-date with current developments in the health care field.  
 
Weapons manufacturers make different types of bullets that do specific jobs, which can all be helpful in winning a battle. But bullets do not heal the cause of warfare, so more conflicts will arise in the future. Similarly, medicine produces a variety of "magic bullet drugs" that are also helpful in winning a battle against health symptoms like cancer. But drugs do not heal the underlying cause of human suffering, so health problems will arise again in the future. In fact, all that these magic bullet drugs are doing is pushing back the time when health problems like cancer finally bite hard. (Currently, 5 years of being cancer free is the magic target for effectiveness - which is hardly a "cure".) As Plibersek herself states, "We invest tens of thousands of dollars in very late stage cancer medicines that might extend life for six weeks or six months. Tens of thousands of dollars. But we're happy to pay that as Australians because we understand the value of caring for every Australian well." Our Health Minister is happy to care for Australians - but not happy to cure them properly with a more up-to-date and more effective science that heals the underlying (psychoemotional) suffering to many health and behavioural problems.  
 
Claiming to be able to "cure" health problems by poring public funds into genomics and related technologies is akin to saying, "We will end killing sprees by pporingmillions of public dollars into weapons research". Guns have little to do with curbing violence, and genomics has little to do with healing (psychoemotionally-related) health problems. Genomics is primarily a technological pursuit - not a healing service. Any government Home Security Minister who believes that gun ownership can curb killing sprees should be sacked. Similarly, any government Health Minister who believes that genomics can heal health problems should also be sacked.  
 
Clearly, the trouble with following singular lobby groups' interests is that government departments' views become synchronistically narrow, shallow, and ineffective. A government department needs to be more open-minded, more accepting of different interest groups' viewpoints, and have a broader awareness of recent developments and public concerns - not just be a ventriloquist's doll for a lobby group.  
 
The hesitation, and sometimes paralysis, of governments around the world to introduce significant new changes into society, to begin healing these problems of mass killing sprees and psychoemotional suffering is alarming. Although lobby group members are good people - even good people can have excessive self-interests, and be stubborn, obstructive, and resistant to change. Currently, two powerful lobby groups are inadvertently (respectively) allowing innocent people - including children - to be occasionally killed, or some people to continue to suffer and struggle with psychoemotional problems throughout their lives - just because they want their traditional interests to continue to be catered for by government. It is almost a case of powerful lobby groups tugging on the government's ear and urging their own distorted slogan of, "If it's broke, don't fix it!". This raises concerns of just who is running today's societies: the government or the lobby group.  
 
References:
 
"The Health Debate", Q&A, ABC1, (video transcript), Australian Broadcasting Commission, Monday 22 April, 2013,
http://www.abc.net.au/tv/qanda/txt/s3732232.htm

Pope Francis' Exorcism confusion raises questions over the effectiveness of the Practice

A video of Pope Francis addressing a disabled man in the crowd after a recent Sunday mass, has produced an online frenzy claiming that the Pope conducted an exorcism on him. This coincides with an upsurge in people wanting to undergo exorcisms, as well as its training in Rome's religious universities. So what did Pope Francis do that has gotten the public so worked-up? This is what happened according to media reports about the video:

“The young man heaved deeply a half-dozen times, shook, then slumped in his wheelchair as Francis prayed over him”.

And according to the religious officialdom, the above episode constitutes an exorcism:

“surveyed exorcists...agreed there was 'no doubt' that Francis either performed an exorcism or a prayer to free the man from the devil.”

The Vatican for its part said that Francis was not performing an exorcism, but was simply praying for him. It is also unable to state clearly if it was an exorcism or not, but it has downplayed the claims. Coincidentally, Pope John Paul II was also claimed to have performed an exorcism near the same location thirty years earlier in 1982.  

So what is really going on here? What we see is suffering people exhibiting a religious ferver, who want to believe that a healing event took place. The focus of interest is on the Pope, his homilies against the devil, and the hope that exorcism promises for healing the suffering. What is missing from the analysis of the event is observation of the sufferer, such as the following:

* There was no pre-assessment of the sufferer, in terms of his psychological and physical condition.
* There was no brain science involved, in terms of levels of consciousness and access to past memories.
* There was no observation after the event, in terms of whether or not the person exhibited noticeable change.

These are the parameters one needs to use to judge whether a person has been healed of some degree of suffering or not. To just place one's hands on a person's head, say meaningful (prayer) words, and then move on to the next person is not typically conducive to healing. Few psychotherapists do this – but many religious workers do. And the suffering person seen to be shaking, convulsing, and slumping could just signal an abreaction – a random expression of energy, perhaps due to being overwhelmed with excitement and expectation. And so it is most likely that he was not healed of anything at all.

The inability of religious people to judge whether a person has healed some of their suffering or not under exorcism, prayer, or miracle raises questions about the effectiveness of claimed healing episodes of key religious figures of the past. Most such prophets, gods, and saints got their fame for their healing abilities. But given that at those past times there was even less knowledge than there is today – together with the fact that there was no video, media, or Internet, and little opportunity for expert analysis – it raises the query as to whether their fame was due more to religious ferver and hope than to real healing.

