Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The terrorist inside my husband's brain

m.neurology.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 153 posts

Re: The terrorist inside my husband's brain

#71

Post by narrator »

The problem with diseases like this is doctors having nothing to offer at all. A relative of mine had this condition and they had so much trust in their doctors. They'd go to the doctor regularly and every time the doctor tells them they're sick after giving them a few trivial tests, sends them home and sends them a bill. It's a real farce.

They could try some radical therapy, like stem cells, but they don't. Instead they keep going to the doctor who is happy to take their money and tell them there's nothing they can do.

I feel like the doctor should have a priest on staff to tell them to say their hale mary's and douse them with holy water. At least it would partially justify the cost of the visit.

Re: The terrorist inside my husband's brain

#72

Post by bsder »

guelo wrote: post #26

A common failing I've noticed in complicated multi-symptom diagnoses like this disease is that doctors tend to treat each symptom individually instead of trying to connect the dots of all the symptoms. As a programmer used to debugging complicated systems it makes no sense, my first inclination when multiple things popup at the same time is to look for the underlying root cause.

> my first inclination when multiple things popup at the same time is to look for the underlying root cause.

The problem is that programmers can make a hypothesis and then test while doctors can't.

Doctor's are effectively engaging in "shotgun debugging" because they don't have good "this cause to this effect" for a lot of systems. The drugs they have to effectively "unit test" don't have narrow effects, so those add extra uncertainty.

They're getting better. And I wish the "deep learning" people would target this much harder--it's almost an ideal candidate (we have these symptoms--we ran these tests--give us a probability list of the top 5 things we should be ruling out next). However, getting the data seems to be the problem.

Re: The terrorist inside my husband's brain

#73

Post by rifung »

HSO wrote: post #33

This is obviously painful for the family and the fans, and I hope my words are not taken in the wrong way. But I really wish Americans (and yes, I think it's mostly Americans who have this tendency) would choose their words more carefully. If I am not mistaken, we are talking about a disease . What makes the analogy to "terrorism" apt here? For a while, everything seemed to be a "war" ("war on drugs", "war on crime",…

> What makes the analogy to "terrorism" apt here?

Looking up one of the definitions of terrorism, I see "the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion".

This being the case, I think it's more or less appropriate here, since the article says, "I was getting accustomed to the two of us spending more time in reviewing our days. The subjects though were starting to fall predominantly in the category of fear and anxiety"

On the other hand, I suppose you could argue there is no coercion being involved. In any case, I don't think the title was meant to link this to anything political but rather just an actor causing fear.

Re: The terrorist inside my husband's brain

#74

Post by Kenji »

theoh wrote: post #23
Kenji wrote: post #7

This is absolutely heartbreaking. Who is cutting onions here? I think as time goes on, we will find more and more physiological sources for severe mental health problems, and that is a great step towards proper diagnosis and, hopefully, cure. Before reading this article, I thought he 'just' suffered from depression and thus a condition that cannot be diagnosed physically.

As things stand, it's unhelpful to assert that there's a purely biological cause for something like depression or schizophrenia. In fact we know that life circumstances matter in triggering these conditions, and the more honest/sensible psychiatrists use the umbrella term "biopsychosocial" which conveys the systemic and interpersonal nature of the problem.

In fact we know that life circumstances matter in triggering these conditions

That doesn't mean it's not physiological in nature. Life circumstances can trigger a heart attack.

I think it is not only honest but extremely helpful to search for physiological signs.

Re: The terrorist inside my husband's brain

#75

Post by late2part »

HSO wrote: post #33

This is obviously painful for the family and the fans, and I hope my words are not taken in the wrong way. But I really wish Americans (and yes, I think it's mostly Americans who have this tendency) would choose their words more carefully. If I am not mistaken, we are talking about a disease . What makes the analogy to "terrorism" apt here? For a while, everything seemed to be a "war" ("war on drugs", "war on crime",…

If you don't empathize with the terror this disease caused her, and her metaphor to 9/11 and other terrorist attacks, there's nothing I or anyone else can say or explain that will make you understand.

Re: The terrorist inside my husband's brain

#76

Post by cylinder »

HSO wrote: post #33

This is obviously painful for the family and the fans, and I hope my words are not taken in the wrong way. But I really wish Americans (and yes, I think it's mostly Americans who have this tendency) would choose their words more carefully. If I am not mistaken, we are talking about a disease . What makes the analogy to "terrorism" apt here? For a while, everything seemed to be a "war" ("war on drugs", "war on crime",…

I came to the comments hoping someone would address this. I'm American and totally agree. This word terrorist needs to just go away. Call them criminals. Call the networks "organized crime."

