Тег: Medicine

Why parents should be interested in treating psychopathy in their children

Considering various approaches to solving the problem of violence using biomedical technologies, such as strengthening the violence inhibition mechanism and bio-enhancing morality, one can quite quickly conclude that the most appropriate and effective approach would be to perform such procedures as early as possible. Moreover, signs of psychopathic traits, which are the strongest predictors of violent behavior and indicate dysfunction of the violence inhibitor, can be detected as early as childhood, even at the age of 2-4 years, as demonstrated by research.

It is important to understand that if an individual with a risk of developing a violent and psychopathic personality undergoes morality bio-enhancement very early, they will essentially not even have a chance to be such a personality for even a short time. Furthermore, the nervous system at this age is still developing, which makes it possible to achieve an effective result even with gentle intervention. Widespread practice in detecting and correcting violence inhibitor dysfunction could solve the problem of violence in society long before it even arises.

This should already be enough to convey to many parents how important it is to carefully monitor a child’s behavior and emotional reactions (for example, empathy and whether they have an aversion to causing harm to someone), and to intervene in a timely manner upon detecting any anomalies. However, if some parents are suddenly not very concerned about what kind of personality their child will grow into, or if they see no problem with violence at all, then it is worth reminding them of another very strong motivation to consider this issue—personal well-being and the preservation of their own nerves.

Research on violence and psychopathy is often focused on the person with such a condition—their behavior, the risks to society, and criminal manifestations. Some of it discusses the role parents may play in the development of psychopathic traits in a child. At the same time, the opposite problem remains in the shadow—when parents become the very first victims of heartlessness, manipulative behavior, lack of empathy, and even cruelty on the part of their own child.

Of course, it is not customary to label children as psychopaths, but they may demonstrate early signs of this condition or so-called callous-unemotional traits—emotional numbness, lack of guilt, and an inability to empathize. Such signs indicate that the child does not simply have a “difficult character”; we are talking about deep-seated personality characteristics which, among other problems, can seriously destroy family dynamics.

For parents, such a child becomes a severe psychological trial. Parenthood brings them no pleasure, only daily problems. They find themselves in a trap: on one hand, the social expectation to love and support their child, and on the other, constant stress, fear, and a sense of helplessness. Often, such families face a lack of understanding from others and even accusations of poor parenting, which only increases their sense of isolation and guilt. Parents may also face very serious problems if their child begins to behave antisocially in society, as they will have to bear responsibility for their actions.

All this being said, it must be understood that good upbringing and a favorable environment alone may not be enough to prevent a child from developing a psychopathic personality (although this is, of course, also important for reducing the risk). Therefore, all parents have an interest in detecting early signs of this condition and resorting to therapeutic intervention if they are present. This will certainly help them preserve their own family, and with widespread practice, it will also lead to a reduction in the level of violence throughout society, and over time—to the complete eradication of this problem!

Voluntarist, Bitarch

Why Natural Remedies Therapy Against Violence Is Not Just Another “Leech Treatment”

Voluntarist, Bitarch

As we know, some naturally occurring agents, such as herbal extracts and their mixtures, are potentially capable of producing a strong and yet selective anti-aggressive effect, arising from the activation of a neurophysiological mechanism of violence inhibition. If someone is not yet familiar with this topic, I suggest reading our material on it. However, such an idea may face some criticism, doubts regarding the effectiveness and feasibility of the approach. And to eliminate misunderstandings, it is important to examine it.