A more official form of exorcism is practised. But even it involves only superficial pre-assessment of the sufferer, no up-to-date brain science, and superficial post-treatment observation. Because it is based on a system of faith – and not on questioning, observation, and advancement – it can never improve, grow, become more effective, or for any rare successes (i.e., when a sufferer inadvertently slips into some past pain and resolves it) to be reproducible so as to benefit other sufferers.

In contrast, with laws of pain treatment a sufferer can experience a healing episode (AKA “healing miracle”) several times a month over a number of years. That is a concept that would blow religious people's minds! And, yet, this is exactly what they are missing out on.  

For it to take 30 years between public displays of what people think could be healing exorcisms or not is way too long. Meanwhile, this suggests that other religious activities – like masses, sermons, and singing – are just there to fill in the yawning gap between supposed miracles. It is a sad but inevitable reality that the millions of religious followers around the world are forever doomed to be trapped in a wait-and-hope struggle with their faiths, and will never experience healing of their problems during their lifetimes via this pathway.

Update:

The sufferer in the video has subsequently stated that although he feels better after the encounter with the Pope, he still feels possessed. He also stated that he “has undergone 30 exorcisms by ten exorcists to no avail”.

References:

“Pope Francis' blessing on disabled man looked like exorcism, say experts”, news.com.au, (online), News Limited, May 22, 2013, (accessed 8 June 2013),
http://www.news.com.au/world-news/experts-say-pope-francis-action-on-disabled-man-look-like-exorcism/story-fndir2ev-1226647985418

“Man who Pope Francis allegedly performed an exorcism on claims to be still possessed”, Irish Central, (online), IrishCentral LLC, Updated Tuesday, June 4, 2013, (accessed 8 June 2013),
http://www.irishcentral.com/news/Man-who-Pope-Francis-allegedly-performed-an-exorcism-on-claims-to-be-still-possessed----VIDEO-210049301.html

Lagalising Marijuana: a small change in Society marks the beginning of a Social Revolution

In the United Sates the two states of Washington and Colorado have just voted to legalise marijuana for personal production and use, with pending court hearings against infringers scheduled to be dissolved. (California recently had the same vote, but it failed to pass.) This flies in the face of the Federal Government's policy of a "war on drugs", in which all forms of illicit drugs and their production are prohibited. Drug toleration or legalisation is not new - several European countries practice it to varying degrees, and a few countries in South America have recently lagalised some drug use and manufacture. But they are already known for their relaxed cultural views (European) or for adopting radical policies (South American), so theirs is more of a small kick-off to revolutionary change. The situation in the US is much different, because it is traditionally conservative in nature - due to its stout religious core - and has a history of being vocal proponents of prohibition. So these two states' new stance against the federal government's - and their entire nation's - prohibition policy is a more significant kick-off to a social revolution. So what has changed to bring this about, and what does this revolution involve?

For a long time there has been argument over whether it is better to outlaw illicit drug use, tolerate it to some degree, or to legalise it. The latter two arguments have gained weight recently due to the shocking levels of drug gang crime and violence in South America - especially in Mexico - where commentators have claimed that the "war on drugs" has failed. But despite the growing voices for toleration or legalisation, most of the world's politicians have remained resolute. The difference has come about from the new perspective on the "war on drugs" afforded by the laws of pain. This system was used to describe in a new way the reasons for illicit drug manufacture and crime, and how it is a repeat of the failed alcohol prohibition of the 1920s. The system also embodies a psychotherapeutic science that can heal drug addiction. So with such a new perspective and healing treatment available, it would be possible for countries to control illicit drug production, reap extra income from its taxing, make drugs safer to consume for users, provide effective healing treatment - and, at the same time, take such control and finances away from drug gangs. This new perspective was picked up by the social grapevine, then similar views expressed by others, and this has all helped to push the toleration/legalisation viewpoint over a "tipping point" and into a stage where it can be acted upon instead of just being vocalised. And so Colorado and Washington have decided to act upon this viewpoint in the case of marijuana. The general sentiments of their populaces are that they are sick of the court misdemeaners and clogged-up jail system. Colorado has adopted similar plans to those described above, while Washington has held back on the commercial production side of things. The states are now nervously awaiting a response from the Federal Government.