Look at the bombing in NYC recently. "we do not think this is terrorism" said our idiot mayor. It is terrorism if someone detonates a bomb in a street! Period. If you mean "we're waiting to see if he's part of a broader network of terrorists working together," then say that! Words are powerful and in America we are pretty bad about using them incorrectly (see: entrée as a main course!).

Re: The terrorist inside my husband's brain

#77

Post by bigtunacan »

zhs wrote: post #68
bigtunacan wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Stiff Person Syndrome. It is extremely rare and occurs in only about 1 in 1 million people. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stiff_person_syndrome For this particular illness, 6 years is the average amount of time it takes to diagnose. Just to help put it in perspective.

Thanks for indulging my curiosity, have heard of it believe it or not.

No worries. It's no big secret for me. Most people don't know what it is; I even got a blank stare from an ER doctor once when I was taken in during an extremely bad episode.

Re: The terrorist inside my husband's brain

#78

Post by jhbadger »

_petronius wrote: post #40
HSO wrote: post #33

This is obviously painful for the family and the fans, and I hope my words are not taken in the wrong way. But I really wish Americans (and yes, I think it's mostly Americans who have this tendency) would choose their words more carefully. If I am not mistaken, we are talking about a disease . What makes the analogy to "terrorism" apt here? For a while, everything seemed to be a "war" ("war on drugs", "war on crime",…

There's a really amazing book by Susan Sontag, Illness as Metaphor (and a followup she wrote in the late 80s called "AIDs and its metaphors") which talks about this need to speak about disease as a conflict or fight, or as a foreign invasion or corruption. It's a fascinating book also because it compares the 20th century ways of talking (or not talking) about cancer with how tuberculosis was discussed in the 19th cen…

Except that cancer and infectious disease really are conflicts and invasions, no metaphors needed. At the cellular level you really do have cells killing cells based on recognition of whether they are not they are recognized as "self".

Re: The terrorist inside my husband's brain

#79

Post by dredmorbius »

smallnamespace wrote: post #65
tominous wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem with metaphors linking the human body with society is they are essentially fascist. The "parts" have no value and the "whole" is supremely important. So it is incumbent on people who use these metaphors to remember that in society the "parts" (i.e. each individual) do have value. Otherwise it's too easy to turn things around and say, "Terrorists are like disease, we must kill them all; that fast-growing e…

The biggest difference between individuals and societies: our cells cannot propagate or survive on their own, whereas individuals can. As an analogy for society, a colony of bacteria or fungi would serve better than the human body.

An individual completely separated from modern society would perform quite poorly.

Or somewhat more poetically: No man is an island.

Re: The terrorist inside my husband's brain

#80

Post by reddytowns »

refulgentis wrote: post #46
HSO wrote: post #33

This is obviously painful for the family and the fans, and I hope my words are not taken in the wrong way. But I really wish Americans (and yes, I think it's mostly Americans who have this tendency) would choose their words more carefully. If I am not mistaken, we are talking about a disease . What makes the analogy to "terrorism" apt here? For a while, everything seemed to be a "war" ("war on drugs", "war on crime",…

You are sadly witnessing one of the darkest consequences of 9/11. It was such traumatic event for the entire society, due to its stark reminder that we weren't safe, and the modern world hadn't solved every problem, after decades of comfort. There's a feedback cycle of increased fear, leading to unrealistic demands to fix it, leading to "solutions" that are immensely amplified by the media, and the politician's justi…

I think it's less because of fear, and more because of hate and anger that drives people to act the way they do and the laws after 9/11. Yes, everyone claims the new laws are to "keep people safe", but they all seem to follow the same pattern of trying even harder to catch criminals, punish them more when we've caught them, and lower the standard of evidence necessary for conviction.

After all, most people in the USA don't live near high value targets, and I doubt most people are afraid of terrorism in their day to day lives (the occasional highly unusual occurrence being the exception).

This, "the terrorists won" meme is getting old, and I don't believe is true. If you read up on ISIS extremists, they believe their destiny is to take over the world, ex. http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/03/what-isi...

The truth is terrorist have engulfed themselves in anger and hate, and as the saying goes, hate breeds hate. That's what is happening to the USA. People are too embarrassed to admit it. After all, the modern enlightened individual has grown past hatred, right? They leave such petty emotions behind, don't they?

So, no one wins. Not the terrorists, nor the people... well besides a few power hungry elitists who should be lined up against a wall and shot (just kidding), but I think you see my point.

It's just a instinctual lizard brain response to a instinctual lizard brain action. And the more we deny we hate, the more it controls us.

Post reply on HN