  1. This does not resemble homeopathy or untested folk medicine. For example, one of the potentially effective anti-aggressive agents we are considering, a mixture of 10 herbs called Kamishoyosan, is an officially approved medicinal product in China and Taiwan; in the latter, it is one of the most prescribed agents for stomach and breast cancer. Additionally, in Asian countries, Kamishoyosan is often used for insomnia, irritability, mood swings, including psychological problems during menopause in women, and many other neurophysiological issues. Of course, studies confirm the effectiveness of this agent and describe its impact on the nervous system in detail.
  2. Research and development in this direction are much more accessible than the creation of synthetic anti-aggressive agents. All the natural means necessary for this typically cost pennies, and even purchasing additional equipment if herbal extracts are needed (although in practice, it is almost always possible to do without it, simply by making decoctions or tinctures or buying ready-made extracts) is still far more accessible than creating a full-fledged chemical laboratory. The bioactive substances of these agents are already well described, or at least simply known. Moreover, some of them exhibit properties very similar to analogous synthetic drugs; for example, the effect of the substance emodin from certain herbs is compared to the effect of the synthetic substance CP-94253, which experimentally demonstrated a selective anti-aggressive effect.
  3. Such agents cannot be banned. Even if you have a laboratory and the ability to synthesize substances that could potentially be much more effective than bioactive substances from natural agents, your activity will be quickly stopped if for some reason it displeases government authorities. The agents we are considering, however, are too widespread; it is simply physically impossible to ban them, and many experiments on them and their preparation for use can be easily conducted at home, relying only on information from the Internet.
  4. The idea of using these agents is very easy to spread. If one of the herbs or herbal mixtures becomes known for its selective anti-aggressive effect, it will quickly be used by everyone, for example, in treating the violence of their loved ones. And it is unlikely that anyone will doubt or consider the idea of its use risky, since unknown synthetic pills are one thing, and decoctions, tinctures, and herbal extracts already long used by many people are quite another.

The topic of using natural agents to treat certain pathologies, including the pathology of violent behavior, is often underestimated; however, it is actually very promising for a number of the reasons we have listed. Therefore, in the matter of solving the problem of violence, we should direct part of our attention to this approach, as there is a significant chance that it will yield substantial results. At the very least, it will allow for the confirmation of the idea itself: therapy for violent behavior through the influence on the violence inhibitor.

Oil, economy, limbo

No sooner had armchair political scientists managed to properly dive into virology than they already had to master the intricacies of the oil industry. I decided not to fall behind and watched an MBX Media story yesterday about what exactly happened and what to expect now.

First, Mikhail Krutikhin spoke about how May WTI futures hit rock bottom and started digging deeper. This joke has already been retold many times, and in Krutikhin’s specific case, it was so-so, because from his words, it seemed as if it wasn’t a triviality not worth noticing. However, I see no reason why the same story couldn’t repeat itself toward the end of May, because to prevent it, either oil demand needs to rise or supply needs to fall; otherwise, it will be even worse than now, because there will be even less free storage capacity in a month.

Next, Grigory Bazhenov spoke and repeated what he had already explained on his channel in a separate video—how taxes are structured in the Russian oil and refining industry. In short: oil prices could drop to zero, but gasoline prices won’t budge—the budget will take all the winnings. Thus, Russian refining faces downtime, and the weakest players in the industry—the private companies without integration with oil-producing companies—face bankruptcy. Gas stations will somehow survive, but in conditions of reduced throughput, they will lead a rather miserable existence.

Finally, Mikhail Khodorkovsky took the floor and spoke about the situation in oil production. According to the agreements signed by Russia, it must reduce production by a quarter. If production is reduced carefully, trying not to ruin the wells in the process, a maximum reduction of ten percent can be achieved. Moreover, free storage capacity is running out and exports have collapsed, so production will have to be scaled back sharply, which means irreversibly. A shut-in well will become unusable after a couple of months, and to restore production, it will need to be drilled again. But in old, heavily watered-out fields, such drilling will simply not pay off at reasonable prices. So Russia faces a choice: either pump oil regardless of the agreements and then pay those who kindly agree to take it, or irreversibly lose up to a third of production. At the same time, it is quite likely that the decision will be made not by the market, but purely administratively, and some will be allowed to work while others are put to the knife.