So what is the new social revolution about? News articles about these two states' legalisation of marijuana have merely described the event without apportioning any meaning to it. New Scientist, for example, says that it is entering into "uncharted waters". They do not yet see a revolution underway here (in relation to our species evolution). But according to laws of pain science, our original ape ancestors' lost their ability to heal psychoemotional pain, and this set our species on a path of technological evolution rather than continued genetic evolution. As a result, each successive hominid generation lost more feeling capacity - which has culminated in gross acts of violence, such as the killing of megafauna as humans spread across the world at the end of the last Ice Age, the Hundred Years War of the Middle Ages, and the two World Wars of the Twentieth Century. Lack of feeling capacity is also seen in other areas of life, such as in crime and drug use. In summary, then, our species requires psychoemotional healing in order to restore optimal feeling capacity and health - and to be able to parent the following generations properly. So a change in policy to toleration/legalisation of drugs means that drug use (and related violence) is now treated as a health problem rather than a crime, and such affected people are guided towards treatment programs rather than jails. It therefore expands the range of people included in the suffering category, and in need of psychotherapeutic healing, and, so, is a change in accord with laws of pain science.

Since this development is so far part of a "grapevine melange of ideas and programs" - and not directly part of the laws of pain system itself as yet - the main problem will be whether the treatment programs provided by governments will effectively heal addiction or not. Experience of drug treatment programs in Europe and Australia shows that they can be beneficial to some, but that they are not especially effective. If such traditional treatments do not prove effective, then the revolutionary change will stagnate or even go backwards. Only time will tell if this revolution can get off to a good start, accept more guidance from laws of pain science, and develop into something more meaningful for suffering humanity...

Politicians Procrastinate over whether to Legalise Drugs or not - but if they did, would it work?

Throughout the Twentieth Century, and now the Twenty-first Century, there has been a political policy of a "war on drugs" (mostly in the West). Alternatively, a few European countries - namely Spain, Germany, Netherlands, Portugal, and Sweden - have tried a different approach of various degrees of drug toleration and/or legalisation. Prohibition and legalisation are the two extreme arguments to trying to curb the social drug problem and its associated organised crime gangs - with many advocates on both sides. In October 2010, I posted an article on the advantages of legalising drugs from a laws of pain perspective - which added new information to the debate. One of those points was the existence of a direct relationship between unresolved psychoemotional pain and drug and alcohol addiction. The more pain one has, the more craving need for drugs one has, and vice versa: the more past pain one resolves the less craving for drugs. Resolving a lot of past pain restores feeling capacity, and leaves one recovered, whole, and healthy. The ability of the laws of pain to resolve drug addiction, therefore, now makes it safe and effective to introduce a policy of legalising drugs. This new perspective and energy behind my article has added to the debate grapevine, as is evidenced by the renewed push for the legalisation of drugs - as exemplified below - (but without any reference to the laws of pain system itself).

In June 2011, the Global Commission on Drug Policy released their report on the state of the war on drugs, and declared it a failure, that it was causing more harm than good, and that policy reform was needed. And in September 2012, the Australia21 committee released their report on the war on drugs, and (echoing some of my own points) also stated that it had failed, that drugs (marijuana and ecstasy) should be legalised and commercially supplied (under government regulation) instead of being controlled by crime gangs, drug packaging could contain warnings, and drug-effects information provided at supply centres. As a result, some politicians have agreed with these reports, while some have disagreed. The latter note that the legalisation of drugs in other countries has not been especially successful, and that the legalisation of (previously prohibited) alcohol has led to a significant social problem of alcohol abuse.

But what if politicians did take a bold step, accept these committees' recommendations, and legalise some drugs - would it work? No. Why? Because to date they have no accurate and effective science that relates to drug addiction to go with such a policy change - the committees and other advocates have omitted that part. They have the standard sciences of medicine, psychology, and psychiatry to draw upon, but they have been around for centuries and still have not made any significant dent in the drug addiction problem. So, in effect, what these committees and supporters are essentially pushing for is a "change in attitude" - without a change in science - and expecting that that alone will heal the drug problem and make society a better place to live in. So how would such a new policy pan out if it was introduced? At one end of the policy spectrum, cleaner and more affordable drugs would be readily available to addicts - but at the other end of the spectrum, the users would not be getting healed of their addiction. And after some years of this kind of "bottlenecking", there would be a public backlash against the (obviously failed) policy, and things will have to be reverted back to the way they were, with the pruning back of treatment centres, trying to manage drug addiction without healing people, and still trying to clamp down on heavier drug use and organised crime. Nothing will have progressed.

The war on drugs has been fought for a hundred years now - without success. And the legalisation of drugs will still not occur anytime soon. US President Barack Obama has stated that America would never do it, and Australian PM Julia Gillard is against it, as is the Attorney General Nicola Roxon - along with numerous leading figures and experts. So after a hundred years of failure, the most influential politicians and social leaders still have closed minds to any new approach to the drug problem. Effectively, what they are saying on their part is that they are prepared to keep people addicted to drugs, and the crime gangs profiting from the drug trade, because they do not as yet know how to solve this social problem. And the knee-jerk reaction to when you cannot resolve a social problem is to keep it suppressed - in this case, by clamping down on it with increased law and order. And here is just one perplexing aspect of this policy's ramifications: the newly-elected state governments of Queensland, NSW, and Victoria are currently slashing thousands of jobs in education and health - and disrupting those families' lives - in order to build up financial reserves; while at the same time, criminal gangs are syphoning off multi-millions of dollars from the public by being allowed to control the street drug trade. This situation does not make sense, when revenues could be made healthier - and people's jobs and families not disrupted - if government was to take over control of the street drug problem (from a laws of pain perspective).

If political and social leaders cannot come up with something different and more effective for a social problem after a hundred years of trying, then there is something wrong with our class of leaders. The question then is, why do we keep them in power?


References:

War on Drugs
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_on_drugs

'Drug prohibition a colossal failure', say experts calling for regulated cannabis use, September 09, 2012,
http://www.perthnow.com.au/news/national/regulate-cannabis-use-report-urges/story-fndo6ejf-1226468417047

Uruguay takes 'war on drugs' in new direction: The state as dealer, September 19, 2012,
http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Americas/2012/0919/Uruguay-takes-war-on-drugs-in-new-direction-The-state-as-dealer

Thousands rally against Campbell Newman’s monster cuts, September 14, 2012,
http://www.greenleft.org.au/node/52221

NSW to slash $1.7b from Schools, September 11, 2012,
http://finance.ninemsn.com.au/newsbusiness/8531088/nsw-to-slash-1-7b-from-schools

Mass Killings now Endemic in Human Society

Just when we all may have thought that the worst cases of mass killings had come and gone, in July we witnessed a new worst case of mass killings in the US. In Aurora, Colorado, 12 people were killed and 58 injured in a movie theatre shooting spree - by a gunman impersonating one of the movie characters. There are two issues in this shooting that make it sadly ironic, and highlights the failed state of our social system. The first issue is that one of the victims, Jessica Ghawi - a young aspiring sports journalist - had narrowly avoided a previous shooting spree just a couple of months earlier in a Canada shopping mall. One would think that having to survive one shooting spree would be the ultimate in bad luck - and, so, you would probably never have to experience a similar event again. But to stumble into two such events - just months apart - tells us that these mass shootings are something more than just momentary tragedies - they are here to stay. The fact that writers are now trying to reassure the public that mass killings are rare events only confirms the fact that they have become a persistent and worrying part of modern society. In fact, mass killing events can now be added to the list of health hazards - like AIDS, ebola, Legionaire's Disease, malaria, rabies, and transport accidents - that, although rare, require us to be mindful of them and to take some measures to avoid. The second issue is that the perpatrator of the Aurora shootings was educated in neuroscience - as well as seeing a psychiatrist - but not even that could help him resolve his own troubled mind. This confirms how ineffective traditional mind-and-brain sciences are in resolving mental health problems.

More than ever before we need a social leadership that can agree that mass killings are now a persistent problem in society, and who can come up with a plan of action to stop them. So what have our social leaders had to say about the nature of human violence? A look at the news shows what we have:

* A president who says that the Aurora event was an "act of evil".
* A Catholic priest who says that the Aurora perpetrator was "possessed by the devil".
* An ex-Secret Service psychologist - and mass shootings expert - who says that the Aurora perpetrator could be "psychotic, manic, or faking it".
* A child psychologist who says that the perpetrator's motive comes down to being "mad, bad, or sad".
* US politicians heatedly debating whether mass killings are a problem of "gun control" or not - all the while, trying not to offend the powerful pro-gun lobby.
* An Australian police commissioner who says that youth violence is due to "watching video games" that act to desensitise them to violence - a view backed-up by the state premier (whose own reign has been marked by around 85 shooting incidents - in a country where there is firm gun control).
* And scientists who have done studies that show that violence in the young can be due to exposure to violence on TV or in video games; but who are equally opposed by scientists who claim that there is no solid evidence that violence on TV or in video games influences youth violence.

So there you have it. Mass killings have now become endemic in our society - and in genuine efforts to be helpful, our social leaders have offered their own take on what causes violence - but, unfortunately for the public, it all ends up being a hodge-podge of ideas and opinions. President Obama has said that the US must now do some "soul searching", and "come together to bring an end to this violence". But do you think that our social leaders could agree on a unified plan of action to resolve such a problem? And, assuming that they could, do you think that their solution would be effective? Not likely.

So what is the real issue here? Well, all of these social leaders are correct in their own way - but, from a global perspective, they are all fundamentally incorrect. Yes, some killers have spent many hours watching violent videos; and some do react to voices in the head as if possessed. The actions of perpetrators' towards fellow humans are indeed evil; and most are dissociated from the event as if psychotic. If there were no guns there would no doubt be fewer mass killings; and some perpetrators do fit the profile described in scientific studies. But these are all factors "associated" with violence - not root causes. What is missing here is an underlying, unified, global science of human nature that identifies and treats the sole, root cause of the problem. And according to that latest science - the laws of pain - the cause is an accumulation of unresolved painful experiences during upbringing that diminishes feeling capacity (that is, leads to a lack of empathy, desensitisation to violence, and dissociation) - within a social system that does not properly recognise the long-term impact that painful experiences have on people. It is this combination of individual repression and social ignorance that causes some people to eventually explode into violent rage - as their only perceived means of expressing anger and frustration.