In connection with this, I want to make a prediction. Quite quickly, an obvious consideration will arise before the Russian leadership. If it wants its oil industry not to die, Russian oil must be bought. There is no hope for exports, which means the Russian economy must consume the oil. But it cannot do this while sitting in quarantine. Therefore, to hell with the quarantine. Of course, some other official reason will be given. For example, “at the request of the workers of North Ossetia.” Or “after studying the successful Swedish and Belarusian experience.”

Why are people put in quarantine in other states? To save human lives. Forgive me, I can believe many things, but not that human lives are important to Putin. So he will hesitate for a bit and then wind up all this self-isolation. Well, maybe except for Moscow—they’ve become too spoiled, let them shrink a little. So prepare for the fact that the heroic sitting at home was completely in vain: we will all get sick until we achieve herd immunity. Some will not survive. With our economy and medicine, the Swedish path was an alternative-less option from the start. What is this “flattening the curve” of yours? It’s like the game of limbo, where you have to pass under the bar. The lower the bar, the harder the task. The height of the bar is determined by the level of medicine. With Russian medicine, don’t even try—there’s no point in embarrassing yourself.

Germany is flattening the curve

What to do? I have already dedicated a separate post to crisis strategies, and I adhere to the previous recommendations: going into the shadows, building horizontal connections, mastering cryptocurrency payments, and reducing all interaction with the state to demanding direct payments, tax reductions, the cancellation of regulations, the reduction of security forces, and so on.

A question regarding medications for rare diseases.

What guarantees are there that under ancap, people with rare diseases (affecting fewer than 200,000 people) will not be left without medication because it would simply be unprofitable to develop and sell them (given such a small number of consumers)?

анонимный вопрос

Answered by Alex Murin

The strangest question I have ever encountered. And why is it profitable for states to fund scientists who conduct such research? Perhaps because funding scientists is profitable in general? They make useful discoveries, and over the last 100 years, these have become increasingly frequent, useful, and interesting.

A company that develops a new drug gains notoriety. This is currently the best advertisement a pharmaceutical company can imagine. One could hire a hundred PR agents to write that this company’s vitamin C and plantain are the best in the world. But many people sell vitamin C and herbal mixtures. So, most of the time, PR agents would be producing information junk. Instead, one could hire another dozen scientists to develop a drug for a rare disease. Journalists from many publications would gather to see and report on the discovery, the company’s name would hit the top news of all websites for a couple of days, and remain in the top of specialized publications for another month. In addition to that rare pill, the company produces hundreds of other less rare ones. A discovery means new clients, the respect of doctors, and the attention of their patients.

Regarding sales: selling medications is always profitable. Just as it was profitable in primitive society, when a hunter brought the shaman the best piece of meat for a pot of magic potion, so it is in a post-industrial society, where hundreds of pharmaceutical companies make aspirin and millions of pharmacies sell it. Perhaps it would be unprofitable to keep a rare medicine in a pharmacy, but nothing stops it from being ordered. Currently, restrictions on the online sale of medications are created by states.

The role of the state in the production of drugs for rare diseases is not very obvious. In funding scientists? They can be funded by charitable foundations and insurance companies. It is always profitable for an insurer for their patient to be healthy and pay premiums regularly, rather than lying on their deathbed.

By the way, the famous EU Directive 141/2000 (reduction of regulations in the development of orphan drugs) was adopted precisely thanks to private initiative, and not at the suggestion of any state. EURORDIS, an association supporting patients with rare diseases, was one of the organizations that contributed to the development and adoption of such an initiative.

Very rare pills

How would emergency medical care be provided under ancap? After all, checking for the presence of insurance takes some time, and if a person is unconscious and in critical condition, that time is not available. On the other hand, he would not be obliged to pay for the care, since he did not agree to it.

anonymous question

A person who has not left resource-backed instructions on how to act in the event of their sudden incapacity risks that the actions they would have wanted will not be taken, even if the technical possibility to do so exists.