Some people like to laugh at the concept of "past traumas" affecting people in such a random, violent manner. But they laugh while their own traditional explanations (such as those listed above), and implimented programs, have proven time-and-again to be too shallow and ineffective. At some point the public is going to have to make a decision: is it worth their own or their relative's life to continue to support repeatedly failed remedies for social problems? Or is it worth taking a risk with a brand new human nature science, and a ready-to-roll-out action plan, to effectively dissolve these kinds of social problems once and for all? What is there to lose? 


References:

Katherine Weber, "James Holmes Was Demon Possessed, Claims Catholic Priest", CP N.America, (online), The Christian Post, August 1, 2012, (accessed 9 Aug 2012),
http://global.christianpost.com/news/james-holmes-was-demon-possessed-claims-catholic-priest-79227/

"Obama says Colorado shooting was an 'evil act'", The Times of India, (online), Bennett, Coleman & Co. Ltd., Jul 23, 2012, (accessed 9 Aug 2012),
http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2012-07-23/us/32803787_1_aurora-theater-president-barack-obama-new-batman-movie

"Obama calls for end to violence in Denver", Herald Sun, (online), The Herald and Weekly Times Pty Ltd, August 09, 2012, (accessed 11 Aug 2012),
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/breaking-news/obama-calls-for-end-to-violence-in-denver/story-e6frf7k6-1226446626769

Michael Carr-Gregg, "How did James Holmes, a smart guy from a good home, become a mass murder suspect?" News.com.au, Herald Sun, (online), News Limited., July 28, 2012, (accessed 9 Aug 2012),
http://www.news.com.au/national/how-did-james-holmes-a-smart-guy-from-a-good-home-become-a-mass-murder-suspect/story-fndo4cq1-1226437079362

Claire Connelly, "Police commissioner Andrew Scipione under fire for video game comments", news.com.au, (online), News Limited., August 06, 2012,  (accessed 9 Aug 2012),
http://www.news.com.au/technology/gaming/police-commissioner-andrew-scipione-under-fire-for-video-game-comments/story-e6frfrt9-1226443975410

Who Really Killed Michael Jackson?

 

In June 2009, Michael Jackson - the "King of Pop" - died at his home while under the care of his (cardiologist) doctor, Conrad Murray. The subsequent autopsy revealed that Jackson was in reasonably good health. The most unusual feature of his body, however, were puncture marks in his arms (made by intravenous needles). The toxicology report found that he had died from respiratory and heart failure due to an overdose of propofol, combined with the effects of other (sleep-inducing) medications given to him. Jackson's death was deemed a homicide, and Conrad Murray had to stand trial for wrongful death. To counter the public focus on him, Murray appeared in a documentary about his relationship with Jackson, what happened the night Jackson died, and his defence team's strategy meetings during his trial.

After treating Jackson and his children since 2006, Murray was eventually emplyed by Jackson as his personal physician in 2009. He often treated him six days a week. Amongst general health treatments, Murray primarily treated Jackson for insomnia with standard medications and, at times, small doses of propofol (a hospital aneasthetic). In the two months prior to his death Jackson received nightly doses of propofol. During his defence team's discussions they summed up Jackson's behavioural condition as follows: they noted that besides having difficulty getting to sleep, he also had a bed-wetting problem, his private room was often messy, and he kept pictures of children on display. They were non-plussed as to how a 50-year-old man could have such abnormal behaviours - which they concluded were "psychological". And here is the crux of Jackson's death that has eluded everyone - it can be summed up in a single question:

Why was a medical doctor treating Jackson when he was in reasonably good physical health, and his problems were mostly of a psychological nature?

There is an opportunity here to illustrate the differences between how the traditional legal system operates and how a legal system cognizant of the laws of pain would operate. For the traditional legal system, the posthumous investigations - autopsy, toxicology report, and court case - were all based on physical medicine: that is, what medications were given to Jackson? How was CPR applied? What was the condition of the body? What drug concentrations were found in the blood system? Etcetera. Very little information pertained to Jackson's psychoemotional state - aside from the fact that a few people noted that he was in good spirits for a couple of days prior to his death. This focus on physicality emphasises the dominance that Traditional Medicine has in our society, and the corresponding subordinance of traditional psychology (due to its ineffectiveness). As a result of the physical evidence against him, Murray was found guilty by a jury in November 2011, and sentenced to the maximum four years for involuntary manslaughter.

For a legal system cognizant of the laws of pain, the effort would be more to put the event on trial - to establish what happened - rather than to solely put a target person on trial. Firstly, besides considering the physical evidence, it would also seek to establish what Jackson's psychoemotional condition was like. His problems of inability to sleep, bed-wetting, unable to clean up after himself, and idolising the childhood state are all developmental problems leftover from childhood. Jackson had stated that he had never had a childhood (due to the demands of his family music group), that he was sometimes beaten by his father, that he was bullied by other youths in the family's early performing days, and that he was periodically ridiculed in the media in adulthood. Additionally, he was known to be a regular subscription drug user, was twice accused of child molestation due to his habit of keeping children over at his Neverland Ranch, altered his appearance to that of a Peter Pan-like identity, and was fearful of dying from a sudden heart attack like Elvis Presley (the "king of rock-n-roll"). So while Jackson was physically healthy and able to function in society as a performer, his psyche was strongly twisted as a result of a painful upbringing.

Secondly, Jackson did not just die within a home environment, he also died within a particular social environment. That social environment was not a Third World society, nor an industrialising society - but a First World, post-industrial society. Such a society has particular traits - one being that it tries to provide a "chemical solution" for many problems: industrial processes, cleaning necessities, germ killing, food preserving, toiletries, etcetera. And in terms of health care it tends to be an over-medicalised society - where there are prescription medications to tackle almost every health and behavioural problem. So whenever people suffer from personal problems in this society, they invariably reach for some type of "chemical solution": cigarettes, alcohol, vapour sniffing, street drugs - or prescription drugs. The voices of people and organisations promoting other treatments are comparitively weak - because of the ineffectiveness of such treatments. So, in effect, the message that our society tells us is to take chemicals to feel better. Conversely, there is little information about the prevalence and dangers of prepsychoemotional pain from upbringing and how it can be resolved.

So what would be the summation to this event in such a new type of court? Jackson's history of accumulated pain led him to form a co-dependent relationship with Murray: so that Jackson could act out his tendency towards hypochondria; while Murray could act out his tendency towards overdoctoring (of which there is a family history - his father also got into trouble in relation to administering medications). So Jackson had some role to play in his own death, because by using his influence to obtain propofol as a medication - and a compliant medical professional to administer it - he repeatedly put himself in a potential death situation should something go wrong. And Conrad Murray also played a role, by not properly monitoring his patient, and by being ill-prepared to deal with a propofol-based emergency. (There were numerous doctors, nurses, and pharmicists before Murray - some of whom gave Jackson propofol - who would have been thankful that Jackson did not die while under their care.) Additionally, Jackson's death was partly due to enduring the pain-laden edge of life characteristic of a modern, post-industrial society. In this type of society unresolved childhood developmental problems are rutinely left unresolved, to be carried on into adulthood. This leads to numerous personality and behavioural quirks, niggling health problems, and unreasonable fears - just like those that Jackson suffered from.

We can know that society is partly to blame for this incident, because Jackson was not alone in the way that he died. Just the year before, Heath Ledger also died of an accidental prescription drug overdose while treating insomnia. And some of the drugs he used were the same as those that Jackson used. Investigators back then also tried to pin the blame on a single "target", but were unable to do so. Society obviously did not learn of the dangers of over-medicating oneself from Ledger's death. And society also did not learn from the death of Anna Nicole Smith - just a year before Ledger's demise - again, from an accidental overdose of prescription medications to treat sleepng problems (again, involving some of the same drugs). And there have been other famous people who have also died by over-medicating themselves with various chemicals: Amy Winehouse (accidental alcohol poisoning), Paula Yates (accidental heroine overdose), Jimi Hendrix (choked on vomit from alcohol and/or prescription drug overdose), Janice Joplin (accidental heroine overdose), John Bonham (choked on vomit from alcohol binge), Keith Moon (accidental alcohol-withdrawal medication overdose), and John Balushi (accidental cocaine and heroine overdose) to name a few. There are undoubtedly some everyday citizens who die in similar circumstances. Chemicals can provide an escape - or temporary releif - from suffering, but too much of them - or chemicals that are inappropriate to the presenting symptoms - can kill us.

So, a conventional legal system tends to heap blame for tragedies on a single target, and only occasionally makes recommendations for social change to prevent similar circumstances occuring to others in the future (such as when a tragedy involves a large number of people). After Jackson's death, for example, the court made no recommendations for social change in treating the types of problems Jackson faced. Also, at the time of Jackson's death, President Barack Obama stated that it was a tragedy, and that he still had Jackson's songs on his iphone. Yet, even after the court case, he and the government asked no questions about why a healthy person should die prematurely in an advanced society; no questions as to why medical doctors inappropriately treat psychological symptoms; and no questions as to why a society should base many of its treatments for health and behavioural problems on chemicals. And, so, the Establishment have made no changes to improve society in this regard. This will ensure that some of the creative people of the future - as well as some everyday troubled citizens - will continue to die from over-medicating themselves. In contrast, a legal system cognizant of the laws of pain would be better able to apportion blame in tragic events - as described above - as well as provide finer-grained recommendations for social change so that such events would be less likely to occur in the future. In this case, the court could recommend that sufferers of transient sleeping (and other health problems) should seek pharmaceutical chemicals for temporary relief only; while sufferers of persistent insomnia (and other health problems) should seek laws of pain-based treatment because its ability to rewire the brain is what is needed for perminent healing.