At the same time, in addition to the service delivery model based on the “use the service, then pay the bill” principle, humanity actively practices another approach: “provide the service, then receive gratitude.” I answer your questions, you send me donations. If you stop doing this, I will not stop answering questions. Similarly, there is no reason to believe that emergency aid will not be paid for in one way or another—if not by the rescued person themselves, then at least by grateful city residents, for whom it is always much more pleasant and easier to reward moral acts than to punish immoral ones.

Yes, it may turn out that the person in need of help has a bad reputation, or that providing help is too costly, or a thousand and one other circumstances that ultimately leave them without that very help. But even then, this story will not be in vain: people will feel awkward that such things happen on their territory, which is a serious incentive to prevent a recurrence and to drop a few satoshis into the city emergency fund.

After all, when you let an ambulance pass on the road, you are also donating—even if it’s just a small amount of your convenience, but you do it voluntarily and willingly, right?

How will treatment protocols be developed under ancap? Today, the WHO does this, and then the state implements these recommendations. But without a state?

Semyon Podporin

Even today, there is a more or less market-based competition between various treatment methodologies in the world. There is the WHO, with its ICD and list of essential medicines. There are numerous schools of traditional medicine that find their followers, often even on an international level. There is homeopathy and all sorts of other extrasensory practices. There are fasting and prayers. There are several families of therapeutic gymnastics.

Thus, even when competing with international bureaucracy, the medical market is quite flexible and provides services for every taste and budget. There are no grounds for it to be any different under ancap. Yes, it will be easier to introduce various “placebo-drugs” to the market. On the other hand, there will be no imposition of such drugs at the state level, as was the case with something like Arbidol.

Yes, humanity will not have a single list of diseases and drugs, but developing new medications will definitely become easier. Yes, there will be more various placebos on the market, but funding for the Cochrane Collaboration will likely grow, as will its authority.
Many also fear the curtailment of research into new drugs due to the demise of patent law, but that is a completely different question, which, moreover, I have already partially answered.

fully decentralized self-governing self-funding association – the market solves the problem of placebo-drugs

Libertarianism assumes only private companies (anarcho-cap.). But what about state hospitals? Does it mean a sick person will not be able to receive free help? There are quite many sick people, and not everyone has money. Charity is unlikely to help here.

anonymous question

Let’s keep it simple. Let’s open the consolidated budget of the Russian Federation for 2017 and look at health care spending. 2.8 trillion rubles. That is 20 thousand rubles per person per year, less than 1.7 thousand per month, and this amount includes all corruption, all kickbacks, embezzlement, and simply inefficient spending. Absolutely pittance, less than the average utility bill.

In a situation where there are no taxes or regulations, by very conservative estimates, wages would increase, say, by only 50%. Suppose that all those who were previously treated under a compulsory health insurance policy purchase voluntary insurance policies exactly in the amount of former government health expenditures, spending approximately 1,700 rubles per person per month, and all those who previously paid out of pocket maintain their habits. The median salary in Russia today, according to a very sloppily conducted survey on Navalny’s blog, is about 15,000 rubles.

What is the result? The median salary under ancap increases by 50% and becomes 22,500 rubles. Let’s say the median worker supports one dependent. He pays 3,400 rubles for two policies, and he has 19,100 rubles left. That is, he is still wealthier than he was before ancap, while also having good paid medicine.

Of course, there are still cases where a poor family faces an expensive-to-treat disease not covered by a standard policy. What does a poor family do now? They go to charitable foundations, and those foundations spam social networks with posts saying “Mashenka has a fucking disaster of a disease, we urgently need a trillion rubles.” Well, that is exactly what they will do under ancap, only the probability of receiving money to treat the disaster will increase by 50%, proportional to the increase in average income (assuming that people continue to donate to charity approximately the same percentage of their income as they do now).

Summary. Fully privatized and deregulated healthcare in the absence of taxes is capable of providing every Russian with medical service better than what they have now, without requiring amounts that would be critical for them.

treat the disaster!