References:

http://wikipedia.org

Michael Jackson and the Doctor: A Deadly Friendship, video, Channel 9, 10 November 2011.

Mass Killings Continue with Governments unable to stop them

 Just last December there was another mass shooting, this time in Finland, as well as a failed attempt by a Nigerian terrorist to blow up a US-bound airliner. In the Finland case, a disaffected man killed his former partner over a dispute, and then killed four innocent people in a shooting spree at a shopping centre. Mass killings in schools, workplaces, and public places have become a regular phenomenon now. Worldwide, there have been over 500 deaths from mass school shootings alone since 1996. Add to this the numerous general killings every year, in schools, homes, and public places. These often occur from petty disputes, from bullying, past quarrels, heated arguments, relationship disputes, depression, or drug related - in short, from resolvable psychoemotional problems.

From superpsychology's perspective these problems occur due to miswiring of the perpetrator's brain from unresolved psychoemotional pain during upbringing. This science employs the laws of pain, which includes a brain wiring model (based on three evolutionary brain structures), and a strong mental connection process (that acts between those brain structures). Unresolved psychoemotional pain - particularly from early events - can lead to innumerable acting-out behaviours, including bullying, oversensitivity, heightened anxiety, suicidal impulses, and violent tendencies. Such people with bottled-up emotions can explode into a rage - causing death to others - over what most people would consider to be everyday issues. Reexperiencing painful hurts from the past makes solid connections to earlier brain regions and rewires the brain back to normal. Superpsychology has proved this by displaying the regaining of natural ambidexterity (and, hence, natural brain ambilaterality). Such healed people regain a normal self-image, a normal social perspective, do not become overly-temperamental, and do not need drugs to get by each day. So why can a psychotherapy heal human problems, but society can't stop these mass killings and other violent deaths?

Let us compare this situation to a different scenario based on wiring and connection. Imagine that there has been over 500 deaths in schools since 1996 - involving 58 incidences - from dogdy electrical wiring, along with loose electrical connections, within school buildings. That is an average of four mass student electrocutions per year. Add to this a regular number of smaller killings in homes, cars, trains, planes, and public places due to the same dodgy electrical wiring and poor connections in buildings, vehicles, and electrical goods. And the public itself is also unsure about the correct nature of electrical wiring or secure connections in homes, vehicles, or appliances. This scenario would mean that people can have homes, buildings, and electrical goods wired-up any way they like, and using whatever flimsy connections at hand - there being no standards to be guided by. If many people die from electrocutions - it's unfortunate, and nobody wants to see it, but that's life in modern times. There is no need to follow a correct scientific wiring model or make solid, permanent connections, because people cannot agree on what science those models should be based on. The explanation from governments would be that they do not know what the problem is that produces these mass and isolated electrocutions, but rest assured that they are providing the best educational courses and stringent qualifications necessary for the electrical trade at educational institutions. If this scenario were the case, there would ultimately be public outrage. The media would be all over this story like rottweilers. Any politician who claimed that they did not know what causes the electicutions would be forced to resign from office. Any vehicle or electrical goods manufacturer selling products with dodgy wiring would be heavily fined. And any electrical tradespersons not following good electrical wiring practices would lose their licences to practice. The public would demand that government institute proper wiring and connection standards in educational institutions and maintain those code standards in the workforce. And the electrical trade itself would need to be overhauled no matter what the cost - whatever it takes to get this appalling situation fixed.

The above scenario is essentially what we have today when you swap out the electrical field and substitute in the mental health field. And it also accurately reflects society's attitude towards mental wellbeing. Essentially in our society, there are no brain wiring or mental connection standards taught to professionals in educational institutions, nor provided more informally to homes, schools, or businesses. Most therapies do not even follow a brain wiring model - based on evolutionary principles - or fully understand solid connections to past hurts. So, effectively, parents employ their own upbringing styles, and can have their children's brains wired-up any way they like. Many parents do OK in this situation. But some parents can bully their offspring, abuse them, neglect them, mistreat them, and/or ignore them - often without even realising the damage that they are doing. If their progenies grow up to become suicidal, depressive, alcoholic, drug addicted, temperamental, or criminal - who then kills other innocent people in acts of violence or mass killings - it's unfortunate and sad, but nobody knows why it happens, it's just modern life.

Now, we all know that politicians, therapists, and parents are good people who like to do good things for others. But the trouble is that if you do not use the correct science for a problem you get into the area of fudging things. Politicians fudge their policies for addressing mass killings, terrorism, and general violence, therapists fudge their claims of successful treatments and connections, and parents also fudge reasons for their stringent, wayward, or neglectful parenting styles. When it comes to mental health we live in a society of fudging - not a society that follows precise and accurate science. Yet we all accept this as the status quo.

So the mass killings and other deaths continue unabated, and society and its governments do little that is effective about them - even when a definitive mental health science has been developed. There are, of course, other factors involved, such as socioeconomic circumstances and gun ownership. But, still, these deaths - especially of school students - are for nothing. Many could have been prevented if the correct mental health science was employed throughout society. The public's attitude toward mental health has to be overhauled. The current situation where there are no parenting standards, and the mentally troubled are offloaded to professionals to deal with does not lower the level of wanton violence. The public itself has to take a more active role in the treatment of mental health, such as allowing the time and space for each other to heal psychoemotional hurts. And the definitive science to heal such problems needs to be more visible so that the public can see how traumas accur to people, how they are healed, and how they can be prevented.

In the meantime, we are left to ponder where and when the next mass killings will take place, as ourselves and our loved ones play daily Russian roulette with some people's miswired brains.

References:

Time Line of Worldwide School Shootings, Infoplease, (online), Pearson Education, (accessed 1 Jan 2010),
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0777958.html

Six found dead after a Finnish mall shooting, Ethiopian Review, (online), January 1st, 2010,
http://www.ethiopianreview.com/news/7956

Man tries to bomb US plane in attempted terror attack, The Times of india, (online), Bennett, Coleman & Co. Ltd., 26 December 2009,
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/world/us/Man-tries-to-bomb-US-plane-in-attempted-terror-attack/articleshow/5379640.cms

Are there Five Laws of Human Nature, or Two?

A report in New Scientist magazine asserts that there are five laws of human nature. This is based on the observation that the Peter Principle - "that every boss rises to their level of incompetence" - seems to have some truth to it. New Scientist laments that laws of physics are easily accepted by the public but that laws of human nature raise objections. It believes, though, that we will inevitably have to accept them. Its five laws of human nature - and accompanying sub-laws - are as follows:

1. Parkinson's Law: "...work expands to fill the time available for its completion." This also relates to the following sub-laws:

•     law of triviality: "...the amount of time an organisation spends discussing an issue is inversely proportional to its importance."

•     Sayre's law: "...in any dispute, the intensity of feeling is inversely proportional to the value of the stakes at issue."

•     coefficient of inefficiency: "...defines the maximum size a committee can reach before it becomes unable to make decisions" (between about 20-23 people).

2. Student Syndrome: "...apply yourself to a task only at the last possible moment before the deadline" (i.e., procrastination).

•     Hofstadter's law: "It [a task] always takes longer than you expect, even when you take into account Hofstadter's law."

3. Pareto Principle: "...80 per cent of the wealth is owned by just 20 per cent of the population". This law is also said to apply universally, so that "...80 per cent of events are triggered by just 20 per cent of the causes".

4. Salem Hypothesis: "an education in the engineering disciplines forms a predisposition to [creationist] viewpoints". Or rephrased as "creationists with advanced degrees are often engineers".

5. Maes-Garreau law: "...any such prediction about a favourable future technology will fall just within the expected lifespan of the person making it."

New Scientist states that these laws have supporting evidence, since there have been studies performed that have backed up these observations. The truth is, though, that these are not really laws of human nature, but are more like principles of human interaction. They are interesting and have some truth to them, but they are only surface phenomena. They do not go deep and open up a new world of understanding. Such principles cannot really be used to help people overcome life's difficulties, to heal suffering, to rewire the brain, or to develop new economic/social systems. For example, they mostly apply to the modern work environment. So they cannot be used to explain human evolution, since 99 percent of that evolution did not involve structured work. They are, in fact, largely descriptions of acting-out behaviours: bosses acting incompetently, students being chronic procrastinators, committees reaching a level of ineptitude, and engineers being religiously-minded. Such behaviours are largely a problem related to unresolved psychoemotional pain during upbringing and, therefore, come under the influence of superpsychology's laws of pain.

In any field Nature tends to have just a few simple interwoven laws that explain its workings. It is the interweaving of the laws that provide their characteristic symmetry, beauty, and universality - when aspects of that field were previously only described and analysed, as theories and principles, but not fully understood. Examples of such laws include the laws of motion, the laws of planetary motion, the universal law of gravity, the theory of relativity, thermodynamic laws, electromagnetic laws, quantum laws, and the theory of evolution. The laws of pain also fit into this mold, since the first law explains psychoemotional suffering in the individual, the second law explains psychoemotional suffering in society, and the two laws together have uncovered the interweaving of the evolutionary structure of the brain to the evolutionary structure of the human species. They are the correct laws of human nature. Nature tends not to have a handful or more independently-operating laws to explain any one field. But by taking the time to state their own set of "human nature laws", New Scientist - and the science community generally - is, perhaps, taking its first steps toward accepting fewer, and more universal, laws in this field.

References:

Michael Marshall, Five laws of human nature, New Scientist, (online), Reed Publications Ltd., 17 December 2009,
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn18301-five-laws-of-human-nature.html

Laws of science, Wikipedia, (online), Wikipedia Foundation,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_of_science

Physical law, Wikipedia, (online), Wikipedia Foundation,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_law